What's Happening?
An Atlanta attorney has expressed concerns over the barriers presented by Article V of the U.S. Constitution in the process of constitutional change. The attorney argues that while Article V was designed
to involve 'we the people' in constitutional amendments, it has instead resulted in a system where five judges play a decisive role, following rules of evidence that historians would not accept. This commentary highlights the perceived failure and futility of Article V in facilitating meaningful constitutional change, suggesting that the current process does not adequately reflect the democratic principles it was intended to uphold.
Why It's Important?
The critique of Article V is significant as it touches upon the foundational aspects of constitutional law and the democratic process in the United States. The attorney's argument raises questions about the effectiveness and fairness of the current system for amending the Constitution. If the process is seen as overly restrictive or dominated by judicial interpretation, it could lead to calls for reform to ensure that constitutional changes more accurately reflect the will of the people. This discussion is crucial for legal scholars, policymakers, and citizens who are interested in the balance of power between the judiciary and the populace in shaping the nation's laws.
