If 88% of all federal and state lawmakers in the US were on board, it could be done, but it would take more time and a few more steps to amend the constitution first.
What makes you believe that this part of the constitution cannot be amended? Article V only says that it requires consent of the affected states - which would be all of them, so it's a high bar, but it's not outright prohibited.
Short answer: no. The federal government (Congress) can propose amendments, but ratification requires the approval of a 2/3 majority of the 50 states' legislatures (38/50).
And remember that in the US, the governments of each state are not just sub-divisions of the federal government, but totally distinct entities with their own constitutions, legislatures, elections, etc. The federal government has no direct control over the states, and thus can not force them to approve an amendment.
So, to change the US Constitution, 39 separate governments need to agree, and that's a pretty high bar.
> A ratifying convention of the states has the power to amend the US constitution.
No, it does not. Article V allows two-thirds of the state to call for a convention of the states to be assembled to propose amendments; three-fourths of the state legislatures, or three-fourths of state conventions assembled for the purpose, must ratify any proposals made.
So in the current setup, 67 legislative bodies are required to call for the assembly of a single body that can write up amendment proposals, but then 75 legislative bodies (or 75 conventions) then have to vote to ratify those proposals.
That is a far cry from a single body ratifying amendments.
The full text of Article V, for reference (emphasis mine):
> 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.
This is incorrect, at least in the US. A Constitutional Amendment requires the affirmative consent of 3/4s of the states for ratification, it cannot be done unilaterally by the US Congress. The Federal laws are considered the lesser laws and the Constitution the highest law.
There is a big big difference legally in the US between an Amendment and something in the USC
"After being officially proposed, either by Congress or a national convention of the states, a constitutional amendment must then be ratified by the legislatures of, or by ratifying conventions, in at least three-fourths of the states." [1]
Even if the amendment for past the supermajority requirement 37 or 38 state legislatures would have to ratify the amendment. At this point it's almost certainly impossible to amend the US constitution.
If it had been ratified in 1789, the "mathematical discrepancy" would have appeared between 8 and 10 million citizens. We're well past that now, and could ratify it if the states wanted to screw over Congress.[a] It wouldn't even need to be reintroduced, as submitted amendments don't "expire".[b]
[a]: Twelve states already signed on, just need a few dozen more
[b]: Case in point, the 27th Amendment[0] was submitted to the states for ratification at the same time (1789), but never had enough states sign on until 1991.
Technically Congress is not needed to propose an amendment but I see your distinction and agree that I would only support changes ratified by 3/4 of the states.
I was disappointed that the article didn't elaborate on this possibility. The possibility of a Convention of States [0] looms closer than many realize [1]. Only 34 states are needed call the Convention. Although only 19 have officially voted in favor so far, it's believed that the potential number may be higher if slightly different but equivalent provisions are counted. Given a charismatic enough President whose party controls most of the statehouses, getting over the 34 vote threshold is not impossible. Depending on your political leanings, the possibility could be either thrilling or dire. [2]
I'm not so sure. I keep looking at the states and thinking that it might come to pass. Now, what amendments would get suggested and if they could get approval from 38 states is a different question.
reply