Introduction
The American Constitution is considered to be the country’s highest law. These issues led to the necessity for the constitution, which defines the framework of the national government in its seven articles. The concept of division of powers, in which the federal government is separated into three branches, the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature, is embodied in the first three articles (Mazzone, 2018). Federalism is embodied in Articles IV, V, and VI, which detail the duties of state and local governments, the state’s connections with the central government, and the collaborative process of amending the constitution. Article VII lays down the ratification procedures. Notably, significant national and global changes have necessitated a renewed look into the U.S. constitution to align it with people’s needs. The amendment process, as detailed in Article V, and the ratification procedures require crucial changes.
The Issue: The Amendment Process
Constitutional amendments play a crucial role in ensuring that a country’s constitution addresses the immediate and future needs of the citizens. As national and global economic, social, and governance changes continue to determine the fate of states, it has become increasingly important to understand and introduce key amendments in the U.S. constitution. Almost everyone has a suggestion for how to change the U.S. Constitution to solve a flaw in the governmental structures or to change the existing set of safeguards for personal rights. Nevertheless, Mazzone (2018) argues that there is little value in considering such changes without first overcoming Article V’s tremendous obstacles. The article had remained unedited for many decades, limiting the ability of U.S. citizens to enjoy reforms that address emerging needs.
The process for amending the joint governing agreement is outlined in the Constitution’s Article V. In essence, 38 legislative bodies must approve an amendment after it is put forth by either 67 congressmen or 288 house representatives or by 34 states (Mazzone, 2018). Understandably, there are significant variations in the population distributions in each state, with the smallest states having fewer people than the large states. This implies that a large proportion of the people living in cities would need to consent to amend the Constitution while the minorities may not be fully represented. However, it is important to note that this applies only if all the states with the fewest people vote against it. In addition, the ratification process requires a significantly large percentage of state legislatures to consent for the changes to take effect. These lengthy and slow processes have contributed to stalled amendments, calling for necessary and speedy interventions.
The Nature of the Problem
The constitutional requirements for amendment and ratification pose a serious problem to law reforms. Notably, the first third of U.S. history is the time when most amendments were made and significant laws enacted. The two key amendments—defending states against legal action and choosing the president and his deputy together—were approved within a short period in succession. After these amendments, very few laws have been passed, despite the increasing need for constitutional reforms. Following the Civil War, the three civil and human rights amendments were passed, and the rebellious states had to ratify them to rejoin the Union, while the 12 others went into effect in the 1900s (Mazzone, 2018). In addition, the lengthy period taken to ratify the 27th amendment introduced with the Bill of Rights reveals that constitutional changes have become rare in the 21st century.
The constitution has to be changed more than ever, but doing so has been harder. Evidently, the men who wrote the constitution in the 18th century had no foresight into the issues America would face in later years. The further the congress gets from Constitutional reforms, the more amendments should be required to keep it current with technological advances, social expectations, and governance. Mazzone (2018) argues that the founders did not anticipate that the House of Representatives would willingly cede so much of its law-making authority to the judiciary and the executive, which has necessitated constitutional amendments as the only route to handle the nation’s critical issues, such as immigration laws. In essence, the amendment process needs to be changed to facilitate fast ratification to ensure that the constitution addresses emerging technological issues that significantly affect the lives of Americans.
Benefits and Success of the Proposed Change
The proposed amendment process changes would successfully facilitate law reforms where other initiatives, such as judicial interventions, have failed. According to Mazzone (2018), the American political system operates under the assumption that the constitution can never be altered. Representatives of the people act without concern that a constitutional change could limit their authority or reverse their decisions. Fundamentally, constitutional reform can no longer solve the issues in our democratic system. No matter how serious a problem may be or how much support there may be for reform, changing the constitution is not seen as a practical solution for enhancing the political system. Therefore, altering Article V’s provisions to give congress and the people more power to effect crucial changes will introduce regulatory measures to the political system and contribute to increased accountability of government agencies.
Potential Opposition
While the citizens and congress may be open to the proposed amendments to the constitutional reform process, the judiciary would most likely oppose the modifications. This conflict primarily would emanate from the undue powers that courts have obtained as the legislature has become less influential due to the limitations posed by Article V. Courts now have the authority to enact reforms they deem beneficial under the guise of interpreting the constitution (Mazzone, 2018). The fear of losing some of its power concerning constitutional interpretation and enactment of crucial laws would cause the judges to oppose the changes. However, the resistance can be overcome by involving all stakeholders to evaluate the challenges facing Americans and analyze the potential solutions to ease the amendment and ratification procedures.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the U.S. constitution is regarded as the most significant legal document that defines legal, social, and governance issues. Since its development in the 18th century, several amendments were implemented in the 19th and 20th centuries, with minimal reforms implemented in the 21st century. As national and global technological changes continue to shape the lives of Americans, it has become increasingly important to address the requirements for constitutional amendments as detailed in Article V of the constitution. The judiciary would probably oppose the changes for fear of losing its control over law reforms. The proposed change will give congress and the American citizens more power to determine the course of the nation and ensure that the constitution addresses emerging issues. Consequently, the constitution will more effectively serve the people as it seizes from being viewed as a sacred unchangeable document to a legal framework that can be altered as needed.
Reference
Mazzone, J. (2018). Amending the amendment procedures of Article V. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy, 13(2), 18-30. Web.