How the U.S. Constitution Gets Amended

How the Constitution Can Be Changed

The U.S. Constitution can be changed through a process called amendment, described in Article V of the Constitution itself. This process was written to be deliberately difficult. The people who wrote the Constitution wanted it to be a stable foundation for the country, not something that could shift with every short-term political mood, but they also knew it would need to change over time.

There are two steps: proposing an amendment and then ratifying it. An amendment can be proposed in one of two ways. The first, and by far the most common, is a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, a supermajority rather than a simple majority. The second method allows two-thirds of state legislatures to call a national convention to propose amendments. This second path has never actually been used to send a proposal to the states, though there have been active political movements pushing for one, particularly around ideas like a balanced budget requirement.

Once an amendment is proposed, it must be ratified, or formally approved, by three-fourths of the states, currently 38 of the 50. States can ratify either through their state legislatures or through special ratifying conventions. The convention method for ratification has been used only once, for the 21st Amendment in 1933, which ended Prohibition. Every other ratified amendment went through state legislatures.

A Short History

Since the Constitution took effect in 1789, thousands of amendments have been proposed in Congress. Only 27 have actually become part of the Constitution. The first ten, known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified together in 1791 and cover core protections such as free speech, freedom of religion, and protection against unreasonable searches.

Later amendments reflect major turning points in American history. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, ratified after the Civil War, abolished slavery, guaranteed equal protection under the law, and prohibited denying the vote based on race. The 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave women the right to vote. The 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18.

The most recent amendment, the 27th, has an unusual story. It concerns congressional pay and was originally proposed by James Madison in 1789, alongside what became the Bill of Rights. It was not ratified until 1992, a gap of over 202 years, after a college student researching the amendment for a class assignment launched a renewed campaign for its ratification in the 1980s. The Constitution does not set a general time limit for ratification, which is part of what made this delayed ratification possible, and this fact becomes important later in this reading.

Points of Debate and Controversy

The amendment process itself, not just individual amendments, is a subject of real disagreement among legal scholars, politicians, and citizens.

Is the process too difficult? Only 27 amendments have succeeded out of thousands proposed, and none has been ratified since 1992. Critics argue this makes the Constitution too rigid for a country that has changed enormously since 1787, and that the supermajority and three-fourths thresholds allow a relatively small minority of states or lawmakers to block changes that most Americans might support. Defenders argue that a high bar is the entire point: an amendment should represent a broad, lasting national consensus, not a temporary majority, and that the difficulty of the process is a feature, not a flaw, that keeps the Constitution stable across generations.

Can Congress set a ratification deadline, and can that deadline be undone later? This question is not settled, and it is currently the subject of active litigation. The clearest example is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which would prohibit discrimination based on sex. Congress approved it in 1972 with a seven-year ratification deadline, later extended to 1982. By that deadline, only 35 of the required 38 states had ratified it. Decades later, Nevada (2017), Illinois (2018), and Virginia (2020) ratified the ERA anyway, arguing the deadline was not legally binding since it appeared in the introductory part of the resolution rather than in the amendment’s actual text. That brought the total to 38 states, the number required by Article V. The Archivist of the United States, the official responsible for formally certifying a ratified amendment, has refused to certify the ERA, citing Department of Justice legal opinions that the deadline was valid and that the amendment had already expired before those three states acted. Some legal scholars support the Archivist’s position; others argue Congress has no constitutional authority to impose a permanent deadline at all, pointing to the 27th Amendment’s 202-year ratification as evidence that the Constitution itself sets no such limit. As of mid-2026, this dispute remains unresolved in federal court, and I have not found evidence that it has been settled either way.

Can a state take back its ratification? A related and unresolved question involves five states that ratified the ERA in the 1970s and later voted to rescind, or withdraw, that ratification before the deadline passed. The Constitution does not explicitly say whether a state can undo a ratification once given. Some legal scholars argue ratification is a one-way action, once done it cannot be reversed. Others argue a state retains the right to change its position until the amendment process is fully complete. This is a genuine gap in constitutional text, not a question with a clear documented answer.

