article-5

Articles 5, 6, and 7

Video

Written Component

During the Constitutional Convention, delegates from around the new United States of America came together to formulate a strong nation to replace the weak confederacy that emerged after the Revolutionary War. Article Five of said Constitution was written to give the country the ability to change as the world around it changed. Article Six was created to hold up the financial reputation of America by transferring debts, as well as sustain the standards set in earlier articles as the supreme law of the United States. Article Seven was created to streamline the process of ratifying the Constitution. 

Article Five spells out the process that the federal government has to go through in order to amend the Constitution. Either Congress can present an amendment by gathering two-thirds of both the House and the Senate to approve the amendment, or if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states come together to propose an amendment, Congress will call a convention and amendments will be proposed. Following this, three-fourths of state legislators must ratify the amendment. Congress could also decide to have the states call a convention purely to ratify an amendment. A final clause was tacked on to the end of this amendment stating that no amendment could be passed inhibiting the slave trade until 1808. Article Six transfers the debt and prior treaties from the national government under the Articles of Confederation to the new Constitution. It also states that the federal government (and therefore the Constitution) is the supreme authority in America. Finally, it specifies that oaths should be made by legislators and executives to the people of the United States instead of a religious test as a barrier to entry. Article Seven of the Constitution states that only nine states are required to ratify the Constitution for it to be the binding federal document, and it lists all 13 states and the order in which they will call a Convention to vote on the validity of the Constitution. 

An example of a complex ratification process is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), an amendment to codify the equality of the sexes in law, was ratified by 30 states within the first year of its proposal but it met opposition after this 30-state benchmark over concerns that women would no longer be exempt from compulsory military service as well as other issues. There are other cases of discrepancy between federal and state power like some campaign finance laws and the legalization of marijuana in spite of the Controlled Substances Act.

During the initial creation of the country, the goal was as little central regulation as possible, but this turned out to be a weak way to organize the United States as many consequential regulations changed from state to state. The Constitution’s significance comes from the combination of general principles found in state Constitutions and rolled them into one document that set the federal government as the highest rule of law in the United States. Instead of changing the federal supremacy clause, the Constitution should clarify the Elasticity Clause or refine the Tenth Amendment to clarify specifically how elastic the powers of the federal government is or where state jurisdiction starts. 

Bibliography

Congress, The Federal Status of Marijuana and the Expanding Policy Gap with States, H.R. Doc., at 3 (Mar. 6, 2023). Accessed June 2, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12270.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Equal Rights Amendment.” Britannica. Last modified April 27, 2023. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Equal-Rights-Amendment.

Oyez. “Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee V. Federal Election Commission.” In Oyez. Last modified 2023. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-489.

Shreyas Rajaram Article V

Video

Written Component

Article Five of the Constitution is one of the most crucial, as it provides a framework for future constitutional changes. Recognizing that the values of American citizens would evolve over time, the framers acknowledged the need to adapt outdated sections of the Constitution to reflect these shifting priorities. Article Five enables the Constitution to be amended, therefore ensuring its relevance to the changing values of America.

The amendment ratification process itself requires two key steps: proposal and ratification. To propose an amendment, a two-thirds majority vote is needed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Alternatively, this can be achieved through a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures. Once an amendment has been proposed, it must be ratified by a three-quarter majority of state legislatures or state conventions.

This process ensures that amendments reflect the voice of the people and maintain a balance between federal and state authorities.   Furthermore, Article Five also appeased the Anti-Federalists, who advocated for greater rights for the common people. Although ratifying an amendment is a complex process that requires an overwhelming majority of support, the power to amend the Constitution ultimately rests with the people, as expressed through their elected officials. Notably, only twenty-seven amendments have been ratified since the inception of the Constitution.

The first ten amendments, collectively known as the Bill of Rights, establish and protect ten fundamental rights of the American people, including freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. Other amendments to the Constitution mark pivotal inflection points in the nation’s history, such as women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery.   

Despite its significant role in empowering citizens, Article Five has sparked many controversies and debates. One area of contention has been whether there should be a time limit on the amendment ratification process. Amendment 27 took over 200 years to reach the required three-quarter majority support from state legislatures, prompting Congress to establish an unofficial time limit of seven years for future amendments.

This time limit ensures that amendments do not remain open indefinitely. Scholars have also argued over the stringent nature of the amendment ratification process. While some, such as former federal judge Malcolm Wilkey, believe that the amendment process is overly influenced by the political goals of Congress members, others assert that the rigid system protects the amendment process from political influence by restricting amendments to those supported by the majority of Americans.   

Article Five plays a critical role in granting power to citizens and ensuring that public opinion is represented within the Constitution. In accordance with these values, I would propose a modification to the amendment process, where the current state legislatures’ voting system is replaced by a more democratic referendum system. The requirement of a three-quarter majority from state legislatures to ratify an amendment was appropriate at a time when America was establishing its identity and uniting states with varying economic needs.

