Richard Owl Mirror
Joined: 28 May 2006
Posts: 9002
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Article V. - Amendment
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Note1
Article V - Amendment
Note the following small detail: the President is not a part of the amendment process. So what difference does it make when the President says that he or she does not like a particular proposed amendment, and they will not support it? None. At least, not technically.
Now, obviously, the world is not sterile, particularly in Washington. When a President expresses reservations or dislike of an amendment or proposed amendment, it is obvious that any President worth electing knows darn well that the Executive has no veto over any amendment. The process is left completely in the hands of the Congress and/or the States. However, the President, as presumed head of a political party, has power over those in the same party - or, if not power, at least some influence.
Because two-thirds of both houses must pass an amendment, and two-thirds of both houses are required to overturn a presidential veto, the framers may have decided to leave the President out for the sake of brevity. However, since the arguments of the President for the veto could change some minds between the passage vote and the veto vote, it is more likely the Framers just felt that amendments were something best left to the states and the representatives of the states.
The Supreme Court did deal with this issue, following the ratification of the 11th Amendment. It was argued that the amendment was invalid because the amendment was not passed to the President prior to being passed on to the states. But in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]), the Court wrote (in a footnote): "The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution."
More information on amending the Constitution is available.
Note2
The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.
Note3
Article 5 details a couple of ways that an amendment to the Constitution can be proposed - either through Congress or through a Constitutional Convention. However an amendment is proposed, the final step is ratification. Two methods for ratification are provided - by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by three-fourths of the states in convention. This topic concerns the latter of these two. |
|
