A second problem with the system of change is that its current operation is biased in favor of the federal government. The Constitution provides for two ways of proposing amendments. Although all existing amendments have been implemented under the congressional method of appointment, where two-thirds of each House of Congress propose an amendment, no amendment has ever been adopted by the convention method. Under this method, two-thirds of state lawmakers can ask Congress to convene a convention to decide whether or not to propose an amendment. It turned out that two of these amendments were rejected, but ten were ratified shortly after the adoption of the Constitution (the Bill of Rights). Accordingly, Article 5 was created to allow for the adoption of constitutional amendments. Few constitutional difficulties have arisen with regard to this method of introducing constitutional amendments, which has so far been used only successfully. When Madison introduced the proposals that became the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, he considered incorporating them into the text of the original instrument.8 Instead, the House decided to propose them as additional clauses, a method that has been followed ever since.9 She ignored a suggestion that both chambers should first decide that changes are needed. before considering specific proposals.10 In the 1920 national ban cases 11 The Court held that both houses of Congress indicated in their proposed amendments that they considered revision necessary. In the same case, it was also argued that the vote required to propose an amendment was a two-thirds vote of the members present – provided there was a quorum – and not a two-thirds vote of the general membership.12 The consent of the President is not required for a proposed amendment.13 Currently, the U.S. Archivist is required under the provisions of Section 1 of the United States Code for the responsible for managing the ratification process. 106b. The archivist officially informs the states by registered letter to the governor of each state that a change has been proposed.
[18] Each governor then formally submits the amendment to his state legislature (or ratification convention). When a state ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends to the archivist an original or certified copy of the government`s action. Upon receipt of the required number of ratifications by the States, it is the duty of the Archivist to issue a certificate proclaiming a certain duly ratified amendment and part of the Constitution. [e] The amendment and its instrument of ratification will then be published in the Federal Register and the United States Statutes at Large. This serves as an official message to Congress and the nation that the ratification process has been completed. [1] At the Constitutional Convention, there was much controversy over the procedure by which the document to be drafted at that time should be amended. Initially, it was decided that “provision should be made for the amendment [of the Constitution] whenever deemed necessary,” without the involvement of the congressional agency at all.1 In response to this instruction, the Detailed Committee submitted a section providing that Congress, at the request of legislators from two-thirds of the states, should convene a convention to amend the Constitution.2 After adoption 3, the article was quickly adopted at the request of drafters of completely different points of view. Some feared that the provision would allow two-thirds of the states to undermine the others,4 and others thought that Congress would be the first to recognize the need for change and that the matter would be left to the discretion of the states, meaning that no amendments would be proposed except those that expand the powers of the states.5 Madison`s proposal was accepted.
Empower Congress to propose amendments by two-thirds of the states, either on its own initiative or at the request of legislators.6 However, when this provision came back from the Style Committee, Governor Morris and Gerry succeeded in inserting language that provides for a convention at the request of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states.7 Finally, Article V, while stating: The manner in which the Constitution can be amended, however, has made two things immutable – even through the difficult process of amendment. The first is that “no state shall be deprived of its equal right to vote in the Senate without its consent.” Thus, each state will have the same number of senators, regardless of the number of members of Congress or other states that wish to change this part of our system (unless a state agrees to accept a smaller number of senators). Article V also says, in language that is difficult to follow and has no legal effect today, that until 1808, no amendment could restrict the slave trade – a reminder that there are parts of the Constitution that we can be grateful to have been amended. The view that the Article V amendment process is the only legitimate means of achieving constitutional change is, as constitutional expert Joel K. Goldstein, “challenged by numerous widely accepted court decisions that have introduced new meaning into constitutional language by departing from original intentions, expectations, or meanings.” It also highlights how constitutional institutions, regardless of judicial activity and the changes brought about by the Article V process, have evolved “to adopt forms that are not consistent with what the founders imagined or the language they wrote.” [33] However, the amending procedure is not too strict to allow for a constitutional amendment. It is true that the process requires that amendments be supported by consensus. But there are good reasons to demand such support, such as preventing the adoption of constitutional provisions that a significant minority of the country strongly opposes, which would undermine the nation`s fidelity to the constitution. See John O. McGinnis and Michael B. Rappaport, Originalism and the Good Constitution (2013).
Unfortunately, this method of editing is broken. However, many people who support constitutional amendments that would restrict the federal government are not prepared to use this method because they fear a so-called out-of-control convention – a convention that proposes amendments on one issue but then proposes amendments on other issues. For example, state legislators could ask for a convention to pass a balanced budget change, but the convention could then decide to propose an amendment that allows prayer in schools. In addition, Article 5 states that no amendment may deprive a State of its full representation in the United States Senate. Whenever two-thirds of both chambers deem it necessary, Congress shall propose amendments to this Constitution or, at the request of the legislators of two-thirds of each State, convene a convention to propose amendments valid in all respects within the framework of this Constitution in both cases. if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the individual states or by three-fourths conventions, either form of ratification may be proposed by Congress; However, any amendment which may be made before the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any way affect the first and fourth sentences of the ninth sections of the first article; and that no state shall be deprived of its equal right to vote in the Senate without its consent. The guarantee of equal electoral rights in the Senate is undoubtedly subject to change by the procedures described in the article. [25] Mader submits that the armour provision can be amended because it is not “self-rooted”, i.e.
it does not contain any provisions that prevent its own amendment. Thus, according to Mader`s argument, a two-stage amendment procedure could repeal the provision preventing the amendment of the equality of vote provision and then repeal the equality of suffrage provision itself. [27] Mader compares the provision preventing the amendment of the equality of suffrage clause to the unratified Corwin Amendment, which contains a self-entrenched and immutable provision. [27] Law professor Richard Albert also believes that the equality of vote provision could be changed through a “double amendment” procedure, unlike in the United States. Constitution with other constitutions that explicitly protect certain provisions against amendments and are themselves protected against amendments. Another jurist, Akhil Amar, argues that the equality of suffrage provision could be changed through a two-step process, but describes this process as a “clever ploy.” [28] The unusual change is the Twenty-seventh Amendment. It was proposed in 1789 with the original Bill of Rights and ratified by half a dozen states within a few years – and then largely ignored. But article V is silent on the time frame within which three-quarters of States must ratify a proposed amendment. From time to time, another state added its ratification. Finally, in 1992, more than two hundred years after the amendment was first proposed, ratifications finally reached the three-quarters line, and the twenty-seventh amendment has since been considered part of the Constitution.