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 Recognizing that the values of American citizens would evolve over time, the framers acknowledged the need to adapt outdated sections of the Constitution to reflect these shifting priorities.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

Mehela Noel: Amendment V

Video

Written Component

 

The Fifth Amendment includes double jeopardy, grand jury, self-incrimination, and eminent domain. The Due Process Clause of Amendment V claims that no individual shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. Due process is still heavily used in courts to this day. There are two types of due process seen today in court; Procedural and Substantive Due Process. Both Procedural and Substantive Due Process are commonly seen in court cases affecting individuals of their life, liberty, and property. 

Procedural Due Process is the legal procedure that must be followed when governments are depriving individuals of their life, liberty, or property. Procedural Due Process is still seen today not only in court, but daily through Miranda Rights. Miranda Rights are stated when individuals are in police custody. These rights imply the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney, and the right to be appointed an attorney. Miranda Rights are a representation of Procedural Due Process because it is a requirement that happens before they are in the custody of the police, which is a legal procedure that must be followed before individuals are deprived of their life, liberty, and property.

The roots of Miranda Rights date back to March 2, 1963, when an 18-year-old woman from Phoenix filed a police report that she was kidnapped and taken to a desert, then sexually assaulted. Ernesto Miranda––the defendant of this case––confessed to kidnapping and rape during the police’s interrogation. However, prior to Miranda’s confession, the police did not inform him of his right to counsel and his right to refrain from self-incrimination. The detectives and officers did not acknowledge that Miranda had that right, therefore he was able to recant his confession, and not have it used against him in court. Ernesto Miranda’s confession was just one of many “forced confessions” during this time period. The Supreme Court determined that without certain warnings in interrogation, including the right to remain silent and the right to counsel, statements that are made during a custodial interrogation, are inadmissible during a trial.

Substantive Due Process focuses on liberty and whether there are fundamental rights implied when life, liberty, and property are being taken. Substantive Due Process is still a very prominent topic, especially in the landmark Supreme Court case, Roe v Wade. This case began when Jane Roe, a pregnant single woman in Texas, wanted to get an abortion. She was unable to get an abortion due to Articles 1191-1194 in the Texas Penal Code, denying her ability unless it was a deathly matter. Roe challenged this, stating that the Penal Code was unconstitutional, and a violation of her fundamental rights, referring to the Substantive Due Process Clause. This argument led to massive debate, and under Roe, the Courts rejected the claim that a woman is not able to terminate her pregnancy (this was later overturned in 2022). This Supreme Court case shows the importance and connection the Due Process Clause still has to the modern day.

Layla Boyce: Amendment V

Video

Written Component

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individual rights by ensuring a fair and just legal system. One event does not appear to have prompted the addition of the Fifth Amendment; rather, the amendment was born out of a recognition of the importance of a just legal system. The Fifth Amendment includes five separate protections: right to a trial by jury (the right to be judged by an unbiased audience of informed citizens), protection against “double jeopardy” (one cannot be tried multiple times for the same offense), protection against self-incrimination (individuals are not compelled to implicate themselves), the right to a fair and speedy trial (cases should not involve prejudice or unnecessary delays), and protection of private property (without compensation, the government cannot seize personal property). Of these provisions, one of the most controversial features of the Fifth Amendment is the protection against self incrimination, commonly known as the “right to remain silent”.  

The relevant text of the Amendment reads, “ …nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself…”.  Generally, it is interpreted to mean individuals are permitted to refuse to answer incriminating questions or “take the 5th” during a criminal trial.  These protections have been extended to the pre-trial investigation stage.  Law enforcement is obligated to inform suspects in custody of their right to invoke the Fifth Amendment by reading them an explanation known as a Miranda warning.

The Supreme Court case, Bobby v. Dixon, demonstrates the issues caused by the broad language of the Fifth Amendment. Archie Dixon was questioned first about forgery without being Mirandized and his requests for an attorney were ignored. Subsequently, during a second interrogation after receiving Miranda warnings, he confessed to murder. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the police’s actions during the first were unconstitutional and that the second questioning was thus impermissibly tainted. However, the Supreme Court overruled this decision arguing that “Dixon was not in custody when he asserted his right to an attorney, and denied his ability to assert this right before he was in formal custody…” It was decided that there was no nexus between the improper unwarned admission to forgery and his later Mirandized confession to murder. Therefore, the Supreme Court found Dixon’s confession was properly elicited and reinstated his conviction.  

Furthermore, Griffin v. California (1965), a Supreme Court case, challenged the practice inferring guilt against defendants who employed their Fifth Amendment rights. Many people then were coerced into testifying to prevent the assumption of guilt.  The Supreme Court decided in Griffin this practice rendered the Fifth Amendment protections hollow as no one should be  ‘made “worse off” by asserting the Fifth than by not asserting it.’

