Javascript required
Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer
Home / what vote of the states is needed to ratify an amendment?

what vote of the states is needed to ratify an amendment?

Portion describing amendment process

Article V of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation'southward frame of regime, may be altered. Under Article Five, the process to modify the Constitution consists of proposing an subpoena or amendments, and subsequent ratification.

Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.[ane] To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of united states of america or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states, a process utilized only once thus far in American history with the 1933 ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment.[2] The vote of each land (to either ratify or reject a proposed subpoena) carries equal weight, regardless of a state'southward population or length of time in the Union. Article V is silent regarding deadlines for the ratification of proposed amendments, just most amendments proposed since 1917 have included a borderline for ratification. Legal scholars mostly hold that the amending procedure of Article Five can itself be amended by the procedures laid out in Article Five, but there is some disagreement over whether Article V is the exclusive means of amending the Constitution.

In addition to defining the procedures for altering the Constitution, Commodity 5 also shields three clauses in Article I from ordinary amendment past attaching stipulations. Regarding ii of the clauses—one concerning importation of slaves and the other apportionment of direct taxes—the prohibition on amendment was absolute but of limited duration, expiring in 1808; the third was without an expiration engagement simply less accented: "no state, without its consent, shall exist deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Scholars disagree as to whether this shielded clause tin itself be amended by the procedures laid out in Article 5.

Text [edit]

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall suggest amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of ii thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either instance, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or past conventions in three fourths thereof, as the ane or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may exist made prior to the year g eight hundred and eight shall in any style touch on the first and fourth clauses in the ninth department of the starting time article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.[iii]

Background [edit]

Procedures for amending the Constitution [edit]

The U.S. constitutional subpoena process

Thirty-three amendments to the U.s.a. Constitution accept been approved past the Congress and sent to united states for ratification. 20-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. The get-go ten amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Six amendments adopted past Congress and sent to u.s.a. have non been ratified by the required number of states and are not function of the Constitution. Four of these amendments are still technically open and pending, 1 is closed and has failed by its ain terms, and one is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it. All totaled, approximately 11,539 measures to ameliorate the Constitution have been proposed in Congress since 1789 (through December xvi, 2014).[4]

Proposing amendments [edit]

Commodity V provides two methods for amending the nation's frame of regime. The first method authorizes Congress, "whenever 2-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary",[a] to advise Constitutional amendments. The 2nd method requires Congress, "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states" (presently 34), to "call a convention for proposing amendments".[6]

This duality in Article V is the result of compromises made during the 1787 Constitutional Convention between two groups, one maintaining that the national legislature should take no role in the constitutional amendment process, and another contending that proposals to amend the constitution should originate in the national legislature and their ratification should be decided by land legislatures or state conventions.[7] Regarding the consensus amendment procedure crafted during the convention, James Madison (writing in The Federalist No. 43) declared:

It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution also mutable; and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It moreover equally enables the General and the Land Governments to originate the amendment of errors, every bit they may exist pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.[8]

Each time the Commodity Five procedure has been initiated since 1789, the beginning method for crafting and proposing amendments has been used. All 33 amendments submitted to the states for ratification originated in the Congress. The 2d method, the convention choice, a political tool which Alexander Hamilton (writing in The Federalist No. 85) argued would enable state legislatures to "erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority", has yet to be invoked.[9]

When the 1st Congress considered a series of constitutional amendments, it was suggested that the two houses start adopt a resolution indicating that they deemed amendments necessary. This procedure was not used. Instead, both the House and the Senate proceeded directly to consideration of a joint resolution, thereby implying that both bodies deemed amendments to be necessary. Too, when initially proposed past James Madison, the amendments were designed to be interwoven into the relevant sections of the original certificate.[viii] Instead, they were approved by Congress and sent to usa for ratification equally supplemental additions (codicils) appended to information technology. Both these precedents have been followed always since.[10]

Once approved past Congress, the joint resolution proposing a ramble subpoena does non require presidential approval before information technology goes out to usa. While Article I Department 7 provides that all federal legislation must, before becoming Police force, be presented to the president for his or her signature or veto, Commodity V provides no such requirement for constitutional amendments canonical by Congress, or by a federal convention. Thus the president has no official role in the procedure.[b] [c] In Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798), the Supreme Court affirmed that information technology is not necessary to place constitutional amendments before the president for approving or veto.[x]

