constitutional amendment essay ideas

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Ideas for New Amendments to the Constitution

Readers address the E.R.A., the Electoral College, gun rights, abortion, the environment and other issues.

To the Editor:

Re “ Will We Ever Amend the Constitution Again? ,” by Jesse Wegman (Opinion essay, Sunday Review, Aug. 8):

I’d like to thank Mr. Wegman and the contributors to the companion article, “ It’s Been 50 Years Since America’s Last Real Update to Its Constitution ,” for their discussions of constitutional reform issues and proposals. Large-scale reforms are urgently needed but, to be adequate to our democracy’s needs, reforms must extend beyond the proposals discussed to the basic structure of the Constitution and its institutions.

As an example of the breadth required, readers might like to know that a group of leading constitutional scholars led by Sanford Levinson has recently engaged in extensive deliberations and in June published an entirely new constitution, the text of which can be found at democracyjournal.org/magazine/61/a-new-constitution-for-the-united-states .

It is beyond doubt that achieving meaningful reforms will require holding a new constitutional convention, and common fears of such a convention on both the political left and right are misplaced.

George William Van Cleve Denver The writer is a dean’s visiting scholar at Georgetown University Law Center.

Contrary to Jesse Wegman, constitutional stability is a virtue, not a vice. James Madison, father of the Constitution, who rejected Thomas Jefferson’s rash idea of a new constitution every 19 years , denounced mutability of the laws in Federalist 62. Among other things, he explained: “Great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements.”

The supermajorities required to amend the Constitution have not fossilized the document. Indeed, every amendment advanced by seven legal scholars and writers in “It’s Been 50 Years Since America’s Last Real Update to Its Constitution” can be enacted by legislation without disturbing the Constitution, but for extinguishing a woman’s right to choose. And the latter has been uniformly defeated in popular referendums by simple majorities.

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) that the Constitution was intended to endure for the ages and to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs, a long-headed precept that experience has vindicated.

Scapegoating the Constitution will not solve or mitigate our multiple political ills.

Bruce Fein Washington The writer was an associate deputy attorney general under President Ronald Reagan and is the author of “Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy.”

All of the amendments suggested by your panel of scholars, except the cumbersome proposal to change the Supreme Court, are single-issue amendments. They would address some pet peeve of the writer, while doing nothing to address the grave failure of government, time and again, to act in the interests of the citizenry. Yet, in a democracy, nothing could be more critical.

One simple four-word revision to the First Amendment, however, would address an abundance of ills facing our country today, by turning the power away from moneyed interests and returning it to the people: “Money is not speech.”

Richie Feder Philadelphia The writer is an adjunct faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and the Temple University Beasley School of Law.

Jesse Wegman dismisses the Equal Rights Amendment — which bans discrimination on account of sex — as one that “will probably never be adopted because it exceeded the time limit set out in the original bill and because several states that approved it later rescinded their ratification.”

What Mr. Wegman fails to mention is the ongoing bipartisan effort in Congress to remove the time limit. A resolution is pending in the Senate , and a similar one has passed twice in the House.

There is also pending litigation brought by Virginia, Illinois and Nevada, the most recent ratifying states, arguing that the E.R.A. now satisfies all constitutional requirements and that a time limit in a joint resolution cannot stand in its way. Many other states — led by New York — filed a brief supporting this position, along with more than a hundred major corporations and a host of advocates for women’s rights.

Mr. Wegman is right that the process for amendment is difficult. But the Constitution does not impose a time limit on ratification. Nor does it provide for a state to rescind once it has ratified.

In light of the continuing efforts in Congress and the courts, the E.R.A. should hardly be dismissed out of hand. It is alive and well, and it is as important as ever.

Linda Coberly Chicago The writer is the chair of the ERA Coalition’s Legal Task Force.

Alexandra DeSanctis proposes a constitutional amendment to protect the unborn. Such an amendment might actually have traction if it had sections that gave protections to the children and mothers both before and long after birth — protections such as guaranteed prenatal care, six months leave of absence from work after giving birth, universal prekindergarten, wages above poverty level for full-time workers, and affordable robust health care for parents and children.

It is an unfortunate truth in America that many legislators and others who want to limit a mother’s freedom to choose an abortion are not willing to provide meaningful and necessary benefits to the living.

Roy Goldman Haverford, Pa.

Fifty years ago, Pennsylvania adopted a constitutional amendment that I wrote providing its citizens with the “right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic, and esthetic values of the environment.” It also provides that “Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come,” and it requires the state to “conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.”

A comparable amendment to the U.S. Constitution would do our nation well.

The Biden administration has proposed a comprehensive program to address climate change. But future administrations can repeal or withdraw these efforts, just as President Donald Trump repealed dozens of environmental changes made by President Barack Obama.

An environmental amendment to the Constitution would enshrine the government’s commitment to protect its citizens from environmental harm, including climate change. It would also give citizens constitutional standing to enforce those rights.

As the headline of a recent Maureen Dowd column warned, we are facing “Apocalypse Right Now.” So what better time than now to add an environmental amendment?

Franklin L. Kury Hummelstown, Pa. The writer is a retired state representative and senator and the author of “The Constitutional Question to Save the Planet: The People’s Right to a Healthy Environment.”

Many of the amendments proposed as updates to the Constitution betray a fundamental misconception of what the document is about: The Constitution is an operating manual for our governmental architecture. The focus is on the structures of government, not on social policy. Worthy as some of these recommendations may (or may not) be, a “commitment to peace” or “rights for the unborn” have no more place in the Constitution than did the 18th Amendment, on Prohibition, which was later repealed.

Steven Berkowitz New York

Some interesting ideas, but where is the proposal to repeal the Second Amendment? It was written in the era of the blunderbuss, but the number and firepower of weapons have grown exponentially since then. It’s time for a rethinking, which could best be done by federal and state legislators absent the amendment’s constraints.

Peter Parker Carmel, Calif.

Yes, the writers of the U.S. Constitution got us off to a fine start, but there is no doubt the document can be improved. It’s odd, though, that the legal scholars asked to contribute to your story about the need for an update did not suggest that we abandon the perilous Electoral College in favor of electing our president by popular vote. Americans trying to explain this complicated, potentially antidemocratic system to citizens of other countries would have better luck explaining quantum physics.

Readers interested in a better example of a national constitution may want to take a look at Rwanda’s . One may disagree with some of it, but it shows clear decisions on many of the controversial topics we wrestle with here.

Jeff Davis Akron, Ohio

I suggest an Anti-Originalism Amendment:

“No word or phrase in this Constitution or in any amendment to it shall be construed by any federal or state court as having only the meaning it was intended or understood to have when it was ratified or adopted. The Constitution, with its amendments, shall be interpreted to reflect the changing beliefs and circumstances of an evolving society.”

Ronald W. Tochterman Sacramento The writer is a retired state court judge and law professor.

