The U.S. Constitution is one of the hardest constitutions in the world to amend. While the framers built a mechanism for change into Article V, they made the process so difficult that major reforms are nearly impossible. Some argue that this is a good thing, that it prevents instability and “tyranny of the majority”. In reality, the rigidity of the Constitution caused one civil war and is threatening another. This rigidity has left the country stuck with outdated policies, an unaccountable government, and systemic flaws that weaken democracy and make us prone to authoritarianism. A government has to evolve with the needs of the people and the threats that the framers could not have foreseen. We must confront the reality that our Constitution’s amendment process is broken.
How Hard Is It to Amend the Constitution?
Article V outlines two paths for amending the Constitution:
- Congressional Proposal: Two-thirds of both the House and Senate must approve an amendment, and then three-fourths (38 out of 50) of the states must ratify it.
- State-Led Convention: Two-thirds (34) of state legislatures must call for a convention to propose amendments, which must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
Both routes set an incredibly high bar. Both rely entirely on politicians.
The first path requires an overwhelming supermajority in Congress, which is nearly impossible in today’s hyper-polarized political landscape. The second path has never been used due to concerns that it could spiral into an uncontrolled “constitutional convention.”
What are Some Consequences of an Unamendable Constitution
1. Outdated Laws and Policies
Many parts of the Constitution no longer reflect modern realities, yet they remain in place simply because amending them is too difficult. For example:
- The Electoral College distorts presidential elections, yet eliminating it through amendment is virtually impossible.
- Lifetime Supreme Court appointments allow justices to serve for decades, often outlasting the political climate that confirmed them and reducing judicial accountability.
- The Outdated Voting System – The Constitution does not guarantee a right to vote for all citizens, allowing states to pass restrictive voting laws.
- The Lack of Term Limits for Congress – Unlike the presidency, members of Congress can serve indefinitely, leading to entrenched political power and reduced accountability.
2. Government Gridlock and Dysfunction
Since constitutional amendments require broad bipartisan support, necessary reforms often die before they even reach a vote. Even when vast majorities of Americans support changes—such as limiting money in politics or establishing a right to vote—Congress refuses to act because politicians and special interests benefit from the status quo.
3. No Direct Role for Citizens
Unlike many other democracies, U.S. citizens have no direct power to propose or vote on constitutional amendments. The process is entirely controlled by politicians, who often have a vested interest in blocking reforms that would limit their power.
In contrast, many U.S. states allow citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. In states like Ohio and Michigan, voters have successfully used ballot initiatives to pass key policies. But at the national level, citizens have no such ability.
If the Constitution cannot be changed to reflect the will of the people, democracy doesn’t just become stagnant, it puts the country at risk for authoritarianism. America must recognize that an unamendable Constitution is a broken Constitution—and fixing it is essential to the country’s future.
How Authoritarianism Happens: The Slow Erosion of Democracy
Authoritarianism doesn’t happen overnight. It creeps in gradually, often under the guise of protecting national security, enforcing law and order, or even defending democracy itself. History has shown that democratic governments can slide into authoritarian rule when leaders consolidate power, weaken checks and balances, and manipulate public perception. We are now discovering that the U.S. is not immune to this process, and understanding how it happens is crucial to stopping it.
Step 1: Undermining Democratic Norms
Democracies function not just through laws but through norms—unwritten rules that maintain fairness and accountability. When these norms start to break down, democracy weakens.
- Disregarding Truth and Facts – Authoritarian leaders attack the free press, spread misinformation, and convince supporters to distrust objective reality. When people no longer believe in facts, they become easier to manipulate.
- Attacking Political Opponents – Instead of treating political rivals as legitimate competitors, authoritarian-leaning leaders frame them as enemies of the state. This justifies actions to silence, imprison, or sideline them.
- Dismissing Ethical Standards – When corruption is normalized and accountability disappears, public officials can abuse power without consequence.
Once democratic norms are eroded, more dangerous steps follow.
Step 2: Weakening Checks and Balances
Democracies rely on separation of powers—executive, legislative, and judicial branches keeping each other in check. An authoritarian leader seeks to dismantle these constraints.
- Stacking the Courts – Authoritarians appoint loyal judges who rule in their favor, allowing them to violate laws without consequences.
- Controlling the Legislature – If a leader’s party dominates the legislature, they can push through laws that increase their power and suppress opposition.
- Expanding Executive Authority – Leaders use emergency powers or executive orders to bypass the normal legislative process.
By weakening these institutions, a leader can rule with little resistance.
Step 3: Restricting Voting Rights and Elections
Elections are the foundation of democracy, but authoritarians manipulate them to maintain control.
- Suppressing Voters – Making it harder for certain groups (often minorities, the poor, or young people) to vote ensures power remains with the ruling party.
- Gerrymandering Districts – By drawing district lines in their favor, ruling parties make it nearly impossible to lose elections.
