Amending the Constitution free essay sample

America was founded by people who strongly valued their freedom. After Independence from Britain and prior to the creation of the Constitution, America was governed by what is known as the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781.   This was understood as a â€Å"firm league of friendship†.  Ã‚   After recent freedom form the Imperialistic, central English government, the new America wanted to protect the rights of the States. To this end, in the Articles of Confederation, veto power was introduced.   Any single state had the right to veto any amendment.   It states that all amendments to the Articles of Confederation have to be ratified by each of the thirteen States and all important legislation needed the approval of nine States. At times, States would not have delegations present in the legislature, making any amendments to the Articles nearly impossible.   In effect, amendments could be vetoed by absence or by vote. Problems quickly became apparent under administration led by the Articles of Confederation.    There was no method established in the new nation for a way to receive money.   It was a voluntary system where funds were sent to the Federal Government, as requested, but the States were not required to send money.   The new Nation, under the Articles of Confederation, attempted to pass a law that would allow the Federal system to lay duties and secure public debts.   However, Rhode Island would not ratify the change, so the proposal failed. Two things became obvious.   One, if the new government was to continue, it had to be strengthened.   It needed the ability to raise money and pay debts.   It needed the ability to execute and interpret laws, not just make them.   It needed the power to negotiate with foreign powers.   Two, despite the best of planning, the future would bring issues to importance that the creators could not presently envision. The founding document for the country required the ability to be changed, however it must be changed in a fair manner that represents the interests of the States.  Ã‚   Requiring changes to be based on unanimous support from the States did not seem reasonable, as this recent experience showed. Article 5 of the Constitution creates a mechanism for changing or amending the Constitution.     This seems slightly misleading, as all changes are not made to the Constitution itself, but are in separate documents called the Constitutional Amendments.  Ã‚   The mechanism put forward in Article 5 sets to carefully balance the power of the States and the Federal government, while also allowing the movement of the people for governmental change. It states that the origination for changes to the Constitution can come fro two sources:   one, two-thirds of Congress supports it, or two, two-thirds of the States support the introduced change.   This is the mechanism for introduction.   The purpose of requiring two-thirds is to limit the number of changes that can be brought into a legislative session and ultimately the quantity of modifications that go before states. In order for a modification to occur to the Constitution, there must be wide State support.   Once a modification to the Constitution has been approved by Congress, it must then go before the states for ratification.   There are two methods of ratification from the States: one, the legislatures of the States must vote, and two, special Conventions must be called in the States for the purpose of ratification.     To require unanimous approval by the States would be foolish, so requiring three-fourths approval establishes a strong majority in support of the amendment. In American history, since the ratification of the American Constitution in 1787, approximately 200 Constitutional Amendments are proposed in any legislative session.   Only 33 of these have garnered the necessary 2/3 vote in Congress to bring them before the states, and out of these, only 27 have been ratified.    As the numbers show, the voting requirements are appropriate to the needs they serve.   States have not had to vote on 200,000 issues, yet the important issues make it through Congress and have the ability to be ratified by the States.   The figures also show that States have kept their power over the Constitution.   Despite the Senate ratifying 33 Amendments, the States have not ratified 6. During the process of ratification, there was already a call from the Anti-Federalists to create a Bill-of-Rights.   Their concern was that the Federal government was too strong as outlined in the Constitution, and the rights of Individuals could be subjected to the desires of the Federal government.    To address these concerns, we have the Bill of Rights.   This document is really the first ten amendments to the Constitution.   These came into effect in 1791, when three-fourths of the States approved them.   The Bill of Rights has become a valuable instrument in safeguarding the individual against the Federal government. There have been two major clarifications which have occurred over the years, only one resulting in an alteration to Article 5.   First, if a State initially ratifies the Amendment and then decides to withdraw its ratification (rescind), is that possible?   In 1868 the 14th Amendment came before the states for ratification. Ohio and New Jersey originally ratified the amendment, then changed their mind.   However, when Congress declared the Amendment ratified, it listed Ohio and New Jersey as ratifying the amendment.   This issue came before the Supreme Court in 1939 in Coleman v Miller.   The Supreme Court decided the decision was non-justiciable, and left the decision to Congress.   However, Congress is not bound by past decisions, so the action taken on rescission could change in the future. The second area of clarification has been the deadline for ratification of an amendment.   The Constitution does not set out any specific deadline, and the 27th Amendment was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992!   Both houses of Congress issued declarations stating that the unusual ratification process was valid. There was a challenge to time-limits introduced in the Dillon v. Gloss case of 1921 which came before the Supreme Court.   In this case, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s right to impose a time limit on the ratification of the amendment.   Extending a deadline, however, has not been settled as a legal issue, and we may see this in the future. References Berkin, Carol. (2002).   A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution.   North America: Harvest Books. Kilman, Johnny and George Costello (Eds). (2000). The Constitution of the United States of America: Analyis and Interpretation. Retrieved October 30, 2006 from http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html