Unratified amendments

[Schmitz in 1972]

Congress has proposed 33 amendments of which 27 to date have been ratified. Two (The ERA and DC Voting Rights Amendment) have expired while the remaining four could technically still be ratified in the same manner the 27th was. Ignoring for the purposes the passed ratification deadlines of the last two, which of the six would you like to see ratified?

Text of the amendments

[A18]

The first is pointless. The rest are bad.

None of the above.

[J. J.]

I agree, but I would add that I wouldn't mind seeing a fixed number used for congressional representation, i.e. 1 seat per X amount of people with each state being guaranteed one seat.

I would not mind seeing DC have full House Repesentation.

[The Duke]

I'd have voted for the representation amendment at the time, but its irrelevant today.  I voted for it on the poll anyhow.

Anti-Title Amendment is bad.

Slavery Amendment is bad.

Child labor amendment is irrelevant as I think its already part of the governments power.

The ERA is bad.

DC having 2 Senators?  STFU.

[Schmitz in 1972]

The first would have pretty much no effect since the current composition of congress in well over 200.

The second I really don't see anything potentially bad about it, but I wouldn't waste the time to pass it.

The most interesting one is the third (the slavery protection one). Since slavery has long been abolished, this amendment's only effect would be prohibiting amendments giving congress the power to interfere with other "domestic institutions" in states besides slavery. I believe that had this amendment been ratified, not only the 13th but the 18th and the unratified child labor one would have been unconstitutional. To prevent further disasterous experiments like prohibtions, I would actually be in favor of this one being passed. Of course, due to the pro-slavery stigma attached to it, this is never going to happen.

The fourth I'm very glad was not ratified, but it's interesting nonetheless because it shows that even as late as the 1920s congress knew it couldn't do outrageous things like regulating child labor without clear constitutional justification.

The fifth and sixth I'm glad were defeated, both being the ideas of crazy liberals.

[The Dowager Mod]

The first would have pretty much no effect since the current composition of congress in well over 200.

The second I really don't see anything potentially bad about it, but I wouldn't waste the time to pass it.

The most interesting one is the third (the slavery protection one). Since slavery has long been abolished, this amendment's only effect would be prohibiting amendments giving congress the power to interfere with other "domestic institutions" in states besides slavery. I believe that had this amendment been ratified, not only the 13th but the 18th and the unratified child labor one would have been unconstitutional. To prevent further disasterous experiments like prohibtions, I would actually be in favor of this one being passed. Of course, due to the pro-slavery stigma attached to it, this is never going to happen.

The fourth I'm very glad was not ratified, but it's interesting nonetheless because it shows that even as late as the 1920s congress knew it couldn't do outrageous things like regulating child labor without clear constitutional justification.

The fifth and sixth I'm glad were defeated, both being the ideas of crazy liberals.

Being the resident crazy Liberal i voted ERA and D.C. representation

[Sam Spade]

NOTA

[Ebowed]

D.C. Representation

The ERA sucks though.

[Emsworth]

None of the Above

[MasterJedi]

None of the Above

[minionofmidas]

Being the resident crazy Liberal i voted ERA and D.C. representation

You're in favor of Child Labor? Shame on you.

[Bono]

The slavery ammendment, having now nothing to do with slavery, is great.

[Emsworth]

The slavery ammendment, having now nothing to do with slavery, is great.

The amendment states:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

What are the "domestic institutions" of a state? The amendment strikes me as excessively vague, and might have become a pretext for judicial activism, just like the due process clause. Moreover, it restricts future constitutional amendments, thereby reducing constitutional flexibility.

[Jake]

None, all suck

[Akno21]

DC Representation, they are not second-class citizens, it's a travesty they are treated as such.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The slavery ammendment, having now nothing to do with slavery, is great.

The amendment states:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

What are the "domestic institutions" of a state? The amendment strikes me as excessively vague, and might have become a pretext for judicial activism, just like the due process clause. Moreover, it restricts future constitutional amendments, thereby reducing constitutional flexibility.

