This certification is published in the Federal Register and U. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive. In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President.
President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars.
Step 2. Notification of the states. The national archivist sends notification and materials to the governor of each state. Step 3. Ratification by three-fourths of the states. Ratification of the amendment language adopted by Congress is an up-or-down vote in each legislative chamber. A state legislature cannot change the language. If it does, its ratification is invalid. Step 4. Tracking state actions. Proposed amendments must be ratified by three-fourths of the states in order to take effect.
The other four Justices in the Court majority thought Congress had complete and sole control over the amending process, subject to no judicial review. Both characterizations, as noted above, are correct. The OLC also referenced previous debates in Congress in which Members had assumed this proposal and the others remained viable. Freeman, F. Idaho, , prob. The Kentucky rescission was attached to another bill and was vetoed by the Lieutenant Governor, acting as Governor, citing grounds that included a state constitutional provision prohibiting the legislature from passing a law dealing with more than one subject and a senate rule prohibiting the introduction of new bills within the last ten days of a session.
Both the resolution and the veto message were sent by the Kentucky Secretary of State to the General Services Administration. South Dakota was the fifth state. The legislature of New York attempted to withdraw its ratification of the 15th Amendment; although the Secretary of State listed New York among the ratifying states, noted the withdrawal resolution, there were ratifications from three-fourths of the states without New York. S—49, H— Nixon, U.
None are to be found in Constitution or statute. Globe — It has been so adopted by the other states. An adoption for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption of some of the articles only. In short any condition whatever must vitiate the ratification. Syrett ed. Of course, we recognize, as indicated at various points above, that Dillon , and Coleman as well, insofar as they discuss points relied on here, express dictum and are not binding precedent. They are discussed solely for the persuasiveness of the views set out.
It is, as noted above, not entirely clear to what extent the Hughes plurality exempted from judicial review congressional determinations made in the amending process. Widenmann v. Colby, F.
Sitka, F. See 96 Cong. Plan No. Smith, U. Garnett, U. The language quoted in the text is from Leser v. Annotations Thirty-three proposed amendments to the Constitution have been submitted to the states pursuant to this Article, all of them upon the vote of the requisite majorities in Congress and none by the alternative convention method.
Justia Legal Resources. Find a Lawyer. Law Students. US Federal Law. US State Law. Other Databases. Having Senators elected by the people, instead of by state legislators, may have been a big change. But the Seventeenth Amendment did not have much to do with it. Before the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted, most states had already cleverly figured out ways to make sure that the people—not state legislators—elected Senators. All of that happened before the Constitution was amended.
You can compare this change to a change in the way we elect the President. Formally, the President is elected by electors, not by the voters directly. Originally, the idea was that electors would be people with good judgment who would make up their own minds about who should be President.
Now, for practical purposes, the electors vote automatically for the candidate who won the vote in their state. No constitutional amendment authorized this major change. Congress approved the amendment, but not enough states did, so it never became part of the Constitution. But the Supreme Court interpreted other parts of the Constitution to prevent sex discrimination, and today it is hard to identify any way in which the law would be different if the ERA had been formally added to the Constitution.
The Fifteenth Amendment supposedly guaranteed that people could not be kept from voting because of their race. It was added to the Constitution in But well into the middle of the twentieth century, African-Americans in many parts of the United States were kept from voting by illegal means. If you just picked up a copy of the Constitution and read it, you would be completely misled about this disgraceful history.
The Fourteenth Amendment , adopted in , had a similar fate. It was intended to prevent many forms of discrimination against minorities. But its promise was not realized until almost a century later, during the civil rights era. A case can be made that the earliest constitutional amendments did matter. That would include the Bill of Rights, for example, and the Twelfth Amendment , which fixed a problem in the way the President and Vice President were originally chosen.
And several amendments have been useful housekeeping measures, like the Twenty-Fifth Amendment , which says what happens if the President is disabled. But if you really want to understand how the United States Constitution changes—in practice, not just on paper—constitutional amendments are a small part of the story. The real action—in many ways, our real Constitution—is elsewhere, in the way the courts, Congress, the President, and the people in their daily lives have brought us the Constitution we have today.
The amendment process, however, has been criticized for having two defects. One is that it is too strict and therefore makes it too difficult to enact amendments. The other is that it is biased in favor of the federal government and therefore does not allow amendments that would limit the national government.
If the original meaning were consistently followed, both of the defects would be eliminated. Some critics of originalism argue that the amendment process is too strict because it is difficult to secure approval by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states. Therefore, these critics contend the Supreme Court should engage in nonoriginalist judicial interpretation to allow for modern circumstances and values to be incorporated into the Constitution.
The amendment process, however, is not too strict to allow for constitutional change. It is true that the process does require amendments to be supported by a consensus. See John O. Rappaport, Originalism and the Good Constitution
0コメント