• Institutions of Democracy

What Should Be the 28th Amendment to the Constitution? These Students Have Some Ideas

Posted on January 20, 2023

The 26 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1971 during the Vietnam War, set the national voting age at 18, so that young people who were old enough to be drafted would also have the right to vote. (Prior to this, most states set the voting age at 21.) The 27 th Amendment, ratified over a decade later, prevents Congress from giving itself a pay raise – any approved increase does not take effect until after the next congressional election.

If the United States were to have a 28 th Amendment to the Constitution, what should it be?

The question was posed last fall to hundreds of Philadelphia-area 4 th and 5 th grade students by the Rendell Center for Civics and Civic Engagement in its Citizenship Challenge essay contest. On January 12, 2023, 10 class teams of finalists gathered at the National Constitution Center on Independence Mall to present their ideas in the form of skits and songs before a trio of judges. The finals were sponsored by the Rendell Center, the Constitution Center, and the Annenberg Public Policy Center .

Among the students’ ideas were that the 28 th Amendment should:

• Guarantee that all schools are equitable, eliminating disparities in resources and opportunities between rich and poor districts (proposed by Joan Carter Williams’ 4 th grade class at E.M. Stanton Elementary School, Philadelphia);
• Provide everyone with the right to have the option of free healthcare (Monica Williams’ 5 th grade class in Radnor Elementary) or that there should be pay-what-you-can healthcare coverage for all (Tara McClusker’s 5 th grade class at St. Francis Xavier School)
• Abolish the Electoral College (Audrey Kraus and Mindy Civan’s 5 th grade class at Perelman Jewish Day School);
• Address gun violence by limiting gun possession to individuals who need them for military and hunting uses (Matthew Cummins’ 5 th grade class in Manavon Elementary School, Phoenixville).

The three judges questioned the students about their proposals. “Is the right to have health care in the Constitution itself?” former Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a cofounder of the Rendell Center, asked one group. To other students proposing to eliminate the winner-take-all approach used by most states with the Electoral College, he asked, what if there are more than two candidates and no one wins a majority of the vote? If five candidates are running and the leader has 25% of the vote, is that enough to be elected president?

Another judge, Senior U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Judge and Rendell Center cofounder Marjorie O. Rendell, questioned a class about its plan to limit gun ownership to the military and hunters: “So if the man on the street wants to protect himself in his home, he is not able to have a gun?” The Rendells were joined on the judging panel by retired Judge and U.S. Attorney Michael R. Stiles.

The winners are:

1 st Place: Buckingham Elementary School : Linda Monkoski’s 5 th grade class proposed electoral reform to “insure that we have fair and just elections,” including term limits for the President (two 4-year terms), Senators (two 6-year terms), House of Representatives (two 4-year terms), and Supreme Court Justices (15 years maximum, with current justices serving no more than 25 years). The class also proposed that electors in every state should be elected proportionately, matching the popular vote percentages (no more winner-take-all), and that each state will elect a bipartisan committee to review and determine fair district lines for city, state, and federal office, in order to eliminate gerrymandering. In its essay, the Buckingham class wrote: “All in all, we want our leaders to serve fair terms of service and our elections to be fair representations of the wishes of the people of this great country.”

2 nd Place: Bala Cynwyd Middle School : Ann Friedlander and Michelle Rullo’s 5th grade class proposed an amendment to protect the right to vote. The class noted that “restrictive voting legislation has denied access to voting to countless citizens and has undermined election integrity,” and voiced concern that the federal John Lewis Voting Rights Act, though passed by the House of Representatives, has failed to pass the Senate. “If both sides can’t come together to protect a basic right, then the only recourse is to have absolute protection of the right to vote with a constitutional amendment.”

3 rd Place: Queen of Angels Regional Catholic School : Sarah Galbreath and Christina Behan’s 5 th grade class proposed “a living wage amendment” ensuring that everyone is paid “the amount of money a person or family needs to survive.”

“The idea for us in forming the Rendell Center was to make good citizens,” Ed Rendell told the students at the closing ceremony. “One of the best things that’s happened in the last few years is young people stepping up and taking their rightful place as the future of the country.”

Photo credit: The Turning Page.

Recent Articles

Experiencing Extreme Weather Predicts Support for Policies to Mitigate Effects of Climate Change

Psychologist and Neuroscientist Emily Falk to Lead APPC’s New Climate Communication Division

Special Issue of Nicotine & Tobacco Research Highlights Influence of Social Media on Young People’s Tobacco Use

12 Uncommon Suggestions for Amending the Constitution

Atlantic readers offer ideas including a tricameral legislature, a ban on incarcerating nonviolent criminals, and declassifying all information after 20 years.

Last week, I solicited suggestions for Constitutional amendments. Many of the responses were familiar: There are ongoing debates about the extent to which corporations should be treated as people, for example, and both sides in the abortion debate were keen on permanently codifying their preferences. I appreciate all the email, but below I've decided to focus on the suggestions that I've never seen widely discussed or debated, the better to provoke civic thought. Except where otherwise indicated, I express no opinion about whether these are good or bad ideas.

Keep Your Laws Off Their Bodies

Terry Rolon writes:

Legal jargon aside, an adult person should be sovereign over their own bodies and free to do anything they wish to it without limit. They ought to be able to ingest anything, even if it kills them. They ought to be able end their life at any time for any reason. The decision to do so ought to be outside the reach of government.

Says Sarath Krishnaswamy:

Congress shall pass no law regarding actions between or among consenting adults on private property, where the effects of such actions are reasonably wholly contained to the sphere of said adults, said express consent, and said property.

This would seem to make possible a legal market for kidneys.

How About a Parliament?

Several readers suggested changing America's legislative branch to a European-style body that gives proportional representation to lots of competing political parties. What I'd never seen or thought of before is the suggestion of leaving Congress in place as it is, but adding a parliamentary body.

A tricameral legislature! A reader writes:

I'd like to add a third legislative body: a parliament. All new parties allowed. The parliament would appoint the vice president, who would act in tandem with the president, something like Cheney. The parliament would be able to override both the Senate and the House if either splits on a bill. That is, if a bill passes the House, but not the Senate, the Parliament can pass the law which is sent to the President for signing (or veto). If the bill passes the Senate but not the House, the same. The Parliament would also be able to introduce legislation, which, at its discretion, can be sent to either the House or the Senate...

This would be more palatable to me if the Parliament could override the House but not the Senate.

Better Safeguarding the Constitution

Peter Jewett writes:

Citizens shall have standing to challenge the constitutionality of any federal law, executive order, or regulation. We wouldn't have to sit around and wait for elusive perfect plaintiffs (who have been harmed individually, who know they've been harmed, and can prove they've been particularly harmed) to settle whether an issue (Obamacare, drone strikes, warrantless wiretaps, federal funding of religion, etc.) are constitutional. Taxpayer standing would settle the issue almost immediately. It would lead to more litigation, but Congress could authorize a particular process for expediting the issue through a particular court or panel, to the Supreme Court.

Transparency

A reader writes:

The public shall have the right to access all classified information after a period of 20 years.