In the present day, centuries after the Constitution’s drafting, the priorities of state and federal governments have changed. Rather than federal governments working to arrange compromises between states, state governments work towards the prosperity of the nation as a whole. As a result, the need for states to compromise has become largely insignificant. For this reason, I believe the amendment process should incorporate a vote more representative of nationwide opinion rather than individual states’ perspectives. 

Articles 5, 6, and 7

Video

Written Component

Article V covers the legal process of Amending the Constitution. It was drafted in response to the hesitation of certain states to ratify the Constitution. When an amendment is proposed, ⅔ of both houses, the Senate, and the House of Representatives need to agree to an amendment to move to the next step. The amendment then goes to state legislatures and ¾ of all legislatures must ratify it within 7 years or it will lapse. Scholars disagree about whether a state can revoke their vote in favor of an amendment. Some scholars feel that states should not be allowed to take away their vote for an amendment as that power is not explicitly stated in Article V.

Opposing scholars do not see an issue as long as the state makes its decision within the 7 year limit. Article VI of the Constitution covers debts and supreme law. It states that all debts from the previous government under the Articles of Confederation are still valid under the new Constitution, and that all members of the three branches of the new government must take an oath of allegiance to the new Constitution. As a new nation, allyship and allegiance were important and this oath ensured that the government would stand with one another as a nation under the new Constitution.

This Article also states that federal law is more powerful than state law, and when in conflict federal law becomes the, “the supreme Law of the Land”. In McCulloch vs. Maryland (1819), the state of Maryland wanted to impose taxes on the Second Bank of the United States but the cashier of the Baltimore branch refused to pay. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that because the bank was a federally created and controlled institution, the state did not have the right to tax it. This is a clear example of the national supremacy clause, in a conflict of power between state and federal rights, the federal government has more power. Article VII covers the process of the ratification of the Constitution.

It states that in order to ratify the Constitution, 9 out of 13 states must agree to it. This article is a response to the Articles of Confederation which stated that all states were required for ratification. This provision created conflict between Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Anti-Federalists pointed out that the new constitution was not supreme law yet, as it had not been ratified and therefore the process in the Articles of Confederation still stood. Federalists argued that because there had been so many violations of the Articles of Confederation they no longer stood as supreme law and that Article VII was now the guiding principle for constitutional ratification. Through the conflict and disagreement that these Articles faced, they prevailed by reshaping the Constitution to what it is today. 

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. 

Kannon Hunter – Fifth Article

Video

Written Component

The framers of the Constitution sought to create a government that would address the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, the first governing document of the United States. The Articles had proven ineffective in providing a strong central authority and lacked provisions for amending the document. The framers recognized the need for a more flexible and adaptable system that could withstand the test of time. This led to the inclusion of Article 5 in the Constitution, which provides a formal and organized mechanism for amending the Constitution.

The historical forces giving rise to Article 5 can be attributed to the failures of the Articles of Confederation, the influence of Enlightenment ideas, the experiences of the American Revolution, the desire to balance federal and state powers, and the need for a flexible system of governance. These factors shaped the framers’ vision for a constitution that could be amended to meet the evolving needs of the nation while preserving its core principles.

Article 5’s primary significance lies in its provision for amending the Constitution. It allows for the adaptation of the Constitution as societal needs and conditions change over time. This ensures that the Constitution remains relevant and avoids becoming rigid or outdated. However, there are divergent interpretations of Article 5, particularly regarding the power of Congress in the amendment process. Some interpretations emphasize Congress’s sole authority to propose amendments, while others argue that a convention of states can independently propose amendments.

While there isn’t a specific Supreme Court decision addressing this debate, the case of Dillon v. Gloss (1921) clarified that Congress can set deadlines for the ratification of proposed amendments. While some scholars have argued that Article 5 should be changed to allow for an easier path to proposing and ratifying constitutional amendments, the debated interpretation “How We Change The Constitution (Hint: It’s not by amending it)” by David A, Strauss is particularly persuasive because it gives direct examples of how many of the rules and areas covered by the Constitution have changed over time, even though the number of constitutional amendments has been limited and the process to propose and ratify an amendment is strict.

Strauss gives compelling examples of instances where the interpretation of the Constitution has changed, even though the specific text of the document has not. For example, even though the Equal Rights Amendment was never officially ratified, women continued to gain equality through other channels, like legal battles in the courts. Regarding the suggested adaptation of the amendment process, one argument proposes changing the requirement to two-thirds and three-fourths of the popular vote instead of relying on the House of Representatives and State Legislatures. An argument can be made that allowing the people to directly vote on changing the Constitution will lead to a more efficient path to enacting amendments.

However, it is important to consider the potential consequences of such a change. The general population may be easily influenced by political propaganda, and the media or may not fully understand the serious implications of more easily proposed and passed constitutional amendments. While the high thresholds for proposing and ratifying constitutional amendments impose challenges that have resulted in only 27 constitutional amendments having ever been instituted, they were put in place by the Founding Fathers for good reasons. Altering the process based solely on popular vote may not necessarily represent the long-term will and best interests of the nation.