Is the Constitution Amenable to Public Demand?

The United States Constitution has long been held as a bedrock of foundational principles and rights. This document is revered for its ability to balance legislative power and protect individual liberties. However, some question whether public demand can lawfully alter this charter without following the established amendment process. In this article, we will explore the complexities of changing the Constitution and weigh the arguments for and against public amending.

Amendments: A Sanctified Process

No changes to the Constitution can be made without following the prescribed procedures. According to Article V of the Constitution, amendments can be proposed either by a two-thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Following a proposed amendment, it must be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures or conventions called for the ratification of the amendment.

Dissenters and Public Pressure

Despite the clear procedure for amending the Constitution, there is a fervent argument from some that public voices should hold a greater sway. They suggest that significant pressure from the public could be a valid trigger for changing the Constitution. However, the historical context and the inherent design of the document strongly suggest that such a notion is not supported.

Historical Context: Prior to the modern era, the most recent major modification to the Constitution was the adoption of the 13th Amendment in 1865, following the Civil War. The last amendment that did not follow the Article V process was the abolition of slavery, a complex and tumultuous period in American history.

Foundational Rights and Principles

The Constitution was designed to embody fundamental rights and principles that should not be easily altered or negated, even in response to public demands. The First Amendment, for instance, protects freedom of speech, a principle that has stood the test of time and plays a crucial role in ensuring a free and open society. Public pressure to amend this amendment could be considered an encroachment on the bedrock principles the Constitution was built upon.

Other key amendments, such as the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, also serve as fundamental protections that safeguard law-abiding individuals from tyranny. These rights are essential to maintaining a balance of power and ensuring personal liberty. The argument here is that these foundational elements should not be altered without the most rigorous and broad-based support.

The Role of Supermajorities

The Constitution places a significant burden on those who seek to change it. Not only must a majority vote in both Houses of Congress support an amendment, but a supermajority of two-thirds is required to send it to the states for ratification. Furthermore, a supermajority of three-fourths of the state legislatures must ratify the amendment. These barriers are in place to ensure that amendments are thoroughly deliberated and widely supported, preventing both hasty and radical changes.

Conclusion

There is a consensus that the Constitution is designed to be immutable to public whim and that major changes should not be made arbitrarily. The amendment process ensures that significant alterations are not made without broad-based support and careful consideration. While some may argue for a more flexible Constitution, the current design is intentionally restrictive to safeguard the rights and principles that underpin the nation.