Jonathan T. answered • 05/04/21
Coursework and experience across the social studies curriculum
In the United States, there is a tension that exists between the extent to which the people's say can be included in political actions, while also maintaining our form of representative democracy. From the Founding of our nation, our leaders feared the dangers of pure democracy. However, they also sought to give voice to citizens through elections and speech protections (rights that have expanded to even more Americans through our history). Due to this argument, there are some that argue that the citizens should have a more direct involvement in the amendment process. This essay will examine the benefits and drawbacks on increasing citizenship participation in that process.
The amendment process to the U.S. Constitution is purposefully difficult, a fact that has led to the document being amended only 27 times. Article V of the U.S. Constitution describes the different paths for a proposed amendment: 1) 2/3 vote in the House and Senate; 2) 2/3 vote of the state legislators; 3) a national constitutional convention by 2/3 of the state legislatures; or a national convention by 2/3 of the state legislators. After that, Congress decides whether the amendment will be ratified through approval by 3/4 of the states or by conventions in 3/4 of the states. Thus far, no amendment was ratified through the state convention method.
Given the fundamental nature of our country to focus on giving people a voice, the obvious benefit to the country with increasing citizen involvement would be to give the American people a more direct say in their government and their Constitution. Although members of Congress and state legislators, in theory, represent the views of their constituents, that is not always the case. While citizens may desire a change to the Constitution, they must now go through their elected representatives in order to enact that change. In addition, it can be incredibly difficult to get a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures/conventions. Therefore, citizen involvement in the amendment process would further empower the American people to have a more direct say in their government.
While increased democracy is not necessarily a bad thing, a major setback to that premise may lead to mob rule. In its current form, the amendment process largely serves as a barrier to the whims of changing public perceptions. Instead, given the high bar for proposal and ratification, society's whims are unlikely to be included in the Constitution. This is important because an increased role from citizens may lead to amendments that curb rights or freedoms of groups of people -- a term Thomas Jefferson would repeatedly refer to as the "tyranny of the majority." Therefore, keeping this power in the hands of elected representatives and stringent standards likely protects dangerous or bad amendments from becoming the law of the land.
As this essay discussed, there are positive and negative outcomes and possibilities for given the American citizens more involvement in the amendment process. As in most cases with democracy, it is about balance. While the country should always strive to give the citizens power, it must also keep in mind the dangers of direct democracy and the important distinction between that and our representative democracy.
