Simone Lawson
Article V of the United States Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It establishes that amendments may be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of state legislatures. For an amendment to become part of the Constitution, it must be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states. This process, outlined in Article V, has been the clear precedent for amending the Constitution, with 27 amendments successfully added since its adoption.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Article of the US Constitution that describes the procedure for altering the Constitution | Article Five |
| Number of amendments to the Constitution since it was adopted | 27 |
| Number of constitutional amendments proposed by Congress | 33 |
| Number of amendments proposed by Congress that were ratified by the states | 27 |
| Number of amendments proposed by Congress that were not ratified by the states | 6 |
| The first ten amendments, known as | The Bill of Rights |
| The amendment that repealed the Eighteenth Amendment establishing prohibition | Twenty-First Amendment |
| Year the Fifteenth Amendment was added to the Constitution | 1870 |
| The amendment that would have forbidden federal and state governments from denying equal rights on the basis of sex | Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) |
| Year by which no amendment could affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article | 1808 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Article V outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution
- Congress proposes amendments, which are then ratified by states
- The Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to set time limits for ratification
- The President does not have a role in the amendment process
- The Archivist of the U.S. administers the ratification process
Article V outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution
Article V of the United States Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It is the only means by which the Constitution can be amended, and it is not an easy process. Article V sets out a few ways in which the Constitution can be amended, but only one method has been used so far.
Firstly, two-thirds of both Houses of Congress must deem it necessary to propose an amendment. Then, the amendment is sent to the states for ratification. Three-quarters of the states must ratify the amendment for it to become part of the Constitution. This can be done either through the state legislatures or ratifying conventions, with Congress deciding which method the states must follow.
Article V also provides a way for states to bypass Congress and propose amendments themselves. If two-thirds of state legislatures apply, Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments. These proposed amendments are then sent to the states for ratification, without requiring the approval of Congress. However, this method has never been used.
Since the founding of the United States, Congress has proposed thirty-three amendments using Article V's procedures, of which twenty-seven have been ratified by the states. The process of amending the Constitution is thus a clear and stable one, promoting wisdom and justice through enhanced deliberation and prudence.
The Second Amendment: Right to Bear Arms
You may want to see also
Congress proposes amendments, which are then ratified by states
Article V of the United States Constitution outlines the procedure for altering the Constitution. It establishes two methods for proposing amendments to the Constitution. The first method involves Congress proposing an amendment to the states, which is the method that has been used for every amendment so far. For this, two-thirds of both Houses of Congress must deem it necessary to propose an amendment, and three-quarters of the states must then ratify the amendment for it to be added to the Constitution.
The second method, which has never been used, allows for a way for the states to bypass Congress. Article V states that "on the Application of two-thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing amendments". The convention can propose amendments, regardless of whether Congress approves of them or not, and these proposed amendments are then sent to the states for ratification. Again, three-quarters of the states would have to ratify the amendment for it to become part of the Constitution.
Congress has followed the first procedure to propose thirty-three constitutional amendments, which were sent to the states for potential ratification. However, at least 11,000 proposals have not been approved by the two-thirds majority in each house required for submission to the states for ratification. The states have ratified twenty-seven of the proposed amendments.
The process of amending the Constitution is not easy, and only twenty-seven amendments have been added to the Constitution since it was adopted. An example of a rejected amendment is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would have forbidden federal and state governments from denying equal rights based on sex. While Congress approved the amendment, not enough states did, so it never became part of the Constitution.
Expanding Voting Rights: Amendments for a Stronger Democracy
You may want to see also
The Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to set time limits for ratification
Article V of the United States Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It states that amendments may be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of state legislatures. For an amendment to become part of the Constitution, it must be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states.
The question of whether Congress can set time limits for the states' ratification of proposed amendments has been a subject of debate. In the case of Dillon v. Gloss (1921), the Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to set time limitations for state ratifications. The Court interpreted the Constitution as implicitly authorising Congress to fix a definite period for ratification, despite Article V not explicitly addressing this issue. The Court's decision set a precedent for Congress's ability to determine the mode of ratification, including the power to specify a deadline.
