Eleanor Finch
The process of appealing a constitutional amendment is a complex and challenging undertaking. While the specific steps may vary depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the amendment, a few general principles can be outlined. In the United States, for instance, the Constitution's Article V outlines the process of proposing and ratifying amendments, requiring a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. The appeal of an amendment, or its repeal, faces even longer odds and requires a similar process of proposal and ratification. The 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition, is a notable example of this process, demonstrating how states can define the mode of redress for constitutional violations. The Supreme Court has also played a role in interpreting and upholding due process in appeals, as seen in cases like Frank v. Mangum and Griffin v. Illinois. Understanding the legal framework and historical context is crucial for navigating the process of appealing a constitutional amendment.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Process to repeal a constitutional amendment | Requires proposal by two-thirds of the House and Senate or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. |
| Approval | Requires ratification by three-quarters of the states. |
| Example | 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment's prohibition on alcohol in 1933. |
| Difficulty | Extremely rare and challenging, with only one instance of a successful amendment appeal (the 21st Amendment). |
| State role | States have the power to define alcohol laws and can choose to allow or deny traditional criminal appeals. |
| Federal role | The federal government can provide a mode of redress, such as a writ of habeas corpus, and define the means to vindicate federal constitutional rights after conviction. |
| Court rulings | Court rulings, such as Frank v. Mangum and Carter v. Illinois, have affirmed the importance of due process and the need for a corrective process in cases of federal constitutional violations. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Appealing a constitutional amendment is rare
Appealing a constitutional amendment is an unusual and rare process. The Constitution's Article V outlines the process of proposing and ratifying an amendment, but it does not explicitly mention the process of appealing or repealing an existing amendment. The only instance of an amendment appeal in US history is the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment's prohibition on the manufacture, sale, and transportation of intoxicating liquors. This process of appealing an amendment is so rare that a public debate started by a retired Supreme Court Justice, Justice John Paul Stevens, about the possibility of repealing one of the original 10 amendments, the Second Amendment, has long odds of succeeding.
The process of appealing a constitutional amendment is not a straightforward or commonly undertaken task. While there are mechanisms in place for addressing violations of constitutional rights, such as the writ of habeas corpus or coram nobis, appealing and changing the text of the Constitution itself is a significant undertaking. The high bar for proposing and ratifying amendments, which requires supermajorities in Congress or state legislatures, also makes appealing an amendment a challenging and infrequent occurrence.
The rarity of appealing a constitutional amendment can be attributed to the design of the US constitutional system, which values stability and makes deliberate and thoughtful changes. The process of amending the Constitution was intentionally made difficult by the Founding Fathers to ensure that any changes to the nation's fundamental law would require broad consensus and support. This design reflects a recognition that the Constitution should be a stable and enduring framework for the country, with amendments being rare and carefully considered.
Furthermore, the political and legal landscape has changed significantly since the Constitution's ratification, making appeals even more complex. The interpretation and application of constitutional provisions have evolved through judicial decisions, creating a body of constitutional law that interacts with and influences the understanding of the Constitution's text. This dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation adds another layer of complexity to the process of appealing or repealing an amendment.
While appealing a constitutional amendment is rare, it is not impossible, as demonstrated by the 21st Amendment's appeal of the 18th Amendment. However, the high bar set by the Constitution's requirements and the evolving nature of constitutional interpretation make it a challenging and unusual process. Any attempts to appeal or repeal an amendment would require a significant political and legal effort, highlighting the stability and endurance of the US Constitution as the nation's supreme law.
Amendments: Who Can Propose Constitutional Changes?
You may want to see also
Requires two-thirds of House and Senate
The process of appealing a constitutional amendment is a complex and challenging endeavour. The Constitution of the United States, in Article V, outlines the steps required to propose and ratify amendments. One critical aspect of this process is the requirement of a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to propose an amendment. This condition sets a high bar for initiating changes to the Constitution and ensures that any proposed modifications have substantial support in Congress.
The two-thirds majority requirement in both chambers of Congress serves as a crucial check against hasty or partisan amendments. By necessitating the approval of a supermajority, it encourages consensus-building and helps ensure that amendments reflect the interests of a broad spectrum of the American populace. This safeguard is designed to prevent narrow interests or short-lived political majorities from significantly altering the nation's foundational document.
To meet the two-thirds majority threshold, proponents of an amendment must engage in extensive negotiations and coalition-building. This process often involves compromising, addressing concerns from various stakeholders, and finding common ground across political divides. The complexity of this task is evident from the sheer number of proposed amendments that have failed to secure the required support in Congress. According to estimates, there have been at least 11,000 proposals to amend the Constitution that did not receive approval from two-thirds of both Houses.
While achieving a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate is a challenging task, it is not the only path to proposing an amendment. Article V of the Constitution also provides for a convention method, where two-thirds of the state legislatures can apply for Congress to convene a convention to propose amendments. However, this method has never been utilised to propose any of the existing amendments.
In conclusion, the requirement of a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate plays a pivotal role in the constitutional amendment process. It acts as a safeguard against impulsive or partisan changes to the Constitution. The high bar set by this requirement ensures that any amendments reflect broad national consensus and enjoy legitimacy across political factions. While challenging to attain, this supermajority requirement is a cornerstone of the amendment process, safeguarding the integrity and stability of the US Constitution.
