Why was the process for amending the constitution so complicated?

Answer 1

The Framers wanted it to be relatively easy to consider changes to the Constitution. Yet they wanted proposed changes to be carefully considered.They also wanted to be sure that Amendments had the full support of the nation.Therefore, it is more difficult to ratify an Amendment and make it into law than it is to propose, or suggest, it.

Answer 2

To make sure that fundamental changes in the structure of government would require substantial time and debate and reasoned consideration. That way bad ideas that look good on the surface could not be rushed into effect before everybody had a chance to think about them.

Answer 3

The writers of the Constitution were thoroughly displeased with the system of government established by the Articles of Confederation, which as the name implies was theoretically a federation of independent states. They wanted to radically change the government and thus they did not use the Articles of the Confederation as a starting point. In addition, the terms of the Constitution's ratification were different than those of the amendment process. Whereas all states had to ratify an amendment of the Articles of the Confederation for it to come into effect, only 9 states had to ratify for the Constitution to come into effect. While it can be argued that that ultimately since all the states eventually ratified the Constitution this was a legitimate, if complete, amending of the Articles of the Confederation under the rules of the Articles, if 9-12 states approved, the Constitution would still come into effect in violation of the Articles rules forbidding any other alliance between states. One of the reasons for this is that if 9 or more states formed their own alliance, the other states would become fully independent and lose the trade and defense benefits of the Confederation, and this put additional pressure on the last ratifying states.

Answer 4

They were very sensitive to the huge impact an Amendment could have on the operation of the government (and country), and thus wanted to make sure that any such amendment would have a very broad support over a long period of time. That is, they wanted to make sure that only those things which the vast majority of people supported, and had considerable time to think about, would alter the Constitution. They did not want majorities ramming through the "cause of the day" amendments over the objections of anything but the smallest minority.

Unfortunately, there is broad consensus amongst current-day Constitutional scholars that the process is too difficult. In particular, the methods for just officially proposing an Amendment faces an enormous barrier in requiring a two-thirds majority of State Legislatures or a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress.

Note that there have been a total of 33 Amendments proposed, with 27 passing, over the course of about 220 years. Excluding the Bill of Rights and an associated proposed amendment passed immediately after the Constitution, that leave 22 proposed Amendments with 17 passing. Almost half (12 of 27: 9th - 12th, 16th, 18th, 20th-23rd, 25th, 27th ) of all passing Amendments are considered "procedural" Amendments, in that they generally clarify or make minor adjustments to already defined portions of the Constitution, rather than make new significant Constitutional changes. As such, we have generally only significantly altered the form of the US government on four occasions:

1. Initial Bill of Rights [1-10th] (1791)
2. Post-Civil War [13-15th] (1865-1870)
3. The 1910s Populism movement [17th, 19th] (1913,1920)
4. The 1960s Civil Rights Movement [24th & 26th] (1964,1971)

Answer 5

Because they wanted to make sure that the majority agreed with the change

Answer 6

They did that so that silly ideas or Willy nilly things that weren't needed or against the constitution couldn't be added easily.