Says another:

The power to classify information shall henceforth be vested in the judiciary with oversight by the Senate, which cannot classify material, but can make public anything wrongly classified.

Bill Cornett writes:

Any citizen has the absolute and complete right to record the words and actions of any government official acting in an overt manner with any member of the public. This right will also extend to the words and actions of anyone working on the behalf of any government agency or quasi-government entity of any type. No notice need be given. It shall be prohibited for anyone subject to recording under this amendment to force a citizen to abrogate this right as a requirement for interaction or proper action on the part of the entity from which they derive their authority.

The New Nullification

A Federal law or regulation shall be repealed when articles of repeal are ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states.

States laws may grant more freedom than Federal laws, but never less. In the event the two laws conflict, the law granting greater personal freedom shall prevail.

Radical Criminal-Justice Reform

A reader suggests:

All nonviolent crimes shall be punished by means other than incarceration.

Each year every member of Congress shall spend at least one consecutive day and night in a regular cell inside a randomly selected federal prison that is located inside his or her state.

Says a third:

All prisons shall be outfitted with streaming video cameras that any citizen can access over the Internet, the better to protect prisoners against abuse.

Sixteen Good, Bad, and Insane Ideas for a Twenty-Eighth Amendment to the Constitution

America’s longest drought between constitutional amendments since the Civil War was from 1870 to 1913. In that time, there were two presidential assassinations and several financial panics; the light bulb, telephone, movie theater, radio, and airplane were invented; the Supreme Court legalized segregation; fire destroyed Chicago and an earthquake flattened San Francisco; and the United States added eleven new states. Despite the frenzy, the Constitution went untouched.

The most recent amendment—the Twenty-Seventh in 1992, which prohibits changes to congressional salaries from taking effect until the next term—was an unfinished James Madison plan unearthed by University of Texas student Gregory Watson, who earned a C for finding it. The amendment before that, the Twenty-Sixth, was the last to add an original idea to the Constitution. It lowered the voting age to 18 and passed in 1971.

Measuring from the Twenty-Sixth, the country is about to tie that long drought between amendments. Even counting from the Twenty-Seventh, for the first time since 1913 (when Congress passed two amendments), it will soon be possible for someone to enter law school having lived his or her entire life under a static Constitution.

Which isn’t to say Washington hasn’t tried. Most ideas for new amendments fall into one of two categories: either political amendments , which seek to settle hot-button issues like gay marriage and abortion; or procedural amendments , which seek to change how we practice politics in the United States. None has passed muster, failing either in Congress or the state legislatures, if it made it that far at all.

We got law professors to weigh in on the various proposals over the years. Here’s a look at amendments that might have been, still could be, and never stood a chance of becoming the Twenty-Eighth Amendment.

the equal rights amendmentPassed Congress in 1972; fell three states short of ratification by 1982 deadline This famous effort to enshrine women’s equal rights in the Constitution failed in 1982, but since 1976, the Supreme Court has said the Fourteenth Amendment bans gender discrimination except where there is an important government purpose. “What would it accomplish?” asks NYU’s Barry Friedman, who adds it could be rebooted as a gay-equality amendment. the adam & eve amendment Defeated in the Senate in 2004 and 2006; reintroduced unsuccessfully in 2008 and 2013 An amendment to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples never made it to state legislatures in 2006. Since then, twelve states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage; twelve states have banned it. Public opinion has shifted strongly in favor of gay rights, making a successful revival unlikely. the balanced-budget amendment Passed by the House in 1995; defeated in the Senate Forty-five states have already amended their constitutions to require legislatures to balance their budgets, but Washington has held out. If he had to bet on the Twenty-Eighth Amendment, Georgetown Law’s Louis Michael Seidman’s money is on this one. In 2011, Warren Buffett suggested a legislative alternative: “You just pass a law that says that, anytime there is a deficit of more than 3 percent of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for reelection.” the personhood amendment Introduced in hundreds of slightly differing forms since 1973 This year, the North Dakota state legislature passed an amendment granting full personhood rights to human embryos—and anti-abortion activists hope the nation will one day, too. Pro-choice advocates, meanwhile, have already devised a clever rebuttal: Personhood would extend citizenship to anyone conceived in the United States, not merely born here. the non-personhood amendment Introduced in 2011; since Abandoned While conservatives attempted to write fetal personhood into the Constitution, Senator Bernie Sanders, the socialist from Vermont, tried to erase corporate personhood from it. His amendment declared, once and for all, that corporations aren’t people—and therefore lack free-speech protections. With that settled, Sanders’s amendment would have then outlawed all corporate campaign contributions. the star-spangled amendment Passed by the House every congressional term from 1995 until 2005; always stalled in the Senate It reads in full: “The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.” It’s popular in Republican Congresses, but even some conservatives chafe: “It becomes much harder to defend displays of the Confederate flag as free expression if you have an amendment banning flag-burning,” says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. the this-is-how-much-we-hate-obamacare amendment Subcommittee purgatory After the House’s 37 failed attempts to rescind Obamacare, Senator Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican with White House ambitions, proposed an amendment that “Congress shall make no law that imposes a tax on a failure to purchase goods or services.” Representative Steven Palazzo, a Mississippi Republican, introduced a similar proposal in the House. Look for this to gain some fans as Obamacare rolls into effect in 2014. the campaign-finance amendment Proposed in the House in 2012 Less radical than Bernie Sanders’s proposal, this amendment would empower Congress and the states to publicly fund elections and limit private campaign contributions. Representative Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, introduced it last year, with Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe’s assistance. The proposal came as the 2012 presidential race saw $524 million in spending from independent groups.