Three times in the 20th century, concerted efforts were undertaken past proponents of particular amendments to secure the number of applications necessary to summon an Commodity V Convention. These included conventions to consider amendments to (1) provide for popular election of U.S. Senators; (2) let the states to include factors other than equality of population in drawing land legislative district boundaries; and (3) to propose an amendment requiring the U.S. budget to be balanced under nigh circumstances. The entrada for a popularly elected Senate is frequently credited with "prodding" the Senate to bring together the House of Representatives in proposing what became the Seventeenth Amendment to the states in 1912, while the latter two campaigns came very close to coming together the two-thirds threshold in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively.[half dozen] [13]

Ratification of amendments [edit]

Tennessee certificate of ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment. With this ratification, the amendment became valid as a part of the Constitution.

Afterward being officially proposed, either by Congress or a national convention of u.s., a constitutional amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths (38 out of 50) of the states. Congress is authorized to choose whether a proposed amendment is sent to the state legislatures or to state ratifying conventions for ratification. Amendments ratified by the states nether either procedure are indistinguishable and have equal validity as part of the Constitution. Of the 33 amendments submitted to usa for ratification, the state convention method has been used for only one, the Twenty-first Amendment.[6] In United States v. Sprague (1931), the Supreme Court affirmed the authority of Congress to decide which manner of ratification will exist used for each individual constitutional amendment.[xiv] The Court had earlier, in Hawke five. Smith (1920), upheld the Ohio General Assembly's ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment—which Congress had sent to the state legislatures for ratification—afterward Ohio voters successfully vetoed that approval through a popular referendum, ruling that a provision in the Ohio Constitution reserving to the land's voters the correct to challenge and overturn its legislature's ratification of federal ramble amendments was unconstitutional.[15]

An amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution when it is ratified by the necessary number of states, rather than on the after date when its ratification is certified.[16] No further action by Congress or anyone is required. On three occasions, Congress has, afterwards being informed that an subpoena has reached the ratification threshold, adopted a resolution declaring the process successfully completed.[d] [17] Such actions, while perhaps important for political reasons, are, constitutionally speaking, unnecessary.

Presently, the Archivist of the United states is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process nether the provisions of 1 U.S. Lawmaking § 106b. The Archivist officially notifies the states, by a registered letter to each state'southward Governor, that an amendment has been proposed.[xviii] Each Governor then formally submits the amendment to their state's legislature (or ratifying convention). When a country ratifies a proposed subpoena, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the state's action. Upon receiving the necessary number of state ratifications, information technology is the duty of the Archivist to result a certificate proclaiming a particular amendment duly ratified and part of the Constitution.[e] The amendment and its document of ratification are then published in the Federal Register and The states Statutes at Large. This serves as official notice to Congress and to the nation that the ratification procedure has been successfully completed.[1]

Ratification borderline and extension [edit]

The Constitution is silent on the issue of whether or not Congress may limit the length of time that the states have to ratify ramble amendments sent for their consideration. It is too silent on the effect of whether or non Congress, once information technology has sent an amendment that includes a ratification deadline to united states for their consideration, can extend that deadline.

Deadlines [edit]

The practise of limiting the fourth dimension available to the states to ratify proposed amendments began in 1917 with the Eighteenth Amendment. All amendments proposed since then, with the exception of the Nineteenth Subpoena and the (still pending) Child Labor Subpoena, have included a deadline, either in the torso of the proposed subpoena, or in the joint resolution transmitting it to the states.[f] The ratification borderline "clock" begins running on the twenty-four hour period final activity is completed in Congress. An amendment may be ratified at whatever fourth dimension subsequently terminal congressional activity, fifty-fifty if the states accept not yet been officially notified.[18]

