The amendment process | Edexcel A-Level Politics
Updated: 4 days ago
For Specification 9PL0
Edexcel A-Level Politics | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time:Â 45 minutes
The amendment process A-Level Politics revision explains how the US Constitution can be formally changed and why that change is deliberately difficult. Article V protects the Constitution through entrenchment, requiring unusually broad agreement before constitutional change can take place. Understanding this process develops your knowledge of the nature of the US Constitution [The nature of the US Constitution] and prepares you to evaluate whether constitutional rigidity is a strength or weakness when studying constitutional debates [Debates around the Constitution and federalism].
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define entrenchment and explain its relationship to Article V.
Explain the formal process required to amend the US Constitution.
Explain why the amendment process requires broad political agreement.
Analyse the advantages and disadvantages of making constitutional amendment difficult.
Assess how entrenchment affects the operation of the US Constitution.
Evaluate whether constitutional entrenchment is ultimately a strength or weakness.
Revision Notes đź“š
What is constitutional amendment?
A constitutional amendment is a formal change to the Constitution.
This is different from passing an ordinary law. The Constitution is entrenched, so its provisions cannot simply be changed through the normal legislative process.
The Edexcel specification defines entrenchment as a system through which the US Constitution is protected from legal change, specifically through the amendment process contained in Article V.
This links directly to the codified and entrenched character of the Constitution [The nature of the US Constitution].
The formal amendment process
The source material identifies two key stages in the formal amendment process:
An amendment must gain the support of two-thirds of both chambers of Congress.
It must then gain the agreement of three-quarters of the states.
This is a much higher threshold than that required to pass ordinary legislation. The 2021 Edexcel mark scheme specifically uses these requirements to explain why the US Constitution is more difficult to amend and why amendments are relatively infrequent.
Stage 1: Agreement in Congress
The first major hurdle is Congress.
An amendment requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers:
the House of Representatives
the Senate
This means that a simple majority in Congress is not sufficient.
The requirement for such broad congressional support reduces the ability of one political group to alter the Constitution simply because it temporarily controls Congress.
It also links the amendment process to bipartisanship, which you will explore further when studying the key features of the US Constitution [Key features of the US Constitution].
Stage 2: Agreement from the states
Congressional agreement alone does not amend the Constitution.
The amendment must also receive the agreement of three-quarters of the states.
This means that constitutional change requires support beyond the federal legislature. The states also play an important role.
The process therefore reflects the federal nature of the USA. Constitutional change requires substantial agreement across different parts of the political system rather than simply agreement within Washington.
This relationship between federal and state power becomes especially important when studying the federal system [US federalism].
The amendment process at a glance
Stage | Requirement | Why it matters |
Congressional approval | Two-thirds of both chambers | Prevents a simple congressional majority from altering the Constitution |
State approval | Three-quarters of the states | Requires widespread geographical and political agreement |
Final effect | Constitution is formally amended | The new constitutional provision becomes entrenched |
The central idea is therefore broad consent.
Constitutional change is possible, but only where there is a very high level of agreement.
Why is the amendment process so demanding?
The demanding process is the mechanism through which entrenchment operates.
If the Constitution could be changed through an ordinary congressional majority, it would not be meaningfully protected from short-term political change.
Instead:
High amendment thresholds→ require broad political agreement→ make constitutional alteration difficult→ protect existing constitutional rules→ create constitutional stability.
Edexcel mark schemes have identified this requirement for broad support as one of the ways in which the constitutional system can prevent a narrow political group from dominating constitutional change.
Advantages of the formal amendment process
The specification requires you to know both the advantages and disadvantages of the formal process.
Advantage 1: It protects the Constitution from short-term political majorities
Requiring two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-quarters of the states makes constitutional change much harder than passing ordinary legislation.
This prevents a temporary political majority from easily rewriting the fundamental rules of the political system.
This can be considered particularly important because the Constitution establishes:
the framework of government
the powers of political institutions
limitations on government
constitutional rights
Entrenchment therefore gives fundamental constitutional provisions stronger protection than ordinary legislation.
Advantage 2: Constitutional change requires broad support
The amendment process rewards changes capable of attracting widespread agreement.
A proposal must gain support:
across both chambers of Congress
across a large majority of the states
This can make successful amendments more legitimate because they are based on a broad level of consent rather than a narrow majority.
The Edexcel mark scheme has described constitutional change as requiring broad support, helping to prevent a narrow political group from dominating the process.
Advantage 3: It creates constitutional stability
An entrenched constitution is more difficult to alter.
This creates continuity because fundamental rules do not constantly change alongside shifts in ordinary party politics.
Political institutions operate within an established constitutional framework rather than having that framework frequently rewritten.
