Talk about the President’s involvement in the amending process. What are the President’s authority and restrictions when it comes to endorsing or rejecting a constitutional modification that the Parliament has passed?
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, enacted in 2019, introduced a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in education and public employment, marking a significant shift in India's reservation policy. Earlier, reservations were aimed at addressing historical injustices and socialRead more
The 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, enacted in 2019, introduced a 10% reservation for economically weaker sections (EWS) in education and public employment, marking a significant shift in India’s reservation policy. Earlier, reservations were aimed at addressing historical injustices and social disadvantages faced by Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). This amendment extends benefits based on economic criteria, regardless of caste. Its relevance lies in acknowledging economic hardship as a barrier to social mobility, broadening the scope of social justice. The Supporters argue that it addresses the needs of economically disadvantaged groups who do not fall under existing reserved categories, promoting inclusive growth. Critics says that this economic-based reservation may dilute the original intention of reservations, which is to rectify systemic social discrimination. Additionally, the 10% EWS quota raises questions about the practical implementation and potential overlap with existing quotas, which already account for 50% of seats. The amendment also risks perpetuating the reliance on quotas as a solution, rather than addressing structural inequalities through comprehensive socio-economic reforms. Thus,the 103rd Amendment aims to expand the ambit of social justice, its long-term impact on achieving genuine equity and inclusion remains to be critically evaluated.
See less
The role of the President in the constitutional amendment process is an interesting and important one, though it is also somewhat limited compared to the central role played by Congress and the states. As outlined in Article V of the Constitution, the amendment process can be initiated in one of twoRead more
The role of the President in the constitutional amendment process is an interesting and important one, though it is also somewhat limited compared to the central role played by Congress and the states.
As outlined in Article V of the Constitution, the amendment process can be initiated in one of two ways: either by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, or by a national convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures.
Once an amendment has been proposed through one of those routes, it then must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states before it can take effect. The President does not have a direct vote in this ratification process.
However, the President does play an indirect but significant role in several ways:
Agenda-setting power: As the head of the executive branch, the President can help set the national political agenda and priorities, which can influence which constitutional amendments are introduced and debated by Congress.
Bully pulpit: The President has a powerful platform to advocate for or against specific amendment proposals, using the media and the office’s bully pulpit to sway public opinion.
Veto power: While the President cannot veto a constitutional amendment itself, they can veto legislation passed by Congress that is intended to propose an amendment. This creates an opportunity for the President to indirectly shape or block the amendment process.
Appointment power: The President appoints federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, who may later rule on the constitutionality or interpretation of any new amendments.
So in summary, the President’s role is more indirect than direct, but it is still a meaningful one. The President can use their agenda-setting influence, public platform, and appointment power to either facilitate or impede the passage of constitutional amendments, even if they cannot unilaterally approve or reject them.
Ultimately, the high bar set for amending the Constitution means that any proposed changes would need to garner broad, bipartisan support to overcome the deliberate hurdles built into the process. The President’s role is important, but not decisive, in that overall equation.
See less