Q4 essays on the US Constitution come up roughly every three years. The 2022 Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v Wade has put the Article V amendment difficulty back at the centre of US politics: pro-choice advocates have been forced to seek state-level protection because federal amendment is unreachable. The Equal Rights Amendment ratification debate (declared ratified by archivists 2024 but contested) has revived discussion. Trump's Project 2025 includes proposals that would normally require constitutional amendment but are being pursued through executive action and legislation.
Article V requires either: two-thirds of each chamber of Congress proposing an amendment, then ratification by three-quarters (38 of 50) of state legislatures. OR a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of states (never used). Both routes are practically unreachable in modern conditions.
The 26th Amendment (1971) lowered the voting age to 18. The 27th Amendment (1992) was technical (delaying congressional pay raises until after the next election) and had been pending since 1789. So in 54 years, the US Constitution has had no substantive amendment. Compare with the UK, which has reformed the Lords, devolved power, created the Supreme Court, joined and left the EU, and created the Human Rights Act.
The Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress in 1972 and required 38 state ratifications. Reached 35 by the original 1979 deadline; 38th came in 2020 (Virginia). The National Archivist declared it ratified in January 2024 but the legal status remains contested. After 50 years of campaigning, gender-equality protection STILL is not clearly in the Constitution.
Washington DC has 700,000+ residents - more than Wyoming or Vermont - and no voting representation in Congress. The DC Voting Rights Amendment passed Congress in 1978 but failed ratification (only 16 states by 1985 deadline). The political impossibility of fixing this textbook democratic deficit through Article V is itself evidence of the threshold being too high.
The 1973 Roe v Wade ruling protected abortion rights through judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The 2022 Dobbs ruling overturned Roe. Pro-choice advocates cannot pass a constitutional amendment to restore federal protection - the political coalition does not exist. So a federal right that lasted 49 years was removed by the Court, with no Article V remedy available.
The US has 25-30 reliably Democratic states and 22-25 reliably Republican states. Even uncontroversial proposals cannot pass three-quarters when one party is structurally hostile. This was less true in the 1960s and 1970s when many amendments passed (24th, 25th, 26th).
The Founders deliberately set a high threshold to prevent factional or popular passions from rewriting the basic structure. The high bar protects minority rights and federal-state balance. A constitution that could be amended easily would not be a constitution.
The Supreme Court has effectively amended the Constitution through interpretation: Brown v Board (1954) on segregation, Roe v Wade (1973), Obergefell v Hodges (2015) on gay marriage, Dobbs v Jackson (2022). The Constitution has changed substantively without Article V amendments because the Court is the de facto constitutional convention.
The Constitution has been amended 27 times. The Bill of Rights (1-10), the post-Civil War amendments (13-15), the Progressive Era amendments (16-19), the New Deal-era and post-war amendments (20-22, 25-26). Constitutional change happens; it just requires broad consensus.
State constitutions are amended frequently. California has amended its state constitution 500+ times since 1879. The federal-level rigidity is balanced by state-level flexibility. Federalism handles much of what would otherwise need federal amendment.
The 26th Amendment (voting age 18) passed within 100 days of Congress proposing it - the fastest ratification in history. When a consensus exists, the system works. The problem is not the threshold; it is the polarisation of US politics.
The stronger answer is YES - the US Constitution is too difficult to amend. The fact that no substantive amendment has passed in 54 years (and the only one since 1971 was a technical pay-raise rule pending since 1789) shows the threshold is now structurally unreachable. The shift to constitutional change through Supreme Court interpretation is real but is a less democratic mechanism - five judges on a 9-member court can effectively rewrite constitutional law (Dobbs 2022) without the broad consensus that Article V was designed to require. Defenders of the rigidity have a respectable Founders-intent argument, but the consequences in 2026 - Dobbs without remedy, ERA still unresolved, DC unrepresented - are democratic deficits.
The Constitution is too difficult to amend. The threshold made sense in 1789 but is unreachable in 2026 polarisation. The cost is that constitutional change has been outsourced to the Court - a less democratic mechanism.