government and morally beyond the reach of popular majorities,"[1] and that is at the same time so difficult to amend is out of keeping with the times. So scholarly a man and conservative a thinker as Professor Monroe Smith maintains that
sooner or later. . . it will be generally realized that the first article in any sincerely intended progressive program must be the amendment of the amending clause of the Federal Constitution.[2]
In Kentucky, not more than two amendments can be submitted at a time; in Arkansas, Kansas and Montana, not more than three at a time. In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, no amendment or amendments can be submitted oftener than once in five years; in Tennessee, not oftener than once in six years, and in Vermont, not oftener than once in ten years. A number of states require a majority of those voting at an election for the adoption of an amendment. In these states, a majority of those voting for and against an amendment does not necessarily suffice.[3] No less than forty amendments that have been added to the constitution of Michigan would have failed to carry if this requirement had been in force.[4] In Wyoming, a majority of the qualified electors, whether voting or not is required. In Pennsylvania, an "amendment must be passed by two successive legislatures before it can be voted on by the people, and the legislature meets only on alternate years.[5] The amendment of the constitution of Illinois is especially difficult. A two thirds vote of each house is necessary to propose an amendment. Not more than one article at a time can be amended, and the same article not oftener than once in four years. Finally, a majority of those voting at an election is required to adopt an amendment.[6] As a result, many reforms that depend upon amending the constitution are practically at a standstill. The advocates of different amendments block each other. The friends of the initiative and the referendum prevent the reform of the general property tax and vice versa. Each demands the right of way. In the meantime, the reorganization of the judiciary, the short ballot, the abolition of minority representation in the legislature and home rule for cities are obliged to wait.[7] One is reminded of the celebrated Lecompton constitution which was nearly foisted upon the people of Kansas. In providing for its own amendment, it declared: "But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in the ownership of slaves."[8]
One might suppose that the constitution of New York is particularly difficult to amend, judging from the amount of criticism which the highest court of the state has excited in recent years. This, however, is not the case. The constitution has been amended on numerous occasions since its adoption in 1894. New York is suffering from the archaic condition of its judicial mind rather than from the rigidity of its constitution. Professor Walter F. Willcox has noted that the court of appeals, in holding the Workman's Compensation Act unconstitu-
- ↑ Charles A. Beard, "An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States," p. 324.
- ↑ Op. cit., p. 673.
- ↑ Francis Newton Thorpe, "The Federal and State Constitutions of the United States."
- ↑ John A. Fairlie, op. cit., p. 149.
- ↑ William Draper Lewis, op. cit., p. 322.
- ↑ Francis Newton Thorpe, op. cit.
- ↑ See an interesting series of newspaper articles by Arthur M. Evans, in The Chicago Record-Herald during November and December, 1913.
- ↑ "Debates of Lincoln and Douglas," op. cit., p. 109.
