Omar Bennett
The process of amending the US Constitution is a challenging and lengthy endeavour. Since 1789, there have been approximately 11,848 proposals to amend the Constitution, with members of the House and Senate collectively proposing around 200 amendments during each two-year term of Congress. However, only 27 amendments have been successfully ratified and incorporated into the Constitution since its drafting in 1787. The difficulty in amending the Constitution is intentional, as the framers intended for it to endure for ages to come. This raises the question of how these amendments were achieved and what methods or strategies were employed to navigate the challenging amendment process.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of amendments to the Constitution | 27 |
| First 10 amendments | Ratified on December 15, 1791, known as the Bill of Rights |
| Amendment process | Time-consuming and difficult; requires passage by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures |
| Circumvention of 15th Amendment | Poll taxes, literacy tests, race-restricted primary elections, and other discriminatory criteria |
| 11th Amendment | Passed in 1794, ratified in 1795, establishing sovereign immunity and limiting judicial power |
| 12th Amendment | Adopted in 1804, revised Electoral College procedures |
| 13th Amendment | Superseded a portion of Article IV, Section 2, abolished slavery and involuntary servitude |
| 14th Amendment | Passed in 1866, ratified in 1868, modified Article I, Section 2, defined citizenship, and guaranteed due process |
| 22nd Amendment | Ratified in 1951, limits the president to two terms |
| 24th Amendment | Outlawed poll taxes and other discriminatory practices used to circumvent the 15th Amendment |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The difficulty of the amendment process
The United States Constitution was designed to "endure for ages to come", and its framers made the process of amending the document a challenging task. Since its drafting in 1787, there have only been 27 amendments to the Constitution, including the first ten amendments, which were ratified in 1791 as the Bill of Rights.
The amendment process is deliberately difficult and time-consuming. A proposed amendment must first be passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, and then it must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. This high bar has resulted in many proposed amendments failing to be adopted, such as the ERA Amendment in the 1980s.
An alternative route to proposing an amendment is for two-thirds of state legislatures to request that Congress convene a Constitutional Convention. However, this has never occurred, despite support from some quarters. A retired federal judge, Malcolm R. Wilkey, has argued for a new convention, citing the negative impact of interest groups and the excessive focus of members of Congress on re-election.
The challenge of amending the Constitution has led to criticism that it is too difficult to make necessary changes. However, others argue that not every idea to improve America warrants an amendment. Amendments should be reserved for significant issues that affect all Americans or secure the rights of citizens.
Despite the difficulty of the amendment process, there have been instances where the purpose of amendments has been circumvented. For example, the 15th Amendment, which guaranteed the voting rights of former slaves and African-American citizens, was undermined by discriminatory practices such as poll taxes and literacy tests in some states. It took the 24th Amendment, Supreme Court rulings, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to address this discrimination.
Amendments Offering African Americans Constitutional Rights
You may want to see also
The need for two-thirds majority support in Congress
The United States Constitution was designed to be a durable document, with a challenging amendment process. Amending the Constitution requires a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress, a high threshold that ensures any changes to the foundational document of US government have broad support. This supermajority requirement is a crucial safeguard against hasty or partisan changes to the Constitution.
The two-thirds majority requirement in Congress is a significant hurdle for any proposed amendment to clear. It ensures that amendments are not passed lightly and that they have the backing of a broad cross-section of representatives and senators. This requirement reflects the framers' intention that the Constitution be a stable and enduring document, resistant to fleeting political whims.
The high bar for congressional approval of amendments is a deliberate feature of the amendment process, designed to foster consensus-building and encourage amendments that have widespread support. By requiring the support of a supermajority, the process helps to ensure that amendments are carefully considered and reflect the interests of a substantial portion of the country. This requirement also helps to prevent the Constitution from being amended for partisan gain or to serve the interests of a narrow majority.
The two-thirds majority rule is a critical safeguard that protects the integrity and stability of the Constitution. It ensures that amendments are not enacted without a strong mandate and helps to foster a more deliberate and thoughtful approach to changing the nation's foundational document. While this requirement makes the process of amending the Constitution challenging, it is in keeping with the framers' intention that the document be "enduring."
The two-thirds majority requirement in Congress is an essential part of the amendment process, ensuring that any changes to the Constitution are carefully considered and broadly supported. While this requirement has made it difficult to enact new amendments, it also reflects the framers' intention that the Constitution be a lasting document, resistant to frequent or partisan changes. As a result, the amendment process has helped to maintain the stability and longevity of the Constitution.
Amendments: Our Constitution's Living Evolution
You may want to see also
The role of state legislatures in ratification
The process of amending the United States Constitution is intentionally designed to be difficult and time-consuming. The role of state legislatures in the ratification process is significant, and there are two methods by which amendments can be ratified. Firstly, amendments can be ratified by state legislatures, the part of the state government that enacts laws for the state. This method has been used for every amendment except one, the Twenty-First Amendment.
