Amending The Constitution: A Simpler Future?

The United States Constitution is widely regarded as one of the most difficult constitutions in the world to amend. The process of amending the Constitution was intentionally made challenging by the framers to ensure its endurance. However, the proliferation of states and the increasingly polarized political landscape have made it even harder to secure the supermajority agreement required for amendments. This has led to concerns that the Constitution is becoming frozen and unable to adapt to modern times. Some argue that making the amendment process easier, without lowering standards, could help address this issue. Proposals include flipping the process to allow states to initiate amendments or lowering the threshold for ratification. These suggestions aim to strike a balance between ensuring the Constitution's endurance and enabling necessary changes to reflect the will of the people.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $14.95

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

$9.99 $9.99

A Short and Happy Guide to the First Amendment (Short and Happy Series)

$21

US Constitution 101: From the Bill of Rights to the Judicial Branch, Everything You Need to Know about the Constitution of the United States (Adams 101 Series)

$14.5 $16.99

The Civilian Rights Handguide: A Citizen's Guide to Navigating Police Encounters

$14.91

I Know My Rights: A Children's Guide to the Bill of Rights and Individual Liberty

$10.99 $10.99

The US Constitution is the world's most difficult to amend

The US Constitution is notoriously difficult to amend, with some arguing that it is the world's most challenging constitution to alter. Since its drafting in 1787, only 27 amendments have been ratified, despite over 11,000 proposals. The amendment process, outlined in Article V, requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate, or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. The proposed amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures, a challenging feat in a country with a close political divide.

The complexity of amending the Constitution is intentional. The framers of the Constitution intended for it to be an "enduring" document, and Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the early 1800s that it was written "to endure for ages to come." Amending the Constitution is meant to be a high bar, ensuring that only significant changes affecting all Americans or securing citizens' rights are made.

However, some argue that the current process is too onerous and that the bar for amendment is set too high. The proliferation of states has made it substantially more difficult to secure the required three-quarters approval. Additionally, the political divide in Congress makes it challenging to garner the necessary two-thirds support for any proposal. The perception that amending the Constitution is nearly impossible may further contribute to its difficulty, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The challenges of amending the Constitution have led to a decline in proposed amendments, as people recognise the significant obstacles in doing so. This has resulted in a lack of "basic maintenance" amendments, which, although helpful, do not bring in votes or help politicians win elections.

While the US Constitution's amendment process is rigorous, some scholars argue that it is not entirely impossible to amend. They suggest that a constitutional convention held periodically could lower the political cost of considering amendments, providing an opportunity to address necessary changes without the challenge of rallying individual states.

The difficulty in amending the Constitution is by design

The United States Constitution is considered one of the world's most difficult documents to amend. Since its drafting in 1787, it has been amended only 27 times, despite the proposal of nearly 11,000 amendments. The Constitution's endurance is by design, as the framers intended for it to be an enduring document. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the early 1800s that the Constitution was written "to endure for ages to come".

Article V of the Constitution outlines the primary paths for amending it. An amendment must 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 state legislatures. A proposed amendment then becomes part of the Constitution when ratified by legislatures or conventions in three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50 states).

The difficulty in amending the Constitution is further exacerbated by the proliferation of states. When the Constitution came into force in 1789, there were only 13 states, making it much easier to secure the agreement of three-quarters of the states compared to today's 50 states. The higher the partisan division, the harder it is to amend the Constitution, as a successful amendment typically requires supermajority agreement across legislatures that are not represented by a single political party.

While the difficulty in amending the Constitution is by design, some argue that the process should be made easier to address issues of national importance and to allow for more effective governance. However, others caution that lowering the bar for amendments could lead to negative consequences, such as the inclusion of political fixes in the Constitution.

The proliferation of states has made amendments harder

The United States Constitution is widely regarded as one of the most rigid and challenging constitutions to amend. The process of amending the Constitution was intentionally designed to be difficult by the Founding Fathers, who sought to ensure its endurance. However, the proliferation of states has further exacerbated the challenge of amending the Constitution.

The US Constitution has only been amended 27 times since its drafting in 1787, with the last ratified amendment occurring in 1992. Amending the Constitution requires a proposed amendment to be passed by a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of Congress. Subsequently, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or state conventions, which equates to 38 out of 50 states. This process is time-consuming and arduous, and the high bar for ratification has led to a decline in the number of proposed amendments in recent years.

The increase in the number of states from 13 during the Constitution's inception to 50 states today has significantly increased the difficulty of securing the required ratification. In numerical terms, attaining the approval of 38 out of 50 states is considerably more challenging than obtaining the consent of 10 out of 13 states in 1789. This mathematical disparity highlights the heightened challenge presented by the proliferation of states.