In Dillon v. Gloss (1921), the Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to prescribe time limitations for state ratifications and intimated that clearly out of date proposals were no longer open for ratification. Granting that information technology found naught express in Article V relating to time constraints, the Court yet allowed that information technology found intimated in the amending process a "strongly suggest[ive]" argument that proposed amendments are not open to ratification for all time or past States acting at widely split up times.[21] The courtroom afterward, in Coleman v. Miller (1939), modified its stance considerably. In that case, related to the proposed Kid Labor Amendment, it held that the question of timeliness of ratification is a political and non-justiciable one, leaving the issue to Congress's discretion. It would announced that the length of time elapsing between proposal and ratification is irrelevant to the validity of the amendment. Based upon this precedent, the Archivist of the United States proclaimed the 20-seventh Amendment as having been ratified when it surpassed the "three fourths of the several states" plateau for becoming a function of the Constitution. Declared ratified on May 7, 1992, it had been submitted to the states for ratification—without a ratification borderline—on September 25, 1789, an unprecedented time period of 202 years, 7 months and 12 days.[18]

Extensions [edit]

Whether once information technology has prescribed a ratification menstruum Congress may extend the period without necessitating activity by already-ratified States embroiled Congress, united states of america, and the courts in statement with respect to the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the states on March 22, 1972, with a seven-year ratification time limit attached). In 1978 Congress, by simple majority vote in both houses, extended the original deadline by 3 years, 3 months and eight days (through June 30, 1982).

The amendment'southward proponents argued that the fixing of a time limit and the extending of it were powers committed exclusively to Congress under the political question doctrine and that in any event Congress had power to extend. It was argued that inasmuch as the fixing of a reasonable time was within Congress' ability and that Congress could set the time either in advance or at some later on point, based upon its evaluation of the social and other bases of the necessities of the amendment, Congress did not do violence to the Constitution when, once having fixed the time, it subsequently extended the time. Proponents recognized that if the time limit was fixed in the text of the amendment Congress could non alter it considering the time limit equally well as the substantive provisions of the proposal had been field of study to ratification by a number of States, making information technology unalterable past Congress except through the amending process again. Opponents argued that Congress, having by a two-thirds vote sent the amendment and its authorizing resolution to the states, had put the thing beyond irresolute by passage of a simple resolution, that states had either acted upon the entire package or at to the lowest degree that they had or could have acted affirmatively upon the hope of Congress that if the amendment had not been ratified within the prescribed menstruum information technology would expire and their assent would not be compelled for longer than they had intended.[21]

In 1981, the Us District Court for the District of Idaho, however, constitute that Congress did non have the authority to extend the deadline, even when only contained within the proposing joint resolution's resolving clause.[22] The Supreme Court had decided to take upwardly the instance, bypassing the Court of Appeals,[23] simply before they could hear the case, the extended menses granted by Congress had been exhausted without the necessary number of states, thus rendering the case moot.[24]

Constitutional clauses shielded from amendment [edit]

Article V also contains two statements that shield the subject field thing of certain constitutional clauses from being amended. The first of the two is obsolete due to an attached sunset provision. Absolutely not amendable until 1808 were: Article I, Section nine, Clause one, which prevented Congress from passing whatever constabulary that would restrict the importation of slaves prior to 1808, and Commodity I, Section 9, Clause 4, a declaration that directly taxes must be apportioned co-ordinate to country populations, as described in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3. The second prohibition was not given an expiration date and remains in effect. It expressly provides that no amendment shall deprive a country of its equal suffrage (representation) in the Senate, as described in Article I, Section 3, Clause i, without that country'due south consent.[25] Designed to seal two compromises reached between delegates to the Constitutional Convention after contentious debates, these are the merely explicitly entrenched provisions of the Constitution.[8] [26] [27]

The guarantee of equal suffrage in the Senate is arguably subject to being amended through the procedures outlined within the Commodity.[25] Law professor George Mader holds that the shielding provision can be amended because it is not "self-entrenched," meaning that it does non incorporate a provision preventing its own amendment. Thus, nether Mader's argument, a two-footstep amendment process could repeal the provision that prevents the equal suffrage provision from being amended, and then repeal the equal suffrage provision itself.[27] Mader contrasts the provision preventing the modification of the equal suffrage clause with the unratified Corwin Subpoena, which contains a self-entrenching, unamendable provision.[27] Law professor Richard Albert likewise holds that the equal suffrage provision could exist amended through a "double subpoena" process, contrasting the U.S. Constitution with other constitutions that explicitly protect sure provisions from e'er existence amended and are themselves protected from being amended. Another legal scholar, Akhil Amar, argues that the equal suffrage provision could be amended through a two-pace process, but describes that process equally a "sly scheme."[28]

