Eleanor Finch
The United States Constitution is a living document that has been amended 27 times since its ratification in 1789. The last amendment, which prevents Congress from giving itself a pay raise, was passed in 1992, over two centuries after its proposal. Since then, there have been numerous proposals for the 28th Amendment, including those by fourth and fifth graders, such as guaranteeing equitable schools, providing free healthcare, abolishing the Electoral College, and addressing gun violence. Other proposals include limiting campaign spending, fixing the number of Supreme Court justices, establishing congressional term limits, requiring a balanced budget, and lowering the voting age to 16. While some amendments may be more likely to succeed due to popular support, all proposals face steep challenges and require wide public support to reach ratification.
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Voting rights
The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, eliminated poll taxes, which had been used to disenfranchise African Americans. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited voter discrimination based on race, colour, or membership in a language minority group, and required certain places to provide election materials in languages other than English. The Act also placed limits on states with a history of voter discrimination. The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18 for all elections.
Other federal laws have further improved access to voting. The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984 required polling places to be accessible to people with disabilities. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) of 1986 and the Military and Overseas Voting Empowerment (MOVE) Act of 2009 enhanced voting access for military personnel and overseas voters. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 created new ways to register to vote and mandated that states maintain accurate voter registration lists. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 authorized federal funding for elections and established the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) to assist states in voter education, registration, and ballot standards.
While these amendments and laws have significantly expanded voting rights, there may be a need for further constitutional amendments to address ongoing concerns. For example, the Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder weakened the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by eliminating the preclearance requirement for states with a history of voter discrimination. Additionally, the issue of voter suppression continues to be a challenge, with some states enacting laws that make it harder for certain groups to vote. Ongoing efforts to protect and expand voting rights are necessary to ensure that all eligible citizens can exercise their right to participate in elections.
Understanding Pakistan's Constitution: The 23rd Amendment
You may want to see also
Congressional term limits
Proponents of congressional term limits argue that they would prevent representatives from becoming entrenched in Washington politics and losing touch with their constituents. Term limits could also reduce the incentive for incumbents to gerrymander districts in their favour, as they would not be concerned about staying in office indefinitely.
Opponents of term limits, however, argue that they could lead to a loss of institutional knowledge and experience in Congress. Senior members of Congress, particularly those in leadership positions, play an important role in guiding legislation and navigating procedural rules. If these individuals were term-limited out of office, it could potentially lead to a less effective legislative body.
Additionally, the implementation of term limits could reduce the accountability of outgoing members of Congress. Without the prospect of re-election, these representatives might be less accountable to their constituents and more susceptible to special interests or lobbying groups.
Despite these differing viewpoints, the idea of congressional term limits remains a popular topic of discussion and a frequently proposed constitutional amendment.
Amendment 15: Voting Rights and Race
You may want to see also
Campaign spending limits
The argument for campaign spending limits is that it would help to level the playing field for all candidates, regardless of their financial resources. Currently, candidates with access to more financial resources have an advantage in terms of advertising, staffing, and other campaign expenses. This can result in an uneven playing field, where the candidate with the most financial resources has an increased chance of winning the election.
In addition, campaign spending limits could help to reduce the influence of special interest groups and corporations on political campaigns. Without limits, candidates may be incentivized to seek funding from these groups, which could influence their policies and decisions if elected. With reasonable limits in place, candidates would be less reliant on financial contributions from special interests, potentially leading to more independent and representative decision-making.
However, implementing campaign spending limits is complex and raises several challenges. One challenge is defining what constitutes a reasonable limit and how it should be adjusted over time to account for economic changes. Another issue is monitoring and enforcing these limits, especially with the rise of digital and social media platforms, which have become significant channels for political advertising.
Despite these complexities, the push for campaign spending limits recognizes the need to address the role of money in politics and its potential to distort democratic processes. By setting reasonable limits, there is an opportunity to foster a more equitable and transparent political landscape, ensuring that elections are decided based on the merits of candidates' policies and ideas, rather than their financial resources.
Amendments That Never Made the Cut
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Supreme Court membership
The number of seats on the Supreme Court has been a topic of debate, with some arguing for a permanent limit of nine Justices. This proposal, known as the "Keep Nine" amendment, aims to prevent “court-packing” and maintain the independence of the judiciary. The Constitution does not specify the size of the Supreme Court, leaving this decision to Congress, which has altered the number of seats over time, ranging from five to ten Justices.
The "Keep Nine" amendment is supported by several senators, including Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and others, who argue that limiting the number of Justices is necessary to preserve the integrity of the Supreme Court and prevent political interference. They believe that an independent judiciary is crucial for upholding the rule of law and ensuring unbiased decisions that defend fundamental freedoms.
However, achieving this amendment is challenging. It requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate, followed by ratification by three-quarters of the states. Despite the difficulties, proponents of the "Keep Nine" amendment emphasize the importance of safeguarding the Supreme Court's independence and protecting it from partisan influences.
Another related issue is the proposal to impose term limits on Supreme Court Justices. While some scholars argue that a constitutional amendment is required for this, others suggest that an act of Congress could implement term limits. The debate around term limits adds another dimension to the discussion of Supreme Court membership and the potential need for constitutional amendments.
The Supreme Court plays a critical role in the constitutional system of government. As the highest court in the land, it serves as the final arbiter of justice, ensures each branch of government respects its limits, protects civil rights and liberties, and sets limits on democratic government to safeguard minorities from potential harm by popular majorities. These proposed amendments regarding Supreme Court membership aim to preserve the Court's independence and integrity, ensuring it can effectively fulfill its constitutional duties.
The Right to Vote: Women's Suffrage Amendment
You may want to see also
Electoral College
The Electoral College has been a topic of debate for many years, with some calling for its abolition or reform. The Electoral College is a body of electors who formally elect the President and Vice President of the United States. It is made up of 538 electors, with a candidate needing a majority of 270 votes to win the presidency. Each state is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its senators and representatives, and the District of Columbia is allocated three electors, as provided by the 23rd Amendment.
One of the main criticisms of the Electoral College is that it does not always reflect the popular vote. This has happened on five occasions, with the most recent being in 2016 when Donald Trump won the presidency despite Hillary Clinton receiving nearly three million more votes. This has led to calls for reform or abolition, with some arguing for a national popular vote or a proportional allocation of electors.
Another criticism is that the Electoral College gives an advantage to swing states and smaller states, as they receive more attention and resources from candidates due to their disproportionate influence in the Electoral College. This can result in the interests and issues of more populous states being overlooked.
Proposals for reform or abolition of the Electoral College have been made, including the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which aims to guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide. As of 2022, 16 states and the District of Columbia have joined the compact, collectively totalling 196 electoral votes. However, the compact will only take effect once it reaches 270 electoral votes.
While there is significant support for changing the Electoral College, there are also arguments in its defence. Some argue that it promotes stability and prevents fraud by requiring a distributed consensus for a candidate to win. The Electoral College also ensures that less populous states are represented and not overlooked in favour of more densely populated areas.
Overall, the Electoral College is a complex and contentious issue, with strong arguments on both sides. Any proposed amendment to the Electoral College would need to address these concerns and gain widespread public support to have a chance of ratification.
The Magna Carta's Legacy: Constitutional Amendments
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The process of amending the constitution is a lengthy one. Any member of Congress can propose an amendment, but it must be approved by two-thirds of the House and the Senate before being sent to the states for ratification.
Some recent proposals include fixing the number of Supreme Court justices to nine, establishing congressional term limits, requiring a balanced budget, repealing the federal income tax, lowering the voting age to 16, and limiting presidential pardon powers.
Yes, the Christian Amendment, first proposed in 1863, would have added an acknowledgment of the Christian God to the Constitution. It was proposed multiple times but never passed. Another example is the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, which was approved by Congress but only ratified by 16 states before its expiration date.
Some unique proposals include guaranteeing equitable schools, providing free or pay-what-you-can healthcare, abolishing the Electoral College, and addressing gun violence by limiting gun possession.
Amending the constitution is challenging due to the high bar set for ratification. An amendment must address a genuinely constitutional issue while garnering wide public support and overcoming partisan divisions. Additionally, most proposed amendments never make it out of congressional committees and only a fraction receive enough support for ratification.
