Although it is difficult to prove, the constitution of the United States of America is considered to be one of the most difficult constitution's to amend, as the political scientist Donald Lutz point out (Lutz 1994). Therefore the question arise whether there is a need to alter the amendment procedure, which is enshrined in Article V.
First I will give general ideas of Article V and outline the difficulties that making amendments difficult. Then I will look at arguments against making amendments easier. Following this, I will argue in favour of making amendments easier. My main argumentation will be based on the assumption that not the supermajority rule is the
problem, but the inner logic of Article V itself. Finally I will examine reform proposals, which could solve the problem.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. General considerations of Article V
3. Arguments against making amendments easier
4. Arguments in favour of making amendments easier
5. Reform proposals for the amendment process
6. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary objective of this work is to evaluate whether the United States Constitution should be altered to facilitate the amendment process, specifically focusing on the limitations and functional deficiencies of Article V.
- Analysis of the original intent and current functionality of Article V.
- Evaluation of conservative arguments regarding constitutional stability versus adaptability.
- Investigation into the systemic failure of the "convention" amendment method.
- Assessment of specific reform proposals to improve transparency and practicability in constitutional change.
Excerpt from the Book
Should the United States constitution be altered to make it easier to amend?
Drafting the constitution, the framers had to solve the balancing act how to deal with constitutional amendments. On the one hand, if "the constitution makes change too easy, there is a risk that the constitution will not structure politics, but will be hostage to it. But making change too difficult may cause political instability" (Griffin 1995). Finally, the framers decided to set high hurdles for constitutional changes, which becomes obvious through the fact that the constitution has been altered only twenty-seven times over two centuries. The main barrier to amend the constitution is enshrined in Article V of the constitution.
To begin with, Kathleen Sullivan argues, that politicization of the constitution is a bad idea. According to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “a constitution is not meant to embody a particular economic [and political] theory [but] made for people of fundamentally differing views” (Sullivan 1997: 64). The constitution provides a framework in which political parties and interest groups can fill in the framework according to their political views. Otherwise the constitution would become a playing field of political groups and the constitutional framework would run the risk to be changed after every change of government.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter introduces the difficulty of amending the U.S. Constitution and sets the stage for debating the necessity of reforming Article V.
2. General considerations of Article V: This section details the legislative hurdles established by the framers to maintain political stability and limit constitutional changes.
3. Arguments against making amendments easier: This chapter highlights concerns that a more flexible amendment process could lead to the politicization of the constitution and the entrenchment of short-term policy goals.
4. Arguments in favour of making amendments easier: This section argues that the current process is functionally defective, leading to judicial overreach as a substitute for legitimate constitutional change.
5. Reform proposals for the amendment process: This chapter discusses concrete alternatives, such as "state drifting," to bypass congressional veto power and restore an effective amendment mechanism.
6. Conclusion: The final chapter summarizes the argument that the current amendment process is flawed and requires structural reform to ensure future transparency.
Keywords
Article V, United States Constitution, Constitutional Amendment, Legislative Procedure, Supermajority, Constitutional Convention, Political Instability, Federal Government, Supreme Court, State Legislatures, Reform Proposals, Constitutional Design, Political Representation, Electoral College, State Drifting
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core issue discussed in this work?
The work examines whether the United States Constitution should be made easier to amend, focusing on the procedural difficulties and structural problems associated with Article V.
What are the primary themes of the document?
The document covers the original intent of the framers, the debate between constitutional flexibility and stability, the role of the Supreme Court, and proposed reforms for the amendment process.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to argue that the current amendment process is fundamentally flawed and to propose structural changes that would make the constitution more adaptable without sacrificing its role as a stable framework.
Which methodology is employed in this analysis?
The work utilizes a legal-theoretical approach, examining historical constitutional intent, normative arguments from political scientists, and an evaluation of specific reform mechanisms for Article V.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body evaluates the risks of over-amending, the failure of the convention method, and three-step reform proposals involving state voting weights and procedural changes.
Which keywords define this academic work?
Key terms include Article V, Constitutional Amendment, Federal Government, Supreme Court, State Legislatures, and Constitutional Design.
Why is the "convention" method considered ineffective?
The author notes that while national conventions were intended as an alternative path for amendments, the lack of clarity regarding their scope has rendered them practically unusable.
What is "state drifting" as proposed in the text?
State drifting is a reform proposal where states could draft and propose amendments without requiring congressional approval, preventing the federal government from vetoing changes to its own power.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Patrick Spieß (Autor:in), 2012, The United States constitution. Should it be altered to make it easier to amend?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/274318