Should the convention method be used? Because the congressional route has produced no new amendments since 1992, some activists and legal scholars have pushed for the never-used convention method as an alternative, particularly for ideas like term limits or a balanced federal budget requirement. Supporters argue this route exists precisely for moments when Congress itself is unwilling to act. Critics worry about a so-called runaway convention, one that could exceed its original purpose and reopen unrelated parts of the Constitution once assembled, since Article V provides little detail about how such a convention would actually be run or limited.

Why This Matters

How difficult it is to change a country’s founding document shapes how that country adapts over time, and who has the power to make that adaptation happen. The debates covered here are not settled questions with a single correct answer. They involve real disagreements about how much stability a constitution should provide versus how much flexibility a changing society needs. Understanding the process itself is a necessary first step before forming a view on any of these debates.

Glossary

Only 27 amendments have been added to the Constitution since 1789.
The first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.

An amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
The 27th Amendment took over 202 years to be fully ratified.

Congress can propose an amendment with a two-thirds vote in both chambers.
James Madison first proposed what became the 27th Amendment in 1789.

Two-thirds of state legislatures can call a national convention to propose amendments.
A ratifying convention has been used only once, for the 21st Amendment.

Five states voted to rescind their ratification of the ERA in the 1970s.
Whether a state can rescind a ratification is not clearly settled by the Constitution.

Congress set a seven-year deadline for the ERA’s ratification.
The Constitution itself does not set a general deadline for ratifying amendments.

The Archivist has refused to certify the ERA as part of the Constitution.
Once ratified, an amendment must still be formally certified before taking effect.

Proposing an amendment requires a supermajority in Congress.
A supermajority is intentionally harder to reach than a simple majority.

Some critics point to modern political gridlock as evidence the amendment process is too difficult.
No new amendment has passed since 1992, which some describe as constitutional gridlock.

The ERA’s deadline appeared in the introductory part of the resolution, not the amendment text.
Congress passes a resolution to formally propose an amendment.

The ERA’s status is currently the subject of ongoing litigation.
Several federal courts have addressed litigation over the ERA’s ratification deadline.

Courts have looked to earlier Supreme Court cases as precedent on ratification deadlines.
The 27th Amendment is often cited as precedent for very long ratification periods.

Federal courts have jurisdiction over disputes about the ERA’s legal status.
Questions about ratification deadlines fall under federal jurisdiction.

Some ERA lawsuits have been dismissed on procedural grounds rather than decided on the merits.
The dispute over deadlines is partly a procedural question about how amendments are proposed.

The Archivist declined to certify the ERA in December 2024.
Once an amendment is ratified, the Archivist is responsible for publishing it.

Discussion Questions

Does your country’s founding legal document have a formal amendment process? How does it compare to Article V?
Do you think 27 amendments in over 230 years suggests the process works well, or that it is too difficult?
Should there be a time limit on how long states have to ratify a proposed amendment?
Do you find the argument that ratification is permanent, or the argument that states can rescind it, more convincing?
Why do you think the writers of the Constitution made the amendment process deliberately difficult?
What are the risks and benefits of using a convention, rather than Congress, to propose amendments?
Should an amendment need a nationwide consensus, or should a strong majority be enough?
How should a legal system handle a case where a document’s original text does not clearly answer a modern question?
Why do you think no amendment has been ratified since 1992?
Do you think courts or Congress should have the final say on whether the ERA is part of the Constitution?
What does the 27th Amendment’s 202-year ratification tell you about how the amendment process actually works in practice?
Imagine you are writing a new country’s constitution. How difficult would you make the amendment process, and why?

Amending the Constitution: History, Process, and Ongoing Debates

How the Constitution Can Be Changed

A Short History

Points of Debate and Controversy

Why This Matters

Glossary

Discussion Questions

Related Links

Activities

Leave a Comment Cancel reply