the schwarzenegger amendmentIntroduced in Congress more than two dozen times since 1870, most recently in 2003 by Orrin Hatch; never passed Believe it or not, the Founders actually allowed foreign-born Americans to become president—as long as they had been naturalized by 1787. That was too early for Arnold Schwarzenegger, who at the height of his popularity as California’s governor sparked hopes for an amendment to allow immigrants into the highest offices. the gore amendment Unintroduced “I had thought an election where the presidency goes to the loser of the popular vote would trigger an amendment abolishing or restructuring the electoral college, but I was wrong,” says Yale Law School’s Akhil Reed Amar. He has proposed a clever, non-constitutional initiative where state legislatures bind their electors to the national popular vote. the armageddon amendment Introduced 2001; since ABANDONED After 9/11, Representative Brian Baird, a Washington Democrat, proposed a constitutional amendment spelling out the response to a disaster that wipes out huge swaths of Congress or the Cabinet. It never gathered much steam, even as intelligence officials bemoaned the Beltway’s lack of imagination in the war on terror. “People don’t like to write their own obituaries,” says Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the Ninth Circuit’s Court of Appeals. the d.c.-statehood amendment Passed Congress in 1978; ratified by only 16 states by 1985 deadline Local license plates bemoaning “TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION” have done little to change things in Washington, D.C.: The District’s status is explicitly laid out in the Constitution, and Washingtonians will need to amend it if they want full representation. One recent piece of legislation decreed the District “shall be treated as though it were a state,” but Republicans balked: They are not about to add more Democrats to Congress. the no-more-term-limits amendment Last introduced in the House in January 2013 It took the Great Depression in conjunction with World War II to enable FDR’s epic, four-term presidency—and the Twenty-Second Amendment was passed to ensure no one would repeat the performance. But Congress might be persuaded to pass a new amendment to repeal the two-term limit if, say, a charismatic president were in office during a confluence of catastrophes. It’s exactly what the 2008 financial crisis did to the mayorship of New York. the congressional-collar amendment Subcommittee purgatory This year alone, at least eight representatives and two senators (including Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican and White House hopeful) have proposed amendments to impose congressional term limits. Such a move would forever protect the record of Representative John Dingell, the Michigan Democrat with the longest-ever stint in Congress. He shouldn’t count on it, though: His colleagues are unlikely to cut short their own careers. the voters’ amendment Subcommittee purgatory In May, Representative Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat, proposed a simple amendment: “The right of adult citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State.” It was sparked by a rash of voter-ID controversies (mostly in Southern states) and exacerbated this summer when the Supreme Court gutted the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965. the to-hell-with-amendments amendment Unintroduced “There is such ridiculous veneration attached to the U.S. Constitution,” says University of Texas Law Professor Sanford Levinson, “that almost nobody takes amendment as a serious possibility.” He advocates a new constitutional convention—but Yale’s Amar says you wouldn’t even need a convention for an overhaul: “You could just have an amendment that says, ‘The foregoing is repealed in favor of the following,’ and then write a whole new Constitution.”

Arnold schwarzenegger: getty images; adam schiff: roll call/getty images; fdr: getty images; d.c. plate: lonely planet; rand paul: getty images; marco rubio: filmmagic; atomic bomb: mark evans; al gore: nbcu photobank via getty images; fetus: sciepro; constitution: ralf hettler; capitol building: atanas bezov; justice scale: dny59; american flag: sandra nicol; bernie sanders: getty images; warren buffett: wireimage; pen quill: studio casper; fists: laflor

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

All Amendments to the US Constitution

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 17, 2023 | Original: June 14, 2021

Even before the U.S. Constitution was created, its framers understood that it would have to be amended to confront future challenges and adapt and grow alongside the new nation. In creating the amendment process for what would become the permanent U.S. Constitution, the framers made constitutional reform easier—but not too easy.

According to Article V of the Constitution, an amendment must either be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate , or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Either way, a proposed amendment only becomes part of the Constitution when ratified by legislatures or conventions in three-fourths of the states (38 of 50 states).

Since the Constitution was ratified in 1789, hundreds of thousands of bills have been introduced attempting to amend it. But only 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been ratified , out of 33 passed by Congress and sent to the states. Under Article V, states also have the option of petitioning Congress to call a constitutional convention if two-thirds of state legislatures agree to do so. This has never occurred, though state legislatures have passed hundreds of resolutions over the years calling for a constitutional convention over issues ranging from a balanced budget to campaign finance reform.

Here is a summary of the 27 amendments to the Constitution:

First Amendment (ratified 1791)

In order to secure support for the Constitution among Anti- Federalists , who feared it gave too much power to the national government at the expense of individual states, James Madison agreed to draft a Bill of Rights during the first session of Congress. Of these first 10 amendments, the First Amendment is arguably the most famous and most important. It states that Congress can pass no law that encroaches on an American freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to assemble and freedom to petition the government. These fundamental rights of thought and expression go to the heart of the revolutionary idea of popular government, as envisioned in the Declaration of Independence .

Second Amendment (ratified 1791)

The text of the Second Amendment reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” During the Revolutionary War era, “militia” referred to groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states.

Differing interpretations of the amendment have fueled a long-running debate over the original intention of the Second Amendment. The crux of the debate is whether the amendment protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it instead protects a collective right that should be exercised only through formal militia units. Those who argue it is a collective right point to the “well-regulated Militia” clause in the Second Amendment. Gun rights supporters, as well as Supreme Court decisions such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), have argued the Second Amendment protects the right of an individual person to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense.

Third Amendment (ratified 1791)

This amendment prohibits the quartering of militia in private homes in either war or peacetime without consent of the homes’ owners. As a reaction against past laws allowing British soldiers to take shelter in colonists’ homes whenever they wanted, the Third Amendment doesn’t appear to have much constitutional relevance today, as the federal government is unlikely to ask private citizens to house soldiers. The Supreme Court has never decided a case on the basis of the Third Amendment, but it has referred to its protections in cases surrounding issues of property and privacy rights.

Fourth Amendment (ratified 1791)

The Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” also grew directly out of colonial Americans’ experiences prior to the Revolutionary War . Most notably, British authorities made use of general warrants, which were court orders that allowed government officials to conduct searches basically without limitations. Beginning in the 20th century, with the growth in power of federal, state and local law enforcement, the Fourth Amendment became an increasingly common presence in legal cases, limiting the power of the police to seize and search people, their homes and their property and ensuring that evidence gathered improperly could be excluded from trials.

Fifth Amendment (ratified 1791)

In addition to the famous right to refuse to testify against oneself (or “plead the Fifth”), the Fifth Amendment establishes other key rights for defendants in criminal proceedings, including the need for formal accusation by a grand jury and the protection against double jeopardy, or being tried for the same crime twice. It also requires the federal government to pay just compensation for any private property it takes for public use. Most importantly, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one can face criminal punishment without receiving “due process of law,” a protection that the Supreme Court later extended under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment .

Sixth Amendment (ratified 1791)

The Sixth Amendment also deals with protecting the rights of people against possible violations by the criminal justice system. It ensures the right to a public trial by an impartial jury without a significant delay and gives defendants the right to hear the charges against them, call and cross-examine witnesses and retain a lawyer to defend them in court. 

According to the modern interpretation of the amendment—shaped by Supreme Court cases such as Powell v. Alabama (1932), which involved the defendants known as the Scottsboro Boys —the state is required to provide effective legal representation for any defendant who cannot afford to employ a lawyer on their own.

Seventh Amendment (ratified 1791)

With the Seventh Amendment, Madison addressed two Anti-Federalist concerns: that the document failed to require jury trials for civil (non-criminal) cases, and that it gave the Supreme Court the power to overturn the factual findings of juries in lower courts. Considered one of the most straightforward amendments in the Bill or Rights, the Seventh Amendment extends the right to a jury trial to federal civil cases such as automobile accidents, property disputes, breach of contract, and discrimination lawsuits. It also prevents federal judges from overturning jury verdicts based on questions of fact, rather than law. Unlike nearly every other right in the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court has not extended the right to civil jury trial to the states, although most states do guarantee this right.

Eighth Amendment (ratified 1791)

The Eighth Amendment continues the theme of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by targeting potential abuses on the part of the criminal justice system. In banning the requirement of “excessive bail,” the imposition of “excessive fines,” and the infliction of “cruel and unusual punishment,” but leaving the exact interpretation of these terms unclear, it paved the way for future generations to battle over their meaning. In particular, differing opinions over what constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” fuel the ongoing debate in the United States over capital punishment.