Advantage 4: It protects constitutional rights
Rights contained within the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and subsequent constitutional amendments benefit from entrenchment.
Because these provisions cannot simply be changed by ordinary legislation, constitutional rights may have stronger protection against rapid political change.
The Edexcel material explicitly identifies entrenchment as making constitutional rights more difficult to overturn.
You will examine this relationship in greater depth when studying constitutional rights protection [Civil liberties and constitutional rights].
Disadvantages of the formal amendment process
The features that protect the Constitution can also make constitutional change extremely difficult.
This creates one of the central debates surrounding entrenchment: when does stability become rigidity?
Disadvantage 1: The Constitution can be difficult to reform
The same high thresholds that protect the Constitution can prevent changes that have significant political support.
A proposal may attract majority support while still failing to reach the much higher constitutional threshold.
The Constitution can therefore be difficult to adapt through formal amendment.
Disadvantage 2: Amendment is relatively infrequent
Edexcel mark schemes note that amendments are less frequent because of the formal and lengthy process involved.
This demonstrates the effectiveness of entrenchment, but it can also be seen as a weakness.
If constitutional arrangements need reform, a highly demanding procedure may make formal constitutional change difficult to achieve.
Disadvantage 3: A minority can prevent change
Because a super-majority is required, achieving majority support is not enough.
This has two possible interpretations:
Strength:Â minorities are protected against major constitutional change imposed by a narrow majority.
Weakness:Â a proposal supported by a majority can still be blocked because it fails to achieve the exceptionally high threshold.
This is a useful evaluative tension for examination answers.
Disadvantage 4: Rigidity may make adaptation harder
The US Constitution is both codified and entrenched, which Edexcel mark schemes contrast with a more flexible constitutional system.
Entrenchment therefore contributes to the relative rigidity of the US Constitution.
The question is whether this rigidity protects fundamental constitutional arrangements or makes necessary constitutional adaptation unnecessarily difficult.
Advantages and disadvantages compared
Advantages | Disadvantages |
Protects fundamental constitutional rules from temporary majorities | Makes constitutional reform difficult |
Requires very broad political support | Majority support alone may not be enough |
Promotes stability and continuity | Stability may become rigidity |
Gives constitutional provisions strong protection | Formal constitutional change may be slow or infrequent |
Makes rights more difficult to overturn | Entrenched provisions are harder to update |
A strong evaluation should recognise that these are often two sides of the same feature.
For example:
The amendment process is difficult.
That fact alone is neither automatically a strength nor a weakness.
Its significance depends on the argument:
Strength:Â difficulty protects fundamental rules.
Weakness:Â difficulty obstructs reform.
The effects of constitutional entrenchment
Entrenchment has consequences beyond the amendment procedure itself.
1. Fundamental constitutional rules receive special protection
Because constitutional provisions require a special process to change, ordinary political institutions cannot easily remove constitutional limitations.
This reinforces the principle of limited government, which is explored further in constitutional principles [Key features of the US Constitution].
2. Political change requires unusually broad agreement
A government controlling the presidency or even a majority in Congress cannot simply rewrite the Constitution.
Constitutional alteration therefore requires a wider level of consent.
This limits the ability of short-term electoral victories to produce immediate constitutional transformation.
3. The states have an important constitutional role
The requirement for approval from three-quarters of the states prevents constitutional amendment from being exclusively controlled by federal institutions.
This connects entrenchment with the broader operation of US federalism [US federalism].
4. Constitutional rights receive stronger protection
The specification requires students to understand rights protected through the Constitution, Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.
Entrenchment means these constitutional protections cannot simply be altered in the same way as ordinary legislation.
5. The Constitution becomes relatively rigid
Entrenchment makes formal constitutional change difficult.
The 2025 Edexcel mark scheme explicitly identifies the US Constitution as more structured and rigid because it is codified and entrenched.
The same report also identifies a political culture in which the Constitution is regarded as foundational and is consequently rarely amended.
Entrenchment and democracy
The amendment process creates an important democratic debate.
The argument that entrenchment supports democracy
Entrenchment prevents a narrow political majority from making fundamental constitutional changes.
Requiring agreement across Congress and the states means constitutional alterations must have broad support.
This may protect political minorities and prevent sudden constitutional change.
The argument that entrenchment can restrict democracy
A proposal can have majority support but still fail because the constitutional threshold is significantly higher than an ordinary majority.
Critics can therefore argue that the amendment process allows existing constitutional arrangements to continue even where substantial support for change exists.
The central debate is:
Should fundamental constitutional change reflect the will of a majority, or should it require exceptional levels of agreement?
That question feeds directly into debates over the Constitution's strengths, weaknesses and democratic character [Debates around the Constitution and federalism].
Entrenchment versus flexibility
One of the most useful ways to evaluate the amendment process is to contrast stability with flexibility.
