Introduction
There are many people who feel that it is wrong to amend the constitution as they view it as an expression of basic and timeless personal liberties. There have been only 27 changes to the Constitution since it was written in 1787 and the first ten amendments to the Constitution are called the Bill of rights – made to guarantee personal freedoms for citizens (Mulcrone, 2001). The Framers deliberately made the amendment process so difficult that the Constitution would not be changed frivolously (Armstrong, 2002).
Article V of the Constitution is devoted to the amendment process and provides two ways in which amendments may be proposed and adopted. In the first method, Congress proposes amendments that are approved by at least a two-thirds vote in both houses – the House of Representatives and the Senate. The States can then ratify the proposed amendments. The second method is less known and has never been used. This method requires Congress to call a constitutional convention to propose amendments when two-thirds of the States apply for such a convention (Rogers, 2007).
Philosophical viewpoint
The idea of accommodating and limiting legal and by inference, constitutional, change was not unique to the American Founders but was characteristic of views taken by philosophers over the previous two thousand years (Vile, 1992). Aristotle saw legal change chiefly as a means of introducing innovations pointed to by experience; Machiavelli, Gordon and Trenchard, and Montesquieu viewed constitutional change primarily as a matter of constitutional renewal or adaptation to changes in the habits of the people; Plato, Penn, and Rousseau suggested mechanisms for constitutional change while Machiavelli thought it could best be initiated by outstanding men (Vile, 1992).
Locke, Trenchard and Gordon, and Hume did not clearly distinguish between legal change and revolutionary change, and, only Rousseau and Penn appear clearly to have distinguished ordinary legal changes from constitutional changes (Vile, 1992). In short, the philosophical consensus has been that legal change should be both accommodated and limited.
Obstacles
Two major obstacles to the development of an amending mechanism were the belief that some principles should not be changed and the fear that changes in the law would undermine governmental stability by accustoming the citizens to continuous changes (Vile, 1992).
Historical
The first official action of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 towards amending the Constitution was the adoption of Resolution 17, which stated that the Constitution should contain some means for the amendment but did not include details (Rogers, 2007). The first reference to the use of a convention requested by the States is found in drafts of the Constitution kept by the Committee of Detail. Hamilton and others argued that Congress should also have the power to propose amendments, and the Convention approved of it. James Madison suggested that the national legislature be the sole authority to propose amendments.
This was adopted by the Convention (Rogers, 2007). When the Convention was reviewing the revisions made by the Committee of Style, George Mason opposed limiting the power to propose amendments to Congress. Gouverneur Morris and Elbridge Gerry responded by amending the article so that it now required a convention be called when two-thirds of the States applied for an amendment (Rogers, 2007).
Morris and Gerry’s motion was unanimously adopted. Roger Sherman expressed concern that the Constitution could be amended to take power away from smaller states, and therefore the clause stating “that no State, without its consent” could be deprived of “equal suffrage in the Senate” was added (Rogers, 2007). No further changes were made to the text of Article V, and the final version of the Constitution was adopted.
Article V
According to Article V of the Constitution, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall find it necessary, they can propose amendments to the Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, can call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which shall be ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States, or by three-fourths of the Convention provided that the Amendment does not take away privileges of any State in the Senate.
A proposed amendment can originate in Congress or in the States but State origination has never happened. All 27 amendments have started with a two-thirds vote of both the U.S. House and Senate (Armstrong, 2002). The 21st Amendment, the Repeal of Prohibition, came about as a result of a constitutional convention (Chism, 2005). The President’s signature is not necessary to ratify a constitutional amendment. Three-quarters of the state legislatures must ratify an amendment for it to become part of the Constitution. All of the Amendments but one (the Twenty-first which was approved by state ratification conventions) have been ratified by votes of the state legislatures (Armstrong, 2002).
Modern Significance of the Convention Clause
The Convention Clause has never been used to amend the Constitution. But it has played an important role in spurring Congress to amend the Constitution. A constitutional convention has tremendous potential as a way of proposing amendments that would enjoy significant popular support but that have not been proposed in Congress (Rogers, 2007). It will allow the people to have their say beyond the voice of the government.
According to a national survey conducted by Harris Interactive in 2005, the three most popular proposed amendments were a balanced budget amendment, an amendment requiring that judges only interpret and not make the law, and a congressional term limits amendment (Rogers, 2007). These are issues on which Congress has failed to act and is reluctant to act as they limit the powers of its members. In situations such as these, the Convention Clause provides an important means to adopt or force Congress to adopt amendments that are seen to be in the national interest by a large majority of the American population. Although the convention method for proposing amendments has never been used, the threat of a convention has sometimes spurred Congress to action.
Conclusion
Constitution has so far been amended for the following reasons: to increase or decrease the power of the National Government; to expand the electorate and its power; to reduce the Electorate’s Power; to limit State Government power, and to make structural changes in Government.
Bibliography
Mulcrone, Patricia (2001). McGraw-HIll’s GED: The Most Complete and Reliable Study Program for the GED Tests. McGraw-Hill’s GED. McGraw-Hill Professional.
Rogers, Kenneth James (2007). The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V. Constitutional Convention Amendment Process. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Volume 30, Issue 3.
Chism, Kahlil (2005). The Constitutional Amendment Process. Social Education. Volume 69, Issue 7.
Vile, R. John (1992). The Constitutional Amending Process in American Political Thought. Praeger Publishers. New York. Publication.
Armstrong, Rob (2002). Covering Government: A Civics Handbook for Journalists. Blackwell Publishing.