Amendment Approaches Work in Tandem
Hector D. LaSalle, Presiding Justice pf the Appellate Division, Second Department, writes: The two different approaches for constitutional amendment have proved to be sufficient for the purposes that the two documents serve, and function in tandem to protect the important principles our Republic holds most dear, while allowing the state the ability to enact the necessary changes to better the day-to-day lives of the citizens of New York.
April 28, 2022 at 01:30 PM
6 minute read
Justice William Brennan stated that the "genius of the Constitution rests not in any static meaning it might have had in a world that is dead and gone, but in the adaptability of its great principles to cope with current problems and current needs" (quoted in Justice Byron R. White, Tribute to Honorable William J. Brennan, Jr., 100 Yale L.J. 1113, 1116 (March 1991)). The U.S. Constitution not only forms the bedrock of our Republic's free society, but as the American Bar Association aptly noted, "outlines a blueprint for government" in which it "delegates power, articulates rights, and offers mechanisms for change." One mechanism for change is the constitutional amendment process. That mechanism, however, is not a simple one. The amendment process as outlined in Article V is intentionally arduous, demonstrative of the framers' desire to protect the Republic's foundational principles from being easily eroded by the current passions of its citizens. In contrast, amending the New York State Constitution is achieved with greater ease, thus allowing the state the ability to regulate the many important subjects which affect the daily lives of the citizens of New York.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides that amendments may be proposed by either: (1) Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives; or (2) a convention of states called for by the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Thus far, each of the 27 amendments that have been enacted have been proposed by Congress (see Stephen M. Griffin, The Problem of Constitutional Change, 70 Tul. L. Rev. 2121, 2135 (June 1996)). After an amendment has been proposed, it becomes ratified if it is approved by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to asset-and-logo-licensing@alm.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWestern NY Justice Agrees to Public Admonishment Over 'Obvious' Conflict of Interest
Meet the Long Island Judge Tapped to Be US Attorney for Eastern District of New York
3 minute readUS Courts Announce Closures in Observance of Jimmy Carter National Mourning Day
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250