Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The myth of the 'unamendable' Constitution

Opinion

constitutional amendments

Clearly the Constitution can be amended, writes Clements: "Every generation has had to do this."

Benjamin Clapp/Getty Images

Clements is the president of American Promise, a nonprofit advocate for amending the Constitution to allow more federal and state regulation of money in politics.

Let’s face it: To unite Americans and renew our democracy and republican form of government, we need to amend the Constitution — again.

Why should we expect any less? Every generation has had to do this.

Millions of Americans alive today participated in winning constitutional amendment campaigns. Those amendments ended the discriminatory and racist poll tax; gave District of Columbia residents the right to vote in presidential elections; enfranchised millions of young Americans who were “old enough to fight, old enough to vote;” and stabilized our government with a succession plan and provisions for an incapacitated president.

Not bad; four constitutional amendments in just a decade between 1961 and 1971. Boomers may get their share of criticism but this historic achievement can stand up to any generation’s accomplishments.

Perhaps they learned it from their grandparents. A generation earlier, Americans ratified four constitutional amendments between 1913 and 1920: voting rights for women; senators elected by the people; fundamental tax reform and, well OK, prohibition. Another amendment 10 years later ended prohibition.

Things must have been easier then, right? Americans and our politics must have been less divided, or there must have been some lost magic trick in the Constitution to make amendments more achievable. We can’t do that anymore, right?

No, none of that is true.


We are no more divided or challenged today than Americans after the Civil War, in the Gilded Age/Progressive Era or in the 1960s. Those were times of chaos, political violence, rapid technological change, challenges with mass immigration and racism, war, pandemic, political crisis, and dysfunction. Sound familiar?

So how did Americans secure democracy with constitutional amendments? No “dangerous” constitutional convention, no “civil war,” no drama. Just the common, dogged, heroic acts of every-day citizenship for Americans.

Learning, speaking out, talking with neighbors, organizing, voting and demanding that politicians vote for the persistent good idea that won’t go away.

That’s how constitutional amendments get the required two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the states. That’s the simple but challenging way Americans have advanced and preserved constitutional democracy for two centuries.

There are always skeptics who say it can’t be done. A few weeks ago, the New Yorker explained “ The United States’ Unamendable Constitution ” to its readers. Why is the Constitution unamendable, despite the clear and well-used amendment provisions?

The usual reasons, says the New Yorker: We haven’t done it in a long time, and we’re too divided. These are the same reasons the Washington Post gave in 1904 when it explained, just before a wave of four amendments, that the Constitution is “effectively unamendable.” Americans have ratified 12 amendments since then.

There’s no shortage of constitutional amendment proposals now. Dark money and election integrity? Term limits? Fiscal responsibility? Equal rights? Electoral College?

Which amendment has the most unifying support from all political viewpoints, is most likely to succeed, would have the most impact, and could possibly kick-start other constitutional reform, as happened in previous eras?

My bet is on the amendment to end the corruption of money in elections, and put voters instead of elite donors in charge. This proposal is real, has been vetted and has momentum.

It’s the For Our Freedom Amendment. It protects the First Amendment and empowers ‘we the people’ to enact effective rules about money in elections to protect free speech, representation, and election integrity for all Americans.

Just about every American knows that unlimited and unaccountable money in our elections is one of the biggest reasons for systemic corruption, non-stop misleading attack ads, terrible candidates, poor governance, lack of free speech for all but the wealthiest donors, civic distrust, and disconnection between voters and our government.

We can’t fix this without a constitutional amendment because the Supreme Court invented a theory that regulation or limits on money in elections violate free speech rights of those with unlimited money.

That’s not what the First Amendment meant for the first 200 years of America. It’s a “clever lawyer” theory that doesn’t make sense in the real world. But an activist Supreme Court simply decreed the new theory, struck down our anti-corruption laws, and opened the floodgates for money from billionaires, global corporations, big unions and even foreign interests.

Millions of Americans already are advancing the For Our Freedom Amendment with the simple, powerful civic actions that get constitutional amendments done.

They have volunteered, signed petitions, gathered ballot signatures, voted on resolutions, visited representatives, presented to Rotary Clubs and local Chambers of Commerce, written letters to the editor, shared or commented on social media, and set up tables at farmers’ markets or wherever Americans gather to discuss opportunities for change.

As a result, 22 states have formally demanded that Congress pass the amendment so the states can begin the ratification process. Hundreds of members of Congress support this approach. Polls and votes in state and local referenda show consistent supermajority support from three out of four Americans.

While skeptics continue to buy into the myth that our Constitution is unamendable, millions of Americans are actually getting it done. The nonpartisan organization American Promise is a good place to start (I volunteer as president of American Promise).

Lord knows, America is imperfect and we often fall short of the promise of liberty, equal rights and self-government. But we do believe in that promise. We are persistent. We don’t give up. And we act when the chips are down. That’s why the United States of America has one of the longest-living constitutions and democracies in the history of humanity.

The Constitution is how the government obtains the consent of the governed. If it is “unamendable” by the people, it’s game over. Let’s not end the game without taking our shot.


Read More

​President Donald Trump and other officials in the Oval office.

President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2026, in Washington, before signing a spending bill that will end a partial shutdown of the federal government.

Alex Brandon, Associated Press

Trump Signs Substantial Foreign Aid Bill. Why? Maybe Kindness Was a Factor

Sometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.

Even in today’s Washington.

Keep ReadingShow less
Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less