Originalism – the idea that we should follow the original meaning of the Constitution – states that the constitutional amendment process should be the most important means of constitutional amendment. However, the change process has been criticized for two shortcomings. One of them is that it is too strict and therefore too difficult to adopt amendments. The other is that it is biased in favor of the federal government and therefore does not allow for changes that would restrict the national government. While these are important critical points, these shortcomings do not stem from the amendment process itself, but from the lack of use of the original meaning of the Constitution. If the original meaning were systematically followed, both shortcomings would be eliminated. Two or more states may not conclude a treaty, confederation or alliance between them without the consent of the United States to Congress, which specifies the very purposes for which it is to be concluded and how long it must last. Canada, which adheres to this Confederation and adheres to the actions of the United States, is admitted to this Union and is entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony may be admitted to the same colony unless such inclusion is approved by nine states. Sometimes people say that if the words in the text of the Constitution have not changed, the “interpretation” of the Constitution has. It doesn`t hurt to think so. But whichever way you explain it, the fact is that our understanding of what the Constitution means has changed tremendously over time, in a way that has little to do with constitutional changes. The view that the Article V amendment process is the only legitimate way to achieve a constitutional amendment is, as constitutional law expert Joel K. Goldstein has pointed out, “challenged by numerous widely accepted court decisions that have given new meaning to constitutional language by departing from original intentions, expectations or meanings.” It also highlights how constitutional institutions, regardless of judicial activity and the changes brought about by the Article V process, have evolved “to take forms that are not consistent with what the founders envisioned or proposed the language they wrote.” [33] This analysis helps explain why, over the past three generations, so many constitutional amendments have taken place through judicial interpretation rather than through the amendment process.
For example, during the New Deal, the Roosevelt administration did not attempt to pass constitutional amendments to give the federal government more regulatory power. Instead, she tried to take over the Supreme Court. Although Roosevelt`s packaging plan was initially rejected, it eventually placed 8 of the 9 justices on the court and brought about a radical change in constitutional doctrine. There is little doubt that the nation would have supported an amendment that would give additional regulatory powers, but there is a good chance that the consensus requirement would have meant that the federal government would have been given less power than the Court would ultimately have granted. Drei im 20. In the nineteenth century, concerted efforts were made by the proponents of certain amendments to obtain the number of requests needed to entrust a convention under article V. These included conventions for considering amendments to (1) providing for the popular election of U.S. senators; (2) Allow States to include factors other than equality of population in determining state legislative boundaries; and (3) propose an amendment that the U.S. budget must be balanced in most cases. Article V is silent on the deadlines for ratification of the proposed amendments, but most of the amendments proposed since 1917 included a deadline for ratification. Legal scholars generally agree that the process of amending article V itself can be modified by the procedures provided for in article V, but there is some disagreement as to whether article V is the exclusive means of amending the Constitution. It is important to note that the problem of the Out-of-Control Convention is due, once again, to the fact that it does not respect the original meaning of the Constitution.
Many constitutional commentators have argued that an out-of-control convention is constitutional. In their view, the Constitution did not allow States to limit the Convention to a specific subject and, therefore, the Convention was free to make proposals on any subject of its choice. According to constitutional theorist and scholar Lawrence G. Sager, some commentators have seriously questioned whether Article V is the exclusive means of amending the Constitution or whether there are ways to amend it, including some ways in which the Constitution might be changed unconsciously or unconsciously at a time of sustained political activity by a mobilized national electorate. [29] For example, Akhil Amar rejects the idea that Article V excludes other forms of constitutional amendment, arguing instead that the Article V procedure is simply the exclusive method that the government can use to amend the Constitution. He asserts that article V nowhere prevents the people themselves, acting outside the ordinary government, from exercising their legal right to change or abolish the government through appropriate legal procedures. [30] These two things – how difficult it is to change the Constitution and how many changes are made without amendments – are the opposite sides of the same coin. Since it is so difficult to edit the text, we have found other ways to make the kind of changes you can expect from editing the text.
A nation, like other living beings, must adapt if it is to survive. If a means of adaptation is closed, he must find another way. That is what the American constitutional system has done. Our constitutional system – our current system, in the way it actually works, as opposed to what is written on paper – is changed by Congress, the president, the courts, and often only by changing understandings between people, even if the text remains the same. Other researchers disagree. He argues that Article V remains the clearest and most powerful way to record the sovereign desires of the American public regarding changes to its Basic Law. Ultimately, Article V is an essential bulwark for maintaining a written constitution that guarantees the rights of the people both against the elites and against themselves. [32] [Page required] No state may send a message to a king, prince or state or receive a message from a king or enter into a conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with a king without the consent of the United States in the assembled Congress; no person holding any profit or trust function under the United States, or any of them, may accept gifts, pardons, offices or titles of any kind from a king, prince or foreign state; nor will the United States be united in Congress or grant any title of nobility to any of them. Once approved by Congress, the joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment does not require presidential approval before being submitted to the states.
While Article I, Section 7, provides that all federal laws before they become law must be submitted to the President for signature or veto, Article V does not provide such a requirement for constitutional amendments approved by Congress or by a federal convention. .