The second method is that Congress can require states to call conventions for the sole purpose of deciding whether to ratify an amendment. This method, referred to as an Article V Convention, has never been used. To initiate this process, two-thirds of state legislatures (34 out of 50) must request it. The amendments then become law when ratified by three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50).
The first proposal for amending the Constitution sought to bypass the national legislature, but this was modified to include Congress. James Madison expressed concern about the lack of detail regarding how a convention would work, and he later proposed giving the national legislature sole authority to propose amendments. Article V does, however, provide a way for states to bypass Congress, but this has never been used.
The fear of a "`runaway convention`, where a convention proposes amendments on matters beyond its intended scope, has hindered the convention method. There is also a concern that a convention could be more malapportioned than Congress, and that amendments pending ratification could polarize state-level politics. The Supreme Court has also handled several cases and arguments on the scope of amendments, but there has been no definitive determination regarding the state convention amendment method.
The Emancipation Proclamation: 13th Amendment to the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The time limit for ratification set by Congress
Congress has the power to set a time limit for the ratification of constitutional amendments. This means that any amendment that is not ratified by the required number of states within the specified time frame would effectively be blocked from becoming part of the Constitution. This tactic can be used to prevent changes to the Constitution that may be controversial or unpopular with a simple majority of Congress or the American people.
The process of setting a time limit for ratification can be a deliberate strategy to hinder the adoption of an amendment. By imposing a deadline, Congress can make it more difficult for an amendment to gain the necessary support and navigate the complex political landscape. This tactic adds another layer of complexity to the already challenging task of amending the Constitution.
The time limit set by Congress can vary depending on the specific amendment and the political context at the time. In some cases, Congress may set a relatively short time frame, such as a few months or a year, while in other instances, they might allow for a longer period, such as several years or even decades. The length of the time limit can significantly influence the likelihood of an amendment's success.
When an amendment fails to be ratified within the prescribed time limit, it effectively expires. This means that the proposed amendment is no longer considered active, and any efforts to include it in the Constitution would need to start anew. Expired amendments are not uncommon, and there is a history of Congress deliberately impeding amendments by imposing tight deadlines or failing to actively support their ratification.
To overcome the challenge of a time limit, proponents of an amendment may employ various strategies. Building strong public support can help exert pressure on states to ratify the amendment more quickly. Additionally, lobbying efforts directed at state legislatures and governors, who play a pivotal role in ratification, can expedite the process and improve the chances of meeting the deadline. Legal challenges may also arise, questioning the validity of the time limit or seeking extensions, though such outcomes are contingent on the specific political and legal circumstances.
The Constitution's Fiscal Amendments: What's Guaranteed?
You may want to see also
The lack of a Constitutional Convention
The United States Constitution has been amended 27 times since it was drafted in 1787, a challenging and time-consuming process. The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Alternatively, a Constitutional Convention can be called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. However, no Constitutional Convention has ever been convened, and all 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Congress.
The process of amending the Constitution through a Constitutional Convention is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. This method requires two-thirds of the State legislatures (34 out of 50) to apply for a convention, after which Congress shall call for one. The proposed amendments would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50) to become law. While this method has never been used at the federal level, over 230 constitutional conventions have been assembled at the state level.
Another factor contributing to the lack of a Constitutional Convention is the challenge of achieving the required majority. For a Constitutional Convention to be called, two-thirds of the State legislatures must apply, which is a significant proportion. In addition, the amendment process already in place allows for amendments to be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses. This method has proven successful in proposing and ratifying amendments, making 27 amendments to the Constitution.
While there have been calls for a Constitutional Convention, such as by retired federal judge Malcolm R. Wilkey, who argued that the Constitution has been corrupted by gridlock and the excessive influence of interest groups, the amendment process through Congress remains the primary method for proposing and enacting changes to the Constitution.
Louisiana's Constitution: Amended Many Times Over
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The US Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1787, and the process of amendment is intentionally difficult. For an amendment to be passed, it must be approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. This means that many proposed amendments, such as the ERA Amendment, have failed to be passed.
There have been approximately 11,848 proposals to amend the Constitution since 1789, with around 200 amendments typically proposed during each two-year term of Congress. Most of these proposals die in congressional committees and never become part of the Constitution. Notable examples of proposed amendments that did not pass include those related to congressional term limits, a balanced budget amendment, and the ERA Amendment.
For an amendment to be added to the US Constitution, it must be proposed by either a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives or a national convention called by Congress on the application of two-thirds of state legislatures. It must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, either through their legislatures or state ratifying conventions.
The amendment process is typically very time-consuming due to the high thresholds required for approval and ratification. Since the early 20th century, Congress has often stipulated that an amendment must be ratified by the required number of states within seven years of its submission to the states.
Yes, a proposed amendment can fail to be passed if it does not meet the required thresholds for approval and ratification. Six amendments adopted by Congress have not been ratified by the required number of states, with four still pending, one closed and failed by its terms, and one closed and failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it.