Exclusive ways for amending the Constitution [edit]

Co-ordinate to constitutional theorist and scholar Lawrence G. Sager, some commentators accept seriously questioned whether Commodity V is the exclusive ways of amending the Constitution, or whether at that place are routes to amendment, including some routes in which the Constitution could be unconsciously or unwittingly amended in a catamenia of sustained political activity on the part of a mobilized national constituency.[29] For instance, Akhil Amar rejects the notion that Commodity Five excludes other modes of constitutional change, arguing instead that the process provided for in Article V is simply the exclusive method the regime may use to amend the Constitution. He asserts that Article V nowhere prevents the People themselves, acting autonomously from ordinary Government, from exercising their legal right to alter or abolish Government via the proper legal procedures.[30]

Other scholars disagree. Some fence that the Constitution itself provides no machinery for the American people to adopt ramble amendments independently of Article V.[31] Darren Patrick Guerra has argued that Article V is a vital role of the American Constitutional tradition and he defends Article V confronting modern critiques that Article V is either too difficult, too undemocratic, or too formal. Instead he argues that Article V provides a clear and stable way of amending the document that is explicit, authentic, and the exclusive means of amendment; it promotes wisdom and justice through enhancing deliberation and prudence; and its process complements federalism and separation of powers that are primal features of the Constitution. He argues that Commodity V remains the nigh clear and powerful way to register the sovereign desires of the American public with regard to alterations of their primal constabulary. In the finish, Article V is an essential bulwark to maintaining a written Constitution that secures the rights of the people against both elites and themselves.[32] [ page needed ]

The view that the Commodity Five amendment process is the only legitimate vehicle for bringing about ramble alter, is, as pointed out by constitutional constabulary scholar Joel K. Goldstein, "challenged by numerous widely-accepted judicial decisions that take introduced new meaning into ramble language past parting from original intentions, expectations, or meaning." He also points out how constitutional institutions have, contained of both judicial activeness and alterations effected though the Article 5 process, evolved "to take forms inconsistent with what the Founders imagined or the language they wrote suggested."[33]

In his bye address, President George Washington said:[34]

If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in whatever detail incorrect, let it be corrected past an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let at that place be no modify by usurpation; for though this, in 1 example, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always profoundly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient do good which the use tin can at any time yield.

This statement past Washington has become controversial, and scholars[ which? ] disagree nearly whether it nevertheless describes the proper constitutional order in the United States.[35] Scholars[ which? ] who dismiss Washington'south position often argue that the Constitution itself was adopted without following the procedures in the Articles of Confederation,[36] while Constitutional attorney Michael Farris disagrees, proverb the convention was a product of u.s.' residue power, and the amendment in adoption process was legal, having received the unanimous assent of the States' legislatures.[37]

Amending Commodity V [edit]

According to law professor George Mader, at that place have been numerous proposals to amend the Constitution's alteration procedures, and "it is more often than not accepted that constitutional alteration provisions can be used to amend themselves." All the same, Article V has never been amended.[26] [27]

See besides [edit]

  • Gödel's Loophole
  • Listing of amendments to the The states Constitution
  • Listing of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution
  • Listing of state applications for an Article V Convention
  • List of Rescissions of Article 5 Convention Applications

Notes [edit]

