The two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress is required to propose an amendment.

Outline/skeleton

• Opening hook: Changing the Constitution is intentionally tough—why, and how does it actually work?

• Clear answer upfront: The two-thirds majority in both houses is required to propose an amendment.

• Break down the process: proposing vs ratifying vs amending vs repealing; Article V’s two-step journey.

• Real-world flavor: short examples like the Bill of Rights and other amendments to show how the system plays out.

• Why this matters for civic literacy: what the process teaches about consensus and governance.

• Quick recap with the key takeaway for readers: the correct choice is A, proposing an amendment.

What’s the big picture behind changing the Constitution?

If you’ve ever tried to tweak a rule in a club or a team, you know the feeling: you want to change something, but you also want to make sure enough people buy in so the new rule sticks. The Constitution works the same way, but on a national scale. It’s a document that’s meant to last, so the makers built in extra layers of consideration. The price of making a change is high, but that very demand for broad support helps protect foundational principles rather than leaving them at the mercy of a single election cycle or a hot political moment.

The two-thirds hurdle: the exact math in Congress

Here’s the central piece to remember: the requirement to propose an amendment is a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate. That’s not a casual approval. It’s a tall demand, designed to ensure that any proposed change to the Constitution has wide bipartisan support, not just a simple majority that can swing with a surge of public opinion.

To put it plainly, a proposed amendment doesn’t travel from one chamber to the other on a straight, easy path. It has to win at least two-thirds of the votes in each chamber. That means lawmakers from both parties, with potentially different priorities, have to find common ground. It’s a built-in safeguard against hasty or narrow amendments that could rewrite the rules of the republic on a whim.

What happens next? The follow-up steps, in plain language

• Proposing an amendment: This is the step that happens in Congress. If two-thirds of the House and two-thirds of the Senate say “yes,” the proposed amendment moves forward. It then doesn’t become law or a new rule yet; it’s just a proposal waiting for state approval.

• Ratifying an amendment: After a proposal clears Congress, the next leg is on the states. Three-fourths of the state legislatures (or state conventions, in certain circumstances) must approve the amendment. Only then does the proposal become part of the Constitution.

• Amending the Constitution (the broad picture): In everyday talk, people say “amending the Constitution,” which covers both proposing in Congress and ratifying by the states. The two-thirds requirement is a specific rule for the proposing half of the journey.

• Repealing an amendment: This is where a lot of people pause. There isn’t a direct repeal process for a specific amendment by a simple congressional vote. If you wanted to repeal an existing amendment, you’d typically propose another amendment that expressly repeals or supersedes the previous one, and then you’d go through the same two-step dance: two-thirds in Congress to propose, and three-fourths in the states to ratify.

That last point—repeal by replacement—is a nuance worth pausing on for a moment. It helps illustrate why the Constitution is so careful about how changes happen. The overall structure is designed to avoid flicking a switch that could erase established rights or shift the balance of power without broad, cross-cutting agreement.

A quick tour through Article V to keep it clear

Article V is the rulebook that governs how changes happen. It’s got two essential lanes:

• The proposal lane: Two-thirds of both the House and the Senate must agree to a proposed amendment. This is the step that generates the blueprint for change.

• The ratification lane: Three-fourths of the states must approve the proposed amendment. This is where the states, not just distant federal power, have a say in the final shape of the Constitution.

Because of this structure, an amendment isn’t something a single party can push through in a moment. It’s a long, careful negotiation that can take years, sometimes decades, to reach completion. And there’s plenty of historical color to the story: some amendments were born in moments of national crisis, others from long-running social movements, each finding a path through the two-step process only after gathering broad, multi-generational support.

A few real-world mileposts to anchor the idea

• The Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments): These were proposed and ratified in a way that shows the two-step dance in action. The federal government proposed the amendments, and the states ratified them, cementing a more explicit protection of individual rights.

• The 26th Amendment (voting age 18): This one’s a good example of a more modern change that still had to pass through the same two-stage process. It reflected a broad social consensus about who should have a say in elections.

• The 19th Amendment (women’s suffrage): A landmark moment that required substantial cross-party and cross-state support; it demonstrates how far-reaching consent can look when it finally comes together.

These episodes aren’t just trivia. They illustrate a pattern: proposed ideas often ride a wave of public sentiment, but they still need sustained political capital and organized backing to survive the ratification stage. In other words, for a constitutional shift to endure, it has to pass the test of time and place, not just the tally on a single ballot.

Why this matters for civic literacy and critical thinking

So why should you care about the exact path from proposal to ratification? Because understanding the route helps you see what democracy is really about. It’s not just about who wins the latest election or what party holds the White House. It’s about building enduring agreements that outlast individual leaders and seasons.

Two big ideas stand out:

• Consensus is a long game: The two-thirds rule in Congress and the three-fourths rule in the states aren’t designed to be easy. They require broad involvement, negotiation, and compromise—values that are central to a healthy republic.

• Power is distributed and checked: The Constitution doesn’t hand all the power to one branch. It spreads it across federal and state levels, with checks that slow things down but protect core rights and stable governance.

A friendly mental model to hold onto

Think of amending the Constitution like planning a city’s long-term infrastructure. The plan has to win major buy-in from lawmakers in different districts (the two houses of Congress) and from diverse communities across the country (the states). It’s not a quick fix; it’s a farsighted project that needs wide agreement and careful consideration of consequences for future generations.

A concise recap for clarity

• The question at the heart of the matter: Which amendment process requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress? The answer is A: Proposing an amendment.

• The mechanics: Proposing requires two-thirds in both the House and the Senate; ratifying requires three-fourths of the states.

• The broader frame: Amending the Constitution is the overall process—proposing plus ratifying. Repealing, when it happens, generally comes via proposing a new amendment that repeals the old one, followed by the same ratification path.

A final thought

If you’re ever tempted to see constitutional rules as dry abstractions, remember this: they’re built to ensure that the United States evolves with care, not whim. The two-thirds requirement in Congress is a reminder that lasting change tends to come from broad agreement, not from the momentum of a single moment. And that, in turn, says something hopeful about how a nation can grow together, even when opinions diverge.

If you’re curious about how these ideas show up in real-world civics discussions, look for debates about rights, governance, and federal versus state powers. You’ll notice the same thread running through arguments, proposals, and policy shifts: the search for durable compromise that respects both the public will and the integrity of the constitutional framework. That blend—between bold ideas and careful, methodical process—is what keeps the Constitution in conversation with each new generation.