Ninth Amendment (ratified 1791)

During the debate that produced the Bill of Rights, skeptics argued that by listing such fundamental rights in the Constitution, the framers would be implying that the rights they did not list did not exist. Madison sought to allay these fears with the Ninth Amendment. It ensures that even while certain rights are enumerated in the Constitution, people still retain other non-enumerated rights. 

Legal scholars and courts have long debated the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, particularly whether or not it provides a foundation for such rights as privacy (as in the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut ) or a woman’s right to an abortion (1973’s Roe v. Wade ).

10th Amendment (ratified 1791)

As the final amendment in the Bill of Rights , the 10th Amendment originally aimed to reassure Anti-Federalists by further defining the balance of power between the national government and those of the individual states. According to the 10th Amendment, the federal government’s powers are limited to those expressly given to it by the Constitution, while all other powers are reserved for the states or the people. Over the generations, debate has continued over which powers fall into this latter category, and what limitations should be placed on the expanding powers of the federal government.

11th Amendment (ratified 1795)

The first amendment to be ratified after the Bill of Rights, the 11th Amendment was also the first to be framed in direct response to a Supreme Court verdict. In Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), the Court had ruled that the plaintiff, a resident of South Carolina, had the right to sue Georgia for repayment of debts incurred during the Revolutionary War. After many states argued that using the federal courts in this way would shift too much power to the national government, Congress passed the 11th Amendment, which removes all cases involving suits between states from federal court jurisdiction.

12th Amendment (ratified 1804)

Passed in the wake of the chaotic presidential election of 1800 , in which Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Democratic-Republican Aaron Burr received the exact same number of votes in the Electoral College , the 12th Amendment provides the method for selecting president and vice president of the United States. Though Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution had mandated that each elector cast two votes without differentiating between their choices for president and vice president, the 12th Amendment requires electors to split the balloting for the two offices.

13th Amendment (ratified 1865)

More than six decades passed between ratification of the 12th and 13th Amendments. With the United States roiled by sectional tensions over slavery, few in the post-founding generations wanted to provoke a constitutional crisis by proposing a potentially divisive amendment. But after Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation , which freed only enslaved people behind enemy lines during the Civil War , support grew for a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery. Ratified after Lincoln’s assassination, the 13th Amendment finally put an end to the institution that had marred the country since 1619 .

14th Amendment (ratified 1868)

Intended to give Congress the authority to protect the rights of Black citizens in the South, where white-dominated state governments enacted discriminatory “ Black codes ” immediately following the end of the Civil War , the 14th Amendment was arguably the most important of the three amendments passed during Reconstruction . Section 1 of the amendment reversed the Supreme Court’s notorious decision in 1857’s Dred Scott v. Sandford by stating that anyone born in the United States is a citizen. It also extended the civil rights of citizens and their right to due process by protecting civil rights from infringement by the states as well as the federal government. Finally, Section 1 guarantees “equal protection under the laws” to all citizens.

Together with the Bill of Rights, these broad protections form the foundations of civil rights law in the United States, and have been invoked over the years by various groups of citizens ( as well as corporations ) seeking equal treatment under the law.

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment repealed the three-fifths clause of the original Constitution, which held that each enslaved person counted for three-fifths of a person. It specified that every resident of a state should be counted as a full person for the purposes of congressional representation. Section 3, aimed at former Confederate leaders, holds that Congress can bar any official who “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States from holding public office. Section 4 exempted federal and state governments from paying any debts incurred by the former Confederate states or compensating them for the loss of their human property. Finally, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the authority to create laws to enforce the amendment’s provisions, a sweeping mandate that would strengthen the power of the federal government in relation to the states.

15th Amendment (ratified 1870)

After Congress enfranchised Black male voters in the South by passing the Reconstruction Act of 1867, it sought to protect this right under the Constitution. As the last of the so-called Civil War amendments, all of which sought to ensure equality for African Americans, the 15th Amendment outlaws discrimination in voting rights on the basis of race, color or previous condition of servitude. With the end of Reconstruction in 1877, however, Southern states effectively disenfranchised Black voters by enacting poll taxes, literacy tests and other discriminatory practices. The promise of the 15th Amendment to protect Black voting rights remained unfulfilled until the civil rights movement and passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

16th Amendment (ratified 1913)

Though Americans had paid income taxes in earlier eras (during the Civil War , for example), the Supreme Court ruled in 1894’s Pollock v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust that an income tax imposed by Congress was unconstitutional given Article I’s requirement that such “direct” taxes be apportioned among the states on the basis of population. The decision drew widespread outrage, and led to the passage of the first of four constitutional amendments that would be ratified during the Progressive era . The 16th Amendment gives Congress the power to enact a nationwide income tax, vastly expanding the federal government’s source of revenue and spending power and enabling it to become a stronger force in American life than ever before.

17th Amendment (ratified 1913)

The movement in favor of the popular election of senators gained strength in the late 19th century, fueled by a view of the Senate as an out-of-touch, elitist group subject to corruption. By 1912, many state legislatures had lent their vocal support to the change, leading to ratification of the 17th Amendment the following year. The amendment substantially altered the structure of Congress as set out in Article I of the Constitution, removing from state legislatures the power to choose U.S. senators and giving it directly to the voters of each state.

18th Amendment (ratified 1919)

Though the temperance movement had existed since the earliest years of the nation’s history, it gained strength during the Progressive Era , especially in rural American communities. The new income tax freed the government from its dependence on the liquor tax, and senators (now directly elected) were subject to greater pressure from temperance advocates. Congress followed up on ratification of the 18th Amendment, which banned “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors,” but not their consumption, with passage of the Volstead Act to enforce it. Prohibition remained in effect for the next 13 years, until its repeal with the 21st Amendment.

19th Amendment (ratified 1920)

Susan B. Anthony and other supporters of women’s suffrage were bitterly disappointed after the Civil War, when Congress excluded gender from the list of categories that could not be used to deny voting rights in the 15th Amendment. With a constitutional amendment stalled in Congress for decades, suffragists focused their efforts on the states, where they were able to make gradual progress . By the time the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920, forbidding the United States or any state from denying or abridging the right to vote to any citizen “on account of sex,” 30 states and one territory allowed women to vote in at least some elections. Even after ratification of the 19th Amendment, many women of color were subject to various types of voter suppression until passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 .

20th Amendment (ratified 1933)

Before ratification of the 20th Amendment, 13 months had passed between the election of a new Congress and the time it held its first meeting. The amendment shortened this “lame-duck” period by specifying that regular terms for members of the Senate and House of Representatives begin on January 3 of the year following their election. It also moved up the inauguration of the president by six weeks, moving it to January 20. The 20th Amendment was quickly proposed, passed and ratified during the Great Depression , when many people regretted that Franklin D. Roosevelt had to wait four months to succeed the unpopular Herbert Hoover .