Marriage certainly would fall under the domestic institution proviso, but I agree that clause is rather vague and subject to interpretation, and the zero admendment part gives me the willies since there would be no recourse other than revolution if a Supreme Court ever misinterpreted it.  The right of revoultion is a necessary and proper right, but we should never structure our laws such that it may someday become necessary.

[jimrtex]

DC Representation, they are not second-class citizens, it's a travesty they are treated as such.

There is nothing unconstitutional about giving persons living in the district electoral rights in Maryland, just as persons living on military bases can vote for the senators and representatives of the state where the base is located.

[Emsworth]

There is nothing unconstitutional about giving persons living in the district electoral rights in Maryland, just as persons living on military bases can vote for the senators and representatives of the state where the base is located.

Not necessarily. The representatives and senators of each state must be elected "by the people thereof"; the term strongly suggests that only citizens of a particular state may participate in that state's congressional elections.

But even if this hurdle is cleared, the federal government still cannot give D.C. residents voting rights in Maryland; that decision will have to be made by the Maryland government alone.

[A18]

The one good thing about the Child Labor Amendment is that it might make it clear just how haywire the Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence has gone.

[A18]

The slavery ammendment, having now nothing to do with slavery, is great.

The amendment states:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

What are the "domestic institutions" of a state? The amendment strikes me as excessively vague, and might have become a pretext for judicial activism, just like the due process clause. Moreover, it restricts future constitutional amendments, thereby reducing constitutional flexibility.

Marriage certainly would fall under the domestic institution proviso, but I agree that clause is rather vague and subject to interpretation, and the zero admendment part gives me the willies since there would be no recourse other than revolution if a Supreme Court ever misinterpreted it.  The right of revoultion is a necessary and proper right, but we should never structure our laws such that it may someday become necessary.

Actually, it could just be repealed by another amendment.

[7,052,770]

the first one (why not?), ERA, DC rights, and Child Labor are all good.

[A18]

The fourth I'm very glad was not ratified, but it's interesting nonetheless because it shows that even as late as the 1920s congress knew it couldn't do outrageous things like regulating child labor without clear constitutional justification.

Actually, that was intended to effectively overturn the Supreme Court's ruling in Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).

Why are you "very glad" the child labor amendment was not ratified?

[jimrtex]

There is nothing unconstitutional about giving persons living in the district electoral rights in Maryland, just as persons living on military bases can vote for the senators and representatives of the state where the base is located.

Not necessarily. The representatives and senators of each state must be elected "by the people thereof"; the term strongly suggests that only citizens of a particular state may participate in that state's congressional elections.

But even if this hurdle is cleared, the federal government still cannot give D.C. residents voting rights in Maryland; that decision will have to be made by the Maryland government alone.

The federal government gives persons resident in other areas that the federal government has sole jurisdiction over the right to vote in the state from which the federal enclave was taken.  What is to keep Congress government from restoring the right of persons that live in the District the right to vote as Maryland citizens that they had before 1801?  If Congress makes the residents of the the District, Maryland citizens for purposes of voting for representatives, senators, and presidential electors?  Surely Maryland can not deny the right of Maryland citizens to participate in its elections.

See Findings section of HR 190.

[Emsworth]

The federal government gives persons resident in other areas that the federal government has sole jurisdiction over the right to vote in the state from which the federal enclave was taken.  What is to keep Congress government from restoring the right of persons that live in the District the right to vote as Maryland citizens that they had before 1801? If Congress makes the residents of the the District, Maryland citizens for purposes of voting for representatives, senators, and presidential electors?

As the Supreme Court established in Hepburn v. Ellzey (1805), citizens of the District of Columbia are not citizens of any state. Thus, within the meaning of the Constitution, residents of DC are not citizens of Maryland.

Congress has the power to regulate national citizenship, not state citizenship. There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing Congress to declare DC residents citizens of Maryland, or of any other state.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, it is fully entitled do so. The right to vote cannot be denied on the basis of race, sex, failure to pay a poll tax, or age (for those over 18). It can be denied on nearly any other basis whatsoever. If a state chooses, it may disfranchise a particular geographic area; thus, Maryland may disfranchise DC.

[Yates]

None of the above.