- Discrediting Election Results – If an authoritarian leader loses, they claim the election was rigged and refuse to concede, undermining trust in the electoral process.
Once elections become meaningless, democracy is effectively dead.
Step 4: Silencing Opposition and Dissent
A key sign of authoritarianism is the suppression of free speech and political dissent.
- Controlling the Media – Authoritarian regimes discredit independent journalists, restrict press freedoms, and promote propaganda through state-controlled media.
- Criminalizing Protest – Peaceful protests are portrayed as violent threats, and new laws are passed to punish those who speak out.
- Using Law Enforcement as a Political Tool – Police and intelligence agencies are used to intimidate, arrest, or harass critics.
Without the ability to challenge the government, citizens lose their voice.
Step 5: Cultivating a Personality Cult
Authoritarians often build a “cult of personality”, portraying themselves as the sole savior of the nation.
- They claim to be the only one who can fix the country.
- They demand loyalty, not just support.
- They reject criticism as treason or disloyalty.
This makes it easier to justify extreme actions, as supporters believe the leader is above the law.
Checks and Balances Aren’t Enough: Why We Need a People’s Veto
The U.S. Constitution was designed with a system of checks and balances to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. However, the founding fathers did not anticipate the level of partisan entrenchment we see today. When all three branches of government fall under the control of one party—or when lawmakers prioritize their own power over the will of the people—these checks become ineffective. That’s why the American people need a direct mechanism to hold their government accountable: a citizen-led amendment process, or what could be called a “People’s Veto.”
The Limits of Checks and Balances
In theory, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches each have the ability to limit the others. But over time, partisan loyalty and political self-interest have eroded these safeguards. For example:
- Congress fails to check the executive when lawmakers prioritize party unity over oversight.
- The courts fail to check the legislature when judges are appointed based on ideology rather than impartiality.
- The executive branch exploits loopholes to expand power through executive orders, emergency declarations, or bureaucratic maneuvers.
When all branches align under one dominant party, checks and balances become little more than a formality. At that point, the only remaining check on government should be the people themselves—but under our current system, they have no direct power to change the Constitution when needed.
Stopping Authoritarianism Before It’s Too Late
Authoritarianism doesn’t arrive in a single dramatic event—it happens through a series of small changes that people either ignore or accept. Many countries have lost democracy this way, and the U.S. is not exempt from these dangers.
To prevent authoritarianism, citizens must:
- Defend free and fair elections
- Support independent journalism
- Demand government transparency and accountability
- Reject leaders who undermine democratic norms
- Push for constitutional reforms that strengthen democratic protections
History has shown that no democracy is permanent unless people fight to protect it.
How We Fix This: A Realistic Amendment Process
For democracy to thrive in the 21st century, we need a more flexible way to amend the Constitution. The mission of Democracy Bill of Rights is to inspire people to imagine a more democratic Constitution by proposing 10 hypothetical democracy amendments to the constitution aimed at strengthening democracy. The first proposed amendment is a Citizen-led amendment pathway, giving the people the power to be a check on all three branches of government.
Why a Citizen-Led Amendment Process is Necessary
The biggest flaw in the U.S. Constitution is its near-impossibility to amend. Article V requires two-thirds of Congress to propose an amendment and three-fourths of the states to ratify it. In today’s hyper-polarized political environment, this threshold is nearly impossible to reach. As a result, even when overwhelming majorities of Americans support changes—such as protecting voting rights, overturning Citizens United, or enacting term limits—Congress refuses to act.
A citizen-led amendment process would allow the people to bypass congressional gridlock and directly propose and ratify amendments. Many democratic nations already have such mechanisms in place, and some U.S. states—like Ohio—allow citizen-initiated constitutional amendments. This process has been successfully used to protect abortion rights, expand voting access, and enact anti-corruption measures.
How a People’s Veto Would Work
A People’s Veto would give citizens the power to amend the Constitution when the government fails to act in their interest. A realistic citizen-led amendment pathway could include:
- A National Petition Threshold – If a set percentage of voters (e.g., 10% of the electorate) sign a petition, an amendment proposal would advance.
- A Public Referendum – The proposed amendment would be put to a nationwide vote, requiring a simple majority for approval.
- Strict Transparency Rules – Campaign finance restrictions would ensure that corporate money and special interests don’t hijack the process.
This process would provide a safety valve for democracy—ensuring that when Congress, the courts, and the presidency fail to act, the people have a path to meaningful change.
Restoring Power to the People
The idea of citizen-led amendments aligns with the very principles on which America was founded: government by the people, for the people. The founding fathers feared tyranny but placed too much trust in elected officials to regulate themselves. Today, we see the consequences.
A People’s Veto, also called the Citizen-Led Amendment Pathway, would empower citizens to break through the political deadlock and protect democracy from those who seek to erode it.