Amendment Impact: Missouri's Constitution and the 10th
You may want to see also
Three-quarters of states must ratify
The process of appealing a constitutional amendment in the United States is a complex and challenging endeavour. The Constitution's Article V outlines the necessary steps for proposing and ratifying amendments, and it is one of the rarest occurrences in US politics.
The first step in the process is proposing the amendment. This can be done in two ways: firstly, by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or secondly, by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. This step is crucial, as it sets the stage for the rest of the process.
Once an amendment is proposed, it is then up to the states to ratify it. This is where the requirement of "three-quarters of states" comes into play. For an amendment to become part of the Constitution, it must be ratified by three-quarters of the states, which currently equates to 38 out of 50 states. This can be done through state legislatures or ratifying conventions, with each state's vote carrying equal weight, regardless of population or length of time in the Union.
The process of ratification is administered by the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Once the necessary number of states has ratified the amendment, the Archivist drafts a formal proclamation certifying that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is then published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large, serving as official notice to Congress and the nation.
The appeal of a constitutional amendment is an incredibly rare event in US history. To date, there has only been one instance of an amendment appeal: the 21st Amendment, which repealed the 18th Amendment's prohibition on alcohol. This process utilised state conventions for ratification, rather than state legislatures, due to concerns about the influence of the temperance lobby on state lawmakers.
In conclusion, appealing a constitutional amendment in the United States requires a deep understanding of the processes outlined in Article V of the Constitution. The "three-quarters of states" requirement is a critical component of this process, ensuring that any changes to the nation's foundational document reflect the will of a significant majority of the country.
The 13th Amendment: Abolishing Slavery in America
You may want to see also
Explore related products
States can define redress mode
The process of appealing a constitutional amendment is challenging and rare. The Constitution's Article V outlines the process, requiring a proposal by two-thirds of the House and Senate or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. The amendment must then be ratified by three-quarters of the states. The 21st Amendment, repealing Prohibition, is an example of this process.
While the odds of repealing a constitutional amendment are extremely long, states do retain certain powers in this regard. The Tenth Amendment, ratified in 1791, clarifies that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government or withheld from the states are reserved for the states or the people. This amendment has been invoked in Supreme Court decisions to determine whether the federal government has overstepped its authority. For example, in United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., the Court ruled that federal laws establishing "gun-free zones" on public school campuses were unconstitutional as they were not authorized by the Constitution.
Additionally, states have the ability to define their alcohol laws, as demonstrated by the 21st Amendment's repeal of the broad prohibition on alcohol.
The right of states to define their mode of redress is further supported by the case of Carter v. Illinois (1946). The Court affirmed that "so long as the rights under the United States Constitution may be pursued, it is for a State and not for this Court to define the mode by which they may be vindicated." This means that if a state provides a mode of redress, that process must first be exhausted before a defendant can petition a federal court for relief.
In conclusion, while appealing or repealing a constitutional amendment is a challenging and uncommon process, states do possess certain powers in this arena. The Tenth Amendment reserves specific rights for the states and the people, and the interpretation of this amendment has shaped Supreme Court decisions regarding federal authority. Furthermore, states can define alcohol laws and their mode of redress, as affirmed by Carter v. Illinois.
The Second Amendment: Right to Keep and Bear Arms
You may want to see also
Federal court relief is an option
While states may decline to allow traditional criminal appeals, they are required to provide a corrective process for defendants to pursue remedies for federal constitutional violations. This is supported by the case of Frank v. Mangum, where the Court held that a conviction obtained in a mob-dominated trial violated due process. The Court stated that if a state carries out "a judgment of death or imprisonment based upon a verdict thus produced by mob domination, the state deprives the accused of his life or liberty without due process of law."
The Fourteenth Amendment requires that some form of corrective process be implemented when a convicted defendant alleges a federal constitutional violation. This is supported by several cases, including Moore v. Dempsey, Mooney v. Holohan, and New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson. The Court has also held that limiting the right to petition for habeas corpus is a denial of the defendant's constitutional rights.
A state may provide that the protection of rights granted by the Federal Constitution be sought through the writ of habeas corpus or coram nobis. It may use these ancient writs in their common law scope or put them to new uses. Alternatively, the state may provide a remedy through a simple motion brought either in the court of original conviction or at the place of detention.
If a state provides a mode of redress, a defendant must first exhaust that remedy. If they are unsuccessful, or if the state does not provide an adequate mode of redress, the defendant may then petition a federal court for relief through a writ of habeas corpus. This is supported by the case of Carter v. Illinois, where the Court stated that "so long as the rights under the United States Constitution may be pursued, it is for a State and not for this Court to define the mode by which they may be vindicated."
Amendments: Your Vote's Impact Explained
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Constitution’s Article V states that an amendment must be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Three-quarters of the states must then vote to ratify the amendment.
The 21st Amendment is an example of a constitutional amendment appeal. The 18th Amendment, ratified in 1919, prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol. By the early 1930s, Prohibition had become unpopular, and Congress passed the 21st Amendment, which repealed the prohibition on alcohol.
While states may decline to allow traditional criminal appeals, they must provide some form of corrective process for defendants to pursue remedies for federal constitutional violations. This can include a writ of habeas corpus or coram nobis, or a motion brought in the court of original conviction or the place of detention.
In Frank v. Mangum (1915), the Court held that a conviction obtained in a mob-dominated trial violated due process, as there was no corrective process provided by the state. Other cases include Moore v. Dempsey (1923), Mooney v. Holohan (1935), and New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson (1943).
