Whatever Happened to Constitutional Amendments

            Since the signing of the Constitution, 17 September 1787, there have been twenty-seven amendments, providing additional instructions to government, amending previous instructions, or abolishing previous instructions. Of course, most People recognize the first 10 as The Bill of Rights.

            Interestingly, yet unrelated to the topic at hand, the last was submitted for ratification in 1789, with the first state doing so that year. Although, the 38^th state, required to attain the 3/4 threshold, did not ratify until 1992. By the way, that amendment established congressional pay raises, passed into law by congress, are not effective until after the next congressional elections are held.

            The amendment process has been used to resolve such pivotal and highly contentious issues as the abolition of slavery. The 14^th was very momentous in that it nullified the Supreme Court’s decision prohibiting citizenship for African-Americans. Additionally, and also related to the issue of slavery, the 14^th prohibited the states from infringing on the “privileges and immunities” afforded citizens of the United States and extended to them the due process and equal protection clauses.

            Four of them (15, 19, 24 and 26) concerned the right to vote, extending it to persons of all races, women, and those at least 18 years of age, as well as prohibiting a poll tax.

            The 18^th enacted the prohibition of alcohol, which, partially due to the prevalence of alcohol available through underground channels and the high public demand for it, was repealed only 11 years later. Although, one could argue the decision was most likely a matter of states’ economics, rather than public demand.

            Historically, the government has deferred to the amendment process in matters, which many would consider trivial, such as establishing the number of electors for the District of Columbia. The 20^th included a section changing the date for Congress to convene, even though Article I Sec. 4 clearly allowed for that to be done simply by passing a law.

            Then there is everyone’s favorite… the 16^th, which graciously bestowed upon us, or rather cemented, the federal income tax.

            All of this was not intended as a history lesson, but rather as a prelude to this question. Whatever happened to Constitutional Amendments? They have been proven to be possible, even in the most controversial of circumstances. They have been used in seemingly trivial matters. So, why does the modern government avoid that process in approaching such highly volatile issues as gun control?

            It has become common practice to merely proclaim the support of “the majority of Americans” and enact legislation, or more alarmingly, by edict of executive order. It’s not exclusive to one party, either. President Bush issued 290 executive orders, in his 8 years, while President Obama has amassed 145 in 4 years, exactly proportionate to his predecessor. Previous presidents, from both parties, have reached similar numbers, regardless of the fact the executive order lacks specific constitutional authority.

            Even though two sections of the Constitution ensure Americans “due process of law” and “equal protection”, both Lincoln and G. W. Bush (Patriot Act) signed legislation suspending habeas corpus, while Obama has signed equally controversial legislation, in the form of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). If “the American People” supported each of those actions, why evade the constitutionally authorized amendment process?

            And, here we are again. Gun control. If those seeking to enact legislation or encouraging the use of executive orders, to restrict the private ownership and/or transfer of any types of firearms, accessories or ammunition, truly believe “the majority of Americans” support such extensive gun control measures, why not propose an amendment to the Constitution? Why not subject those measures to the test of attaining the approval of 2/3 of the Senate and House of Representatives? Why not then put it to the test of attaining the approval of 3/4 of the states?

            These questions I leave to you, the reader.