Amending The Constitution: Should We Make It Easier?

The United States Constitution is widely considered to be the world's most difficult document to amend. Since its drafting in 1787, it has been amended only 27 times, with the last ratified amendment occurring in 1992. The amendment process is intentionally challenging, requiring the approval of two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of state legislatures. This high bar for amendment has led to concerns about the Constitution's rigidity and outdatedness in addressing modern issues. Some argue for a more accessible amendment process to enable necessary changes, such as addressing partisan gerrymandering and an outdated immigration system. However, others caution against making it too easy to amend, fearing it could become a tool for partisan manipulation. The question of whether to amend the Constitution is a complex debate that weighs the need for flexibility against the risks of hasty or politically motivated changes.

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 US Constitution is the world's most difficult to amend

The US Constitution is notoriously difficult to amend, and some argue it is the world's most challenging to alter. The document was designed to endure, and the framers made the amendment process a challenging task. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times since 1787, and the last ratified amendment occurred in 1992.

The process of amending the US Constitution is intricate and time-consuming. A proposed amendment must be passed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. This high bar for ratification has led to a stagnation of amendments, with many reasonable proposals never coming to fruition due to the effort and political capital required.

The difficulty in amending the Constitution has sparked debate. Some argue that the high bar for amendment is necessary to protect the document from becoming a tool for partisan gain. They fear that lowering the threshold could lead to drastic changes that may not reflect the democratic will of the people. However, others contend that the current process hinders necessary updates to address outdated aspects of the Constitution and tackle pressing national issues, such as climate change and immigration reform.

The challenge of amending the Constitution is further exacerbated by factors such as partisan division. When political parties are deeply divided, achieving the required supermajority agreement becomes more difficult. Additionally, the concentration of legislative power within a single party can influence the ease or difficulty of amending the Constitution, depending on that party's openness to change.

While some have proposed periodic constitutional conventions to consider amendments, there is a concern that such gatherings could open the door to unpredictable outcomes. Overall, the US Constitution's amendment process is deliberately arduous, contributing to its reputation as one of the most difficult constitutions to alter globally.

The democratic critique and the meta-democratic critique

The Democratic Critique

The democratic critique focuses on the shortcomings of American democracy and the undemocratic features of the Constitution. It argues that the Constitution is outdated and fails to reflect the values of equality, inclusivity, and justice that are essential for a modern democratic society. This critique emphasizes the need for constitutional reform to address these issues and create a more democratic nation. Over the years, thousands of amendments have been proposed by democratic reformers to make the Constitution more aligned with contemporary democratic ideals. However, the current dynamics of American constitutional politics make it extremely difficult to implement these changes.

The Meta-Democratic Critique

The meta-democratic critique shifts the focus to the inherent unamendability of the US Constitution. It suggests that the inability to amend the Constitution is a significant concern for democratic constitutionalism. By denying Americans the basic democratic right to participate in constitutional amendment, the unamendability becomes as much of an issue as the specific democratic shortcomings it delivers. In other democratic countries, direct democracy is practised through national popular votes on amendments, allowing citizens to have a direct say in shaping their constitution. The meta-democratic critique emphasizes that the US Constitution's rigidity raises serious questions about the democratic legitimacy of the country and its ability to effectively address the problems faced by the majority of Americans.

The critiques highlight a constitutional catch-22, where the requirement for a supermajority in Congress and among state legislatures gives a determined political minority the power to block constitutional change. This dynamic perpetuates the difficulty of amending the Constitution and maintaining its relevance in a changing democratic landscape.

While the democratic critique addresses the need for specific changes to enhance democracy, the meta-democratic critique underscores the fundamental issue of the Constitution's unamendability, which undermines the very essence of democratic participation and adaptation to evolving democratic ideals.

The role of the Supreme Court

The United States Constitution is widely regarded as one of the most rigid and difficult constitutions to amend. Since its drafting in 1787, it has been amended only 27 times, with the last ratified amendment being the 27th Amendment in 1992. The amendment process is intentionally designed to be challenging, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. This high bar for amendment ensures that only significant ideas affecting all Americans or securing citizens' rights are enshrined in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's conservative nature and interpretation of the Constitution have been a subject of criticism and calls for reform. Some argue that the Court's decisions do not reflect the will of the people or address pressing issues such as abortion, partisan gerrymandering, and the Voting Rights Act. Proposals to alter the Court's structure and jurisdiction have emerged, including adding justices, implementing term limits, and requiring a supermajority to overturn acts of Congress.

The difficulty of amending the Constitution and the role of the Supreme Court are interconnected. The Court's interpretations shape the understanding of constitutional rights and freedoms, and amendments can be used to override these interpretations. However, the amendment process is challenging, and the Supreme Court's conservative nature may contribute to the perception of constitutional rigidity.

While some argue for an easier amendment process to address issues where the Court is perceived to have failed, others caution against it. Lowering the threshold for amendments may lead to unintended consequences, such as authoritarian demagogues exploiting the system or the document becoming a tool for parties in control to manipulate.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court plays a vital role in interpreting and applying the Constitution, and its decisions can be shaped by amendments. However, the difficulty of amending the Constitution and the Court's conservative nature create a complex dynamic that influences the pace of change and the interpretation of constitutional rights.

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

The impact of partisanship

The United States Constitution is widely regarded as one of the most rigid and difficult constitutions to amend. The high bar for making amendments has been criticised for hindering necessary changes that reflect the will of the people and improve the democratic process. This is particularly evident in the impact of partisanship on the amendment process.

Partisanship plays a significant role in the difficulty of amending the Constitution. The higher the partisan division, the more challenging it becomes to secure the supermajority agreement required for a successful amendment. This dynamic is influenced by the configuration of congressional power, the distribution of legislative majorities across states, and the evolution of constitutional norms and political practices.

The concentration of legislative power within a single party can facilitate easier amendments, assuming the dominant party is amenable to change. However, this also raises concerns about the potential for authoritarian demagogues to exploit a more accessible amendment process for their agenda. The risk of a shift in political power, such as a "red wave year," giving a single party control over 3/4 of the states, underscores the delicate balance between accessibility and safeguarding against partisan manipulation.

Additionally, the impact of partisanship on the amendment process has resulted in constitutional stagnation, with national problems, including climate change and an outdated immigration system, remaining unaddressed. This stagnation is a threat to the Republic and highlights the need for a more effective amendment process that allows for necessary changes while also preserving the integrity of the Constitution.

In conclusion, the impact of partisanship on amending the Constitution is significant. The challenge lies in balancing the need for a flexible and responsive Constitution that adapts to the changing needs of the nation while also safeguarding against partisan manipulation and ensuring that any amendments reflect the democratic values and the will of the people.

The amendment process

The United States Constitution is considered one of the world's most difficult constitutions to amend. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the early 1800s that the Constitution was written "to endure for ages to come". Amending the Constitution has proven to be a challenging and time-consuming endeavour.

The high bar for amending the Constitution has resulted in a limited number of successful amendments. Since its drafting in 1787, the Constitution has been amended only 27 times, including the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. The last ratified amendment was the 27th Amendment in 1992. The difficulty of the amendment process has led to concerns about constitutional stagnation, particularly as the country faces pressing issues such as climate change and an outdated immigration system.

Some have argued for a routine periodic process, such as holding a constitutional convention every 20 to 40 years, to lower the political cost of considering amendments. Others caution against making the process too accessible, fearing that it could lead to unwanted changes or the erosion of democratic principles.

Frequently asked questions