[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 109 (Friday, June 30, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1381-E1382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                         ESSAY CONTEST WINNERS

                                 ______


                           HON. HENRY J. HYDE

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, June 30, 1995
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I love to get involved with projects that 
involve our younger generation. One of the projects I sponsor every 
year along with the high schools and junior high schools in my 
district, is an essay contest. I asked the high school students to 
write about how we amend the Constitution and how is it different than 
passing a law, and the junior high students were to write about life in 
colonial times. I would like to thank Mrs. Vivian Turner, the former 
principal of Blackhawk Junior High School, who judged the hundreds of 
entries received. I want to congratulate Chanda Evans from Addison 
Trail High School and Kathleen Steinfels of Mary, Seat of Wisdom School 
in Park Ridge the first place winners for their very creative papers. I 
was very impressed with the essays and want to share them with my 
colleagues.
                   How Do We Amend the Constitution?

                Why Is It Different Then Passing a Law?

                           (By Chanda Evans)

       Most people realize that changing the structure of the 
     Constitution is a difficult process, and much more involved 
     than passing a law. What most people do not know is the 
     methods of proposing and ratifying a amendment set forth in 
     the Constitution, or any of the specific differences between 
     amending the Constitution and passing a 

[[Page E1382]]
     law. The United States Constitution provides two methods of proposing 
     and ratifying a amendment, both of which allow the interests 
     of the national and the state government to be taken into 
     consideration equally.
       The first step in amending the Constitution is to have the 
     amendment proposed by one of two possible ways. An amendment 
     can be proposed by a two-thirds vote in both houses of 
     Congress, or by a National Constitutional Convention called 
     by Congress, on a petition from the legislatures of two-
     thirds of the states. All amendments proposed thus far have 
     originated from Congress.
       The second step is getting the proposed amendment ratified. 
     The Constitution also provides for two alternative methods of 
     ratification, both methods however, leave the ratification 
     decision to the states. Article V of the Constitution sets 
     out two distinct modes of state ratification, leaving the 
     choice of mode to the Congress. For each amendment proposed, 
     whether by Congress of by a national convention, Congress 
     must choose whether to submit the amendment to state 
     legislatures or to conventions in each state for 
     ratification. If the proposed amendment is given to the state 
     legislatures for ratification, a total of three-fourths of 
     the states must agree for the amendment to be passed. Of the 
     thirty-three amendments that have been proposed, thirty-two 
     have been sent to the state legislatures for ratification. 
     The second method involves sending the proposed amendment to 
     the state conventions for ratification. During this process 
     each state must choose delegates, who will then vote for or 
     against the amendment. For this method of ratification there 
     must also be a total of three-fourths (thirty-eight) of the 
     states in agreement.
       Having the Constitution amended is a difficult process 
     simply because of the many people that must agree on an 
     amendment for it to become passed. Our founding fathers 
     included these alternative means of both proposing and 
     ratifying amendments in an effort to balance the power 
     between federal and state factions, while allowing input from 
     the common people.
       A Constitutional amendment and a law are both rules that 
     the people of the United States must obey. However, the 
     processes that take place are quite different. Although 
     Congress's role in amending the Constitution and in passing a 
     law are similar, there are some
      differences; the percentage of votes required, the 
     President's role, and the approval process.
       Both a proposed amendment and a law are put before Congress 
     for a vote. For each of these the two houses of Congress must 
     also approve identical forms of the amendment of law. A law 
     however, may only be introduced by a Senator or 
     Representative while Congress is in session. The major 
     difference between the voting processes in Congress is the 
     percentage of votes required. In the amendment process a two-
     thirds vote is required, sixty-six percent. When passing a 
     law a simple majority vote is required, as low as fifty-one 
     percent. This difference obviously makes it easier for a law 
     to get a passing vote in Congress.
       The second difference between the amending and the law 
     making process is the President's role. When an amendment is 
     being proposed and ratified it goes through Congress or a 
     Constitutional Convention, then the states. The President has 
     no part in this procedure. When a law is being passed it goes 
     directly to the President after being voted on in Congress. 
     In this situation, the President has three choices. He can 
     sign it, allowing it to become law, he can veto it, or he can 
     ignore it and allow it to become law in ten days (excluding 
     Sundays) without his signature. The President has a much 
     greater role in the law making process, and has a direct 
     influence on the content of the bill.
       The third difference between amending the Constitution and 
     passing a law is the approval process, more specifically, who 
     is involve in it. When an amendment is put up for 
     ratification it must go to the state legislatures or the 
     state conventions for approval before becoming an official 
     amendment. A law, on the other hand, requires no approval or 
     input from the states. When passing a bill into law it 
     requires only the majority vote of Congress and the signature 
     of the President. However, if the President decides to veto 
     the bill Congress can override his decision by two-thirds 
     vote in both houses. This process makes passing a law a 
     decision involving only the legislative and executive 
     branches, or possibly just the legislative branch. This is 
     clearly a decision of the federal legislation, requiring 
     little or no assistance from the state government. This 
     process effectively cut out the state government, unlike the 
     amendment process that requires an agreement between the 
     state and national government to be passed.
       At the Constitutional Convention of 1787 George Mason of 
     Virginia said, ``Amendments will be necessary, and it will be 
     better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and 
     constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence.'' 
     Our forefathers obviously realized that laws would change and 
     evolve over the years, and that new laws they couldn't even 
     visualize at that point would be needed as times also 
     changed. Fortunately, they also realized that the process to 
     change the very framework and structure of the government, 
     the United States Constitution, must be a much more 
     controlled process. By providing two different methods of 
     proposing and ratifying amendments to the Constitution they 
     made sure that such major changes would be made in agreement 
     by the state and national government. Protecting the 
     interests of both factions, and also reflecting the interests 
     of the people.
                           Times to Remember