21st Amendment (ratified 1933)

Prohibition became widely unpopular during the Depression, especially in American cities, where some demonstrators marched in parades carrying signs declaring “We Want Beer.” The 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition and left the states in charge of regulating the sale and consumption of liquor, is the only amendment that repeals an earlier amendment (the 18th). It’s also the only one to be ratified by state ratifying conventions rather than state legislatures. As the temperance movement still held sway in many states, supporters of the 21st Amendment realized that state legislators could be subject to political pressure, and opted to follow the convention route instead.

22nd Amendment (ratified 1951)

Though term limits were not a part of the Constitution, later generations of Americans believed that George Washington set a valuable precedent when he made the decision to step away from the presidency after two terms in 1796. Several later presidents flirted with the idea of a third term, but Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first to follow through. Guiding the nation through the tumultuous era spanning the Depression and World War II , FDR won an unprecedented four presidential elections , but died several months after his fourth term began in 1945. Two years later, Congress began the process of passing the 22nd Amendment, which limited future presidents to two terms .

23rd Amendment (ratified 1961)

Since the District of Columbia became the seat of the U.S. government in 1800, debate had raged over the inability of its residents to participate in federal elections. The 23rd Amendment addressed this, giving D.C. residents the right to choose electors for presidential and vice-presidential elections in the same way the states do. While the original version of the amendment approved by the Senate would have granted the District representation in the House of Representatives, the House rejected this idea. In 1978, Congress adopted another proposed amendment that provided for D.C. to “be treated as though it were a State,” including congressional representation, but it failed to win ratification .

24th Amendment (ratified 1964)

Starting in the years following Reconstruction , many white-dominated Southern legislatures enacted poll taxes as a method of disenfranchising Black voters . Congress repeatedly debated legislation to eliminate poll taxes starting in 1939, but none passed. Though only five states still had such taxes in place by 1964, supporters of the civil rights movement saw their abolition as an important objective in combating racism and discrimination against Black Americans. The 24th Amendment applied only to federal elections, and after its ratification several southern states tried to maintain poll taxes for separately held state elections. In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966), the Supreme Court deemed such taxes a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.

25th Amendment (ratified 1967)

After John F. Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, a movement grew to clarify the vague procedures that had existed around presidential disability and the right of succession. The 25th Amendment states that the vice president will succeed the president in case of the latter’s death or resignation, and lays out the procedure for filling a vacancy in the vice president’s office. It also allows the president to declare a temporary inability to serve—as in the case of undergoing surgery—and resume powers when able. The fourth and most controversial section, which has never been invoked, empowers the vice president to become acting president if the president is determined (by the vice president and the majority of the Cabinet, backed by Congress) to be unable to perform the duties of the office.

26th Amendment (ratified 1971)

The long-running debate over whether young Americans should be asked to risk their lives fighting for their country before they were given the right to vote intensified during the Vietnam War . In 1970, Congress passed a statute lowering the age of voting in all federal, state and local elections to 18. When Oregon challenged that law, the Supreme Court sided with the state, ruling that Congress only had jurisdiction over federal elections. With a groundswell of popular support, the 26th Amendment was passed and ratified in record time, lowering the legal voting age to 18 in all U.S. elections.

27th Amendment (ratified 1992)

By prohibiting any law raising or lowering the salaries of members of Congress from taking effect before the start of a new session of Congress begins, the 27th Amendment aims to reduce corruption in the legislative branch of the federal government. Originally introduced by Madison, it was left in limbo when the first 10 amendments were ratified in 1791 and largely forgotten by the late 20th century, when Gregory Watson, a college student in Texas, read about it in a class on American government. Watson later rallied enough popular support (and resentment of Congress) to get the requisite three-quarters of U.S. states to ratify the 27 Amendment by 1992, nearly 200 years after Madison first proposed it .

Constitutional Amendment Process. Federal Register, National Archives .

Jack N. Rakove, ed. The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence . (Harvard University Press, 2009)

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. Heritage Foundation .

Interactive Constitution. Constitution Center .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best first amendment topic ideas & essay examples, 👍 good essay topics on first amendment, 🥇 interesting topics to write about first amendment, ❓ first amendment essay questions.

