> It also reflects practical realities: if a legislature overwhelmingly supports a change, any roadblocks or restrictions will most likely be ineffective in the long term.
Exactly. In the worst case, if an obstructionist minority of states were to block an overwhelmingly popular and desperately needed amendment, a sufficiently large number of states could simply write a new Constitution. After all, that's exactly how the current U.S. Constitution got put into place.
The Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of all 13 states. And of course, they needed unanimity to amend the unanimity clause. So it was an amendment clause without loopholes.
But only 12 states showed up at the Constitutional Convention! Unanimity was obviously not going to happen.
So the delegates wrote a new Constitution anyway, and specified a ratification threshold of 9 states. Once this threshold had been reached, the other 4 states could have fun governing their rump country under the old Articles. But the ratifying states would be in a customs union and have a strong central government, and they could make do just fine without the holdouts.
In the end, only two states held out. Eventually, both gave in. North Carolina didn't even last a year on its own. Rhode Island lasted 15 months.
The same people who pulled off this stunt also wrote the Constitution. So they were well-aware that a watertight amendment process was no bar to the truly determined. Might as well leave it leaky.
> In the worst case, if an obstructionist minority of states were to block an overwhelmingly popular and desperately needed amendment, a sufficiently large number of states could simply write a new Constitution.
Interesting to note that something like this was tried back in 1861. In the end, these things boil down to what people are willing to do and what they are willing to put up with.
It's worth noting that the other 2 of the 4 holdouts were New York and Virginia. The writers/ratifiers of the constitution knew that without those two, the entire endeavor would fail. They both eventually agreed on the stipulation that further controls to the federal government (Bill of Rights) would need to be codified within 90 days, or else their ratification would nullify. They both ended up voting in favor of ratification by narrow margins, and this left N.C. and R.I. left to wallow in isolation for a brief bit.
Exactly. In the worst case, if an obstructionist minority of states were to block an overwhelmingly popular and desperately needed amendment, a sufficiently large number of states could simply write a new Constitution. After all, that's exactly how the current U.S. Constitution got put into place.
Hopefully this doesn't result in another civil war over the issue of gun control. (The current stance seems to be to allow individual states great latitude in how they interpret the 2nd amendment.)
Exactly. In the worst case, if an obstructionist minority of states were to block an overwhelmingly popular and desperately needed amendment, a sufficiently large number of states could simply write a new Constitution. After all, that's exactly how the current U.S. Constitution got put into place.
The Articles of Confederation could only be amended by unanimous vote of all 13 states. And of course, they needed unanimity to amend the unanimity clause. So it was an amendment clause without loopholes.
But only 12 states showed up at the Constitutional Convention! Unanimity was obviously not going to happen.
So the delegates wrote a new Constitution anyway, and specified a ratification threshold of 9 states. Once this threshold had been reached, the other 4 states could have fun governing their rump country under the old Articles. But the ratifying states would be in a customs union and have a strong central government, and they could make do just fine without the holdouts.
In the end, only two states held out. Eventually, both gave in. North Carolina didn't even last a year on its own. Rhode Island lasted 15 months.
The same people who pulled off this stunt also wrote the Constitution. So they were well-aware that a watertight amendment process was no bar to the truly determined. Might as well leave it leaky.