Article XX of the Idaho Constitution establishes two ways in which the constitution can be altered over time, either via legislatively referred constitutional amendments or constitutional conventions.
Idaho does not feature the power of citizen initiative for either initiated constitutional amendments or initiated state statutes. Article XIV of the Illinois Constitution lays out four different routes that can be taken in order to change the constitution over time:. Any statewide ballot question concerning a constitutional convention , ratifying an amendment proposed by the Illinois General Assembly or adopting an initiated constitutional amendment must be approved by a supermajority vote of 60 percent of those voting on the question or a majority vote of those who cast a ballot for any office in the election.
The amendment procedures available under the Indiana Constitution are more restrictive than those of most other states. Only legislatively referred constitutional amendments can be used to amend the constitution, and this procedure is more restrictive in Indiana than in most states, since any proposed amendment must be approved in two successive sessions of the Indiana General Assembly before it can go to a vote of the people. Article 16 also does not say anything about how a constitutional convention could be held or called.
The constitutions of more than 40 of the other states do lay out a procedure for calling a constitutional convention. Indiana does not feature the power of citizen initiative for either initiated constitutional amendments or initiated state statutes. Article 16 details how the legislatively referred constitutional amendment process works in Indiana:.
Article X of the Iowa Constitution governs the ways in which the state's constitution can be changed over time. Article 14 of the Kansas Constitution governs the ways in which the state's constitution can be changed over time. Kansas does not feature the power of citizen initiative for either initiated constitutional amendments or initiated state statutes. There are two ways to amend the Kentucky Constitution :. Kentucky does not feature the power of initiative for either initiated constitutional amendments or initiated state statutes.
There are two ways to amend the Louisiana Constitution. Louisiana does not feature the power of initiative for either initiated constitutional amendments or initiated state statutes. The Maine Constitution may be amended in two ways:. The Maine Constitution of was the first state constitution in the United States that only required one legislative proposal followed by a vote of the people in order to amend itself. All other state constitutions up to Maine's required two legislative actions.
Maine residents cannot put a constitutional amendment on the ballot through the power of initiative. Maine does feature the power of initiative for initiated state statutes. Article XIV allows for the possibility that some proposed constitutional amendments may apply to only one county or the city of Baltimore , which is governed independent of a county structure.
In the case of amendments with localized provisions, Article XIV says that in order to become part of the constitution, the proposed amendment must be approved by a majority vote not just statewide, but also in the specific county to which it exclusively applies. Maryland does not feature the power of initiative for either initiated constitutional amendments or initiated state statutes. Article 48 allows the constitution to be amended through indirect initiative amendments.
It imposes a number of restrictions on such proposed amendments:. The state's general court plays a significant role in the process for an initiated constitutional amendment in Massachusetts:. The Massachusetts General Court may also legislatively refer constitutional amendments.
According to that section:. The Massachusetts Constitution can also be changed through a constitutional convention and subsequent ratification from the voters. There have been four constitutional conventions in Massachusetts:.
The Michigan Constitution can be amended in these ways:. The Minnesota Constitution can be amended via two different paths:. A unique feature of Minnesota's law is that the voter approval requirement for a revised constitution suggested by a constitutional convention is different from that of a constitutional amendment proposed by the legislature.
Ratification of amendments suggested by a convention require a 60 percent supermajority of those voting on the amendment question, while an amendment proposed by the legislature requires a simple majority of those voting in the election. The Mississippi Constitution can be amended via two different paths:. Mississippi is one of the few states that has no provision for a constitutional convention.
The Missouri Constitution can be amended via three different paths:. Votes on any proposed amendments to the state's constitution can take place at a general election or a special election. A unique feature of Missouri's law governing constitutional amendments is found in a provision in Section 2 b of Article XII , which states that proposed amendments should be published if possible "in two newspapers of different political faith in each county.
The Montana Constitution can be amended through initiated constitutional amendments , legislatively referred constitutional amendments and constitutional conventions. The Nevada Constitution can be amended via three different paths: a constitutional convention , a legislatively referred constitutional amendment or an initiated constitutional amendment.
There are two paths to altering the New Hampshire Constitution : A legislatively referred constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention. There's only one way to amend the New Jersey Constitution , and that is through a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. New Jersey is one of six states that has no provision for a constitutional convention. The New Mexico Constitution can be amended through a legislatively referred constitutional amendment or through a constitutional convention.
When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature.
If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States 38 of 50 States. When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution.
The other is that it is biased in favor of the federal government and therefore does not allow amendments that would limit the national government. If the original meaning were consistently followed, both of the defects would be eliminated. Some critics of originalism argue that the amendment process is too strict because it is difficult to secure approval by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Therefore, these critics contend the Supreme Court should engage in nonoriginalist judicial interpretation to allow for modern circumstances and values to be incorporated into the Constitution.
The amendment process, however, is not too strict to allow for constitutional change. It is true that the process does require amendments to be supported by a consensus. See John O. Rappaport, Originalism and the Good Constitution The problem is not that the constitutional amendment process requires a consensus but that the Supreme Court often intervenes before a consensus can emerge. A consensus often takes a long time to develop. As a result, no amendment will be enacted, since the Court has already made a change.
By contrast, if the original meaning were followed, the amendment process would have the opportunity to enact changes in the Constitution that are supported by a consensus. This analysis helps to explain why so much constitutional change has occurred in the last three generations through judicial interpretation rather than the amendment process.
For example, during the New Deal, the Roosevelt Administration did not attempt to pass constitutional amendments to give the federal government more regulatory power. Instead, it attempted to pack the Supreme Court. There seems little doubt that the nation would have supported an amendment that conferred additional regulatory powers, but there is a good chance that the consensus requirement would have meant the federal government would have received less power than the Court eventually granted it.
A second problem with the amendment system is that its current operation is biased in favor of the federal government.
The Constitution provides two methods for proposing amendments. While all of the existing amendments have been enacted through the congressional proposal method, in which two-thirds of each House of Congress proposes an amendment, no amendment has ever passed through the convention method.
Under that method, two-thirds of the state legislatures can apply for Congress to call a convention that would then decide whether to propose an amendment. The convention method was an essential part of the original Constitution. The drafters of the Constitution recognized that the congressional proposal method was controlled by the federal government.
Consequently, it could not be relied upon to reform federal governmental abuses. The drafters therefore placed the convention method into the Constitution, since this method largely bypasses the federal government.
Michael B. Commentary 53 Unfortunately, this amendment method is broken. Many people who favor constitutional amendments that would limit the federal government are nonetheless unwilling to use this method, because they fear what is called a runaway convention—a convention that is called to propose amendments on one subject but then proposes them on other matters. For example, state legislatures might apply for a convention to pass a balanced budget amendment, but the convention might then decide to propose an amendment allowing school prayer.
This fear of a runaway convention has hobbled the convention method. Some of these amendments, however, would probably have been enacted under a functioning convention method. Many constitutional commentators have argued that a runaway convention is constitutional. In their view, the Constitution does not allow the states to limit the convention to a particular subject and therefore the convention is free to make proposals on any subject of its choosing.
Wilkey, called a few years ago for a new convention. But Richard C. Leone, president of the New York-based Twentieth Century Fund, a nonpartisan research group, says recent efforts to amend the Constitution go too far. His organization hopes to balance the argument by publishing The New Federalist Papers, taking the name from the original Federalist Papers which were written to promote ratification of the Constitution. Polsby, the Northwestern law professor, said the number of proposed amendments is not uncommon.
0コメント