Understanding The Constitutional Amendment Process

The process of amending the US Constitution is a difficult and time-consuming endeavour. It has been criticised for being too strict and biased in favour of the federal government. The authority to amend the Constitution is derived from Article V, which outlines two avenues for initiating the process. Firstly, two-thirds of state legislatures can request that Congress call a Constitutional Convention, although this has never occurred. Alternatively, Congress can propose an amendment in the form of a joint resolution, which must then be passed by two-thirds of both houses. Following this, three-fourths of state legislatures must ratify the amendment for it to become part of the Constitution. The Archivist of the United States is responsible for administering the ratification process, and the final certification is published in the Federal Register.

Explore related products

American Constitutional Law, Volume II: The Bill of Rights and Subsequent Amendments

$105.04 $150

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

The Democracy Amendments: Constitutional Reforms to Save the United States

$12.92 $24.21

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

$9.99 $9.99

The People’s Constitution: 200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union

$18.4 $45

Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause (Constitutional Law Series)

$3.99

The role of the Archivist of the United States

The Archivist of the United States is the head and chief administrator of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The role of the Archivist is to plan, develop, and administer all programs and functions of NARA. The Archivist is responsible for the supervision and direction of the National Archives, including the preservation of government records and making them available to the public.

The Archivist plays a crucial role in the constitutional amendment process. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist is responsible for administering the ratification process. The Archivist receives original or certified copies of state actions on the proposed amendment and conveys them to the Director of the Federal Register. Once the required number of authenticated ratification documents is received, the Archivist certifies 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 of the completion of the amendment process.

In addition to their role in the amendment process, the Archivist also has duties related to the custody of important documents, such as state ratifications of amendments, Electoral College documents, and joint resolutions and acts of Congress signed into law. The Archivist ensures that Federal Government entities are creating and storing records properly and brings these records to NARA to be preserved and made accessible to the public.

The Archivist of the United States is appointed by the President and has a significant role in maintaining the historical record of the nation and ensuring the smooth functioning of the amendment process. They are supported by a team of specialists, technicians, conservators, and volunteers who work together to preserve and provide access to the country's important records.

Congress proposes an amendment

The process of amending the United States Constitution is derived from Article V of the Constitution. The process is deliberately difficult and time-consuming. The first step is for Congress to propose an amendment, which requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is done in the form of a joint resolution, which does not require the signature or approval of the President.

Once the joint resolution has passed, it is forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the resolution and publishes it in slip law format. An information package is then assembled for the States. This package includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification.

The proposed amendment is then submitted to the States for their consideration. The Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is responsible for administering the ratification process. The Archivist sends 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 Congress's specifications.

The amendment becomes part of the Constitution once it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 out of 50 States). 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 U.S. Statutes at Large, serving as official notice to Congress and the Nation that the amendment process is complete.

In summary, the process of Congress proposing an amendment involves securing a two-thirds majority vote in both chambers, passing a joint resolution, forwarding the resolution to the OFR for processing and publication, submitting the proposed amendment to the States, and obtaining ratification from three-fourths of the States. This process ensures that any changes made to the Constitution are carefully considered and broadly supported.

Ratification by three-fourths of the States

The process of amending the United States Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. The process begins with a proposal for an amendment, which can be initiated 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. Once an amendment is proposed, it must be ratified to become part of the Constitution.

Once a proposed amendment is ratified by the required number of state legislatures, the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) verifies the receipt of authenticated ratification documents. The OFR then 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 event witnessed by various dignitaries, including the President on some occasions. The certification of an amendment is a significant moment as it signifies the completion of the arduous task of amending the Constitution. The Constitution was designed to be challenging to amend, ensuring its longevity and stability.

It is worth noting that, while the process of ratification by three-fourths of the states has been outlined, Congress has the discretion to determine the method of ratification for each proposed amendment. In the case of the Twenty-First Amendment, Congress specified the alternative method of ratification by conventions in three-fourths of the states, rather than state legislatures.

Explore related products

The First Amendment: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook) (Aspen Casebook Series)

$326 $326

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$140

The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic

$15.99 $26.99

American Constitutional Law: Introductory Essays and Selected Cases

$143.59 $180

The United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights with Amendments: Large Print Edition (Annotated)

$9.99

The Constitutional Amending Process in American Political Thought

$95

The role of the Supreme Court

The United States Constitution outlines a detailed amendment process in Article Five. This article grants Congress the power to propose and enact amendments, with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses required to propose an amendment and a three-quarters ratification across state legislatures or conventions to enact it. However, the Supreme Court, as the pinnacle of the judicial branch, also plays a critical role in the constitutional amendment process, albeit indirectly.

The Supreme Court's primary function in relation to constitutional amendments is to interpret their meaning and ensure their compatibility with existing constitutional provisions. While the Court cannot directly initiate or block an amendment, its power of judicial review allows it to shape the understanding and application of amendments once they become part of the Constitution. This interpretive role is crucial, as it clarifies the scope and impact of amendments, resolving ambiguities and providing guidance on their implementation.

The Court's role in interpreting constitutional amendments often involves analysing their text, historical context, and underlying intent. Through this process, the Court can determine how an amendment should be understood and applied in practice. For example, the Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting amendments such as the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech and religion, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law. The Court's rulings on these amendments have had a profound impact on American society, shaping everything from political discourse to social policies.

In addition to interpreting amendments, the Supreme Court also ensures that they comply with the Constitution's fundamental principles. This includes examining whether an amendment violates core constitutional provisions, such as those protecting individual rights or outlining the separation of powers. If a conflict arises between an amendment and existing constitutional principles, the Court may need to intervene and determine how to resolve the discrepancy. In doing so, the Court acts as a guardian of the Constitution's integrity, ensuring that amendments reinforce rather than undermine its foundational values.

The Supreme Court's role in the constitutional amendment process extends beyond the initial interpretation and implementation of amendments. Over time, the Court may revisit and re-evaluate its interpretations, adapting them to changing societal contexts and understandings. This dynamic aspect of constitutional interpretation allows the Court to ensure that amendments remain

Originalism and the amendment process

Originalism is a legal theory that bases the interpretation of constitutional, judicial, and statutory text on the original understanding of the text at the time of its adoption. Originalism is conservative in that it seeks to conserve the meaning of the Constitution as it was written. Originalism is focused on process, not substance, and originalists argue for democratic modifications of laws through the legislature or constitutional amendment. Originalism is not concerned with contemporary political consequences.

Originalism is often contrasted with the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that a constitution should evolve and be interpreted based on the context of the current times. Living constitutionalists complain that the original understanding of the US Constitution is impossible to know because the document is too old and cryptic. However, originalists argue that the original meaning of old and difficult texts can be determined, as is done in the study of literature.

Originalism was proposed by jurist Robert Bork in his 1971 law review article, "Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems", published in The Yale Law Journal. Bork noted that without specification in a constitutional text, judges are free to input their own values while interpreting a constitution. To avoid this, Bork suggested that judges follow the original meaning of the text, thus avoiding making any fundamental value choices.

Originalism has been criticised by some who argue that it leads to politically conservative results. However, others argue that originalism is a theory focused on process, not politics. Originalism has also been criticised by those who argue that the original intent of the Founding Fathers is indiscernible and that the text can only be understood in present terms.

The amendment process in the US is very difficult and time-consuming. A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by three-quarters of the states. The US Constitution has been amended only 27 times since it was drafted in 1787, indicating the difficulty of the amendment process. Originalists support democratic modifications of laws through the legislature or constitutional amendment, and originalism can provide a framework for interpreting new amendments in the context of the Constitution's original meaning.

Frequently asked questions