Understanding Constitutional Amendment Changes

The process of amending a constitution varies across different countries. In the United States, Article V of the Constitution outlines two methods for amending the nation's frame of government. The first method involves a proposal by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The second method requires Congress, at the request of two-thirds of state legislatures, to call a convention for proposing amendments. The amendment then needs to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. In Austria, a two-thirds majority in the Federal Council is required if an amendment limits the powers of the states. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, does not have a written constitution, and its parliament holds the final authority on all quasi-constitutional matters. While the specific terminology for changing a constitutional amendment may differ, the process generally involves proposing and ratifying modifications to the existing constitutional framework.

Explore related products

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

$9.99 $9.99

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $14.95

U.S. Constitution: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$6.46

Constitution Of The Federative Republic Of Brazil: Constitutional Text Enacted On October 5, 1988, With The Alterations Established By Revision ... Amendments 1, 1992 Through 122, 2022.

$17.99

Construction Change Order Forms Book: Construction Project Amendment Form | Construction Change Orders Sheets | 50 Forms

$9.99

The Traytor, a tragedy [in five acts and in verse] with alterations, amendments and additions. Written by Mr. Rivers.

$14.99

The US Constitution's Article V outlines the amendment process

The process of amending the US Constitution is outlined in Article V of the US Constitution. According to Article V, the US Congress can propose amendments to the Constitution when two-thirds of both Houses deem it necessary. Alternatively, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of US states, Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments. In either case, an amendment becomes valid and part of the Constitution when it is ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50 states).

The process begins with Congress proposing an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. As the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not require their signature or approval. Instead, the original document is sent directly to the National Archives and Records Administration's (NARA) Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. Additionally, they prepare an information package for the states, which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist of the United States, who heads NARA, is responsible for administering the ratification process under 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the states for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each state governor, along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The governors then formally submit the amendment to their state legislatures or call for a convention, depending on Congress's specifications.

Once the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents from three-fourths of the states, 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 U.S. Statutes at Large, serving as official notice to Congress and the nation that the amendment process is complete. The signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by dignitaries, including, on some occasions, the President.

Amendments require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate

The process of amending a constitution is a challenging and time-consuming endeavour. In the United States, Article V of the Constitution outlines two methods for proposing amendments. The first method involves Congress proposing an amendment with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The second method requires Congress, at the request of two-thirds of state legislatures, to call for a convention to propose amendments. This convention method has never been used.

The two-thirds majority requirement in both chambers of Congress serves as a significant hurdle for any proposed amendment. It ensures that amendments have broad bipartisan support and are not merely the product of a simple majority's transient political agenda. This safeguard aligns with the intention of the Constitution's framers to make amending the document a challenging task, ensuring that amendments are reserved for significant issues impacting all Americans or securing the rights of citizens.

Once an amendment proposal clears the two-thirds majority hurdle in Congress, it enters the ratification process. Ratification can occur through the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or ratifying conventions in three-quarters of the states. This step underscores the crucial role of states in the amendment process, providing a check against potential federal overreach.

The specific procedures for the amendment process are outlined by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The Archivist of the United States, who heads NARA, is responsible for administering the ratification process. The Archivist works in conjunction with the Director of the Federal Register to follow established procedures and customs.

While the focus is on the United States Constitution, it's worth noting that other countries have different processes for amending their constitutions. For example, in Austria, a two-thirds majority in the Federal Council is required if an amendment limits the powers of the states. In Belgium, the federal legislative power, consisting of the King and the Federal Parliament, can amend the constitution by declaring the reasons for revision in accordance with their Article 195.

Amendments are ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures

The process of amending a constitution varies across different nations. In the United States, Article V of the Constitution outlines two methods for amending the nation's governing framework. Firstly, Congress can propose an amendment with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Secondly, Congress can call a convention for proposing amendments at the request of two-thirds of state legislatures.

Once an amendment is proposed, it must be ratified. There are two ways to achieve ratification: through the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions in three-fourths of the states. This process is overseen by the Archivist of the United States, who is responsible for administering the ratification process.

The United States Constitution has been amended 27 times since 1787, with the most recent amendment, the 27th Amendment, being ratified in 1992. The amendment process is intentionally challenging and time-consuming, ensuring that amendments are reserved for significant changes that impact all Americans or secure citizens' rights.

