Which method is NOT used to change the U.S. Constitution since its adoption?

The U.S. Constitution provides specific methods for its amendment, primarily through the formal amendment process outlined in Article V. This includes proposals by two-thirds of both houses of Congress or by a convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states.

The options involving amendments, presidential practices, and judicial interpretations reflect different ways the Constitution can be influenced or modified in its application. Amendments explicitly change the document itself, while presidential practices and judicial interpretations can alter how the Constitution is understood and executed. For instance, judicial interpretations through Supreme Court rulings can redefine the application of constitutional principles without formally amending the text.

In contrast, executive orders are directives from the President to manage the operations of the federal government. They do not change the Constitution itself and operate within the bounds of the existing laws, making them ineffective as a method for altering the Constitution. They can lead to significant policy changes but do not have the authority to modify the Constitution’s text or its established interpretations. Thus, executive orders are not recognized as a method for changing the U.S. Constitution.