Nothing!!
Nothing!!!
Amending the Constitution
I am not one of those who believe that the Constitution of the United States is a flawless piece of workmanship.
It was not so considered by those who made it nor by those who adopted it. It never would have been ratified had it not been that amendments were promised and misrepresentation made as to the character of the instrument.
There has been a great deal of discussion recently about making a new Constitution or amending the old.
When the Constitution was adopted a government was created of which the Constitution is the supreme law, and this cannot be changed except in the manner prescribed in the instrument itself.
If two-thirds of the states composing the Union, acting through their legislatures, shall apply to Congress for “a Constitutional convention for proposing amendments,” and these amendments should be ratified by three-fourths of the states, then a practically new Constitution might be framed; but in no other legal way could the people alter the fundamental law.
Congress can take the initiative by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, and can propose amendments which, if adopted by three-fourths of the states, would become a part of the Constitution; but it must occur to all that this method of effecting reform is slow and cumbrous to the last degree.