How many ways can the constitution be amended

But if you really want to understand how the United States Constitution changes—in practice, not just on paper—constitutional amendments are a small part of the story. The real action—in many ways, our real Constitution—is elsewhere, in the way the courts, Congress, the President, and the people in their daily lives have brought us the Constitution we have today.

The amendment process, however, has been criticized for having two defects. One is that it is too strict and therefore makes it too difficult to enact amendments. The other is that it is biased in favor of the federal government and therefore does not allow amendments that would limit the national government. If the original meaning were consistently followed, both of the defects would be eliminated. Some critics of originalism argue that the amendment process is too strict because it is difficult to secure approval by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states.

Therefore, these critics contend the Supreme Court should engage in nonoriginalist judicial interpretation to allow for modern circumstances and values to be incorporated into the Constitution. The amendment process, however, is not too strict to allow for constitutional change.

It is true that the process does require amendments to be supported by a consensus. See John O. Rappaport, Originalism and the Good Constitution The problem is not that the constitutional amendment process requires a consensus but that the Supreme Court often intervenes before a consensus can emerge. A consensus often takes a long time to develop. As a result, no amendment will be enacted, since the Court has already made a change. By contrast, if the original meaning were followed, the amendment process would have the opportunity to enact changes in the Constitution that are supported by a consensus.

This analysis helps to explain why so much constitutional change has occurred in the last three generations through judicial interpretation rather than the amendment process. For example, during the New Deal, the Roosevelt Administration did not attempt to pass constitutional amendments to give the federal government more regulatory power.

Instead, it attempted to pack the Supreme Court. There seems little doubt that the nation would have supported an amendment that conferred additional regulatory powers, but there is a good chance that the consensus requirement would have meant the federal government would have received less power than the Court eventually granted it.

A second problem with the amendment system is that its current operation is biased in favor of the federal government. The Constitution provides two methods for proposing amendments. While all of the existing amendments have been enacted through the congressional proposal method, in which two-thirds of each House of Congress proposes an amendment, no amendment has ever passed through the convention method. Under that method, two-thirds of the state legislatures can apply for Congress to call a convention that would then decide whether to propose an amendment.

The convention method was an essential part of the original Constitution. The drafters of the Constitution recognized that the congressional proposal method was controlled by the federal government.

Consequently, it could not be relied upon to reform federal governmental abuses. The drafters therefore placed the convention method into the Constitution, since this method largely bypasses the federal government.

Michael B. Commentary 53 Unfortunately, this amendment method is broken. Many people who favor constitutional amendments that would limit the federal government are nonetheless unwilling to use this method, because they fear what is called a runaway convention—a convention that is called to propose amendments on one subject but then proposes them on other matters.

For example, state legislatures might apply for a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment, but the convention might then decide to propose an amendment allowing school prayer. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until , and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the 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.

None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution.

Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. These are the Congressional method and the Constitutional Convention methods.

In theory the two houses first adopt a resolution indicating that they deem an amendment necessary. This procedure, however, has never actually been used. The U. Senate and the U. Amendment Proposal : Resolution proposing the nineteenth amendment. If at least two-thirds of the legislatures of the states make the request, Congress is then required to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments.

This provision, many scholars argue, allows for a check on the power of the Congress to limit potential constitutional amendments. The state legislatures have, in times past, used their power to apply for a national convention in order to pressure Congress into proposing a desired amendment.

A classic example of this was demonstrated starting in the late s. During that period a movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of U. Senators caused such proposals to regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called.

In response to this pressure the Senate finally relented and approved what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond the direct election of U. The President has no formal role in the constitutional amendment process.

As previously stated, the Constitution requires that at least two-thirds of the members present of both the House of Representatives and the Senate the agree to a joint resolution which proposes a constitutional amendment. However, in Hollingsworth v. Virginia , the Supreme Court held that it is not necessary to place constitutional amendments before the President for signature and that, by the same logic, the President is powerless to veto a proposed constitutional amendment.

After being officially proposed, a constitutional amendment must then be ratified either by the legislatures of at least three-fourths of the states, or by conventions in the same proportion of states. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution that have been ratified, Congress has specified the method of ratification through state conventions for only one: the 21 st Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in Most states hold elections specifically for the purpose of choosing delegates to such conventions.

New Mexico state law provides that the members of its legislature be the delegates at such a state ratification convention. Although a proposed amendment is effective after three-fourths of the states ratify it, states have, in many instances, ratified an amendment that has already become law, often for symbolic reasons.

The states unanimously ratified the Bill of Rights; the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery; the Fourteenth Amendment, providing for equal protection and due process; the Fifteenth Amendment, prohibiting racial discrimination in voting; and the Nineteenth Amendment, granting women a federal constitutional right to vote.

In several cases, the ratification process took over a century. The United States Constitution can be changed informally. Informal amendments mean that the Constitution does not specifically list these processes as forms of amending the Constitution, but because of change in society or judicial review changed the rule of law de facto.

These methods depend on interpretations of what the constitution says and on interpretive understanding of the underlying intent. This type of change occurs in two major forms: through circumstantial change and through judicial review. Sometimes society changes, leading to shifts in how constitutional rights are applied.

Current efforts by some state legislatures and other groups to amend the U. Constitution have brought forth questions about the process for doing so. Article V of the United States Constitution outlines basic procedures for constitutional amendment.

To date, Congress has submitted 33 amendment proposals to the states, 27 of which were ratified. The 27 th Amendment, which prevents members of Congress from granting themselves pay raises during a current session, was ratified in — years after it was first submitted to the states. The following steps must be completed for an amendment proposed by Congress to be added to the United States Constitution.

Step 1. Passage by Congress. Proposed amendment language must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses. Step 2. Notification of the states.