Terminating a Monopoly

“This failure mean that Congress has a veto on all amendments and therefore no amendment that Congress opposes, including necessary reforms of Congress' power, can be enacted.”

 “End the Monopoly on Amendments”

Michael Rappaport

Currently the constitution provides us with two methods for constitutional amendment. The first and most used method requires that two-thirds of each house of Congress propose the amendment. The amendment is then sent to the states for ratification. The second and unused method for amending the constitution requires that two-thirds of congress call for a constitutional convention, during which an amendment would be proposed.

Congress enjoys full control of which constitutional amendments are proposed because of the current system. Congress holds all veto power as they will not propose an amendment they oppose, regardless of how necessary the amendment may be. For example, they are not likely not pass a term limit amendment, or any amendment that would constrain their power for that matter, even though such amendments have gained a lot of support in the last several decades.

Such amendments might have been enacted if there were an alternative method for amending the constitution. The author proposes the best solution is to grant state legislators the authority to propose a specific amendment. When considering this prevailing and dangerous control Congress holds over constitutional amendment, I am left wondering how many necessary amendments have been pushed aside because of personal interest held by the members of Congress.

Also, when considering that the second method has not been used because many fear that it would lead to a runway convention, I am left with the thought that maybe this is actually necessary for progress. Some fear that a convention with the original purpose of drafting a budget amendment for example, would create a platform for discussing issues such as same-sex marriage or gender equality. If this is the cases, such conventions should occur so that controversial but necessary amendments, such as the Equal Right Amendment, could be enacted. The author and myself, believe it is crucial to terminate this control Congress has over constitutional amendments by changing the way the way the constitution is amended.