Amendments Proposed, But Not Ratified
It is according to Article V within the Constitution that provides that there are two methods in which an amendment is proposed and two methods in which an amendment is ratified. An amendment may be proposed by two-thirds vote within the House of Representatives and the Senate or a national convention called by Congress. This national convention is called upon at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. The amendment then has the ability to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, which in lay-men’s terms is 38 states. It is within this process of ratification among the amendments that the power to decide which ratification process be utilized lies with Congress. The time limit placed within the ratification process of an amendment is seven years. This time limit was first utilized within the ratification of the 18th Amendment.
“Beginning with the proposed Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has customarily included a provision requiring ratification within seven years from the time of the submission to the States.The Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433(1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act is a political question to be determined by the Congress.” (Constitutional Amendments-Not Ratified)
Fewer than one percent of the more than 10,000 amendments proposed since 1789 have received enough support to officially go through the constitutional ratification process. (Jordan,57)
“Of the thirty-three amendments that have been proposed by Congress, six have failed by the required three-quarters of the state legislatures-four of those six are still technically pending before state lawmakers (see Coleman v. Miller). Starting with the 18th Amendment, each proposed amendment has specified a deadline for passage.” (Unratified Amendments,10)
Coleman V. Miller was that in which the “Supreme Court gave “exclusive”, ‘sole and complete control over the amending process’. It is important to note the court referred to the amendment process as opposed to an amendment proposal i.e., a proposal originated in Congress and thus, until voted out of Congress entirely within the “control” of Congress. The term “process” however includes all of Article V and as events would later show, the courts extended this “control” to include the convention process thus effectively rewriting the Constitution so as to create a single amendment process entirely controlled by Congress. It is worth repeating: the Constitution in no way gives the Supreme Court the authority to rewrite the Constitution.” (Coleman V. Miller)
There is no limited list of proposed amendments because there is such a vast majority, but there are roughly ten extremely interesting amendments that were not ratified. These ten can be viewed as exceedingly interesting because they hold an interest within the public’s eye for they are topics in which have been thoroughly debated throughout our country’s time. In chronological order the appearance of these amendments proposed, but not ratified are as follows:
1876: An attempt to abolish the United States Senate
1893: Renaming this nation the “United States of the Earth”
1893: Abolishing the United States Army and Navy
1894: Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs
1912: Making marriage between races illegal
1914: Finding divorce to be illegal
1916: All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army
1933: An attempt to allow personal wealth to $1 million
1936: An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war
1938: The forbidding of drunkenness in the United States and all of its territories
1948: The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others
(Jordan,58)
In terms of reference, much is not found on the history of these non-ratified amendments, but they have occurred within our Constitution’s history. For many reasons these proposed amendments are obviously not established within our Constitution because they shadow and do not permit the allowance of freedom in a lawful manner that we, Americans, enjoy and live by within our Constitution today.
“The Congressional Apportionment Amendment”
This amendment was proposed by the 1st congress on September 25, 1789. This proposed amendment defined a process in which the number of members there would be in the United States House of representatives after each decennial census. This amendment has no established expiration date for ratification. This amendment fell into debate when the United States reached ten million. (Unratified Amendments)
“Titles of Nobility Amendment”
It was within the 2d session of the Eleventh Congress that Congress proposed the following article of amendment to the Constitution. This article related to the acceptance of citizens of the United States for titles of nobility from any foreign government and is also known as the thirteenth missing amendment. The amendment was proposed by the 11th Congress on May 1, 1810 and it was presented as follows:
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” (Amendments Not Ratified)
This amendment would have ended the citizenship of any American who was accepting, from any foreign power, “Title of Nobility or Honor”. Two thirds of the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress concurred that the previous section should be submitted to the legislatures of the several states. It was then that the several state legislatures of the states would ratify the proposed amendment, making it valid and binding within the Constitution of the United States. (Unratified Amendments)
“The Corwin Amendment”
The Corwin amendment was proposed by the 36th congress on March 2, 1861. This amendment had the intentions to forbid any attempt to “subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Federal government to ‘abolish or interfere’ with the domestic institutions of the states”. (Unratified Amendments, 10) The Corwin amendment was ratified by the lawmakers within the states, Ohio and Maryland before the Civil War. Sitting as a state constitutional convention at the time, were Illinois lawmakers, who approved this proposal, but this action has been questioned multiple times upon its validity. The Corwin amendment holds no expiration date for ratification and may yet be ratified. If this amendment were ever to be ratified it would not be effective within the Constitution for the establishment of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
“Child Labor Amendment”
The 68th Congress on June 2, 1924 proposed a child labor amendment, which stipulated: “The congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.”This amendment is in debate for the reason that federal child labor laws have uniformly been upheld “as a valid exercise of Congress’ powers under the commerce clause”. The child labor amendment contains no expiration date upon ratification. (Unratified Amendments)
The following two amendments proposed by Congress-because of deadlines-are no longer subject to ratification.
