article-v

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 Recognizing that the values of American citizens would evolve over time, the framers acknowledged the need to adapt outdated sections of the Constitution to reflect these shifting priorities.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. 

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.  

Article V // Gabe Ponichter

Video

Written Component

In Article V, the Constitution’s framers gave America’s future leaders a way to make changes to the Constitution based on changing times of the future. In simpler terms, Article V of the Constitution says that If two-thirds of the Senate and the House of Representatives agree, they can put amendments for the Constitution to vote. Another way amendments could be proposed is if 2 thirds of all the state legislatures agree to present some during a convention. To approve amendments, either ¾ of all the state legislatures must agree or ¾ of conventions convened in each state, based on Congress’ choice. There are two caveats; amendments to the Constitution could not change the 1st and 4th clauses of the 9th section of the 1st Article of the Constitution until 1808. Additionally, amendments could not strip a state of its right to vote in the Senate unless that state would be partial as well. Being able to make amendments to the Constitution allowed for debate between Federalists and Anti-Federalists to be settled by compromising on amendments eventually being added to the Constitution. Leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, there was one principal opinion about making amendments to the Constitution held by some Anti-Federalists. These people, looking to ensure enough power for the states and the people rather than just the central government, supported Article V because, through amendments, a Bill of Rights could be added to the Constitution, guaranteeing basic protections for Americans. 

Throughout the more recent history of Article V, some controversy has arisen over whether or not states can rescind their ratifications of certain amendments to the Constitution. Article V does not expressly state that states can do this; however, in the case of amendments like the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) of 1972, which was never ratified, six states still voted to rescind their ratification. In the case of Coleman v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court decided it would be at Congress’s discretion to determine whether a state could rescind its ratification, seemingly on a case-by-case basis. In the ERA’s case, it became irrelevant that states rescinded their ratifications because the amendment was not passed before the 7-year limit agreed upon in Congress. However, through countless decisions like Kirchberg v. Feenstra (1981) or J.E.B v. Alabama (1994), the Supreme Court was able to achieve the same effect of the ERA, declaring it unconstitutional for women to be discriminated against by American laws. The ability to make amendments to the Constitution connects to the core values of the Enlightenment Period, in which modifications to the thought of the “old regimes” were necessary for the common people to gain knowledge and a voice for themselves. As such, Historians can view Article V as a reassurance that if changes need to be made to the Constitution to protect the agency of Americans, they can be made, just like the Bill of Rights first did during America’s creation.

 

Works Cited

American Civil Liberties Union. “Timeline of Major Supreme Court Decisions on Women’s Rights.” In ACLU Women’s Rights Project. Last modified 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/legal-documents/101917a-wrptimeline_0.pdf.

 

Annenberg Classroom. “The Annenberg Guide to the United States Constitution.” Annenberg Classroom. Last modified 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/constitution/.

 

Rappaport, Michael B., and David A. Strauss. “Interpretation and Debate: Article V.” National Constitution Center. Last modified 2023. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-v/interpretations/277.