Amendments: Can We Remove Them From The Constitution?

The process of amending the US Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. This process can be used to introduce new amendments or repeal existing ones. The Constitution has been amended 27 times, and there have been over 10,000 measures proposed in Congress to amend it. The most recent amendment, the 27th Amendment, was ratified in 1992, and prevented Congress from changing its own compensation during a term in progress. While the process outlined in Article V is the most common method of amending the Constitution, some scholars argue that other methods may be used. The odds of repealing an amendment are extremely slim, and there is debate over whether certain subjects can be amended at all.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America, with the Bill of Rights and all of the Amendments; The Declaration of Independence; and the Articles of Confederation

$4.5 $4.5

The Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution with Bill of Rights and all Amendments (Annotated)

$0.99 $3.89

Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal: Rights, Law, and Resistance against Territory’s Exclusions (Geographies of Justice and Social Transformation)

$10.27 $29.95

Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts

$47.5 $53

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

$9.99 $9.99

Constitution of the United States (Books of American Wisdom)

$9.25 $9.95

The process of repealing an amendment

Once the proposal stage is cleared, the ratification process comes into play. Here, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50 states). This can be achieved through state legislatures or ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states. This step is crucial and carries significant weight, as it allows states to have a direct say in the amendment process.

It is worth noting that the process of repealing an amendment has rarely been successful in US history. The 18th Amendment, which instituted Prohibition, is a notable example of a repealed amendment. It was ratified in 1919, but by the early 1930s, public sentiment turned against it. The 21st Amendment, with its repeal provision, was passed by Congress in 1933, and ratified by three-fourths of the states, thereby repealing the 18th Amendment.

In conclusion, while the US Constitution outlines specific methods for proposing and ratifying amendments, the process of repealing an amendment is inherently challenging and rare. Achieving the required supermajorities and ratification by a significant number of states poses significant obstacles to any attempt at repealing an amendment.

The Second Amendment debate

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The amendment was primarily authored by James Madison, and it has been the subject of much debate and interpretation over the years.

One of the key debates surrounding the Second Amendment is whether it protects an individual's private right to keep and bear arms or if it is a collective right that can only be exercised through militia organizations like the National Guard. This question did not arise until much later after the Bill of Rights was adopted. During the Founding era, there was a widespread belief that governments could use soldiers to oppress their citizens, and that this risk could be mitigated by allowing the government to raise armies only when necessary to fight foreign adversaries. For other emergencies, the government could rely on militias made up of ordinary citizens who supplied their own weapons and received part-time military training.

Another aspect of the debate is the historical context in which the Second Amendment was created. Some scholars argue that the Founding Fathers' intent and historical reality are crucial for interpreting the amendment. They point out that individual self-defence and gun violence were not significant concerns during the Founding era, and that guns were not the primary weapons used for violent crimes. Additionally, the Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, and states had the authority to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Over time, gun laws have become more extensive and controversial, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment further complicated the interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Furthermore, the Second Amendment debate also involves the role of the federal government and the extent of its authority. Federalists and Anti-Federalists disagreed on whether an armed populace could effectively prevent federal oppression. While the Second Amendment did not address the Anti-Federalists' desire to limit the military power of the federal government, it was accepted because of the shared belief that the federal government should not have the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting the Second Amendment, with cases like United States v. Cruikshank (1876) and District of Columbia v. Heller influencing how the amendment is understood. However, some scholars argue that the Court's decisions have been based on historical errors and misinterpretations of originalist theory. There are predictions that a future Parker appeal will bring clarity to the meaning of the contentious Second Amendment.

In conclusion, the Second Amendment debate centres around the interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms. The discussion encompasses individual versus collective rights, the historical context of the Founding era, the role of the federal government, and the relevance of Supreme Court decisions. As gun laws and societal perspectives evolve, the debate surrounding the Second Amendment continues to shape the understanding and application of this constitutional right.

The 18th Amendment and its repeal

The 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which established the prohibition of alcohol, was ratified on January 16, 1919. The amendment was the result of decades of efforts by the temperance movement, which argued that banning the sale of alcohol would eliminate poverty and improve social issues such as immoral sexual behaviour and violence. The movement also believed that prohibition would inspire new forms of sociability, create happier families, reduce workplace accidents, and improve the world overall.

However, the 18th Amendment led to a sudden surge in illegal alcohol manufacturing, such as rum-running, bootlegging, and moonshining. Criminal organisations, such as Al Capone's Chicago Outfit, took control of illegal alcohol production, making millions of dollars. The amendment also caused an increase in gambling and prostitution, which further changed public perception of the amendment from positive to negative by the end of the 1920s. In addition, nationwide enforcement of Prohibition proved difficult, particularly in cities, and the Volstead Act, which provided for the federal enforcement of Prohibition, was largely a failure.

Public sentiment turned against Prohibition during the 1920s, and in 1932, Democratic presidential candidate Franklin D. Roosevelt included a plan for repealing the 18th Amendment in his platform. Roosevelt's victory in November 1932 led to the end of Prohibition. In February 1933, Congress adopted a resolution proposing the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment and modified the Volstead Act to permit the sale of beer. The 21st Amendment was ratified in 1933, on December 5, making the 18th Amendment the only constitutional amendment in American history to be repealed.

The process of amending the Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. An amendment may be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. Once an amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 out of 50) to become part of the Constitution. While there is some debate about whether Article V provides the exclusive procedures for amending the Constitution, no amendments have been proposed by a constitutional convention to date.

Explore related products

The U.S. Constitution And Fascinating Facts About It

$4.85 $4.95

Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence: Senator Rand Paul, Delegates of The Constitutional Convention

$2.99 $2.99

Rule of Law: Why and How We Must Amend the Constitution

$6.99 $14.95

Debates Of The Convention To Amend The Constitution Of Pennsylvania Convated At Harrisburg, November 12, 1872; Adjourned November 27, To Meet At Philadelphia, January 7, 1873 (Volume Iv)

$43.02

THE LEBANESE CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT PROJECT: Suggestion for a Constitutional Bill to Amend Specific Provisions of the Constitution

$35

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Fully Revised Third Edition

$35.98 $59.99

The 27th Amendment

The process of amending the US Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. An amendment may be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

The amendment eventually became part of the US Constitution, effective May 5, 1992, when Michigan became the 38th state to ratify it. This amendment is unique in that it took over 200 years to be ratified, and it is unclear if it has produced any change in congressional behaviour.

Article V and its limitations

Article V of the US Constitution outlines the process for amending the document. It establishes two methods for proposing amendments: the first requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, while the second involves a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Once an amendment is proposed, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become part of the Constitution.

While Article V provides the procedures for amending the Constitution, it also includes limitations on what can be amended. The last two sentences of Article V make certain subjects unamendable. Specifically, it states that no amendment made before 1808 can affect specific clauses in the Ninth Section of the First Article, and that no state can be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent.

There have been academic debates about the legal force of Article V's clause on unamendable subjects. Scholars have discussed whether it is possible to amend provisions that embody fundamental norms or characteristics of the US government, such as those establishing a republican form of government. Additionally, there is a debate on whether Article V's procedures for amendment can themselves be amended. While some scholars argue that Article V itself cannot be amended to create new limitations on the amending power, others contend that constitutional amending provisions can be used to amend themselves.

Another point of discussion is the equal suffrage requirement. Some scholars have proposed a two-step process to remove this requirement, but such an action would still violate Article V's plain language, which states that a state cannot be deprived of equal suffrage without its consent.

Frequently asked questions