Why a Citizen-Led Amendment Pathway Can Save Democracy from Authoritarianism
A citizen-led amendment pathway—where the people, rather than politicians, can directly propose and ratify constitutional amendments—could be the key to preventing authoritarianism and strengthening democracy because it makes the American people a check on all three branches of government.
How a Citizen-Led Amendment Process Would Work
An amendment to a constitution shouldn’t be too easy to pass or too difficult to pass. Both extremes cause problems. The key to a citizen-led amendment pathway is that it only uses citizens, not politicians. A citizen-led amendment pathway should be accessible but not reckless—it should allow for meaningful democratic participation while ensuring amendments undergo proper deliberation and public scrutiny. Mechanisms such as supermajority requirements, multiple approval stages, and judicial review can help prevent abuse while still enabling necessary constitutional reforms. Here’s how it could work:
Citizen-Led Constitutional Amendment Process
- Proposal Stage
- A constitutional amendment can be proposed if a petition gathers support from at least 5% of voters nationwide and at least 3% of voters in each state based on the most recent election.
- This threshold ensures only significant amendments with broad national support advance.
- Public Debate and Review
- A national commission of legal experts, scholars, and citizen representatives would review the proposal to assess its legality and feasibility before it moves forward.
- National Referendum
- If the amendment passes the review stage, it is placed on a national ballot for a public vote.
- Ratification
- Immediate Ratification: If the amendment receives at least 60% of the national vote, it is ratified and becomes part of the Constitution.
- Second Vote Option: If the amendment receives between 50% and 59% of the vote, it remains on the ballot for the next federal election (in two years). If it passes with at least 50% again, it is ratified.
Why This Works
This system ensures that critical democratic reforms can happen even if politicians refuse to act. It strikes a balance—challenging enough to prevent reckless amendments but realistic enough to allow meaningful change.
Why This Would Protect Against Authoritarianism
1. It Prevents Political Gridlock from Blocking Essential Reforms
Many of the reforms needed to strengthen democracy—such as banning gerrymandering, ensuring fair elections, or ending unlimited campaign donations—are blocked by politicians who benefit from the current system. A citizen-led amendment process would bypass Congress and allow the people to make changes directly.
2. It Provides a Check on All Three Branches of Government
Currently, there is no mechanism for the people to directly correct anti-democratic actions by Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. A citizen-led amendment process would ensure that when democracy is threatened, the public can respond before authoritarianism takes hold.
3. It Reduces the Influence of Special Interests and Corruption
Under the current system, constitutional changes only happen if wealthy donors, corporations, or political elites support them. By allowing citizens to propose and pass amendments, policy would be driven by public demand, not corporate interests.
4. It Encourages Greater Political Participation
When people feel powerless, they disengage from politics. A system where citizens can amend the Constitution would give people a direct role in shaping their government, increasing civic engagement and making democracy more responsive to the public’s needs.
5. It Strengthens Democratic Resilience Against Authoritarian Leaders
History shows that once authoritarian-leaning leaders consolidate power, it becomes nearly impossible to remove them through elections alone. A citizen-led amendment process would provide an emergency mechanism to enact reforms—such as term limits, stronger election protections, or Supreme Court accountability—before a leader can entrench themselves indefinitely.
Other Countries Have Citizen-Led Constitutional Reform—It’s Not Uncommon
Many modern democracies allow citizen-initiated amendments, including:
- Switzerland: Citizens can propose constitutional changes if they gather enough signatures, and amendments are approved by national referendum.
- Ireland: Major democratic reforms, including marriage equality and abortion rights, have been passed through national referendums.
- Germany & New Zealand: Both countries have citizen-driven processes that allow constitutional changes when public support is high enough.
Also, as of the date this article was written, 18 states offer a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment pathway:
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Colorado
- Florida
- Illinois
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- South Dakota
How Do We Get There?
The irony is that to create a citizen-led amendment pathway, we would first need to amend the Constitution itself. That means mass political mobilization is necessary to push Congress and state legislatures to pass an amendment allowing direct citizen input. This won’t be easy, but it is possible—especially in times of political crisis, when people recognize that the current system is failing them.
Steps Toward a Citizen-Led Amendment Pathway
- Public Awareness Campaigns: Educating Americans on why the amendment process is broken and how it can be fixed.
- State-Level Initiatives: Using states with ballot initiatives (like Ohio and California) to pass resolutions in favor of a citizen-led amendment process.
- Building a National Movement: Uniting people across political lines who recognize that democracy must be protected from elite capture.
Conclusion: Democracy Must Be Adaptable to Survive
The framers of the Constitution never intended for it to be frozen in time—they designed it to be amended as needed. However, the difficulty of Article V has made real change nearly impossible. If we want to protect democracy from authoritarianism, we need a way for the people themselves to be a check on government power.
Leave a Reply