  1. ^ In the National Prohibition Cases (1920), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the requisite two-thirds vote in each firm for proposing amendments is a vote of two-thirds of the members present—assuming that a quorum exists at the fourth dimension that the vote is cast—and not a vote of two-thirds of the unabridged membership, present and absent-minded, of the two houses of Congress.[5]
  2. ^ On March 2, 1861 the 36th Congress gave final approval to proposed constitutional amendment designed to shield "domestic institutions" (which at the fourth dimension included slavery) from the constitutional subpoena process and from abolition or interference by Congress. The following 24-hour interval, on his last full twenty-four hour period in office, President Buchanan took the unprecedented pace of signing it. Submitted to the country legislatures for ratification without a time limit for ratification fastened, the proposal, commonly known every bit the Corwin Subpoena, is all the same pending before us.[xi]
  3. ^ On Jan 31, 1865, the 38th Congress gave concluding approval to what would go the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as penalty for a law-breaking. The following day, the subpoena was presented to President Abraham Lincoln pursuant to the constitution'southward Presentment Clause, and signed. On Feb seven, Congress passed a resolution affirming that the presidential signature was unnecessary.[12]
  4. ^ 1868 regarding the Fourteenth Amendment, 1870 regarding the Fifteenth Amendment, and 1992 regarding the Twenty-seventh Amendment
  5. ^ In recent history, the signing of the certificate of ratification has become a ceremonial function attended past diverse dignitaries. President Lyndon Johnson signed the certifications for the Twenty-quaternary Amendment and 20-fifth Subpoena as a witness. When the Administrator of General Services, Robert Kunzig, certified the adoption of the 20-sixth Subpoena on July five, 1971, President Nixon along with Julianne Jones, Joseph Westward. Loyd Jr., and Paul Larimer of the "Young Americans in Concert" signed as witnesses. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist of the United States, Don Due west. Wilson, certified that the Twenty-seventh Amendment had been ratified, and the Director of the Federal Register, Martha Girard, signed the certification every bit a witness.[1] [nineteen]
  6. ^ Congress incorporated the ratification borderline for the Eighteenth, Twentieth, Xx-outset, and Xx-2nd amendments into the body of the amendment, then these amendments' deadlines are at present role of the Constitution. The failed Commune of Columbia Voting Rights Subpoena also independent a ratification deadline clause. Congress inserted the ratification deadline for the Twenty-tertiary, Twenty-fourth, Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth amendments into the joint resolutions transmitting them to the state legislatures in order to avoid including extraneous language in the Constitution. This practice was also followed for the failed Equal Rights Amendment.[fourteen] [twenty]

References [edit]

