The Challenges of amending the US Constitution to Fix the Size of the Supreme Court
Recently, Senate Republicans introduced a Constitutional amendment proposing to limit the number of Supreme Court Justices to nine. However, this initiative faces significant obstacles in the near future.
Why is Passing a Constitutional Amendment So Difficult?
Amending the U.S. Constitution is not a straightforward process. Despite the introduction of over 10,000 amendment proposals in Congress, only 27 have been successfully ratified by state governments. The 33 amendments that did make it out of Congress have taken an average of centuries to achieve ratification, highlighting the complexity of the process.
The U.S. Constitution intentionally makes the amendment process difficult but not impossible. It requires a two-step process: a two-thirds majority (67 votes in the Senate and 327 in the House) to pass an amendment in Congress, followed by ratification by three-quarters of state legislatures. In practical terms, merely 13 states can veto a proposed amendment.
Historical Context and Examples
Historically, proposed amendments rarely see the light of day. For instance, the first 12 amendments proposed in 1789, often referred to as the Bill of Rights, were sent to the states almost immediately after the Constitutional Convention. Only 10 of these 12 amendments were ratified in 1791. Other amendments have languished for decades or even centuries. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment, for example, was introduced in 1789 and finally ratified 202 years and 7 months later in 1992.
A particularly egregious example is the failed “Article the First,” which proposed a detailed formula for the number of House members based on the decennial census. If adopted, the House would have over 5,000 representatives today. However, the amendment never made it past congressional approval and remains pending to this day, despite its antiquity.
Current Challenges and Relevance
While 27 amendments have been successfully incorporated into the Constitution, successful amendments addressing contemporary issues like the size of the Supreme Court are rare. Even the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age for federal positions to 18, was ratified by 43 states but faced no action from six others. The contemporary political and social dynamics make it more challenging to achieve such a complex change.
Even If It Were Possible, Would It Be a Good Idea?
Locking in the size of the Supreme Court by a constitutional amendment could be both extremely difficult and foolhardy. As the number of cases pending before the Court has surged in recent years, expanding its caseload and re-organizing its operations become imperative.
For example, despite the Court not increasing its caseload in decades, their clerks have had to examine ten times as many cases. Support structures, staffing, and logistics need to be adjusted to ensure fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.
Therefore, while the idea of limiting the Supreme Court to nine justices is appealing, it may not be practical or beneficial in the long run. A more flexible approach that allows for adjustments based on current needs might be more appropriate.
Conclusion
In conclusion, amending the U.S. Constitution to fix the number of Supreme Court Justices is a daunting task fraught with historical and practical challenges. While it may be an intriguing idea, the reality of the situation suggests that alternative solutions to manage the workload and operations of the Supreme Court might be more effective.