Why do constitutions often require supermajorities for amendments?

Constitutions often require supermajorities for amendments to ensure procedural stability and prevent frequent, volatile changes to the foundational rules of government. By necessitating a broader consensus—such as the two-thirds or three-fourths thresholds seen in the United States—the amendment process protects the constitution from being treated as a "mere scrap of paper" subject to the whims of shifting political majorities.12

This requirement forces a higher degree of deliberation and agreement, which helps maintain continuity across generations. While successful constitutional systems aim to balance this stability with the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances, the use of a supermajority serves as a critical safeguard against radical or impulsive alterations that could undermine the constitutional government itself. Ultimately, these procedural hurdles ensure that any fundamental change reflects a deep, enduring commitment from the community rather than temporary political pressure.13