In the subsequent case of Coleman v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court modified its stance. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes suggested that Congress is responsible for promulgating the adoption of a constitutional amendment and has the power to determine whether ratification occurred within a "reasonable time." However, commentators have disputed this interpretation, arguing that the Constitution does not grant Congress such authority.
The OLC advised in 2020 that Congress lacks the power to extend ratification deadlines or revive expired amendments without restarting the Article V process. This highlights the ongoing debate surrounding Congress's role in setting time limits for ratification and the interpretation of Article V's provisions.
The Supreme Court's rulings in Dillon v. Gloss and Coleman v. Miller have established important precedents for interpreting Congress's power regarding ratification timelines. While Dillon v. Gloss affirmed Congress's ability to set time limits, Coleman v. Miller introduced the concept of "reasonable time" and sparked discussions about the extent of Congressional authority in the amendment process. These cases continue to shape the understanding of constitutional amendment procedures in the United States.
The Fifth Amendment: Protecting Your Rights
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![The First Amendment: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook) (Aspen Casebook Series)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61p49hyM5WL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The President does not have a role in the amendment process
Article V of the United States Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It is not an easy process to amend the Constitution, with only 27 amendments having been added since its adoption. The process of amending the Constitution does not involve the President.
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 Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of state ratification actions, but their certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.
Once an amendment is ratified by three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50 states), it becomes part of the Constitution. The OFR verifies the receipt of the required number of authenticated ratification documents and drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify the amendment's validity. This certification is published in the Federal Register and serves as official notice to Congress and the nation that the amendment process is complete. While the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by dignitaries, including the President, their involvement is not constitutionally mandated.
In conclusion, while the President may be present at the ceremonial signing of the certification, they do not have a constitutional role in the amendment process. The process is outlined in Article V, which specifies the roles of Congress, the states, and the Archivist of the United States in proposing, ratifying, and certifying amendments.
The Constitution: Amendments and Ratification
You may want to see also
The Archivist of the U.S. administers the ratification process
Article V of the United States Constitution outlines the procedure for amending the Constitution. It states that amendments may be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by three-quarters of the states, either by their legislatures or by ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states.
The Archivist of the United States is responsible for administering the ratification process. The Archivist heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and is charged with ensuring that changes to the Constitution are carried out in accordance with the law. The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the states for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each governor, along with informational material prepared by the OFR. The governors then formally submit the amendment to their state legislatures or call for a convention, as specified by Congress. When a state ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the state action, which is conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register.
The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are in order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them until an amendment is adopted or fails, at which point the records are transferred to the National Archives for preservation. 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 serves as official notice to Congress and the nation that the amendment process has been completed.
The role of the Archivist is to uphold the integrity of the constitutional amendment process and ensure that any changes to the Constitution follow established legal, judicial, and procedural decisions. The Archivist does not make substantive determinations about the validity of state ratification actions, but their certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive. The Archivist is appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, and is responsible for safeguarding and making available for study all permanently valuable records of the federal government, including the original Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.
The Second Amendment: Right to Bear Arms
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Article V of the US Constitution outlines the process of amending the Constitution. Amendments may be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by three-quarters of the states or ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states.
The process of amending the Constitution has set several important precedents. Firstly, when the 1st Congress considered constitutional amendments, they proceeded directly to a joint resolution, implying that both the House and the Senate deemed amendments necessary. This precedent has been followed ever since. Secondly, amendments are approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification as supplemental additions, rather than being interwoven into the original document. Finally, the precedent has been set that the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, with the joint resolution not requiring presidential approval.
Some critics argue that Article V is too difficult, undemocratic, or too formal. They contend that it does not provide a mechanism for the American people to adopt constitutional amendments independently. However, defenders of Article V, such as Darren Patrick Guerra, argue that it provides a clear and stable way of amending the Constitution, promoting wisdom and justice through enhanced deliberation and prudence.
