Seite 246

246

Obgleich die Option einer formalen Verfassungsergänzung mittels des Amendment-Prozesses nie grundsätzlich in Frage gestellt wurde, tauchten doch in der amerikanischen Verfassungsgeschichte, wie an den obigen Beispielen illustriert, wiederkehrende Spannungen und heftige Kontroversen über Einzelheiten und Leitgedanken des Amendmentverfahrens auf. Einigen Problemstellungen ist allerdings eine gewisse Konstanz, auch in der unerbittlichen Haltung der konträr vertretenen Positionen nicht abzusprechen. Zu nennen ist etwa der Grundkonflikt zwischen dem Bedürfnis nach einem normalen Verfahren nach Artikel V, das bereits T. Jefferson pointierte715, und dem Favorisieren einer Verfassungsanpassung durch eine starke Gerichtsbarkeit, was wiederum Äußerungen von Chief Justice J. Marshall716 und später W. Wilson717 oder C. Tiedeman718 deutlich werden lassen.719 Periodisch traten offen kundgetane Sorgen um die eigentliche Angemessenheit und die anti-demokratischen Wesenszüge des Amendment-Prozesses zutage.[720] [720] So beispielsweise in den Schriften von S.G.Fisher, der in ders., The Trial of the Constitution, 1972 (Neudruck der Ausgabe von 1862), S. 55 die berühmt gewordenen rhetorischen Fragen stellte: "Why should they not be made by Congress, if demanded by necessity, as they would be by an English Parliament? Should they be approved and ratified by the people, what is the difference, whether their consent be expressed by a Legislature or by a Convention which they have elected, or before or after the alteration be made it would still be the wishes of the same people carried into effect. If the people should be dissatisfied, they can say so through another Congress. If they continue to be satisfied after the alteration is tried, it would be thus established as a precedent to be engrafted on the Constitution, as is the case in England." Weiter bekräftigte Fisher, "[t]he Constitution belongs to the people,-to the people of 1862, not to those of 1787," woraus er schließlich folgert: "[i]t must and will be modified to suit the wishes of the former, by their representatives in Congress, just as the English Constitution has been modified by Parliament", vgl. ebenda, S. 96f.

While necessarily incomplete, the foregoing historical survey shows that, from the nation's early history to the present day, both the amending process in Article V and the more general issue of constitutional change and stability have been important subjects of debate and reflection. [...] There has, however, been rather constant tension between those like Jefferson who have emphasized the need for formal change through Article V and those like Marshall, Tiedeman, and Wilson who have stressed judicial adaptation. [...] there have also been periodic concerns about the adequacy and anti-democratic features of the amending mechanism. S. 55: Fisher rhetorically asked: Why should they not be made by Congress, if demanded by necessity, as they would be by an English Parliament? Should they be approved and ratified by the people, what is the difference, whether their consent be expressed by a Legislature or by a Convention which they have elected, or before or after the alteration be made? It would still be the wishes of the same people carried into effect. If the people should be dissatisfied, they can say so through another Congress. If they continue to be satisfied after the alteration is tried, it would be thus established as a precedent to be engrafted on the Constitution, as is the case in England.[83] Fisher proclaimed that "[t]he Constitution belongs to the people,-to the people of 1862, not to those of 1787," and he concluded from this that, "[i]t must and will be modified to suit the wishes of the former, by their representatives in Congress, just as the English Constitution has been modified by Parliament.... "[84] Fussnoten: [82] S. FISHER, THE TRIAL OF THE CONSTITUTION 33 (1972 reprint of 1862). [83] Id. at 55. [84] Id. at 96-7.

Übernommen aus John R. Vile, American Views of the Constitutional Amending Process: An Intellectual History of Article V In: The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 44-69 Link: http://www.jstor.org/pss/845582 Übersetzung aus dem Englischen. Diese Seite kann nicht mehr bearbeitet werden, da sie bereits in Fragmente übernommen wurde und deshalb Änderungen nicht mehr berücksichtigt werden. Um ein neues Plagiat zu melden, lege bitte eine neue Seite ¨Seite [Nummer] [Zusatz]¨ an, wobei [Nummer] die dreistellige Seitenzahl ist und [Zusatz] eine beliebige Ergänzung.