Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party platform quietly implied last week that the Citizens United Supreme Court decision will remain the law of the land for the distant future, if not forever.
Clinton mentioned in her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention that “if necessary we’ll pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United!” to rapturous applause. The party’s resignation to that fate can be gleaned from the official Democratic platform, which states support for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.
This glosses over the history of how difficult it is to enact a constitutional amendment. The most recent ratified amendment was added to the Constitution 24 years ago. It concerned an inoffensive ruling about when changes to Congressional salaries take effect.
The most recent one before that was 45 years ago.
Moreover, it is not a role of the president to pass constitutional amendments. An amendment must be adopted by two-thirds of the House and Senate, and then sent to the states, where either three-fourths of the legislatures must ratify it, or three-fourths of state ratifying conventions must agree to it. The latter method has only been used to enact the 21st Amendment. (An alternative way of sending an amendment to the states, a national convention requested by two-thirds of state legislatures, has never been used in ratifying a constitutional amendment.)
It seems unlikely that Republicans in Congress would help tear down what most conservatives consider a victory for free speech. This is especially true since Clinton herself has said, “Citizens United was about me. Think how that makes me feel.”
Conor Beck is an intern at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
