THE CONSTITUTION IN JEOPARDY

The history and meaning of a problematic constitutional provision.

Feingold, a senator for nearly 20 years and president of the American Constitution Society, and attorney Prindiville examine Article V of the U.S. Constitution with the aim of provoking discussion about its “dangers and possibilities.” Article V, they explain, allows for changes to the Constitution by creating “a two-route amendment method,” by which amendments can be “proposed both bottom-up by the people of the states and top-down by Congress.” If two-thirds of states concur, they can apply to hold a convention to revise the Constitution, restructure elements of government, and create or limit constitutional rights. Such a convention has never been held, and only 27 amendments—out of more than 11,000 proposed in Congress—have been ratified. These, the authors note, “have advanced freedom, equality, and prosperity by strengthening federal power” and enabling government “to address new challenges.” The authors are alarmed, however, by far-right proponents who see Article V as a way to enact radical proposals, including “new state authority to veto federal laws, onerous federal spending limitations that would eviscerate most national policy, and a complete restructuring of the country’s lawmaking and regulatory powers.” Feingold and Prindiville acknowledge that success in enacting these proposals requires building “exceptionally mature, cross-group coalitions and well-funded, savvy advocacy efforts to secure the support of thousands of state legislators and (sometimes) hundreds of congresspeople across a diverse political terrain. Such advocacy is hard, expensive, and can take decades. Most movements cannot do it.” Nevertheless, in an increasingly partisan political atmosphere, the possibility exists, and the authors find that Article V “provides inadequate guardrails to foster and guide the dialogue of constitutional change and places ultimate constitutional authority in the hands of institutions too far removed from the popular will.” The authors argue convincingly that Article V needs revision, and they recommend the establishment of a bipartisan congressional commission dedicated to assuring citizens’ power.

A cogent, thoughtful argument about a topic that may be unfamiliar to many Americans.