The Fifth Amendment is a cornerstone of the American legal system, protecting individuals from self-incrimination, ensuring due process rights, and safeguarding property rights. The Fifth Amendment plays a significant role in protecting individual rights against the potential abuses of a  powerful government.

Amendment V

Video

Written Component

One of the most important rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights comes from the fourth clause of the fifth amendment: the right to due process of law. The basis for this right dates back to the Magna Carta, a charter of english liberties granted by King John to his citizens in 1215. Clause 39 of this charter reads, “[n]o free man shall be arrested or imprisoned . . . except by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

The ideas of “lawful judgment” and “law of the land” evolved into the due process clause, which is the reiteration that the government must abide by the law and its process. However, it is important to note that the fifth amendment only applies to the federal government while the fourteenth amendment addresses due process in relation to state governments. Over time, two subdivisions of due process emerged: procedural and substantive.

The former addresses the fairness of the process by which the law is executed, an example being the right to fair notice. Most importantly, this right establishes the vagueness doctrine, which is the idea that the Court can deem a law not valid if it is unclear. The logic is that, if too vague, the law does not give people fair notice as to what it is stating. In contrast, substantive due process prevents the government from restricting certain natural rights that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. This branch of due process has caused a lot of controversy.

Some believe it protects rights that should be guaranteed. Others think it has no Constitutional basis and impedes the government’s power as it controls what rights it can and cannot restrict. Regardless, the due process clause is a manifestation of several key principles of the Constitution. The first one it embodies is separation of powers as it gives sole jurisdiction of restricting the rights of life, liberty, and property to the judiciary.

The removal of these rights can only be done through the legal system, meaning the executive and legislative branches have no power in this regard. Additionally, the debates over substantive due process are reflective of the struggle to balance a strong national government with individual rights that has existed since debates between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the drafting of the Constitution. While some believe substantive due process is not truly founded in the Constitution, it should be more widely seen as a legitimate interpretation.

The Constitution was written over two centuries ago, meaning it was written with a society that existed during that time, not the present one, in mind. As the times change and our social laws adapt, the interpretation of the Constitution must as well in order to ensure the continued protection of natural rights.

Amendment V – The Due Process Clause

Video

Written Component

The right to due process clause of the Fifth amendment in the Constitution guarantees that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without undergoing due process of law. This clause originated in a desire to protect individuals from excessive governmental power and secure fundamental rights. American colonists were subjected to arbitrary arrests, unfair trials, and property seizures without a fair trial under British rule. Evidence of their discontent under British rule is evident in situations such as the Shaysite Grievances. The clause was a response to the oppressive practices of British rule and a reflection of the belief that no one should be forced to incriminate themselves or suffer without proper legal procedures.

 

The clause states that individuals have the right to a fair trial in a court of law, a defense attorney, and freedom from self-incrimination. This is known as procedural due process. The concept of “life, liberty, and property” in the clause connects to our discussions of ideas that originated from the Enlightenment. It had many thinkers who argued that people have unalienable rights, including John Locke, responsible for “The Second Treatise of Government”, where the quote “life, liberty, and possession” can be seen. He argued that these were basic human rights, and his words heavily influenced colonists to rebel against British rule. They were thus integrated into the documents that were made when the nation was founded, such as the Constitution.

 

However, there has been controversy to what extent the justice department can exercise the overturning of laws. This is where a term called “substantive due process” arises. It is a legal argument that attempts to interpret how much the due process clause of the Constitution protects certain fundamental rights that are not explicitly listed in the text. The clause implies that the government cannot infringe on the rights of life, liberty, or property, even if no specific provision explicitly defines those terms. They recognize that individuals possess inherent rights that are fundamental to their liberty, such as the right to privacy, bodily autonomy, and freedom of expression. However, it has been a subject of controversy, since some argue that it grants too little power to the judiciary branch. Others argue that substantive due process is essential in ensuring that the government does not restrict fundamental rights. The divergent interpretations revolve around the extent of due process protections, particularly concerning balance between individual rights and societal interests. 

 

A case that is illustrative of the tensions around substantive due process is Roe V Wade. Recently, the case has been a controversial discussion regarding the right to abortion. This is where substantive due process becomes a significant basis for the argument that there is a fundamental right to privacy that the government should not have the authority to restrict.  In 1973, it was decided that privacy encompasses a woman’s right to have an abortion based on these principles. The case has arisen again after the ruling was overturned, but this clause is still a justification that women have a right to bodily autonomy. 

 

At present, this clause does not require amending, because it ensures that everyone is granted a fair trial with an impartial jury and a defense attorney. Altering a clause that has historically protected so many from having their rights limited by excessive governmental control could be detrimental to the concept of the Fifth amendment itself. 

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.