Executive Power: Can A President Overturn Amendments?

The President of the United States does not have the authority to overturn a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution outlines a specific process for amending it, which requires a proposal by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. The President does not have a constitutional role in this process, and any changes or repeals would require the same procedure. The Supreme Court's role is to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of laws and actions, but it cannot overturn an amendment.

Explore related products

American Constitutional Law, Volume II: The Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments

$103.26 $150

The Democracy Amendments: Constitutional Reforms to Save the United States

$12.92 $24.18

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

The People’s Constitution: 200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union

$18.34 $45

The First Amendment: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook) (Aspen Casebook Series)

$326 $326

The President has no constitutional role in the amendment process

The President of the United States has no constitutional role in the amendment process. The Constitution of the United States outlines that an amendment may be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Alternatively, two-thirds of state legislatures must call for a constitutional convention. In either case, the President does not have a role in proposing amendments.

Once an amendment is proposed by Congress, it is in the form of a joint resolution. This joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval from the President. Instead, the original document is sent directly to the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR then publishes the joint resolution in slip law format and assembles an information package for the states.

After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads NARA, is responsible for administering the ratification process. The Archivist's role includes certifying that an amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function that the President may attend. For example, President Nixon witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment. However, the President's role in this ceremony is not a constitutional requirement.

In conclusion, while the President may perform ceremonial functions related to the amendment process, they do not have a constitutional role in proposing, approving, or ratifying amendments to the Constitution. The authority to amend the Constitution rests with Congress and the states.

Amendments require a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate

The President does not have the authority to overturn a Constitutional Amendment. The Constitution of the United States outlines the process of amending it in Article V. Amendments to the Constitution are proposed with a joint resolution of Congress, which requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval, and it is forwarded directly to the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR then assembles an information package for the States, which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory provisions.

The Archivist of the United States, who heads NARA, is responsible for administering the ratification process. The Archivist has delegated many of the duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. The ratification process is not described in detail in Article V of the Constitution or 1 U.S.C. 106b. Instead, the Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State and the Administrator of General Services, who previously performed these duties until NARA assumed responsibility in 1985.

Once the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large, serving as official notice to Congress and the Nation that the amendment process has been completed. The certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, including the President in some cases.

While the President may sign the certification as a witness, their role in the amendment process is not constitutional, and they cannot repeal or overturn an amendment by executive order. The Supreme Court also cannot overturn an amendment. Its purpose is to interpret the Constitution, and it does not have the power to overwrite it.

The Supreme Court cannot overturn an amendment

The Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn a constitutional amendment. The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution and determine whether a law or action is constitutional. They cannot, however, overwrite it. The Supreme Court can only override laws if they contradict an existing law or the Constitution.

The process of amending the Constitution is explicitly outlined in the Constitution, which states that Congress and the states have the power to make amendments. It would be unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to interfere with this process unless there is a contentious issue with the ratification process. For example, if only one of the two houses approved an amendment, it could be challenged.

The concept of an "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" has been explored by legal scholars and courts, suggesting that even a properly ratified amendment can be considered unconstitutional if it conflicts with constitutional norms, values, or principles. However, no amendment to the US Constitution has ever been ruled unconstitutional by a court.

While the Supreme Court could potentially use this doctrine to strike down a new amendment that conflicts with existing constitutional provisions, it is important to note that this power is not absolute. The Supreme Court cannot block an amendment unless the correct procedure for ratification was not followed. As long as the amendment undergoes the ratification process, it can effectively change the Constitution.

In summary, the Supreme Court's role is to interpret and uphold the Constitution, including any amendments made through the established process. They do not have the authority to overturn or block amendments unless there are procedural issues with their ratification.

Explore related products

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$140

The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic

$16.7 $26.99

A Real Right to Vote: How a Constitutional Amendment Can Safeguard American Democracy

$12.65 $27.95

A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments

$34.65 $45

The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution

$16.69 $17.95

Perfecting the U.S. Constitution: 27 and Counting, The Amendments that Shaped America’s Future (Anthem Studies in Law Reform, 1)

$19.99 $90

Amendments can be proposed by a constitutional convention

The Constitution of the United States outlines two methods for proposing amendments: through Congress or a constitutional convention. Amendments can be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This process has been utilised for all 27 amendments to the Constitution thus far.

Alternatively, amendments can be proposed by a constitutional convention, also known as an Article V Convention, state convention, or amendatory convention. This method has never been used, but it entails the following process: two-thirds of state legislatures (34 out of 50) must request a convention for proposing amendments. Once the amendments are ratified by three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50), they become part of the Constitution.

The potential consequences of an Article V Convention have sparked debates among scholars. Some argue that states may be able to limit the scope of such a convention to a specific subject matter, while others contend that the Constitution only provides for a general convention without restrictions on scope. There are concerns about a "runaway convention" that might attempt to exceed its intended purpose.

Despite these discussions, the authority to amend the Constitution ultimately stems from Article V, which establishes the convention method as a valid alternative for proposing amendments. This method was included in the Constitution to address the unworkable requirement of unanimous consent from all states for the national government to act, as outlined in the Articles of Confederation.

In conclusion, while amendments have traditionally been proposed by Congress, the constitutional convention method remains a valid option that has yet to be utilised.

Amendments can be repealed

While the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, amendments can indeed be repealed. The Constitution's Article V outlines the process of amending the Constitution, which requires a proposal by two-thirds of the House and Senate or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. The odds of a constitutional amendment being repealed are extremely slim, comparable to an 80-year-old being struck by lightning, according to the National Weather Service data. However, it is not impossible, as evidenced by the repeal of the 18th Amendment through the 21st Amendment in 1933.

The process of repealing an amendment is similar to the process of amending the Constitution. A proposal for repeal must be made by two-thirds of the House and Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. The proposal then goes through a ratification process, which can vary. In the case of the 21st Amendment, state conventions were called for ratification votes instead of state legislatures due to concerns about the influence of special interest groups.

The Supreme Court does not have the power to "overturn" an amendment. Its role is to interpret the Constitution and determine the constitutionality of laws and actions. However, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution can effectively change the meaning of an amendment without formally overturning or amending it.

While the President does not have a direct role in the amendment process, they can witness the certification of amendments, as seen with President Johnson and Nixon for the 24th, 25th, and 26th Amendments, respectively. Additionally, the President can propose and support legislation that aligns with their goals, as seen with President Trump's attempt to challenge birthright citizenship guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Frequently asked questions