“The Equal Rights Amendment”
The Equal Rights amendment was proposed by the 92nd Congress on March 22, 1972, ratified by the legislatures of thirty-five states, and expired on either the dates of March 22, 1979 or June 30, 1972 (the date ratified is not specific). The proposed amendment states: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” (Unratified Amendments,11)
Four of the thirty-five states ratifying this proposal cancelled their ratifications before the extended ratification period which began on March 23, 1979. A fifth of the those states then adopted a resolution specifying that its approval “would not extend beyond March 22, 1979”. Diversity is the main theme throughout the opinions of this proposed amendment as to whether it is or was valid. There has been no court that has ruled on the question of its validity, including the Supreme Court. (Unratified Amendments)
“The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment”
Proposed by the 95th Congress on August 22, 1978, the District of Columbia Voting Rights amendment would have granted Washington, D.C., two Senators and at least one member of the House of Representatives as if the District of Columbia were a state, that is if it had been ratified. This proposal of this amendment was ratified by only 16 state legislatures, therefore it expired on August 22, 1985.
The impact of the amendments proposed, but not ratified within our nation is that in which is vital to our Constitution and our nation as a whole. To review these proposed amendments is to review the mistakes in which the country could have made if the states proceeded with the ratification process. If these multiple amendments had been ratified our country would be different as a whole within law, and reason, for the proposed amendments are not by any sufficient means strong enough to be established or in any way would they have provided our country with a stronger Constitution.
One article in particular referenced the issue of proposed amendments and ratification as follows: “There have been many amendments to which have been proposed by Congress, but not ratified by the states. The article also argues that, in hindsight, the previously proposed amendments were not necessary because state and federal legislatures and courts were able to address problems relating to marriage without amending the Constitution and without destabilizing the delicate balance of power between states and the federal government. Against this background, the article concludes that current proposals to amend the Constitution are similarly neither necessary nor wise.” (Stein)
Coleman V. Miller (307 U.S. 433) 1939. 21 Nov. 2007
http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Articles/Coleman.htm
Constitutional Amendments Not Ratified. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 19 Nov. 2007< http://www.house.gov/house/Amendnotrat.shtml>
Jordan, Terry L. The U.S. Constitution And Fascinating Facts About It. United States of America: Oak Hill Publishing Company, 2002
Stein, Edward "Past and Present Proposed Amendments to the United States Constitution Regarding Marriage" Issues in Legal Scholarship, Single-Sex Marriage (2004): Article 1. http://www.bepress.com/ils/iss5/art1
The Constitution of the United States of America Proposed Amendments not Ratified by the States. United States Government Printing Office. 1 Nov. 1996. United States Senate. 19 Nov. 2007 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/proamt.htm
United States Constitution: Unratified Amendments. 20 Nov. 2007 http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
“Beginning with the proposed Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has customarily included a provision requiring ratification within seven years from the time of the submission to the States.The Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433(1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act is a political question to be determined by the Congress.” (Constitutional Amendments-Not Ratified)
Fewer than one percent of the more than 10,000 amendments proposed since 1789 have received enough support to officially go through the constitutional ratification process. (Jordan,57)
“Of the thirty-three amendments that have been proposed by Congress, six have failed by the required three-quarters of the state legislatures-four of those six are still technically pending before state lawmakers (see Coleman v. Miller). Starting with the 18th Amendment, each proposed amendment has specified a deadline for passage.” (Unratified Amendments,10)
Coleman V. Miller was that in which the “Supreme Court gave “exclusive”, ‘sole and complete control over the amending process’. It is important to note the court referred to the amendment process as opposed to an amendment proposal i.e., a proposal originated in Congress and thus, until voted out of Congress entirely within the “control” of Congress. The term “process” however includes all of Article V and as events would later show, the courts extended this “control” to include the convention process thus effectively rewriting the Constitution so as to create a single amendment process entirely controlled by Congress. It is worth repeating: the Constitution in no way gives the Supreme Court the authority to rewrite the Constitution.” (Coleman V. Miller)
There is no limited list of proposed amendments because there is such a vast majority, but there are roughly ten extremely interesting amendments that were not ratified. These ten can be viewed as exceedingly interesting because they hold an interest within the public’s eye for they are topics in which have been thoroughly debated throughout our country’s time. In chronological order the appearance of these amendments proposed, but not ratified are as follows:
1876: An attempt to abolish the United States Senate
1893: Renaming this nation the “United States of the Earth”
1893: Abolishing the United States Army and Navy
1894: Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs
1912: Making marriage between races illegal
1914: Finding divorce to be illegal
1916: All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes had to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army
1933: An attempt to allow personal wealth to $1 million
1936: An attempt to allow the American people to vote on whether or not the United States should go to war
1938: The forbidding of drunkenness in the United States and all of its territories
1948: The right of citizens to segregate themselves from others
(Jordan,58)
In terms of reference, much is not found on the history of these non-ratified amendments, but they have occurred within our Constitution’s history. For many reasons these proposed amendments are obviously not established within our Constitution because they shadow and do not permit the allowance of freedom in a lawful manner that we, Americans, enjoy and live by within our Constitution today.