• Analysis of the Case: Violation of the First Amendment History of the case: The candidate filed a lawsuit in the Maryland Circuit Court alleging violations of the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S.
• First Amendment: Religion and Education The right to education is protected by human rights legislation guaranteeing to adapt education to the requirements of individuals and communities that are evolving and to the needs of students in their varied socio-cultural contexts. We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Vaccination in the Context of the First Amendment The purpose of this paper is to review the dilemma in the context of the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion.
• The First Amendment: Free Speech and Education However, this is the case only “unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students”.
• Cyberbullying and the First Amendment Under the geographical approach, the defendant can argue that since the event in question occurs online and outside of school property, it is covered by the First Amendment and the school has “no authority to […]
• Pornography or Obscenity and the First Amendment Amendment 1 of the US Constitution states that the “Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, […]
• The First Amendment – Religion and Expression In the ruling of Skokie case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the residents of Skokie, although it still allowed the planned marching by the NSP to go no.in this […]
• First Amendment Right of Free Speech in the USA In this case, it is seen that the Public Law of New Hampshire which bans under punishment “any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any other person who is lawfully in any street or other […]
• Free Speech in the First Amendment The first amendment of the Constitution states, “Congress will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the […]
• Religious Establishment Clause of the First Amendment Therefore, based on the theoretical application of the Constitution, the chosen case violates the Religious Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S.
• Violent Video Games and First Amendment Protection Violent games appear to be a legitimate type of media with its right for free expression; however, minors should also be protected from the violent and sexual content of video games because they lack media […]
• First Amendment in the US Modern Justice System Also, the paper discusses the significance of the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in each case and their relevance or influence on the rights of American citizens today.
• Does Title VII Conflict With the First Amendment The government is not justified to disallow religious expression at workplaces by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Title VII statute and the First Amendment both provide protection for an employee’s religious rights.
• Founding Fathers Religion: The First Amendment Role in the Church-State Separation As a result, a resolute transformation from the Puritan Fathers in 1639, who uphold the religion as a foundation of any society, to the Founding Fathers in 1787, who accepted freedom of religion as an […]
• Journalism, the First Amendment and Egypt This essays suggests that the First Amendment freedom of the press clause has transcended its physical boundaries and now functions as a protective ideological bubble not only for American journalists but for journalists all over […]
• First Amendment: Commercial and Political Free Speech However, the degree to which the First Amendment protects commercial speech is not the same as that for other forms of speech protected by the Amendment.
• What the Founders Meant by the First Amendment? The first amendment was written over 200 years ago by the founders who wanted to protect both the State and religion from interfering in each others tasks.
• Free Speech: First Amendment Obscenity is one of the exceptions, according to the US Miller Test, obscenity is a test used by Supreme Court to determine if an expression or a speech can be termed obscene and whether it […]
• On the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution The freedom that Americans experience comes at a price because there are conflicts and problems that arise from the interpretation and implementation of the First Amendment, however, many legal experts are saying that it is […]
• The Free Exercise Thereof: Freedom of Religion in the First Amendment The Freedom of Religion clause in the First Amendment represents one of the few official documents on the planet that corroborates free will, specifically, the right to choose, in the arena of religion.
• US Constitution Reflections on the First Amendment Paper The first amendments made on the constitution of the United States of America in the year 1789 concerned the bill of rights.
• First Amendment Rights and Access to Opinions
• Censorship and the First Amendment: The American Citizen’s Right to Free Speech
• The First Amendment and Its Impact on Education
• Should the First Amendment Stop Protecting Hate Speech
• The First Amendment Speaks on the Freedoms of Religion
• Interpreting the First Amendment of the Constitution
• Should Racist Speech Enjoy Protection Under the First Amendment
• How the First Amendment Rights Have On Advancing Democracy
• The First Amendment and the Constitutional Freedoms in American Schools
• The First Amendment and Conservative Rulings of the Supreme Court
• Ever-Changing Freedoms: The First Amendment of the American Constitution and Challenges It Faces
• How the First Amendment Protects Freedom of Speech
• The First Amendment and Its Impact on Media
• Case Problems Involving the First Amendment
• The First Amendment and Its Legal Constrains
• Banning Books Goes Against the First Amendment
• Federal District Court Alleging First Amendment Violations
• The First Amendment and Label Drug Promotion
• Discussing Three Freedoms From the First Amendment
• The First Amendment and Its Impact on Language
• Public Safety Outweigh Petitioner’s First Amendment Right
• The Ambiguity and Confusion From the First Amendment
• The First Amendment and the American Judiciary
• Civil Rights and First Amendment
• Cyberbullying and the First Amendment
• Does the First Amendment Affect Your Livelihood
• The First Amendment and Right to Privacy
• Net Neutrality and the First Amendment: Who Has the Right to Free Speech
• Neo-Nazis and Their First Amendment Rights
• Public High School Students Have the First Amendment Right
• Espionage Act Conflicts First Amendment Rights in Wikileaks Case
• Comparing Our First Amendment Rights to the Rights of Those in George Orwell’s 1984
• The Role and Importance of the First Amendment of the Constitution
• First Amendment Rights and Pragmatic Solutions
• The First Amendment: History and Development
• First Amendment Rights, Privacy, and the Paparazzi
• The First Amendment Constitution on the Freedom of Expression
• The Relation Between the First Amendment and Music Censorship
• The First Amendment Anti-discrimination Law
• Does the First Amendment Protect False Campaign Speech
• What Is the Main Purpose of the First Amendment?
• How Free Speech Under the First Amendment Developed?
• What Is the Connection Between Anti-semitism and the First Amendment?
• Does Banning Books Violate the First Amendment?
• Was the First Amendment to the US Constitution Prohibition?
• What Are the First Amendment Issues?
• Does the First Amendment Guarantee the Right of American Citizens to Freedom?
• How Does Censorship Conflict With First Amendment Freedom of Speech?
• What Rights Does the First Amendment Guarantee to Citizens?
• Does the First Amendment Govern Cyberbullying?
• Did President Hoover Limit the First Amendment Rights of the Bonus Army?
• What Are the First Amendment Freedoms?
• Does the Espionage Act Conflict With First Amendment Rights?
• What Changes Did the First Amendment Make to the Constitution?
• How Does the First Amendment Guarantee Freedom of the Press?
• What Is the Significance of the First Amendment to Civil Society?
• What Is the Work of the First Amendment Committee?
• How Does the Supreme Court Interpret the First Amendment?
• What Religious Cases Does the First Amendment Control?
• How Are First Amendment Rights Applied and Limited?
• Does the First Amendment to the US Constitution Regulate Ever-Changing Freedoms?
• How Do First Amendment Rights Affect the Development of Democracy?
• What Is the Interpretation of the First Amendment to the Constitution?
• Does the First Amendment Affect Your Livelihood?
• Does the First Amendment Limit the Government’s Power?
• What Inappropriate Words Should Be Removed From the First Amendment?
• Does Public Safety Override a Plaintiff’s First Amendment Right?
• Should Rap Songs Be Protected by the First Amendment?
• Does the First Amendment Protect False Campaign Speech?
• Should Racist Speech Enjoy Protection Under the First Amendment?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 24). 91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/first-amendment-essay-topics/

"91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 24 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/first-amendment-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 24 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/first-amendment-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/first-amendment-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "91 First Amendment Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." February 24, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/first-amendment-essay-topics/.

• Constitution Research Ideas
• Bill of Rights Research Ideas
• Fifth Amendment Essay Ideas
• Censorship Essay Ideas
• Fourth Amendment Essay Topics
• Electoral College Research Topics
• Freedom Of Expression Questions
• US History Topics
• Freedom of Speech Ideas
• Sixth Amendment Topics
• Freedom Topics
• Tolerance Essay Ideas
• Civil Law Paper Topics
• Human Rights Essay Ideas
• Media Bias Questions

Handout D: United States Constitution, Amendments 1-27

Handout D: United States Constitution, Amendments 1 – 27

Amendment I (1791): Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II (1791): A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III (1791): No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV (1791): The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V (1791): No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI (1791): In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII (1791): In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII (1791): Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX (1791): The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X (1791): The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Amendment XI (1798): The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.

Amendment XII (1804): The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Amendment XIII (1865):

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Amendment XIV (1868):

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Amendment XV (1870):

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XVI (1913): The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census of enumeration.

Amendment XVII (1913): The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Amendment XVIII (1919):

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Amendment XIX (1920): The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XX (1933):

Section 1 . The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3rd day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission.

Amendment XXI (1933):

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Amendment XXII (1951):

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Amendment XXIII (1961):

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Amendment XXIV (1964):

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment XXV (1967):

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment XXVI (1971):

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVII (1992): No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

MPs reject Lords' amendments to Rwanda bill - as crunch week for legislation begins

The government is hoping to get the legislation through parliament this week, after a series of votes in both the House of Commons and House of Lords.

Political reporter

Monday 15 April 2024 23:14, UK

MPs have rejected a series of Lords' amendments to the government's Rwanda bill - as a week of parliamentary showdown on the legislation begins.

The Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill is currently in the middle of what is known as ping-pong, where the two houses propose, debate and vote on amendments.

So far, the Lords has proposed one set of amendments , all of which the Commons defeated.

And now a second set of Lords' amendments have been rejected by MPs - so the bill will return to the Lords on Tuesday for further scrutiny.

Politics latest: Sunak and Starmer call for 'restraint'

There was little deviation in today's debate from the previous times the Commons has considered the legislation.

Opening the debate, Home Office minister Michael Tomlinson said: "Here we are back again debating the same issues and amendments we have already rejected.

More on Houses Of Parliament

WhatsApp tips to social media monitoring: The online security advice given to MPs

'Why do politicians never answer the question?' - Your Westminster FAQs

Deputy PM Oliver Dowden to warn of China cyber threats as 'senior UK politicians targeted'

Related Topics:

• Houses of Parliament

"We are not quite at the point yet of completing each other's sentences, but we are almost there."

