The Hardest Constitution to Amend

There has not been a constitutional convention since the original in Philadelphia. A 2016 report from the Congressional Research Service discusses the process of calling a convention, as well as the questions and uncertainties surrounding that process. There have been 27 amendments, but passing one is very hard.

 Drew DeSilver at Pew:

In Pew Research Center surveys, Americans overwhelmingly favor several proposed changes to the U.S. political system, from term and age limits for government officials to campaign finance limitations. But many of those changes would require amending the Constitution, which is extremely difficult. The Constitution has been in effect for 237 years but has been formally amended just 27 times.

Using a classification scheme developed by the late political scientist Donald S. Lutz, we scored the amendment rules of 101 democratic constitutions. (The other five democracies have “uncodified” constitutions, meaning their governance rules are distributed across multiple statutes, legal precedents, customs and unwritten norms.) For constitutions that contain more than one amendment procedure, we used the “least difficult” path, which may or may not be the most frequently employed.

Of all 101 constitutions, the U.S. Constitution has the second-most onerous amendment process. Amendments must be approved by two-thirds votes in both the House and Senate – itself a tall order in these polarized times – and then be ratified by three-quarters of state legislatures, or 38 of 50.

The only democracy whose constitution is even harder to change is the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), a former U.S. trust territory in the South Pacific with about 76,000 inhabitants. The easiest path to changing the FSM’s constitution involves two separate two-thirds majority votes in the 14-person legislature, approval by the country’s president, and subsequent approval by three-quarters of voters in at least three of the FSM’s four states.

Other countries with constitutions that are nearly as hard to change are Palau, Switzerland and Australia. Like the U.S. and the FSM, these countries all require ratification at both the national and state levels.

At the other extreme, many countries with unicameral (single-chamber) legislatures can amend their constitutions much like how they pass regular laws, just requiring a larger majority in favor.

Hardest and easiest national constitutions to amend
Difficulty score based on easiest pathway, as specified in constitution

Note: When a constitution specifies more than one amendment process, the “difficulty of amendment” scores represent the least difficult process. Data is based on the 106 countries we classify as democracies and includes some fully self-governing territories whose sovereign status is disputed.
Source: Pew Research Center analysis using scoring system based on “Toward a Theory of Constitutional Amendment” by Donald S. Lutz (American Political Science Review, June 1994).

American Pride Drops and Polarizes

Many posts have discussed patriotism and American exceptionalism.

Megan Brenan at Gallup:

As the United States marks its 250th anniversary, 33% of U.S. adults say they are “extremely proud” to be an American, the lowest reading in Gallup's trend dating back to 2001. Another 20% say they are “very proud,” which means just over half of Americans express high levels of pride in their country.

The remaining shares say they are “moderately proud” (22%), “only a little proud” (15%) or “not at all proud” (9%).
...
The current 56-point gap between Republicans’ and Democrats’ reported extreme pride is similar to last year’s 57-point difference, the highest on record. 

SCOTUS Upholds Birthright Citizenship

A number of posts have discussed birthright citizenship.

 Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship – the guarantee of citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States. In a decision by Chief Justice John Roberts, in Trump v. Barbara, the justices agreed with the challengers, as well as all of the lower courts around the country that have considered the issue, that Trump’s order cannot be reconciled with the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which confers citizenship on anyone “born … in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Writing for the majority, Roberts emphasized that the “children born of parents unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States” “satisfy both elements of the Citizenship Clause.” “Under the Constitution,” he concluded, “they are citizens at birth.”

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito called the ruling both “one of the most important decisions in the history of the Court” and “a serious mistake.” “Careful analysis of the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the process that led to its adoption,” Alito argued, “shows that it does not degrade the concept of United States citizenship in this way. Instead,” he contended, “the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on only those children who, at birth, owe allegiance solely to this country.”

Trump issued the executive order at the center of the case on Jan. 20, 2025, shortly after he was sworn into office for a second term. It provided that babies who are born in the United States to parents who are in this country either illegally or temporarily are not automatically entitled to citizenship.

Goodbye, Humphrey's Executor

Many posts have discussed regulation and the administrative state. 

Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog:

The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Donald Trump sweeping new authority over approximately two dozen multi-member agencies that Congress intended to be independent. By a vote of 6-3, the justices struck down a federal law that bars the president from firing members of the Federal Trade Commission except in cases of “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” That law, a majority of the justices ruled, violates the constitutional separation of powers between the three branches of government. And in reaching that decision, the court overruled its 91-year-old decision in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which had upheld the law at the center of the dispute.

More broadly, Monday’s decision was a major victory for proponents of the “unitary executive” theory – the idea that the president should have complete control over the executive branch. Under this theory, the president should be able to fire any member of the executive branch, and laws – like the one that the court struck down – that restrict his ability to do so violate the separation of powers.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts contended that “the President must have the assistance of officers he can trust. Although it is up to the Senate to decide whether to confirm those with whom the President would prefer to work, neither Congress nor the courts may saddle him with those with whom he cannot work. Subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Then, and only then, can they remain accountable to the President, and the President to the people.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a 49-page dissent that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. “Today,” she wrote, “the Court discards” the “democratic regime” created by the Constitution “in favor of one that distorts the structure of Government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control. The result,” she concluded, “is a President who emerges with far greater power than ever before.”

The Districts Are Too Damn Big

Many posts have discussed reapportionment and redistricting.  There have long been proposals to enlarge the House, thereby creating less populous districts.

Bruce Mehlman:

At the Constitutional Convention, George Washington spoke only once — to urge that representation remain close to the people, with a ratio of one representative for every 30,000. For more than a century, Congress followed that blueprint, with the House growing steadily from 65 members in 1789 to 435 by 1913. And then it stopped. Today, the actual ratio is roughly one representative for every 760,000 Americans. Is there any population at which a House district becomes too big to represent?

Justice Kagan Notes Trump's Racism

Many posts have discussed immigration and asylum.

Justice Kagan's dissent in Mullin v. Doe (25-1083)

The Haiti plaintiffs have yet another claim that is likely to succeed: that race entered into the decision to terminate Haiti’s TPS designation, in violation of equal protection.

 ...

It is more than plausible: Even putting the clear-error standard aside, the Haiti plaintiffs have carried their burden. The evidence they have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print.  (Indeed, one measure of the President’s way of speaking about Haitians is to compare it with the majority’s, which is unfailingly respectful.4) So here are some of those statements. Haitians are “eating the dogs . . . . They’re eating the cats. They’re eating—they’re eating the pets of the people that live [in Springfield, Ohio].” 2 App. 802; see id., at 644.  And: Haitians are also eating “other things too that they’re not supposed to be.” Id., at 698–699.  And: Haitians in the United States “probably have AIDS.”  Id., at 698. And: Haiti is a “shithole country,” which is “filthy, dirty, [and] disgusting.” Id., at 698–699. And: Haitian immigration is “like a death wish for our country.”  Id., at 698. And: Haitians, along with some others, are “poisoning the blood” of our country. Id., at 698.  And: “Why is it we only take people from shithole countries” like “Haiti [and] Somalia”? “Why cannot we have some people from Norway [and] Sweden?” Id., at 699. The majority briefly replies that those remarks are not “overtly racial,” ante, at 21, but it is hard to know what that means. Haitians are Black.  (Norwegians and Swedes not so much.)  The references—of filth, disease, and primitiveness—are shot through with racial stereotypes and tropes. It is hard to imagine the statements being made today of any White community.  No very “sensitive inquiry,” of the kind Arlington Heights compels, is needed to see them for what they are, 429 U. S., at 266; judges, as we often say, are “not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free,” Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., at 785.  The statements fairly shout, in their racial undertones and overtones alike, that race entered into the President’s resolve to remove Haitians from this country.

\

Passports, Visas, and Trump

Many posts have discussed myths and misinformation. 

Also – "Welcome, but be good"? Who's Trump's target audience for that?

Might be fitting for a visa. But for a passport? Is he saying even we citizens are welcome here only at his sufferance? Or is it just a S.N.A.F.U.? pic.twitter.com/iubFHUR5iI

— Ira 'Greybeard Homer' Goldman 🦆🦆🦆 (@KDbyProxy) June 26, 2026