Reasons for Amending the U.S. Constitution versus Passing a Law

The US Constitution
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Number
Lecturer’s Name
Assignment Due Date
Reasons for Amending the U.S. Constitution versus Passing a Law
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. According to article V of the constitution, any amendment made to this document must be approved by two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the state legislators (National Archives, n.d.). Therefore, to impose term limits on members of both houses, it would be necessary to amend the constitution rather than pass a law for two reasons. 
First, any amendment made cannot be struck down by the courts, although it is subject to interpretation by them. In other words, an amendment is permanent unless modified or repealed by the ratification of another amendment. In contrast, when a law is passed, it can be challenged and overturned by the courts. This is according to the case Marbury v. Madison, which gave federal courts the power to overturn legislative and executive acts on grounds of constitutional violation (Corwin, 2017). In this case, the court declared that Congress cannot pass laws overruling the constitution because they have no power to do so. The established judicial review principle gave the American courts the authority to reject new statutes, laws, and government actions deemed unconstitutional (Corwin, 2017). This means that if a law imposing term limits on members of the Senate and House of Representatives is passed, that law can be challenged and overturned if it fails to meet the constitutional threshold.
Second, amending the constitution to impose term limits would be necessary because it would apply to all the states instead of passing a law that would be quickly deemed unconstitutional. Under the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes generally take precedence over state laws. In the case U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states cannot impose additional term limits on their representatives in the federal government beyond those specified in the constitution (Cornell Law School, n.d.). Based on this judgment, passing a law creating a term limit is unconstitutional because states have no power to do so. Such a law can be challenged and annulled if passed. However, amendments to the U.S. Constitution would be less vulnerable to challenge. 
Vital Elements to Consider when Amending the U.S. Constitution
Canons of construction and interpretation are the language guidelines used in drafting the constitution or related legal documents to enhance the writing's clarity, unambiguity, and conciseness (Coyle, 2017). Drafters of the constitution implemented the canons of construction to guarantee that the language used in writing the constitution was clear and easy to read and understand.
Before drafting language to amend the U.S. Constitution, the three vital elements are the plain meaning rule, exclusive expression, and clear statement rule (Coyle, 2017). The plain meaning rule is a legal proceeding approach that emphasizes the ordinary meaning of a law's text. It forms the basis for determining legislative intent. This rule helps ensure that the language used to amend the constitution is plain and unambiguous so that ordinary people can understand and apply the amended constitution without confusion. 
The exclusive expression means that the amendment specifies the changes. Since the constitutional amendment aims to create the term limit, it must express the specific term limits on members of Congress. This element holds that Congress can make a syntactical presumption to a particular matter (Coyle, 2017). An amendment considering ...