Entrenchment encourages | But may reduce |
Stability | Flexibility |
Continuity | Speed of reform |
Protection from temporary majorities | Responsiveness to demands for change |
Broad consensus | Ability of ordinary majorities to reform the system |
Strong constitutional protection | Ease of constitutional adaptation |
There is no automatic answer to which is preferable.
A strong judgement should depend on what you think a constitution is supposed to achieve.
If the priority is to protect fundamental rules, entrenchment appears highly effective.
If the priority is to allow political institutions to adapt quickly, the formal amendment procedure may appear excessively rigid.
How to analyse the amendment process in an exam
Do not stop after stating the amendment thresholds.
Build a logical chain.
For example:
Two-thirds of both chambers and three-quarters of the states are required→ a simple political majority cannot change the Constitution→ constitutional reform requires broad support→ fundamental constitutional provisions are protected from short-term political pressure→ therefore entrenchment promotes stability.
Then evaluate:
However, the same high threshold→ means proposals with majority support can still fail→ constitutional reform becomes difficult→ therefore stability can become constitutional rigidity.
That movement from knowledge → consequence → judgement is the key to stronger analytical and evaluative writing.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Entrenchment | A system protecting the US Constitution from ordinary legal change through the Article V amendment process. | Use it to explain why constitutional provisions are difficult to alter. |
Constitution | A set of rules determining where sovereignty lies and establishing the relationship between government and the governed. | Use it to explain why changing the Constitution is more significant than changing ordinary legislation. |
Amendment process | The formal procedure through which the US Constitution can be changed. | Use it when explaining the two-thirds congressional and three-quarters state requirements. |
Article V | The part of the Constitution associated with the formal amendment process and constitutional entrenchment. | Use it to identify the constitutional basis for formal amendment. |
Bipartisanship | Attempts within Congress to ensure that the two main parties work together to fulfil congressional functions. | Use it when analysing why the high threshold may require broad political agreement. |
Hints from the Examiner Reports đź’ˇ
Examiner hint:Â Do not confuse the threshold for constitutional amendment with the requirement for passing ordinary legislation. The 2020 examiner report identified the incorrect claim that Congress needs a two-thirds majority to pass legislation as a recurring error. The higher threshold applies in particular constitutional procedures, including amendment.
Examiner hint:Â Be precise about the effect of entrenchment. Edexcel's 2021 material explains that the US Constitution is difficult to amend because constitutional change requires two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress and agreement from three-quarters of the states.
Examiner hint:Â Do not simply state that entrenchment is a "structural difference" in a comparative theory question. The 2025 report stresses that comparative theory needs to be explained and integrated into the comparison. Simply attaching the name of a theory to the end of a paragraph is not enough.
Examiner hint:Â Focus closely on the question asked. The 2023 report noted that some candidates mentioned the difficulty of amendment when answering a question about checks and balances without explaining the connection. Accurate knowledge only earns credit when it is made relevant to the precise question.
Examiner hint:Â For 12-mark comparative questions, lengthy introductions and conclusions are usually unnecessary. Use your time for developed comparison, precise knowledge and clear analytical chains instead.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake: Saying that a two-thirds majority is needed to pass ordinary legislation
Why this is incorrect: The two-thirds threshold identified here relates to the constitutional amendment process. Ordinary congressional legislation does not generally require a two-thirds majority simply to pass.
This exact misconception has been identified in examiner reports.
How to improve:
Keep the processes separate:
ordinary legislation:Â do not automatically apply the two-thirds rule
constitutional amendment:Â remember the much higher constitutional threshold
Mistake: Saying that entrenchment means the Constitution cannot be changed
Why this is incorrect: Entrenchment means that a special and demanding procedure is required. The existence of Article V shows that formal constitutional change remains possible.
How to improve: Write that the Constitution is difficult to amend, not that it is impossible to amend.
Mistake: Remembering only the congressional stage
Why this is incorrect: Two-thirds support in both chambers of Congress is not enough. Agreement from three-quarters of the states is also required.
How to improve: Memorise the process as:
Congress → States
2/3 → 3/4
Mistake: Describing the process without analysing why it matters
Why this is incorrect: Knowing the numerical thresholds demonstrates knowledge, but stronger answers explain their consequences.
How to improve: After giving the process, add a chain such as:
high threshold → broad support → difficult change → constitutional stability.
Then add the counterargument:
high threshold → difficult reform → constitutional rigidity.
Mistake: Assuming that difficulty is automatically a disadvantage
Why this is incorrect: Difficulty is also the purpose of entrenchment. It protects fundamental constitutional rules from easy alteration.
How to improve: Treat each feature evaluatively. Ask:
What does this protect, and what does it make harder?
