Why Changing the Constitution Is Hard on Purpose
The Constitution was written to last, but its authors knew that a nation changes over time. They included a way to alter the document, described in Article Five. The process is deliberately demanding. Changing the nation's highest law should require wide agreement, not just the wishes of a narrow majority on a single day.
The usual path has two main stages. First, an amendment must be proposed. In the path used for every amendment so far, two thirds of the members of both the House and the Senate must vote in favor. Second, the amendment must be ratified, which means approved by three fourths of the states. Each state decides through its legislature, or in some cases through a special convention. The president has no formal role in the amendment process, and no veto over it.
This demanding standard explains why the Constitution has been amended only twenty-seven times. Thousands of changes have been suggested over the years, but most never gained enough support. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were added within a few years of the Constitution's approval.
Because the bar is so high, an amendment that succeeds usually reflects a broad agreement across regions and communities. The slow pace can be frustrating to people who want quick change, but it also protects a nation from altering its foundation in the heat of a passing argument. Ordinary laws, in contrast, can be changed much more easily, which is why the Constitution is called the supreme law of the land.