                        (By Kathleen Steinfels)

       Snowshoes . . . candlelight . . . fireplace . . . animal 
     fur . . . buckets of water . . .
       All of these are images of life in colonial America. Life 
     was very harsh, especially when compared to life in twentieth 
     century Park Ridge.
       Colonia life was centered around the family--much more so 
     than modern American life. Because colonial families were 
     relatively isolated and because each member of the family was 
     counted on to help the entire family survive, family members 
     were close and worked as a team. Chores were distributed: 
     milking cows, feeding chickens, tending crops, chopping 
     firewood, keeping the house in repair and as weathertight as 
     possible, making candles, keeping the fire, collecting water 
     for washing, for watering gardens and animals, making 
     clothes, hunting meat, making food, and caring for younger 
     children. All of these demanded energy and concentration. 
     Often things like schooling became a luxury because education 
     itself was not mandatory for survival. Each family had to be 
     able to provide all basic necessities on its own. Sometimes 
     trading would allow for special treats such as ready-made 
     cloth from overseas, special foods, and shoes.
       These things are often taken for granted in modern America 
     where families rarely work together, or, for that matter, 
     rarely
      even see each other. They have become disjointed as each 
     person pursues independent interests and activities. How 
     often does the nuclear family even sit down at the table 
     to eat a meal together? Does this help explain the 
     disintegrating family of modern America?
       Colonial families were large. Many hands were needed to 
     share the workload. Life expectancy was shorter and there was 
     a higher infant mortality rate. Nowadays, families are much 
     smaller and do not have such a strong common focus.
       In colonial times the hearth or fireplace was the center of 
     the home, the place from which came both food and warmth. The 
     location of the fireplace affected the way buildings were 
     built. There were few openings to the outside, to minimize 
     heat escaping and for security. Nowadays, the kitchen is 
     still the center of many homes, the source of food, but 
     because of central heating, houses have gotten more complex 
     and full of windows.
       Children in colonial times usually worked with their 
     parents whether it be as farmer, cooper, weaver, or 
     blacksmith. Children learned a trade. Each child was 
     important. Nowadays, parents typically go off to work 
     someplace else and the children have little or no connection 
     to the parents' place of work or to the work they do.
       In colonial times schooling was not mandatory and 
     schoolhouses were often one-room with a single teacher for 
     many grades. Today schools are much larger and have many 
     teachers, often even more than one per grade.
       Colonial Americans came to this New World, abandoning 
     friends, families, and the life they knew to face a 
     challenging new life. Often immigrants came seeking the 
     opportunity to worship God as they wished: Puritans in New 
     England, the Quakers in Pennsylvania, and the Catholics in 
     Maryland. Religion was probably especially important because 
     of the hardships their life imposed. Even if they could not 
     regularly have formal services, God was an important part of 
     life. Today religious freedom is guaranteed, and perhaps even 
     taken for granted.
       Gone are the snowshoes, the candles, and the hearth and so 
     too it seems the family-centered life which characterized 
     colonial times.
     

                          ____________________