Assess the view that the amendment process is in need for reform?
Pros of US Amendment process Cons of US Amendment process
Prevents an abuse of power Difficult to remove outdated aspects
It protects the individual states and Supreme Court could be considered to
upholds federalism have excessive power
Very difficult to amend which is a pro Could be viewed as undemocratic (as
and a con. In this case it prevents a little as 2% of the population can block
tyrannous president leader from amendment)
threatening the rights of the people It takes a long time- due to caution
(inalienable rights) around amendments+ the polarised
Furthermore, its complicated nature nature of the US itself, democrats and
prevents unnecessary amendments or republicans have very different views
unpractical amendments, meaning within their own parties (depending on
amendments proposed have to be state etc.) as well as between
carefully considered prohibition themselves. Even amendments with a
Its efficient, 27(or 17) have been able to large support group such as Equal rights
get through the system for women have often been proposed
but not acted upon.
The US is governed under an entrenched and codified constitution, of which the first ten
amendments make up the Bill of Rights whilst the remaining 17 are known as the constitutional
rights. The Founding Fathers (Maddison, Washington etc.) deliberately aimed to create a
constitution which one, protected the rights of American citizens from a potentially tyrannous
leader, like its predecessor George III, whilst simultaneously keeping the population under control by
setting clear rules (the constitution) they should live under to prevent revolution. However, the
founding fathers appreciated the idea of popular sovereignty, in which the government is
accountable to the people, hence in creation of the Constitution they allowed amendments to be
made, to ensure the constitution can and reflect the modern world. In order for a proposed
amendment to be ratified it needs to obtain 2/3 in both the House of Representatives and the
Senate as well as ¾ of the state legislatures. This is widely viewed as both a positive and negative
aspect of the amendment process, however I would argue that the principle of having an
amendment process which in practice protects the rights (the ones that have been added to the
constitution so far) of the people making them inalienable unless majority of the country can come
to the agreement to change or remove them is a valuable part of the US political system. However, I
also acknowledge the restrictions to the amendment process which many view as undemocratic due
to as little as 2% of the population being able to block an amendment. Therefore, I agree that the US
Constitution should be reformed partially, by potentially lowering the required percentage needed in
order to pass amendments which are highly demanded by a large proportion of the US (such as the
right and access to abortions). However the process of requiring the votes of both houses in
congress as well as the state legislature should remain as it is, in my opinion, as it protects the rights
of both the people and the individual states in order to reflects the variation of views amongst the
50 states.
Pros of US Amendment process Cons of US Amendment process
Prevents an abuse of power Difficult to remove outdated aspects
It protects the individual states and Supreme Court could be considered to
upholds federalism have excessive power
Very difficult to amend which is a pro Could be viewed as undemocratic (as
and a con. In this case it prevents a little as 2% of the population can block
tyrannous president leader from amendment)
threatening the rights of the people It takes a long time- due to caution
(inalienable rights) around amendments+ the polarised
Furthermore, its complicated nature nature of the US itself, democrats and
prevents unnecessary amendments or republicans have very different views
unpractical amendments, meaning within their own parties (depending on
amendments proposed have to be state etc.) as well as between
carefully considered prohibition themselves. Even amendments with a
Its efficient, 27(or 17) have been able to large support group such as Equal rights
get through the system for women have often been proposed
but not acted upon.
The US is governed under an entrenched and codified constitution, of which the first ten
amendments make up the Bill of Rights whilst the remaining 17 are known as the constitutional
rights. The Founding Fathers (Maddison, Washington etc.) deliberately aimed to create a
constitution which one, protected the rights of American citizens from a potentially tyrannous
leader, like its predecessor George III, whilst simultaneously keeping the population under control by
setting clear rules (the constitution) they should live under to prevent revolution. However, the
founding fathers appreciated the idea of popular sovereignty, in which the government is
accountable to the people, hence in creation of the Constitution they allowed amendments to be
made, to ensure the constitution can and reflect the modern world. In order for a proposed
amendment to be ratified it needs to obtain 2/3 in both the House of Representatives and the
Senate as well as ¾ of the state legislatures. This is widely viewed as both a positive and negative
aspect of the amendment process, however I would argue that the principle of having an
amendment process which in practice protects the rights (the ones that have been added to the
constitution so far) of the people making them inalienable unless majority of the country can come
to the agreement to change or remove them is a valuable part of the US political system. However, I
also acknowledge the restrictions to the amendment process which many view as undemocratic due
to as little as 2% of the population being able to block an amendment. Therefore, I agree that the US
Constitution should be reformed partially, by potentially lowering the required percentage needed in
order to pass amendments which are highly demanded by a large proportion of the US (such as the
right and access to abortions). However the process of requiring the votes of both houses in
congress as well as the state legislature should remain as it is, in my opinion, as it protects the rights
of both the people and the individual states in order to reflects the variation of views amongst the
50 states.
