You’ve probably heard people screaming about how "we need to change the law" or "there should be an amendment for that." It sounds simple on paper. Just write it down, get a few votes, and boom—new rule of the land. But honestly? It’s a nightmare by design. The founders of the United States didn't want the Constitution to be some flimsy document that changed every time a new trend hit the headlines. They wanted stability. So, they created the amending process, a gauntlet of political hurdles so high that most ideas die before they even get a sniff of a debate.
Since 1787, over 11,000 amendments have been proposed. Want to know how many actually made it? Twenty-seven. That’s it. And ten of those—the Bill of Rights—were essentially part of the original deal. When you look at the math, the amending process is basically the "Final Boss" of American politics.
How the Amending Process Actually Starts
Article V of the Constitution is where the magic (or the misery) happens. It lays out two distinct paths to propose an amendment.
First, there’s the "Congressional Path." This is the one we actually use. Two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to agree on the exact same wording. Think about that for a second. Getting two-thirds of Congress to agree on lunch is a miracle, let alone a fundamental shift in national law. This isn't a simple majority. You need a supermajority. It’s a massive hurdle that requires bipartisan support, which, in our current political climate, feels like trying to find a unicorn in a parking lot.
✨ Don't miss: Could America Have Won the Vietnam War: What Most People Get Wrong
Then there’s the "Convention Path." This is the wild card. If two-thirds of state legislatures—that's 34 states—call for a national convention, they can bypass Congress entirely to propose amendments. We have never, in the history of this country, actually done this. Why? Because legal experts like the late Justice Antonin Scalia warned it could become a "runaway convention." Once you open that door, who’s to stop them from rewriting the whole thing? It’s a constitutional "break glass in case of emergency" button that everyone is too scared to press.
The Ratification Trap
Proposing an amendment is just the warm-up. The real fight is ratification. Once an amendment clears Congress, it gets sent to the states. Here, you need three-fourths of the states to say "yes." That is 38 states.
The amending process gives a massive amount of power to a small minority. If 13 states say no, the amendment is dead. It doesn't matter if the other 37 states and 90% of the American public want it. This is exactly what happened with the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). It cleared Congress in 1972 with huge momentum. It seemed like a done deal. But then, a conservative movement led by Phyllis Schlafly stalled it in the state legislatures. It fell just short of the 38-state requirement before the deadline passed, leading to decades of legal battles that are still technically simmering today.
Why Does It Have to Be This Difficult?
It’s about "permanent" vs. "temporary" whims. James Madison and the other guys in wigs were worried about "factions." They feared that a simple majority might use the Constitution to bully everyone else. By making the amending process incredibly difficult, they ensured that only ideas with massive, sustained, national consensus could become the supreme law of the land.
If it were easy, we’d probably have 500 amendments by now. We’d have amendments about daylight savings time, the national bird, and probably some weird stuff from the 1800s that we’d regret today. Instead, the document remains lean. It forces us to use the court system and regular legislation to handle the day-to-day stuff, leaving the Constitution for the big, foundational shifts.
Real Examples of the Amending Process in Action
Let’s look at the 26th Amendment. It’s the one that lowered the voting age to 18. This is a rare example of the amending process moving fast. During the Vietnam War, the slogan was "old enough to fight, old enough to vote." The hypocrisy was so glaring that the amendment was proposed and ratified in about four months in 1971. That is lightning speed for the U.S. government.
On the flip side, look at the 27th Amendment. This one is hilarious. It says that if Congress votes themselves a pay raise, it doesn't take effect until after the next election. It was originally proposed in 1789 by James Madison. It sat in a drawer for over 200 years until a college student named Gregory Watson wrote a paper about it in 1982. He got a 'C' on the paper, which annoyed him so much that he started a letter-writing campaign. It worked. The amendment was finally ratified in 1992.
The amending process has no expiration date unless Congress specifically adds one to the text.
🔗 Read more: How Many Days Until Next Inauguration: What Most People Get Wrong
The Modern Stagnation of Amendments
We haven't added an amendment since 1992. That’s the longest drought in American history, tied only with the period between the 12th and 13th Amendments (which took the Civil War to break).
Why the stall?
- Polarization: Nobody agrees on anything anymore.
- The Courts: We’ve started relying on the Supreme Court to "interpret" the Constitution rather than changing the text.
- The Cost: Running a 50-state campaign for ratification costs hundreds of millions of dollars.
Some people argue this stagnation is dangerous. They say the amending process is so broken that the Constitution is becoming "dead." Others argue the difficulty is exactly what keeps the country from flying apart at the seams. If you could change the First Amendment with a 51% vote, would your free speech still feel secure the next time the "other side" won an election? Probably not.
How You Actually Engage With the Process
If you’re serious about changing the document, you don't start in D.C. You start in your state capital. Most successful amendments grew from the ground up. The 19th Amendment (women's suffrage) didn't just happen because Congress felt generous. It happened because dozens of states had already changed their own laws, making the federal amending process the final, inevitable step.
It’s a grueling, exhausting, multi-decade commitment. It requires building a coalition that crosses party lines and geographic borders.
💡 You might also like: How Many Black American Presidents Have There Been? What Most People Get Wrong
Practical Steps for Navigating Constitutional Change
If you're looking to influence the legal framework of the country, understand that the amending process is a long game. Here is how you actually approach it:
- Focus on State Legislatures: Since 38 states are required for ratification, your local state representative has more power over the Constitution than almost anyone in Washington.
- Track Pending Amendments: There are several "active" amendments currently being debated in various states, including those related to term limits and balanced budgets.
- Utilize Judicial Precedent: In the absence of a successful amending process, most "changes" to constitutional law happen through Supreme Court cases. Studying the "Living Constitution" theory vs. "Originalism" will show you how the law evolves without changing a single word of the text.
- Support Narrow Language: Historically, broad or vague amendments fail. The ones that pass are usually very specific, like the 25th Amendment (presidential succession) or the 16th (income tax).
The system is designed to frustrate you. It’s designed to be slow. But as Gregory Watson proved with his 200-year-old pay-raise amendment, it isn't impossible. It just takes an incredible amount of patience and a very thick skin.