Essay: The Constitutional Amendment Process

The United States Constitution is a very complex document. Changing, or amending, this document is subject to a difficult process worked through by those in power. It is not always easy for leaders to come to an agreement on issues regarding the Constitution. Understanding the way this process works, as well as the ideas behind the process, one can see why the act of changing the Constitution should be a difficult thing to achieve.
The U.S. Constitution can be formally amended in two different ways. One way is when both the House of Representatives and the Senate give a two-thirds vote in favor of a proposed amendment. The second way is when two-thirds of the state legislatures request a national convention from Congress to propose amendments. An amendment is not applied to the Constitution until it is ratified by three-fourths of the states. Ratifying a proposed amendment is a time consuming process that can sometimes take more than two years (“Constitutional Amendment”).
The framers of the Constitution made the amendment process difficult so that the Constitution is not able to be manipulated. If either Congress or the state legislatures had complete control over the process, there would be no flexibility in amending the Constitution.  The flexibility of the process allows the Constitution to be amended when change is needed (Dautrich and Yolor 48).  The amending of the Constitution is a complicated process that would be ineffective if only one side makes the decision. According to Larry P. Arnn, this division of power encourages “fairness and deliberation.”
The Constitution can also be informally amended without making any changes to the document itself. The informal amendment process is based on political leaders’ interpretations of the guidelines presented in the Constitution. This process does not directly affect the Constitution, but it does affect legislation that is based on the Constitution. These “amendments” can be made through the actions of the president, the United States Supreme Court, political parties, and through changes in customs. One example of the informal amendment process is the June 26, 2015 Supreme Court ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges, which made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy believes that marriage is an important part of society and that this ruling allows for “equal dignity in the eyes of the law” (Liptak). This ruling did not change the 14th amendment, but it changed legislation that was based on said amendment.
These two processes of amending the Constitution leave political leaders divided into two different interpretations: loose construction and strict construction. Those who adhere to loose construction views believe that the Constitution is open to interpretation. This interpretation allows leaders to take action when necessary to make informal changes in the form of legislation. The Supreme Court has enacted civil rights and federal criminal laws using this approach (Dautrich and Yolof 50). Those who subscribe to strict construction believe that the government has no more power than what is stated in the Constitution.In the ruling of Dred Scott v. Sandford, a Supreme Court Case ruled against Scott since “he was not considered a person under the U.S. Constitution” (Dred Scott Decision).
I am in favor of the loose construction method. While I do support the amendment process being difficult, I think that using up so much time for, or holding out on, much needed change can hinder our society’s growth. A lot of time has passed since the framers created the Constitution. While the ideals placed in the Constitution may not have changed exactly, they have broadened. Allowing leaders to rely not just on what is written, but also their experience is helpful. They can look back over things that have happened, laws that have been passed, and see what worked or did not work. They can also see what may have worked then that does not work now. If leaders can see that something needs to change, and they have the ability to make that change, whether through the Constitution or through legislation, why should they not act on it?
The process of amending the Constitution is a difficult and time consuming endeavor. Much thought goes into whether or not to apply changes, as well as what those changes might mean for the country. Without the checks in place, any leader could make whatever changes that they wanted, whether they be for the country’s benefit or their own.
 
Works Cited
Arnn, Larry P. The Amendment Process. 20 February 2012. Constituting America. Web. 21 February 2016.
Constitutional Amendments. 2003. Dictionary of American History. Web. 26 February 2016. <http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Constitutional_Amendment.aspx#2-1G2:3437701090-full>.
Dautrich, Kenneth and David A. Yolof. The Enduring Democracy: Central Texas College Edition. Fourth. Boston: Cengage Learning, 2015. Print.
Dred Scott Decision. 2009. A+E Networks. Web. 26 February 2016. <http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/dred-scott-decision>.
Liptak, Adam. Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide. 26 June 2015. The New York Times Company. Web. 22 February 2016.