Is it too difficult to amend the US Constitution?

rticle 5 of the US Constitution outlines the procedures by which one may amend the Constitution. The process is deliberately designed to be difficult, it is not impossible, however it reflects the federalist belief that popular passion needs filtering. One key factor in the amendment process is the required approval of 2/3 of Congress. Clearing this super-majority is a considerable achievement alone; since the Constitution was written 5, 000 amendments have been proposed however only 17 (other than the Bill of Rights) have become amendments. One proposal which failed at this first stage was the defence of marriage amendment. If a proposal does achieve a 2/3 majority in Congress, it still cannot become an amendment yet. The next stage requires 3/4 of the States to ratify the amendment as well. Some amendments, such as the Equal Rights Amendment of 1972, gain the 2/3 majority in Congress, however do not gain the 38 states’ agreement. The ERA, for example, received ratification from only 35 states, therefore it did not become an amendment. This shows that the amending of the Constitution is a long and difficult journey as it requires such widespread and vocal support. 

However, the approval by Congress and rapid ratification by the states of the 18th Amendment, prohibiting alcohol, and its repeal within only 14 years, may show that the requirements of the process are not demanding enough. The Constitution was given such a ‘demanding’ formal amendment process to protect the American people from the tyranny of government, perhaps the speed in which the 18th amendment was introduced shows that government were still tyrannical. 

Arguably, the formal amendment process is of little significance, the vagueness of the Constitution has allowed the document to evolve without the need for constant formal amendment. It can be seen that both legislative and executive practises have expanded since the drawing up of the Constitution. For example political parties are an integral part of the modern political system, yet are not mentioned in the Constitution. Since the 27th Amendment in 1992, there have been no more formal amendments, however this does not mean that nothing has changed. Significant changes have occurred within the system of government without any formal constitutional change, for example, judicial review itself is not mentioned in the Constitution. The Supreme Court Justice’s are able to amend the meaning of the Constitution (to modernise it) while the words remain unaltered. This could indicate that the US Constitution is much more flexible than it may appear.