Malcolm Rivera
The United States Constitution was written to endure for ages to come, and as a result, the process of amending the document is a difficult task. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times since it was drafted in 1787, and the complex process requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Some argue that the Constitution is out of touch with contemporary America and that the formal amendment process should be made easier to facilitate pro-democracy changes. However, others caution against making it too easy to amend the Constitution, as it could become a tool for parties in power to exploit.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Age | The Constitution is over 230 years old and may be out of touch with contemporary America. |
| Difficulty of the amendment process | The process is very difficult and time-consuming. |
| Lack of political incentive | Basic maintenance-style amendments are rare as they do not bring in votes or help politicians win elections. |
| Polarization | Amendments are often blocked by opposition parties, making most proposals dead on arrival. |
| Potential for abuse | A lower bar for amendments could allow authoritarian demagogues to pass negative changes. |
| Potential for positive change | Lowering the bar could enable pro-democracy changes. |
| Starting point for amendments | Letting state legislatures propose amendments would make it easier to get good ideas on the table. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Constitution is out of touch with contemporary America
The United States Constitution was written "to endure for ages to come". However, the very difficulty of amending it has led to the belief that it is out of touch with contemporary America. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times since 1787, and the last time Congress proposed a successful amendment was in 1971. This has led to politicians and courts attempting to sneak informal amendments into ordinary legislation or court decisions, which is counter to the purpose of the Constitution.
The amendment process is complex and time-consuming. A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. This is a difficult threshold to cross, as anything favoured by one set of national politicians is often opposed by another. This has led to many proposed amendments never coming to fruition, even if they would be beneficial. For example, amendments to introduce congressional term limits and a balanced budget have been suggested but not successfully implemented.
Some have suggested that the process could be improved by holding a constitutional convention every 20-40 years to consider amendments. This would lower the political cost of proposing an amendment and would not require the individual states to vote on an amendment. Others have suggested that state legislatures should be able to propose amendments, which would allow for a broader range of ideas to be considered.
However, there are also concerns that making it easier to amend the Constitution could lead to negative consequences. For example, it could become a tool for political parties to exploit, with the risk of authoritarian demagogues gaining popularity and passing amendments that could fundamentally change the country.
Amending the Constitution: The Legislative Branch's Role
You may want to see also
The amendment process is difficult and time-consuming
The United States Constitution was written "to endure for ages to come", as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the early 1800s. The framers made amending the document a difficult task on purpose. The Constitution has been amended only 27 times since it was drafted in 1787, including the first 10 amendments adopted four years later as the Bill of Rights.
The amendment process is very difficult and time-consuming. A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states. This is a very high bar to clear, and it has been noted that the difficulty of amending the Constitution has led to political fixes being sneaked into ordinary legislation or court decisions. For example, the ERA Amendment did not pass the necessary majority of state legislatures in the 1980s.
Another option to start the amendment process is for two-thirds of state legislatures to ask Congress to call a Constitutional Convention. However, this has never happened. A retired federal judge, Malcolm R. Wilkey, called for a new convention, arguing that the Constitution has been corrupted by the system, leading to gridlock and excessive influence by interest groups.
Some people argue that the Constitution is too hard to amend and that this sends the demand for constitutional change into the wrong channels. However, others believe that the difficulty of amending the Constitution is necessary, especially in a polarized society, to ensure that any changes have broad support across the country.
While some argue for lowering the political cost for consideration of an amendment, others worry about the risk of authoritarian demagogues gaining popularity and passing amendments that could change everything.
Texas Constitution Amendments: Who Ratifies Changes?
You may want to see also
The risk of authoritarian demagogues passing amendments
The United States Constitution was designed to be a challenging document to amend, with Chief Justice John Marshall writing in the early 1800s that it was "to endure for ages to come". Amending the Constitution is a complex and lengthy process, requiring a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. This high bar is intended to safeguard the document from becoming a tool for partisan interests and transient political passions.
However, this complexity also carries risks. The difficulty of amending the Constitution can hinder necessary changes that would improve the system. Basic maintenance-style amendments, for instance, are rare despite their potential benefits. Furthermore, the current process allows for the accumulation of power by authoritarian figures. The election of Donald Trump and his consolidation of power within the Republican Party serve as a potent example of this risk. Trump's administration has been characterised by competitive authoritarianism, where opposition carries significant personal and professional costs. This has resulted in self-censorship and a sidelining of critics, threatening the health of American democracy.