“The Congressional Apportionment Amendment”
This amendment was proposed by the 1st congress on September 25, 1789. This proposed amendment defined a process in which the number of members there would be in the United States House of representatives after each decennial census. This amendment has no established expiration date for ratification. This amendment fell into debate when the United States reached ten million. (Unratified Amendments)
“Titles of Nobility Amendment”
It was within the 2d session of the Eleventh Congress that Congress proposed the following article of amendment to the Constitution. This article related to the acceptance of citizens of the United States for titles of nobility from any foreign government and is also known as the thirteenth missing amendment. The amendment was proposed by the 11th Congress on May 1, 1810 and it was presented as follows:
“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.” (Amendments Not Ratified)
This amendment would have ended the citizenship of any American who was accepting, from any foreign power, “Title of Nobility or Honor”. Two thirds of the Senate and House of representatives of the United States of America in Congress concurred that the previous section should be submitted to the legislatures of the several states. It was then that the several state legislatures of the states would ratify the proposed amendment, making it valid and binding within the Constitution of the United States. (Unratified Amendments)
“The Corwin Amendment”
The Corwin amendment was proposed by the 36th congress on March 2, 1861. This amendment had the intentions to forbid any attempt to “subsequently amend the Constitution to empower the Federal government to ‘abolish or interfere’ with the domestic institutions of the states”. (Unratified Amendments, 10) The Corwin amendment was ratified by the lawmakers within the states, Ohio and Maryland before the Civil War. Sitting as a state constitutional convention at the time, were Illinois lawmakers, who approved this proposal, but this action has been questioned multiple times upon its validity. The Corwin amendment holds no expiration date for ratification and may yet be ratified. If this amendment were ever to be ratified it would not be effective within the Constitution for the establishment of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
“Child Labor Amendment”
The 68th Congress on June 2, 1924 proposed a child labor amendment, which stipulated: “The congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.”This amendment is in debate for the reason that federal child labor laws have uniformly been upheld “as a valid exercise of Congress’ powers under the commerce clause”. The child labor amendment contains no expiration date upon ratification. (Unratified Amendments)
The following two amendments proposed by Congress-because of deadlines-are no longer subject to ratification.
“The Equal Rights Amendment”
The Equal Rights amendment was proposed by the 92nd Congress on March 22, 1972, ratified by the legislatures of thirty-five states, and expired on either the dates of March 22, 1979 or June 30, 1972 (the date ratified is not specific). The proposed amendment states: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” (Unratified Amendments,11)
Four of the thirty-five states ratifying this proposal cancelled their ratifications before the extended ratification period which began on March 23, 1979. A fifth of the those states then adopted a resolution specifying that its approval “would not extend beyond March 22, 1979”. Diversity is the main theme throughout the opinions of this proposed amendment as to whether it is or was valid. There has been no court that has ruled on the question of its validity, including the Supreme Court. (Unratified Amendments)
“The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment”
Proposed by the 95th Congress on August 22, 1978, the District of Columbia Voting Rights amendment would have granted Washington, D.C., two Senators and at least one member of the House of Representatives as if the District of Columbia were a state, that is if it had been ratified. This proposal of this amendment was ratified by only 16 state legislatures, therefore it expired on August 22, 1985.
The impact of the amendments proposed, but not ratified within our nation is that in which is vital to our Constitution and our nation as a whole. To review these proposed amendments is to review the mistakes in which the country could have made if the states proceeded with the ratification process. If these multiple amendments had been ratified our country would be different as a whole within law, and reason, for the proposed amendments are not by any sufficient means strong enough to be established or in any way would they have provided our country with a stronger Constitution.
One article in particular referenced the issue of proposed amendments and ratification as follows: “There have been many amendments to which have been proposed by Congress, but not ratified by the states. The article also argues that, in hindsight, the previously proposed amendments were not necessary because state and federal legislatures and courts were able to address problems relating to marriage without amending the Constitution and without destabilizing the delicate balance of power between states and the federal government. Against this background, the article concludes that current proposals to amend the Constitution are similarly neither necessary nor wise.” (Stein)
Coleman V. Miller (307 U.S. 433) 1939. 21 Nov. 2007
http://www.article-5.org/file.php/1/Articles/Coleman.htm
Constitutional Amendments Not Ratified. U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 19 Nov. 2007< http://www.house.gov/house/Amendnotrat.shtml>
Jordan, Terry L. The U.S. Constitution And Fascinating Facts About It. United States of America: Oak Hill Publishing Company, 2002
Stein, Edward "Past and Present Proposed Amendments to the United States Constitution Regarding Marriage" Issues in Legal Scholarship, Single-Sex Marriage (2004): Article 1. http://www.bepress.com/ils/iss5/art1
The Constitution of the United States of America Proposed Amendments not Ratified by the States. United States Government Printing Office. 1 Nov. 1996. United States Senate. 19 Nov. 2007 http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/proamt.htm
United States Constitution: Unratified Amendments. 20 Nov. 2007 http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
posted by surfergirl08 @ 2:10 PM
1 Comments:
At 2:34 PM,
Still Thinking said…
Well Done...I knew you could do it.
5,5,5
Post a Comment
<< Home