Amending the United States Constitution: A New Generation on Trial

Schechter, Stephen L.

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-06991-0_7

“…Yet, the amendment process has been criticized by Wilson (1885), Bryce (1988), Ames (1896), Smith (1907), Livingston (1956), Dixon (1971), Burgess (1978), Schechter (1985), Dellinger (1986), and Berry (1986Berry ( , 1987. They hold that existing constitutional amendment procedures require extraordinary concurrent majorities to initiate and ratify amendments and represent substantial hurdles to constitutional change by amendment.…”

Section: The Amendment Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As stability is achieved, changes are initiated and institutionalized. The last stage lasts only a few years and closes the chapter of this generation as most of its proposals are ratified and opens a new chapter for an upcoming generation (Schechter 1985).…”

Section: Contrasting Views Of Constitutional Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the original 26 amendments, five of them took over 30 years to take effect, from introduction in Congress to final ratification in the states. These included the abolition of slavery, the direct election of senators, prohibition, women's suffrage, the D.C. presidential vote, and the right of 18-year-olds to vote (Schechter 1985).…”

Section: Contrasting Views Of Constitutional Changementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment and Constitutional Change by Stealth

Strickland¹

1993

APSC

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 27th Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that any adjustment in compensation to legislators could take effect only after a new election was held, was ratified in 1992, some 203 years after it was first proposed. The amendment passed as a reaction of voters to a 1989 proposal by legislators for a increase in their salaries by 51%, from $89,500 to $135,000 per annum. A question as to the constitutionality of an amendment that took more than two centuries to pass is being raised. ARTICLE The process of how to amend the U.S. Constitution is the least discussed and least examined aspect of the Constitution. The vagaries surrounding the amendment process were highlighted in 1992 as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment gained momentum and eventual ratification. Compensation of Members of Congress: The Twenty-Seventh Amendment As one of the original proposals accompanying the Bill of Rights, and first proposed in 1789, the congressional pay raise amendment was included in order to limit the ability of Congress to change the compensation of its members. It was proposed by James Madison and later passed by both houses of Congress. The amendment stated: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of senators and representatives, shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened." Three state conventions, concerned that members of Congress might arbitrarily grant themselves salary raises, proposed that no salary improvements should occur before the next election of representatives (Livingston 1956).

show abstract

“…Yet, the amendment process has been criticized by Wilson (1885), Bryce (1988), Ames (1896), Smith (1907), Livingston (1956), Dixon (1971), Burgess (1978), Schechter (1985), Dellinger (1986), and Berry (1986and Berry ( , 1987. They hold that existing constitutional amendment procedures require extraordinary concurrent majorities to initiate and ratify amendments and represent substantial hurdles to constitutional change by amendment.…”

Section: The Amendment Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment and Constitutional Change by Stealth

Strickland¹

1993

APSC

1

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 27th Amendment to the US Constitution, which states that any adjustment in compensation to legislators could take effect only after a new election was held, was ratified in 1992, some 203 years after it was first proposed. The amendment passed as a reaction of voters to a 1989 proposal by legislators for a increase in their salaries by 51%, from $89,500 to $135,000 per annum. A question as to the constitutionality of an amendment that took more than two centuries to pass is being raised. ARTICLE The process of how to amend the U.S. Constitution is the least discussed and least examined aspect of the Constitution. The vagaries surrounding the amendment process were highlighted in 1992 as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment gained momentum and eventual ratification. Compensation of Members of Congress: The Twenty-Seventh Amendment As one of the original proposals accompanying the Bill of Rights, and first proposed in 1789, the congressional pay raise amendment was included in order to limit the ability of Congress to change the compensation of its members. It was proposed by James Madison and later passed by both houses of Congress. The amendment stated: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of senators and representatives, shall take effect until an election of representatives shall have intervened." Three state conventions, concerned that members of Congress might arbitrarily grant themselves salary raises, proposed that no salary improvements should occur before the next election of representatives (Livingston 1956).

show abstract

“…This article, in part, attempts to address critiques of the U.S. constitutional amendment process offered by Dellinger (1986), Schechter (1985), and Livingston (1956). They point out that existing constitutional amendment rules require extraordinary concurrent majorities to initiate and ratify amendments and represent substantial hurdles to constitutional change by amendment.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%