Explain the two methods of proposing, and the two methods of ratifying, amendments (Constitution, Art. VII).
Has there ever been a national constitutional convention called by the states?
Which of the two methods of ratifying was used in the case of the last amendment adopted? [Footnote: Ohio by a referendum in 1919 submitted the eighteenth amendment to the people of the state for their vote, after it had been ratified by the legislature. This was the first time in our history that an amendment to the Constitution was submitted to popular vote for ratification.]
Did your state vote to ratify or to reject the last amendment?
If any amendment is now before the states for ratification, watch the newspapers for the action of the various states.
OUR GOVERNMENT A GROWING THING
The Constitution adopted in 1787 has met the needs of our growing nation in a most remarkable way. It would be a mistake, however, to think that it has always met new conditions perfectly, or that we are governed to-day exactly as was intended by the framers of the Constitution. Although few amendments have been made, INTERPRETATIONS have been placed on the Constitution that were probably unthought of by the framers or by the people who ratified it; and PRACTICES have grown up in our government that have made it quite a different government from that which was anticipated. Our government is a GROWING thing, and one of the chief merits of our Constitution is the fact that it speaks in such general terms that it has been possible, under it, to adapt our government to new and unexpected conditions. In this respect it differs from the detailed state constitutions.
DEFECTS INEVITABLE
On the other hand, conditions have arisen with the growth of our nation that our Constitution has not enabled us to meet with the greatest success, and that we have not yet met by amendment. In some cases we have tried to get around the difficulties by devices not provided for in the Constitution, sometimes with unfortunate results. But a recognition of defects in our government should not cause us to lose respect for the Constitution. They are due not to positive blunders on the part of the framers, but to the mere absence of provision for conditions that did not exist when the Constitution was framed and that could not be foreseen by the wisest men of that time. The wise course for all good citizens is to seek to understand clearly wherein our government fails to meet our needs, if it does fail, and then to seek to correct the difficulty, under the existing terms of the Constitution if possible, or by amendment of the Constitution if that becomes clearly necessary. Amendment of the Constitution was purposely made difficult, and this was doubtless wise, for it tends to prevent changes without full consideration of their needs and probable effects. Radical changes in our form of government and in our established laws are always fraught with danger. Because of the extreme complexity of community life a change effected at one point to meet a particular evil may have consequences of the most far-reaching kind and in the most unexpected directions. A change that corrects one evil may produce conditions resulting in evils even worse than the first. Changes are necessary at times, but they should be made only after the most careful consideration by men of the widest possible experience.