How Did The Framers Change The Constitution

The Constitution is undoubtedly the strongest and most important document in United States history. It is the Constitution that was responsible for forming our government, along with setting forth the duties and restrictions of this newly created government. The Constitution also provided the people with certain rights that the government was prohibited from taking away. The United States Constitution is said to be the supreme law of the land and all Presidents, governors, state and federal judges and legislators are tasked with the promise to uphold it. As strong as the Constitution is, it is also flexible. The framers realized as times changed the Constitution would possibly have to change as well, so they included provisions for amending it, but they made it a multi-step process requiring majority support to ensure any future changes would reflect the true needs of the country and not just the desires or opinions of a select few. In addition to including an amendment process, the framers were certain to leave it open to some interpretation by future leaders.
When drafting the Constitution, the framers knew they had to create a document that would give the government enough power to
maintain strong, stable leadership but not too much power as to avoid establishing a king-like rule. Although the framers knew they had to create a strong document they realized this document had to be flexible as well. Our Constitution was written in such a way that it would endure changing times. The framers knew they had to entrust future generations to adapt the principles of the Constitution to the issues they would subsequently face. “They sought not only to address the specific challenges facing the nation during their lifetimes, but to establish the foundational principles that would sustain and guide the nation into an always uncertain future” (Stone). It is for this reason that the Framers included in the Constitution a process for it to be changed, or amended.
The United States Constitution can be amended two ways, however one has never been used. One such way, and the one that has never been used is the Constitutional Convention method. A Constitutional Convention is essentially a meeting called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the states. At this meeting, they can propose as many amendments as desired, but the amendments proposed must be approved by three-fourths of the states. The second way, and the way that has provided us with the 27 amendments to date is by proposing the amendment to Congress, usually by legislators. Once an amendment is proposed it must secure approval of two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate. After securing supermajority support, the amendment is then proposed to Congress by initiating a joint resolution, usually done by the House of Representatives or the Senate. Congress can propose an amendment to the Constitution by passing a joint resolution. If two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve the resolution, Congress will proceed to amend the Constitution as proposed. The President has no role in the amendment process and therefore is not required to approve the resolution and new amendment.
There have been thousands of amendments proposed over the years, but as we know only 27 of them have been adopted.
This is a surprising fact considering the Constitution is more than 200 years old and the first ten amendments along with the 27th were all adopted by the first Congress. According to Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania professor of law, the low success rate of Constitutional amendments being ratified is due to the fact that "the founders wanted the bar set high because they believed that most issues should be left to the ordinary political process. A constitutional amendment takes an issue away from the normal process of democratic politics, quite likely forever, so it makes sense to require an extraordinary consensus to resolve it permanently”
(Gorham).
If I had the ability to propose a new amendment to the Constitution I would propose one granting the right to euthanasia for terminally ill adults. Many of us have had a sick pet, a pet that we know will never again be healthy, either due to illness or age; a pet with no quality of life and who is suffering and in pain every day. When it comes to our pets, euthanasia is the humane thing to do. We make the compassionate decision, out of love, to end their lives and in turn end their suffering. If we extend that compassion to our pets should we not have the right to decide for ourselves when ending our own lives becomes the humane and compassionate choice? I believe any adult who has lost their quality of life, who is suffering, who is terminally ill with no hope of recovering or ever again leading a normal life, should have the right to choose to end his or her life.
The framers wrote the Constitution under the assumption that its meaning and intent would need to be evaluated as society evolved. They made certain to pen a document that was both strong and flexible for this reason. Providing the means for the Constitution to be amended and its intent adapted has provided for the strong central government the framers had designed more than two hundred years ago. Times have certainly changed since the early days of this country and the ratification of the Constitution, but as its citizens, we can be grateful that our forefathers provided us with the framework for a government that has been able to withstand the test of time and still provides us the same freedoms afforded us at its inception.