Mistake: Treating entrenchment and codification as interchangeable
Why this is incorrect: Codification concerns the Constitution being written in one document. Entrenchment concerns the special procedure required to change it.
How to improve: Remember:
Codification = where the rules are.
Entrenchment = how difficult the rules are to change.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Define entrenchment in relation to the US Constitution. (2 marks)
Answer:
Entrenchment is the protection of the US Constitution from ordinary legal change through the formal amendment procedure contained in Article V.
Award up to 2 marks for accurately identifying both protection from ordinary change and the special amendment procedure.
Question 2
Outline the two main requirements identified in the formal constitutional amendment process. (4 marks)
Answer:
An amendment requires:
support from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress
agreement from three-quarters of the states
Award credit for correctly identifying each requirement.
Question 3
Explain two advantages of the formal amendment process. (6 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Candidates may explain:
The high congressional and state thresholds prevent temporary political majorities from easily altering fundamental constitutional rules.
The process requires broad support, increasing the level of agreement behind successful constitutional change.
Entrenchment creates stability and continuity.
Constitutional provisions and rights are harder to overturn through short-term political action.
Higher-mark answers should explain why the procedural requirement produces each advantage.
Question 4
Explain two disadvantages of constitutional entrenchment. (6 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Candidates may explain:
The high thresholds make constitutional reform difficult.
Majority support alone may be insufficient to achieve constitutional change.
Entrenchment can create rigidity and reduce constitutional flexibility.
The formal and lengthy process contributes to constitutional amendments being relatively infrequent.
Credit developed explanation rather than simple identification.
Question 5
A proposed constitutional change gains the support of a simple majority in both chambers of Congress but does not achieve two-thirds support.
Explain why the proposal has not met the requirements for formal constitutional amendment and what this demonstrates about entrenchment. (6 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Candidates should explain that:
a simple majority does not satisfy the amendment threshold
two-thirds support is required in both chambers
the proposal therefore cannot progress through the source-supported congressional stage of formal amendment
this illustrates the difference between constitutional amendment and ordinary legislation
it demonstrates how entrenchment protects the Constitution from change based on a simple political majority
it may be evaluated as providing stability but also making reform difficult
Question 6
Analyse the effects of the formal amendment process on the US Constitution. (12 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
Strong responses may analyse several effects.
Broad political agreement
Two-thirds support in both congressional chambers and agreement from three-quarters of the states are required.
This means constitutional change must achieve a much wider level of consent than ordinary political change, reducing the ability of narrow majorities to rewrite constitutional rules.
Constitutional stability
The demanding process makes amendments relatively infrequent.
This protects established constitutional arrangements and promotes continuity.
Constitutional rigidity
The same requirements make reform difficult.
A proposal may have majority support but fail because it cannot achieve the required super-majorities.
Federal involvement
The states participate in constitutional change rather than amendment being determined solely by institutions at federal level.
This reflects the wider federal structure of US government.
Protection
Entrenchment makes constitutional provisions, including constitutional rights, more difficult to change than ordinary legislation.
Higher-level responses should develop clear logical chains showing the political consequences of the amendment process.
Question 7
Evaluate the view that the difficulty of amending the US Constitution is more of a strength than a weakness. (30 marks)
Indicative mark scheme:
A balanced answer should consider both the stated view and the alternative.
Arguments that the difficulty is a strength
Candidates may argue that:
entrenchment protects fundamental constitutional rules from temporary political majorities
demanding thresholds require broad and durable political support
participation by Congress and the states prevents constitutional alteration being controlled by a single institution
constitutional stability allows political institutions to operate within an established framework
constitutional rights and limitations on government are more difficult to remove through short-term political pressure
Arguments that the difficulty is a weakness
Candidates may argue that:
the high thresholds make constitutional reform extremely difficult
proposals attracting majority support may still fail
constitutional stability can become rigidity
the formal process limits the ability of the Constitution to respond rapidly to demands for political change
relatively infrequent amendment demonstrates how substantial the barriers to formal reform can be
Analysis and evaluation
Strong responses should recognise that the same feature can support opposing arguments.
For example:
High thresholds→ protect the Constitution from temporary majorities→ therefore promote stability.
However:
High thresholds→ also prevent majority-supported reform→ therefore reduce flexibility.
Overall judgement
A strong conclusion should establish a criterion for deciding whether the difficulty is beneficial.
If the primary purpose of a constitution is to protect fundamental rules from short-term political change, entrenchment can be judged a major strength.
If the priority is a constitution's ability to respond to changing political demands, the difficulty of amendment may be considered a significant weakness.
The strongest judgement will therefore distinguish between stability and rigidity, rather than simply claiming that making constitutional change difficult is inherently good or bad.
Comments