Crunch week for bill

The government has made time in both the Commons and the Lords this week for more debating and voting to take place, with Downing Street hoping to get royal assent this week .

The Safety of Rwanda Bill aims to allow the government to send asylum seekers who arrived illegally in the UK to Rwanda, addressing concerns raised by the Supreme Court last year .

Part of the legislation declares Rwanda "safe", and prevents judges from considering how safe Rwanda is if someone appeals against being deported.

The Lords will consider the legislation on Tuesday afternoon.

Analysis: Sunak's battle to get planes in the air will continue even if Rwanda bill passes

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The amendments they imposed have sought to address a slew of issues, including allowing appeals on the basis of safety, how underage asylum seekers are looked after, considerations around modern slavery concerns, and whether those who have served for or with the British armed forces should be exempted from deportation.

Over a series of six votes, the government won with majorities 65, 71, 70, 70, 74 and 59.

The closest vote was on the armed forces' amendment.

Peers had attempted to prevent people who had "positive reasonable grounds" to believe they were victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from being sent to Rwanda.

Due to the way parliamentary procedure works, if they had rejected this amendment completely the bill would have failed - instead, they have offered to provide a yearly report on modern slavery and how it relates to the Rwanda bill

Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News

👉 Listen above then tap here to follow Politics at Jack at Sam's wherever you get your podcasts 👈

If the Lords put more amendments to the bill on Tuesday, the Commons will consider these on Wednesday afternoon.

And then there is more time for the upper house to debate later on Wednesday, with Downing Street hoping to get the legislation through this week.

Speaking to Sky News on Sunday, Health Secretary Victoria Atkins said the government wants planes to get off the ground "as quickly as possible" - despite not being able to say if planes had been secured for this purpose.

Related Topics

Andre Cardoso

What if I’m unsatisfied with an essay your paper service delivers?

Customer Reviews

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

I Served on the Florida Supreme Court. What the New Majority Just Did Is Indefensible.

On April 1, the Florida Supreme Court, in a 6–1 ruling, overturned decades of decisions beginning in 1989 that recognized a woman’s right to choose—that is, whether to have an abortion—up to the time of viability.

Anchored in Florida’s own constitutional right to privacy, this critical individual right to abortion had been repeatedly affirmed by the state Supreme Court, which consistently struck down conflicting laws passed by the Legislature.

As explained first in 1989:

Florida’s privacy provision is clearly implicated in a woman’s decision of whether or not to continue her pregnancy. We can conceive of few more personal or private decisions concerning one’s body in the course of a lifetime.

Tellingly, the justices at the time acknowledged that their decision was based not only on U.S. Supreme Court precedent but also on Florida’s own privacy amendment.

I served on the Supreme Court of Florida beginning in 1998 and retired, based on our mandatory retirement requirement, a little more than two decades later. Whether Florida’s Constitution provided a right to privacy that encompassed abortion was never questioned, even by those who would have been deemed the most conservative justices—almost all white men back in 1989!

And strikingly, one of the conservative justices at that time stated: “If the United States Supreme Court were to subsequently recede from Roe v. Wade , this would not diminish the abortion rights now provided by the privacy amendment of the Florida Constitution.” Wow!

In 2017 I authored an opinion holding unconstitutional an additional 24-hour waiting period after a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy. Pointing out that other medical procedures did not have such requirements, the majority opinion noted, “Women may take as long as they need to make this deeply personal decision,” adding that the additional 24 hours stipulated that the patient make a second, medically unnecessary trip, incurring additional costs and delays. The court applied what is known in constitutional law as a “strict scrutiny” test for fundamental rights.

Interestingly, Justice Charles Canady, who is still on the Florida Supreme Court and who participated in the evisceration of Florida’s privacy amendment last week, did not challenge the central point that abortion is included in an individual’s right to privacy. He dissented, not on substantive grounds but on technical grounds.

So what can explain this 180-degree turn by the current Florida Supreme Court? If I said “politics,” that answer would be insufficient, overly simplistic. Unfortunately, with this court, precedent is precedent until it is not. Perhaps each of the six justices is individually, morally or religiously, opposed to abortion.

Yet, all the same, by a 4–3 majority, the justices—three of whom participated in overturning precedent—voted to allow the proposed constitutional amendment on abortion to be placed on the November ballot. (The dissenters: the three female members of the Supreme Court.) That proposed constitutional amendment:

Amendment to Limit Government Interference With Abortion: No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion. 

For the proposed amendment to pass and become enshrined in the state constitution, 60 percent of Florida voters must vote yes.

In approving the amendment to be placed on the ballot at the same time that it upheld Florida’s abortion bans, the court angered those who support a woman’s right to choose as well as those who are opposed to abortion. Most likely the latter groups embrace the notion that fetuses are human beings and have rights that deserve to be protected. Indeed, Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz, during oral argument on the abortion amendment case, queried the state attorney general on precisely that issue, asking if the constitutional language that defends the rights of all natural persons extends to an unborn child at any stage of pregnancy.

In fact, and most troubling, it was the three recently elevated Gov. Ron DeSantis appointees—all women—who expressed their views that the voters should not be allowed to vote on the amendment because it could affect the rights of the unborn child. Justice Jamie Grosshans, joined by Justice Meredith Sasso, expressed that the amendment was defective because it failed to disclose the potential effect on the rights of the unborn child. Justice Renatha Francis was even more direct, writing in her dissent:

The exercise of a “right” to an abortion literally results in a devastating infringement on the right of another person: the right to live. And our Florida Constitution recognizes that “life” is a “basic right” for “[a]ll natural persons.” One must recognize the unborn’s competing right to life and the State’s moral duty to protect that life.

In other words, the three dissenting justices would recognize that fetuses are included in who is a “natural person” under Florida’s Constitution.

What should be top of mind days after the dueling decisions? Grave concern for the women of our state who will be in limbo because, following the court’s ruling, a six-week abortion ban—at a time before many women even know they are pregnant—will be allowed to go into effect. We know that these restrictions will disproportionately affect low-income women and those who live in rural communities.

But interestingly, there is a provision in the six-week abortion ban statute that allows for an abortion before viability in cases of medical necessity: if two physicians certify that the pregnant patient is at risk of death or that the “fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality.”

The challenge will be finding physicians willing to put their professional reputations on the line in a state bent on cruelly impeding access to needed medical care when it comes to abortion.

Yet, this is the time that individuals and organizations dedicated to women’s health, as well as like-minded politicians, will be crucial in coordinating efforts to ensure that abortions, when needed, are performed safely and without delay. This is the time to celebrate and support organizations, such as Planned Parenthood and Emergency Medical Assistance , as well as our own RBG Fund , which provides patients necessary resources and information. Floridians should also take full advantage of the Repro Legal Helpline .

We all have a role in this—women and men alike. Let’s get out, speak out, shout out, coordinate our efforts, and, most importantly, vote . Working together, we can make a difference.