Argument Against Article V

The argument for revising Article V and making the Constitution easier to amend revolves around the idea that it is practically impossible to amend the Constitution with Article V as it currently is written. Nearly all of the 50 state constitutions can be amended under easier procedures than those in place under Article V and do not require as many obstacles to triumph. Since requiring a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate only completes one half of Article V, the additional condition for ratification requires ¾ of state legislatures support (75 legislative houses in 38 states), which is an extremely extensive task. This means that a proposed amendment can fail because of only 13 state legislative house in 13 different states. The

Article V has withstood for over 200 years, both preventing and creating new amendments. I believe in the idea of multiple majorities and an overwhelming consensus. Therefore, a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate and ratification from 38 states (3/4 of the state’s legislative houses) provides a safety net to prevent ill-conceived or irresponsible amendments from taking place, such as the anti-flag burning or balanced budget amendments. The strongest argument for changing Article V resides in the idea that only a small minority of American citizens, just under 5%, can hold up can amendment. While this concern seems valid, it is irrelevant for two reasons. First, of the 13 smallest states that make up this 5% statistic, seven are safe Republican states (WY, AK, ND, SD, MT, ID, NB), four are safe Democratic states (VT, DE, RI, HI), and 2 are Democratic leaning swing states (ME and NH). Thus, it is highly unlikely for the 13 smallest states to disagree on something, which the rest of nation agrees on. Therefore, this manufactured statistic that 5% of Americans can overrule 95% of Americans is true in theory but would never occur in reality. Second, the amendments ratified in the last 70 years—the 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 25th, and 27th Amendments—have been ratified with an overwhelming majority of states’ support. Only a total of four “no” votes were cast, and the last three amendments have been ratified unanimously. Meaning, there has not been a small minority standing in the way of the most recent amendments. As this nation progresses into new political realities, the protection of an overwhelming majority cannot be abandoned. The decision by Democrats in 2013 and then Republicans in 2017 to use the “nuclear option” and changing Senate rules in order to approve Presidential nominees is an example of an irresponsible step, creating a more polarized and partisan nation. This