Sophie Kim-Yatter: Article V

Video

Written Component

Article V of the US Constitution proposes the amendment process. This was a vital part of the Constitution because people likely would have hated being unable to change the ways of the government and society in any way, especially as time progressed.

Despite not yet being used, the convention method for amendments was an essential part to the original Constitution. The drafters recognized that the congressional method was controlled completely by the federal government; therefore, it could not be relied on to keep the federal government in check. Thus, the convention method was included as it largely bypasses the federal government, which demonstrates more appeal to anti-federalists, who would have been against complete federal government power. 

Two main parts compose Article V. First the methods of amendment are presented, the first being congressional proposal, and the second being by convention. For the first, if ⅔ of each house of congress approves the proposed amendment, it then gets sent to the states. ¾ of the states must ratify the amendment in order to be added to the Constitution. The second method is the convention method, where if ⅔ of the states agree, a convention is called for proposing amendments. Once an amendment is developed and approved by the convention, it is then sent back to the states, where, as with the first method, ¾ of the states must ratify. The second part to this article discusses the two ways an amendment can be ratified, chosen by congress. Either state legislatures decide or states can call for a convention to decide whether or not to ratify. 

The first of two major matters of debate argues that amendments are not the most successful way to implement constitutional change. Backed up with evidence of specific amendments and bills, it is clear that the change amendments propose materializes despite ratification or lack thereof. The second matter of debate is that people are not following the Constitution by its original meaning (originalism). “Originalists,” per se, believe that all the problems with the amendment process, specifically discussing bias towards federal government and difficulty enacting amendments, would be eliminated if everyone stuck to the “original” meaning of the Constitution. 

The first matter of debate is the more persuasive of the two. I feel that the first had much more detailed evidence to prove its claim, mentioning several specific amendments and acts that support. The originalism claim (2) provides decent reasoning, but in the end, the point itself was not strong enough. It states that if the original meaning of the Constitution was followed, major problems would be solved. But it is highly unlikely that this would actually eliminate these issues, as more problems are likely to stem from this other “original” interpretation. 

The supreme court case of Coleman v. Miller discussed Article V, where Coleman’s side argued that a state can not ratify an amendment after an unreasonable amount of time has passed, nor if they had already rejected the amendment, both of which were done by the Kansas state legislature. The final decision of the case deemed that there is nothing in Article V that prevents ratification after rejection, nor does an amendment lose vitality over time. 

Based on the Coleman v. Miller case, along with matters of debate, Article V clearly has issues with specificity. I believe that it would be beneficial to amend this article in order to include more details about uncertainties, such as how long an amendment may remain active for, in order to avoid further confusion regarding this essential section of the Constitution. 

---

Tags: article, article-5, article-v, kim, kim-yatter, sophie, sophie-kim-yatter, sophie-kim-yatter-article-v, v, yatter