In Austria, a constitutional amendment that limits the powers of the states requires a two-thirds majority in the Federal Council. Similarly, in Belgium, the Constitution can be amended by the federal legislative power, which includes the King and the Federal Parliament.

The process of amending a constitution can vary, and some nations may have different requirements for ratification. It is important to note that the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process in the United States.

Explore related products

Wit without Mony; a comedy, [in five acts and in prose. By J. F. and F. Beaumont?] With alterations and amendments by some persons of quality.

$14.99

Constitution and By-laws of the Third Army Corps Union, With Amendments and Alterations Made Since the War. And the Secretary's and Treasurer's ... Year Ending May 5th, 1867 ... May 6th, 1867

$19.95 $23.27

The general statutes of the commonwealth of Massachusetts relating to the public schools, with the alterations and amendments to 1868.

$16.99

Social Inquiry Society of Ireland. Report on the Alterations and Amendments Necessary in the Present System of Sale and Mortgage of Land in Ireland. No. 8

$9.95

Macbeth; A Tragedy. with All the Alterations, Amendments, Additions, and New Songs [by Sir William Davenant]. as It Is Now Acted at the Dukes Theatre. [anonymous.] - Scholar's Choice Edition

$18.75

An Act for the Amendment of the Law with Respect to Wills, (1 Vict. C. 26.): With Remarks Explanatory of Several Clauses, the Object of Their Enactment, ... the Alteration in the Laws Thereby Effected

$8.95 $13.95

The Archivist of the US administers the ratification process

In the United States, the Archivist of the US, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is responsible for administering the ratification process of constitutional amendments. The authority to amend the Constitution is derived from Article V of the Constitution, which, however, does not describe the ratification process in detail.

The process of amending the Constitution begins with Congress proposing an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. As the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. It also assembles an information package for the States, which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist, in conjunction with the Director of the Federal Register, then submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor, along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or call for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. Once a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately 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, after which the records are transferred to the National Archives for preservation. When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents (approval by the legislatures of at least three-quarters of the states, or 38 of 50 States), 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 U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to Congress and the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

The current Archivist of the US is Colleen Joy Shogan, who was nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed and sworn in by the Senate in May 2023.

The UK has no written constitution, Parliament holds quasi-constitutional authority

The UK's constitution differs from that of most other modern liberal democracies in that its core aspects are not contained in a single legal source. The UK does not possess a single constitutional document; instead, its constitution is spread across various sources, including specific Acts of Parliament, understandings of how the system should operate (constitutional conventions), and judicial decisions. This dispersal can make the UK's constitution challenging to identify and understand.

The UK's unwritten constitution has historical and practical reasons. Historically, the UK's constitution evolved over centuries, beginning with the Magna Carta in 1215 and continuing through the development of common law and parliamentary sovereignty. The UK, unlike some countries that underwent revolutions or constitutional crises, did not have a single defining moment necessitating a written constitution. The practical reason lies in the UK's flexible and adaptable system of government. The unwritten constitution enables changes to be made over time without requiring a formal amendment process.

Parliamentary sovereignty is a key principle in the UK's constitutional framework. Acts of Parliament are the supreme source of law, and Parliament can make or unmake any law. This power stems from Parliament being democratically elected and upholding the rule of law, including human rights and international law. Parliamentary sovereignty was established through significant historical events such as the English Reformation, the Civil War, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, and the Acts of Union 1707.

The UK's constitution includes various constitutional documents and principles, such as the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. While the UK's constitution lacks a single unifying document, it is nevertheless shaped by key Acts of Parliament, such as the Acts of Union between Wales and England in 1536 and 1543, and the Bill of Rights 1689, which established the terms of William III's ascension to the throne. These Acts provide insight into the evolving nature of the UK's constitution.

The UK's unique constitutional arrangement, with its unwritten nature and parliamentary sovereignty, gives Parliament quasi-constitutional authority. This means that Parliament itself, by a simple majority, holds the final authority on all quasi-constitutional matters. This was demonstrated in the case of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (FTPA), which restricted the Prime Minister's ability to dissolve Parliament and call for a general election. In 2019, this Act was annulled by a simple majority, illustrating Parliament's power to effect rapid and significant changes without being bound by entrenchment clauses.

Frequently asked questions