  1. ^ a b c "The Constitutional Amendment Procedure". The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved November 17, 2015.
  2. ^ Wines, Michael (Baronial 22, 2016). "Within the Conservative Push for States to Amend the Constitution". NYT . Retrieved Baronial 24, 2016.
  3. ^ "The Constitution of the United States: Commodity V". The U.S. National Archives and Records Assistants. Retrieved July 27, 2014.
  4. ^ "Measures Proposed to Improve the Constitution". Legislation & Records. United States Senate.
  5. ^ "National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920)". justia.com. Mountain View, California: Justia. Retrieved April 16, 2020.
  6. ^ a b c Neale, Thomas H. (Apr xi, 2014). "The Article V Convention to Advise Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress" (PDF). Congressional Enquiry Service. pp. one–2. Retrieved November 17, 2015.
  7. ^ Rogers, James Kenneth (Summer 2007). "The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 30 (3): 1005–1022. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 January 2018. Retrieved May xxx, 2018.
  8. ^ a b c England, Trent; Spalding, Matthew. "Essays on Commodity V: Amendments". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved December five, 2018.
  9. ^ Dranias, Nick (December half dozen, 2013). "Fulfilling the promise of Article V with an Interstate Compact". Constitution Daily. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Constitution Center. Retrieved May xxx, 2018.
  10. ^ a b "The Constitution of the U.s.: Analysis and Estimation, Centennial Edition, Interim Edition: Assay of Cases Decided by the Supreme Courtroom of the United States to June 26, 2013" (PDF). Washington, DC: U.Southward. Regime Press Office. 2013. pp. 987–1001. Retrieved Apr thirteen, 2014.
  11. ^ Tsesis, Alexander (2004). The Thirteenth Amendment and American Freedom: A Legal History. New York: New York Academy Press. p. 2. ISBN0-8147-8276-0.
  12. ^ Thorpe, Francis Newton (1901). "The Constitutional History of the United States, vol. iii: 1861–1895". Chicago: Callaghan & Company. p. 154.
  13. ^ Rossum, Ralph A. (2001). Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment: The Irony of Constitutional Democracy. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. p. 207. ISBN0-7391-0285-0 . Retrieved October 23, 2015.
  14. ^ a b Dellinger, Walter (December 1983). "The Legitimacy of Constitutional Change: Rethinking the Subpoena Process". Harvard Law Review. 97 (2): 386–432. doi:10.2307/1340852. JSTOR 1340852. Retrieved May 30, 2018.
  15. ^ "Hawke v. Smith". Columbus Ohio: Ohio History Connection (formerly the Ohio Historical Society). Retrieved May 30, 2018.
  16. ^ Cornell University Law Schoolhouse. "Dillon v. Gloss". constabulary.cornell.edu.
  17. ^ Neale, Thomas H. (May 9, 2013). "The Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: Gimmicky Ratification Issues" (PDF). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Inquiry Service. Retrieved May xxx, 2018.
  18. ^ a b c Huckabee, David C. (September 30, 1997). "Ratification of Amendments to the U.S. Constitution" (PDF). Congressional Research Service reports. Washington D.C.: Congressional Inquiry Service, The Library of Congress.
  19. ^ Nixon, Richard (July 5, 1971). "Remarks at a Anniversary Marking the Certification of the 26th Subpoena to the Constitution". Online past Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. Retrieved May 30, 2018.
  20. ^ Vile, John R. (2003). Encyclopedia of Ramble Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues, 1789–2002 (Second ed.). Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, Inc. p. 373. ISBN1851094334 . Retrieved November 22, 2015.
  21. ^ a b "Authentication and Proclamation: Proposing a Constitutional Subpoena". Justia.com.
  22. ^ Idaho 5. Freeman, 529 F. Supp. 1107 (D. Idaho 1981).
  23. ^ Certiorari before judgment granted, At present v. Idaho, 455 U.S. 918 (1982).
  24. ^ Judgments of the District Court of Idaho vacated; cases remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot. NOW v. Idaho, 459 U.Due south. 809 (1982).
  25. ^ a b Baker, Lynn A.; Dinkin, Samuel H. (1997). "The Senate: An Institution Whose Fourth dimension Has Gone?" (PDF). Journal of Law & Politics. xiii: 21. Retrieved August 25, 2019 – via University of Texas at Austin Schoolhouse of Police force.
  26. ^ a b Linder, Douglas (1981). "What In The Constitution Cannot Be Amended?". Arizona Police force Review. 23 (717). Retrieved July 5, 2019 – via Exploring Constitutional Law, University of Missouri-Kansas City Law Schoolhouse.
  27. ^ a b c d Mader, George (Summer 2016). "Binding Authority: Unamendability in the United States Constitution—A Textual and Historical Analysis". Marquette Law Review. 99 (4): 841–891. Retrieved December 5, 2018.
  28. ^ Albert, Richard (2015). "Amending Constitutional Subpoena Rules". International Journal of Ramble Law: 8–9.
  29. ^ Sager, Lawrence (2006). Justice in Plainclothes: A Theory of American Ramble Practice. Yale University Press. p. 82. ISBN0300116756.
  30. ^ Bowman, Scott J. (2004). "Wild Political Dreaming: Constitutional Reformation of the U.s. Senate". Fordham Law Review. 72 (four): 1026–27. Retrieved August 28, 2016.
  31. ^ Manheim, Karl and Howard, Edward. A Structural Theory of the Initiative Power in California, Loyola Los Angeles Police force Review, p. 1167 (1998).
  32. ^ Guerra, Darren Patrick (2013). Perfecting the Constitution: The Case for the Article V Amendment Process. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. ISBN9780739183861 – via Google Books.
  33. ^ Goldstein, Joel K. (2013). "Constitutional Alter, Originalism, and The Vice Presidency". University of Pennsylvania Journal of Ramble Law. 16 (two): 369–417. Retrieved September 30, 2019.
  34. ^ Washington, George. "Farewell Address" (1796).
  35. ^ Strauss, David. "The Irrelevance of Ramble Amendments," 114 Harvard Police force Review 1457 (2001).
  36. ^ Fritz, Christian. "Fallacies of American Constitutionalism", Rutgers Police Periodical, p. 1343 (2004).
  37. ^ Farris, Michael. "Tin we Trust the Constitution? Answering the "Delinquent Convention" Myth". Convention of States Projection. Retrieved June 3, 2016.

External links [edit]

  • U.S. Authorities Printing Office (2013) The Constitution of the The states of America: Assay and Interpretation
  • CRS Annotated Constitution: Article 5

loweputdow.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution