Simone Lawson
The Constitution of a country is a significant document that outlines the fundamental principles and laws governing the nation. It serves as the framework for the country's legal and governmental systems, shaping the rights and responsibilities of its citizens. Over time, there may be a need to amend the Constitution to reflect changing societal values, address gaps, or adapt to evolving circumstances. This process of amending the Constitution involves careful consideration and a well-defined procedure to ensure any changes made are thoughtful and widely accepted. The process of amending the US Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution and involves proposals by Congress and ratification by a specified number of states. This process has been utilised throughout US history to make changes to the Constitution, with the most recent amendment being the 27th Amendment, which restricted Congress's ability to change its pay while in session.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Allow non-U.S. citizens to be President | --- |
| In-person voting | --- |
| Transparency in government | --- |
| Universal healthcare | --- |
| Ratify the Equal Rights Amendment | --- |
| Raise the voting age to 21 | --- |
| Mandatory voting | --- |
| Term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court | --- |
| Parental leave | --- |
| Anti-racism and anti-cultural appropriation measures | --- |
| Remove the separation of powers clause | --- |
| Remove the preamble | --- |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Add term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court
The Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the structure and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as long as the justices retain their jobs, salaries, and independence. This means that Congress can determine the details of how the court is structured and what it does. For example, Congress can change the number of seats on the court or direct the justices to hear cases in lower federal courts.
Under this authority, Congress can make changes to establish term limits for the Supreme Court. While there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly allows for term limits for the Supreme Court, there is also nothing that explicitly prohibits them. The Constitution states that "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour", which suggests that judges cannot be arbitrarily fired but can be removed for bad behaviour or impeached.
To implement term limits, Congress could declare that only justices with fewer than a certain number of years of service, such as 18 years, can hear appellate cases. Senior justices would then continue to hear other cases, such as the handful of cases a year that the Court must hear as specified by the Constitution, such as disputes between states. This would effectively create a two-phase system for justices, with a phase of active service lasting a certain number of years followed by a senior phase for the remainder of their life term.
Congress could also establish a separate court with a different structure, including term limits for judges, that would have final appellate jurisdiction over all other cases. However, this could potentially undermine the idea of lasting legal precedent, as any future Congress and President could strip appellate jurisdiction from a court and replace it with one that is politically aligned with them.
Therefore, while there are options for Congress to implement term limits for the Supreme Court, there are also potential drawbacks and challenges to consider.
Stability Secrets: Unlocking the Power of Constitutional Isomers
You may want to see also
Remove the separation of powers
The separation of powers is a well-known concept derived from the text and structure of the US Constitution. The Founding Fathers divided the federal government's powers between three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch has specified duties that cannot be encroached upon by the others.
The Framers' experience with the British monarchy informed their belief that concentrating distinct governmental powers in a single entity would subject the nation's people to arbitrary and oppressive government action. They hoped that this structure would prevent tyranny from a single branch, lead to an effective government, and preserve the liberty of US citizens.
The Constitution's structure reflects the Framers' intent to create a strong national government. They borrowed ideas from ancient and existing governments, including the French noble and scholar Montesquieu, who advocated for a separation of powers structure.
However, the Constitution also implemented limits on the federal government's powers. The Supreme Court, for example, has held that Congress may not encroach upon the President's power by exercising an effective veto over the President's removal of an executive officer. Similarly, the President may not, by issuing an executive order, usurp the law-making powers of Congress.
Some US states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The President of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals, and members of the executive council served as judges in both Delaware and Pennsylvania.
To remove the separation of powers from the Constitution, amendments would need to be proposed and ratified. This process is outlined in Article V of the Constitution, which states that amendments may 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 the states. After an amendment is proposed, it is forwarded to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for processing and publication. The proposed amendment is then submitted to the states for their consideration, and it becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50).
George Mason's Constitution: A Flawed Foundation
You may want to see also
Include universal healthcare
The US Constitution does not explicitly outline a right to healthcare, and the Supreme Court has never interpreted the Constitution as guaranteeing a right to healthcare services from the government for those who cannot afford it. However, Congress has enacted statutes, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program, that establish and define specific statutory rights of individuals to receive healthcare services from the government.
In 2017, Congresswoman Betty McCollum introduced an amendment to the United States Constitution to guarantee all Americans access to healthcare. The amendment, known as America's Right to Health Care Amendment, proposed that "health care, including care to prevent and treat illness, is the right of all citizens of the United States and necessary to ensure the strength of the Nation." This amendment aimed to address the issue of healthcare being treated as a commodity driven by profit, often resulting in medical debt and financial hardship for individuals seeking treatment.
To include universal healthcare in the Constitution, the following steps would need to be taken:
- Proposal: An amendment may 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 the State legislatures.
- Submission: The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or call for a convention, depending on Congress's specifications.
- Ratification: For an amendment to become part of the Constitution, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 out of 50). When a State ratifies, it sends an original or certified copy of the State action to the Archivist of the United States.
- Certification: Once the required number of ratification documents is received, the OFR drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution.
- Publication: The certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large, serving as official notice that the amendment process is complete.
Including universal healthcare in the Constitution would ensure that access to quality, affordable healthcare is recognized as a basic human right for all Americans. It would also establish a federal responsibility to provide comprehensive healthcare for all citizens, addressing issues of coverage, accessibility, cost, accountability, and quality of healthcare services.
Understanding Fiduciary Duty Breaches in Ohio
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Amend the voting age
The 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on July 1, 1971, lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 years. This change was driven by increasing public opposition to the Vietnam War in the 1960s and early 1970s, which renewed debates over voting rights. The military draft age was set at 18, leading to a situation where citizens were old enough to be drafted to fight in a war but not old enough to vote on the country's involvement in it. This discrepancy gave rise to the slogan "old enough to fight, old enough to vote".
The push to lower the voting age gained momentum during this period, with young people engaging in political and social activism, and a youth rights movement emerging in response to the Vietnam War. There was also a recognition that young people were becoming more politically informed and educated, with increasing high school graduation rates and access to political information through new technologies.
The 26th Amendment states that "the right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age". This amendment faced legal challenges, with questions arising around representation at the polls for out-of-town college students, its applicability to other political institutions, and the validity of voter identification laws.
The process of amending the Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. To amend the voting age again, Congress would propose an amendment, which would then be forwarded to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for processing and publication. The proposed amendment would then be submitted to the states for their consideration and ratification. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution when it is ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50).
Due Process Denied: Rights, Courts, and Justice
You may want to see also
Remove restrictions on non-US citizens becoming President
The U.S. Constitution states that the President must be a natural-born citizen, at least thirty-five years of age, and a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years. The natural-born citizen clause has been interpreted to mean that only those born on American soil, except for children born to foreign ambassadors or hostile soldiers on U.S. soil, are eligible to become President. This interpretation has been supported by Supreme Court decisions and academic consensus.
However, there have been exceptions to this rule. For example, the presidential candidacies of Senator John McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal Zone, and Governor George Romney, who was born in Mexico, have been accepted. Additionally, the Constitution provided an exception for foreign-born persons who had immigrated to the colonies before it was adopted. This exception was made out of respect for distinguished revolutionary patriots who were born in a foreign land but had earned high honors in their adopted country.
Despite these exceptions, the requirement of being a natural-born citizen has been justified as a protection against ambitious foreigners and corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections. Some have argued that this requirement should be removed to allow naturalized citizens to become President. More than two dozen proposed constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress to relax this restriction. For example, Representative Jonathan Brewster Bingham introduced an amendment in 1974 to allow German-born Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to become eligible, and Senator Orrin Hatch proposed the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment in 2003 to allow Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger to be eligible.
While there have been efforts to amend the Constitution to remove the restriction on naturalized citizens becoming President, public opinion polls show that most Americans oppose such a change. A 2016 CBS News poll found that only 21% of Americans favored changing the Constitution to allow non-natural-born citizens to become President, while 75% were against it.
To amend the Constitution, Congress must propose an amendment in the form of a joint resolution, which does not require the President's signature or approval. After Congress proposes the amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (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 Director of the Federal Register adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it, as well as assembles an information package for the States. The proposed amendment is then submitted to the States for their consideration. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution once it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 out of 50).
Louisiana Purchase: Was it Constitutional?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. Amendments are proposed by Congress in the form of a joint resolution. After an amendment is proposed, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is responsible for administering the ratification process. A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 out of 50).
Congress has deleted several items from Madison's original Bill of Rights, including a proposed two-part Preamble that would have included part of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence, and a pre-Preamble that included the phrase "We the People". Madison's proposed Bill of Rights also included a separation of powers clause, which did not make it through the congressional review process, although a version of it survived in the Bill of Rights.
Some people suggest making the Constitution more direct, allowing non-U.S. citizens to be President, requiring Americans to vote in person, increasing transparency in government, and providing universal healthcare for all U.S. citizens. Others propose changes to the voting age, term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court, mandatory maternity leave, and dealing with issues of racism and cultural appropriation.
In addition to Congress and the Archivist of the United States, the Director of the Federal Register plays a key role in the amendment process. The Director of the Federal Register receives the original document of the proposed amendment from Congress and is responsible for processing, publication, and maintaining records. The Governors of each state also play a crucial role, as they formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or call for a convention, and the states ultimately ratify the proposed amendment.
