# US Law or Amend US Constitution? Difference? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 25, 2004, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077 "2004-02-25T12:13:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/1 "2004-02-25T12:13:55Z")
I don’t understand the difference between passing US Laws vs. making an Amendment to the US Constitution. The latter implies it is an adjustment to the metes and bounds of the text…or related matters. Shouldn’t issues outside these boundaries simply be US Laws, if they are to be at all? In regard to marriage, or flag burning, or (previously) driving 55mph as a nation, for example…as opposed to who has the right to vote or teens drafted without being able to vote…where and how do our lawmakers draw the line? Is it defined, or is guidance granted somewhere? Maybe some wise SDopers can explain the difference(s)? - Jinx 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 12:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/2 "2004-02-25T12:33:46Z")
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Congress may make laws under the power that the Constitution grants. But those powers, and those laws, may never conflict with the Constitution. For example, Congress may pass, and the president may sign, a law banning criticism of the President’s policies. But the courts are likely to quickly strike down that law, because it conflicts with the Constitution. If, on the other hand, Congress passed and the states ratified an amendment to the Constitution that gave Congress the power specifically to criminalize criticism of the President, then the Constitution would no longer forbid such a law, and it could be passed and enforced. In short: a mere law can be overturned by the courts if it conflicts with the Constitution. Changing the Constitution itself admits appeal to no higher authority. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/3 "2004-02-25T12:38:38Z")
And amending the Constitution is pretty damn hard. Also, they have to put the Amendment before the various State Legislatures, & get the approval of a strong majority of those legislatures. Maybe it’s the fever I’m currently running, but I belive it must also be put to a popular vote, & then pass through Congress _again_, before a Presidential signature passes it into law. Not an easy thing to pull off. ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/4 "2004-02-25T12:48:32Z")
I think that you need either a strong majority of the state legislatures _or_ voter referendums in a strong majority of the states, but not both. I think that Congress gets to choose which of these methods will apply. This is after 2/3 of both the House and Senate approve it. Also, IIRC, the president does not have to sign the ammendment, and he does not get to veto it. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/5 "2004-02-25T12:57:38Z")
As the base law for the United States, the Constitution has several properties that separate it from normal legislative acts. For one thing, while a legislative act can be repealed by a simple vote of a later Congress (or even the same Congress if they realize how badly they’ve screwed up), a Constitutional Amendment requires that _either_ 2/3 of both the House and the Senate approve it and that 3/4 of all the states then approve it (either by legislative vote or by conventions) _or_ that a convention is called by the legislatures of 2/3 of the states and that the proposals emanating from that convention is then approved by 3/4 of the states. The extra effort to get a supermajority of both houses of Congress and an even larger percentage of state representatves (either legislative or conventual) to approve the change makes such a change a serious effort that can rarely be the result of swaying (_e.g._, buying off) a few key legislators. as occasionally happens with riders to bills that mysteriously appear in conference committees reconciling bills between the House and the Senate. For another, the Constitution, as the Supreme Law of the land is used to judge other laws, so that a Congress that passed a law annointing some popular individual “president for life” would be in violation of the Constitution that stipulates that (except in extraordinary circumstances) the Congress has no vote in the election of the president and that (as amended) the Constitution prohibits any individual from serving as president for more than ten years. It is purely a judgement call as to which laws should require supermajorities to pass and should have the power to abrogate any other laws passed by legislation. So far, we have done a relatively good job of limiting changes to the Constitution to serious matters. A change to the definitions for eligibility for the presidency would seem to be a legitimate process to keep away from the whims of ephemeral Congresses. On the other hand, proposed amendments to make specific actions (such as burning flags) unlawful, while they are hot issues for some people, have not gotten the support of the overwhelming majority of citizens required to make them the Law of the land. (This is one of the issues behind some opposition to proposals for amendments to make flag burning illegal or define marriage as a heterosexual activity. Even a number of people who are vehemently opposed to showing disresepct for the flag or to recognizing homosexual marriages are still reluctant to make such issues a permanent part of the Constitution.) ---
**Author:** ![Jinx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Jinx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jinx)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/6 "2004-02-25T13:10:12Z")
I recognize how hard it is to amend the US Constitution, of course. I guess I developed a slightly wrong impression, however, about the context of an amendment. This clarifies for me the history of repeal of Prohibition, and why it is addressed in the Amendments to US Constitution at all. Perhaps, as a safeguard against going too far right or too far left, it is a good thing that Amendments are so hard to pass. - Jinx ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/7 "2004-02-25T13:45:43Z")
> [@](#): > > This clarifies for me the history of repeal of Prohibition, and why it is addressed in the Amendments to US Constitution at all. Yep. Prohibition had to be repealed in the Constitution because it had been enshrined in the Constitution. (It is the only law written into the Constitution, (so far), to deny persons’ rights rather than to set governmental procedures or to limit or control government’s ability to curtail rights.) (The actual laws with penalties to govern prohibition were simple Congressional statues, but the XVIII Amendment was needed to permit those statutes to be written.) ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/8 "2004-02-25T13:58:14Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > (It is the only law written into the Constitution, (so far), to deny persons’ rights rather than to set governmental procedures or to limit or control government’s ability to curtail rights.) Common misperception, Tom, but not quite accurate. The Thirteenth Amendment deny’s a person the right to enslave someone else. > [@](#): > > 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. This is probably the only other example of social legislation enshrined as an amendment. It’s a bit more understandable than the Eighteenth Amendment. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/9 "2004-02-25T14:01:18Z")
“deny’s” Hmmm, must be early. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/10 "2004-02-25T14:16:40Z")
Well, if you put it that way, the 19th Amendment denies people the right to prevent women from voting, the 20th Amendment denies people the right to serve more than two terms as president and the 26th Amendment denies people the right to prevent someone 18 or older from voting. Since no one’s posted it yet, here’s the actual text from the US Constitution that describes the amendment process: > [@](#): > > Article V > > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratific ation may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. (underlined portion is no longer operative) ---
**Author:** ![friedo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/8edcca/32.png) [@friedo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/friedo)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/11 "2004-02-25T16:27:54Z")
I feel it’s worth noting that in more than 215 years, there have been only 28 amendments to the US Constitution, and ten of those were passed as a group, and two others cancel each other out. The last one took just under _200 years_ to ratify. So Constitutional amendments are not a matter to be taken lightly. They take a huge amount of work and commitment to get done, and in general are only used to address very serious matters. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2004, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-law-or-amend-us-constitution-difference/231077/12 "2004-02-25T16:43:08Z")
> [@friedo](#): > > I feel it’s worth noting that in more than 215 years, there have been only 28 amendments to the US Constitution, and ten of those were passed as a group, and two others cancel each other out. There have been 27 amendments to the Constitution, not 28. Unless you’re one of those conspiracy theorists who pursues the [“missing thirteenth amendment”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_missing_thirteenth_amendment) like the Grail…