Constitutional Amendments: Valid Arguments Explored

The process of amending the US Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. This process has been used to introduce amendments that have significantly altered the country's political landscape, such as the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for the popular election of Senators, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees a range of constitutional rights, including procedural due process, individual rights, and substantive due process. The validity of constitutional amendment arguments can be assessed through the lens of these processes and their impact on the balance of power between the federal government and the states, as well as the protection of fundamental rights. For example, the Tenth Amendment has been invoked in Supreme Court decisions to determine if the federal government has overstepped its bounds, while the Equal Rights Amendment, which sought to prohibit gender discrimination, was rejected despite strong public support.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $14.95

May It Please the Court : The First Amendment: Live Recordings and Transcripts of the Oral Arguments Made Before the Supreme Court in Sixteen Key First Amendment Cases

$19.95 $59.95

An Argument for the Prohibitory Constitutional Amendment...

$21.99

War On Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech—And Why They Fail

$13.79 $14.99

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 Constitution of the United States

$1.5

The Seventeenth Amendment

The amendment was proposed by the 62nd Congress in 1912 and became part of the Constitution on April 8, 1913, after ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Sitting senators were not affected until their existing terms expired. The transition began with two special elections in Georgia and Maryland, followed by the November 1914 election. It was completed on March 4, 1919, when the senators chosen in the November 1918 election took office.

Runaway convention

The "runaway convention" argument against amending the US Constitution is a long-standing one, first popularised in the 1960s and 1970s by left-leaning politicians and activists to block amendments overruling liberal Supreme Court decisions. It is now used by both sides of the political spectrum.

The argument centres on the idea that a convention called to propose amendments to the Constitution, also known as an Article V convention, could become a “runaway convention" that exceeds its scope. This could happen if the convention is not limited to a particular subject matter and is therefore free to make proposals on any topic it chooses. The risk of a "runaway convention" is seen as particularly high given that Congress only has the power to call the convention and not to control or regulate it.

However, there are several arguments against the "runaway convention" scenario. Firstly, it is important to note that an Article V convention has never been held, so the risks of it running away are purely theoretical. Secondly, the makeup and basic procedures of an Article V convention are well-established, and it is highly unlikely that any proposal outside the convention's authority would be successful. Thirdly, delegates to an Article V convention would be appointed based on their pledge to abide by the limitations set forth by their state, and states could attach penalties for any delegate who failed to do so. Finally, any amendments proposed by a "runaway convention" would still need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, which is more than the number of states required to call the convention in the first place.

While the "runaway convention" argument has been used to block attempts to amend the Constitution, it is worth considering that the Framers of the Constitution envisioned Article V as a potent check on federal power. The grassroots Convention of the States Foundation seeks to use Article V to propose amendments that would limit excessive federal power.

The Bill of Rights

The first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights outline various rights of the people, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to a jury trial, and due process of law. The Ninth Amendment emphasises that the listing of certain rights does not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people. The Tenth Amendment reinforces federalism by stating that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states or the people.

The process of amending the US Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. While it does not detail the ratification process, it grants authority to the Archivist of the United States to administer the process. The Congress proposes amendments in the form of a joint resolution, which is sent to the states for their consideration. Once an amendment is ratified by three-fourths of the states, it becomes a valid part of the Constitution.

Explore related products

Constitutional Amendment Manual: Containing Argument, Appeal, Petitions, Forms of Constitution (Classic Reprint)

$30.57

The Second Amendment

$5.99 $5.99

Argument in Favor of the Proposed Constitutional Amendment Permitting the General Court to Classify Property for the Purpose of Taxation (Classic Reprint)

$29.97

The First Amendment and Related Statutes: Problems, Cases and Policy Arguments (University Casebook Series)

$71.09 $240

The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms

$20.93 $28.95

The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic

$17.59 $26.99

The Tenth Amendment

The text of the amendment states that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, it emphasizes that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution belong to the states or the people. This serves as a reminder that the federal government's powers are limited to those explicitly outlined in the Constitution.

However, the Tenth Amendment faced criticism and decline during the New Deal era and the Civil Rights era. The expansion of the national government's role led to a shrinking of the domain "reserved to the States or the People." Additionally, during the Civil Rights era, the Tenth Amendment was associated with states' assertions of rights to resist civil rights claims and enforce racial inequality. As a result, the amendment was seen as speaking to the past rather than the present or future.

Despite this, the Tenth Amendment gained renewed attention in the 1990s as part of the Supreme Court's New Federalism, indicating its enduring significance in shaping the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

The ERA Amendment

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the US Constitution that seeks to guarantee equal rights for women. The ERA would forbid federal and state governments from denying individuals equal rights on the basis of sex.

The ERA was first introduced in Congress in 1972, where it received bipartisan support and passed both chambers with a two-thirds majority. The amendment was then sent to the states for ratification, with a seven-year deadline. Within a year, 30 of the required 38 states had ratified the ERA. However, the momentum slowed due to opposition from conservative activists and the emerging religious right. Despite this, the ERA continued to gain support, and by 2020, 38 states had ratified the amendment.

The process of amending the Constitution is outlined in Article V of the Constitution. An amendment becomes part of the Constitution once it is ratified by three-quarters of the states (38 out of 50). The ratification process is administered by the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). However, there has been controversy over the validity of some states' ratifications of the ERA, with some states rescinding their initial support. The Supreme Court has ruled that the question of ratification deadlines is a "political question" for Congress to decide, rather than the courts.

The ERA has been a contentious issue, with supporters arguing that it is necessary to guarantee equal rights for women and ensure that the Constitution explicitly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. Opponents, however, have argued that the ERA could lead to unintended consequences and infringe on certain freedoms. The debate around the ERA highlights the complex nature of the constitutional amendment process and the ongoing struggle for women's rights in the United States.

Frequently asked questions