Amendments

Arguing that the Amendments Clause was designed in response to the unanimity rule of the Articles of Confederation, which made them practically impossible to change, as a less demanding amendment standard. Concluding that the standard adopted was a compromise between an easily alterable statute and a permanently entrenched constitution.

Documenting that the Framers designed the Amendments Clause of Article V to allow for flexible alteration to the Constitution, and to make states central this process.

Arguing that the amendment process was adopted specifically to be in line with the constitutional values of separate powers, federalism, republican institutions, and balancing majority will with minimum protections. Concluding that change in the Constitution can only occur in accordance with these principles and that Article III interpretative changes to the Constitution are therefore unconstitutional.

Using historical sources, including the Philadelphia convention and state conventions, to determine the original public meaning of the word “amendment.” Concluding that an amendment must 1) be germane to the entity, 2) preserve at least the essence of a significant part of the entity, and 3) make the entity transform from bad to better.

Providing an overview of the early history of Article V including its adoption process in the Philadelphia Convention, the critiques leveled at it by the Antifederalists, and the Federalist’s defense of it as encouraging legitimacy and stability within the amendment process.