The current amendment process demands an extensive level of consensus, which can hinder the ability to address pressing national issues and events. The high threshold for ratification may also contribute to the perception of the impossibility of amendment, further reducing the likelihood of successful amendments. This self-fulfilling notion can discourage individuals from proposing amendments, believing them to be futile endeavours.

The complexity of amending the Constitution has sparked debates about the potential benefits of a more accessible amendment process. Some argue that a constitutional convention held at regular intervals could provide a platform for considering amendments. While maintaining the high standards for ratification, this approach could reduce the political cost and effort associated with pursuing amendments. However, it is essential to carefully consider the potential drawbacks and risks associated with making the amendment process more accessible.

Explore related products

The U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights with Amendments: Pocket Size (Annotated)

$7.49

The Glannon Guide to Constitutional Law: Learning Constitutional Law through Multiple-Choice Questions and Analysis

$71.95 $71.95

The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

$12.99 $12.99

The Penguin Guide to the United States Constitution: A Fully Annotated Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Amendments, and Selections from The Federalist Papers

$12.89 $15

Declaration Of Independence, Constitution Of The United States Of America, Bill Of Rights And Constitutional Amendments

$9.2

What Does the Constitution Say?: A Kid's Guide to How Our Democracy Works

$13.54 $19.99

Amendments require supermajority agreement in legislatures

The United States Constitution is widely regarded as one of the most rigid and challenging constitutions to amend. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times since it was drafted in 1787, with the last ratified amendment occurring in 1992. The amendment process is intricate and time-consuming, requiring a two-thirds supermajority agreement in both houses of Congress. This means that for an amendment to pass, it must secure a two-thirds majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The difficulty in achieving such a supermajority agreement has been exacerbated by the increasing partisan divide in Congress. With the country's political landscape deeply polarized, it is increasingly challenging for amendments to gain the necessary support from both sides of the aisle. This dynamic often results in most amendment proposals being dead on arrival.

However, some scholars argue that the concentration of legislative power within a single party can facilitate the amendment process. In such cases, the dominant party may have the ability to push through an amendment without opposition support. Nonetheless, the overall trend suggests that the higher the partisan division, the more challenging it becomes to secure the necessary supermajority agreement.

To address the challenges posed by the supermajority requirement, some have proposed flipping the amendment process. This suggestion entails allowing state legislatures to take the lead in proposing amendments. Each state legislature would work on its proposals and evaluate the ideas presented by other states. Once three-fourths of the state legislatures agree on the language of a proposed amendment, it would then move to Congress, where each chamber would need to approve it by a two-thirds majority vote.

By initiating the process at the state level, proponents argue that more good ideas can be considered, problems can be worked out, and the relative degree of support for each proposal can be assessed. This approach retains the stringent voting rules of Article V, ensuring that any amendment must still secure broad support across the country.

The impression that the Constitution is hard to amend may be self-fulfilling

The United States Constitution is widely regarded as one of the most rigid and challenging constitutions to amend. The Constitution has only been amended 27 times since it was drafted in 1787, with over 11,000 proposed amendments. The process of amending the Constitution is intricate and time-consuming, requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. The impression that amending the Constitution is a formidable task can indeed become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as suggested by Vicki Jackson. This perception may contribute to the increasing difficulty of formally amending the Constitution.

The proliferation of states has significantly increased the challenge of amending the Constitution. When the Constitution was first enacted, only ten out of thirteen states were needed to approve an amendment, whereas now, approval from 38 out of 50 states is required, making it much harder to secure the necessary agreement. The high bar for amending the Constitution was intentionally set by the Founders to ensure its endurance. However, they also anticipated and welcomed future amendments, as evidenced by George Washington's inaugural address and Thomas Jefferson's support for constitutional changes by successive generations.

The current political climate, with its high levels of polarization and partisan division, further exacerbates the difficulty of amending the Constitution. In a polarized society, broad support across the country is necessary for constitutional change, which can be challenging to attain. Additionally, the close political divide in Congress makes it even harder to achieve the required two-thirds majority support for any proposed amendment. This political deadlock has resulted in a decline in the number of proposed amendments, as people are barely suggesting them anymore.

The perception of the Constitution as an unchangeable document can indeed become a self-fulfilling prophecy, creating a cycle where the belief in its immutability makes the actual process of amendment more difficult. However, it is important to note that the high bar for amendments was intentionally set by the Founders to ensure the Constitution's longevity. While making the amendment process more accessible may help break this cycle, it is a delicate balance, as lowering the standards too much could lead to hasty or poorly considered changes.

Frequently asked questions