Article 5 is fairly straight forward. It outlines the process for amending the constitution of the United States.
QUOTE |
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. |
I think that this amendment process is one of the greatest things about the US Constitution. While it allows amendments, it discourages them, and only allows the changes with supermajorities of both houses of Congress and of the states.
So, while change is possible, it is difficult, preventing the quick corruption of the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the judiciary have taken upon itself the ability to amend the Constitution without the consent of the governed.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%
I think the country realized that amendments to the constitution, while vital, should be done with great care when prohibition was made into an amendment. Years later, it took allot to repeal it, in fact, a whole other amendment to nullify it. It should be taken with great care when amending the constitution.
That is why I do not support either the "flag burning" amendment, nor the definition of marriage amendment. I would only support an amendment that truly addresses a huge, MAJOR issue.
I would be willing to consider an amendment that would put some strict limits upon the judiciary, not allowing them to override state constitutional amendments, or making it possible for Congress to override judicial decisions, without an amendment.
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 854 85.4%