Pros And Cons Of Amending The Constitution

Amending the Federal Constitution is not as easy as it may seem to be. The framers of the constitution have made it the formal amending process very difficult. These individuals believed that they would be allowing a future revolution to occur if they were to make their document too rigid or even if they wrote it so that it could not be revised to suit future time. The framers wanted to create a firm basis for the exercise of governmental power. At the 1787 convention, George Mason noted that changes would be necessary and essential. He also thought that it should be provided in an easy, regular and constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. The others who attended the constitutional convention thought out his idea and they made it open to change but with great effort. …show more content…
These four different ways include two approaches to propose an amendment and to two approaches to ratify them. An amendment can be proposed by there being two-thirds of votes in both houses of Congress or by their being a vote at the national constitutional convention that’s called by Congress. At this convention, Congress calls a request of two-thirds of votes from state legislatures. An amendment can be ratified by there being three-fourths of votes from state legislatures or three-fourths of votes at special conventions. According to Henschen and Sidlow, meeting the requirements for ratification and proposal depends on a large amount of popular support throughout the country (2012). Proposed amendments have sparked many controversies throughout the United States. Some people also believe that members of congress use the amendment process to introduce their position on an issue even though they are aware that it is highly likely for the amendment to go no further than that