Formal and Informal Change

The Constitution, from his creation, was meant to act as a living, ever adapting document to suit the growing nation it governed. The Constitution, because of its inherent flexibility, can be amended in two different ways: formally and informally. Formally, details for Constitutional change are outlined in Article V, in which the two stages, proposal and ratification, are discussed. On an informal basis, the Constitution can undergo change through judicial interpretation, changes in political practices, changes in technology, and increasing demands on policymakers.
The two phases of the formal amendment process can take several routes. An amendment can be proposed by either a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress or by a convention called at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Ratification is possible by a three-fourths vote of the state legislatures or by conventions held in three-quarters of the states. The vast majority of proposed amendments have been ratified by state legislatures; the sole exception being the Twenty-First Amendment repealing prohibition created by the Eighteenth Amendment, which was ratified in specialized state conventions. Formal amendments have effectively helped the Constitution emphasize equality and the voice of the majority, balancing out the original economic nature of the document.
Informal changes to the Constitution have taken action without physically adding to the document. Judicial interpretation, defined by judicial review established in the Marbury v. Madison case of 1803, allows the Constitution to change informally at the will of the Supreme Court. The court’s power of judicial review allows the judicial branch to decide upon the constitutionality of actions, something that is implied, but never directly stated in the Constitution. Changing political practices constantly reshape the Constitution, especially when related to political parties and presidential elections. There is no mention of political parties in the Constitution, as they would have been seen as possible faction threats in the early days of the nation. Nonetheless, political parties have developed in America, holding large amounts of political sway and importance. In terms of presidential elections, the role of the Electoral College has drastically changed from its original intended use. The Forefathers intended for presidents to be chosen by state legislators or other elected “wise men.” In contemporary America, Electors generally vote in favor of the states which they represent, informally changing the way elections work without actually altering the Constitution.
Changes in technology, most notably the rise of mass media and the internet, have informally changed the role of the President. The development of nuclear weapons and the ease of electronic communication have put more power in the hands of the Executive Branch, adding to the growing demands placed upon the President, things unforeseen by the original bounds of the Constitution. In the world of international politics, the President has become influential, as the Executive Branch is now burdened by numerous foreign affairs obligations not specifically hammered out in the Constitution. None of these changes to the Constitution have physically altered the written Constitution, though they have become part of an unwritten Constitution that is greatly influential in American politics.
The Constitution’s ability to adapt and change with the growing needs of the United States is a testament to its effectiveness. The flexibility of the document allows the U.S. to change with the times, formally and informally affecting the way Americans go about their lives.