Trump's presidency underscores the dangers of an authoritarian demagogue exploiting the challenges of amending the Constitution to entrench their power and pursue an agenda that undermines democratic norms. Trump has successfully weakened democratic institutions, manipulated rules to his personal advantage, and utilised executive orders of dubious constitutionality. The normalisation of such actions could pave the way for further democratic backsliding and the establishment of an autocracy.
The risk of authoritarian demagogues exploiting a rigid amendment process highlights the delicate balance between preserving the Constitution's integrity and adapting it to modern democratic needs. While the Constitution's endurance is essential, the challenges of amending it can inadvertently provide a pathway for authoritarians to consolidate power and subvert democratic ideals. This tension underscores the importance of periodically reviewing and updating the Constitution to ensure it remains a living document that serves the interests of all Americans while guarding against authoritarian threats.
The First Amendment: A Historic Constitution Change
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![The First Amendment: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook) (Aspen Casebook Series)](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61p49hyM5WL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The polarised nature of society and the need for broad support
The US Constitution was written to "endure for ages to come". Amending the Constitution is intentionally difficult, requiring a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and subsequent ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures. This high bar is in place to ensure that the Constitution is not manipulated by those in power and to prevent it from becoming a tool for political parties to exploit.
However, the challenge of amending the Constitution has resulted in a lack of amendments that reflect contemporary American society. The last successful amendment proposed by Congress was in 1971, over 50 years ago. This has led to politicians and courts attempting to incorporate informal amendments into ordinary legislation or court decisions, which undermines the purpose of the Constitution as the governing document.
In a polarised society, it is understandable that constitutional change is challenging and requires broad support. Americans are divided on fundamental issues, and it is crucial to prevent a local majority from significantly altering the government's structure or imposing new constraints. Lowering the standards for amending the Constitution is not the solution.
Instead, it has been proposed that the process should be "flipped on its head". By allowing state legislatures to propose amendments, it would become easier to bring good ideas to the table and assess their support. Retaining the tough voting rules of Article V would ensure that bad ideas do not succeed while increasing the possibility of beneficial amendments. This approach could make the written Constitution more effective and relevant to modern times.
Overall, while the polarised nature of society justifies the need for broad support in amending the Constitution, the current challenges have led to a disconnect between the document and contemporary American society. Flipping the amendment process can help address this issue without compromising the high standards and safeguards intended by the Founding Fathers.
The Power to Vote on Amendments
You may want to see also
The role of state legislatures in proposing amendments
The United States Constitution has established two methods through which amendments may be proposed. One of these methods involves two-thirds of state legislatures (34 out of 50) applying to Congress to call for a constitutional convention for proposing amendments. This method has never been used, with all 27 amendments to date being proposed by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress.
State legislatures play a crucial role in proposing amendments through the constitutional convention method. This process begins with state legislatures applying to Congress for a convention. Legislators from multiple states may meet to discuss this process, as seen in the 2013 meeting at Mount Vernon involving legislators from 32 states. Following this, Congress calls for a convention for proposing amendments.
The role of state legislatures continues after the proposing of amendments, as the proposed amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures (38 out of 50) to become law. This process ensures that any changes to the Constitution reflect the will of the majority of states and protects against hasty or unilateral amendments.
In some states, the legislature can play a unique role in the amendment process. For example, in Massachusetts, the state's general court can refer an alternative substitute measure to compete with a proposed citizen initiative on the ballot. This process allows the legislature to present an alternative to a proposed amendment, providing voters with options and additional perspectives.
Additionally, some states have established commissions with the authority to propose amendments to their state constitutions. For instance, Florida has the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission and the Constitution Revision Commission, which convene every 20 years. These commissions provide an alternative pathway for proposing amendments, demonstrating the evolving nature of the amendment process and the important role of state legislatures in driving constitutional change.
The Long Road to Ratification: Constitutional Amendment
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The US Constitution was written to endure for ages to come. To ensure it would last, the framers made amending the document a difficult task. A proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
Many analysts and citizens believe that the Constitution, which is more than 230 years old, is out of touch with contemporary America. The formal amendment process should be made easier, not by lowering standards, but by flipping the process on its head.
Some suggestions include holding a constitutional convention every 20-40 years to consider amendments, and letting state legislatures propose amendments to make it easier to get good ideas on the table.
