Eleanor Finch
The process of amending the US Constitution is outlined in Article Five, which includes a provision that shields certain clauses in Article One from amendment. While the US Constitution does not explicitly mention expiration dates for amendments, it does specify a deadline for their ratification. This deadline is typically set at seven years, and if it is not met, the amendment is considered dormant and cannot be revived without restarting the entire process. However, there have been debates about the shelf life of amendments, and some scholars argue that the absence of a deadline means an amendment remains pending indefinitely. The complexity of the amendment process has led to criticism of the Constitution's longevity and adaptability to modern times.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Are expiration dates allowed in constitutional amendments? | Yes, expiration dates have been included in constitutional amendments. For example, Article VIII states that any law passed by the federal government or its states will expire and become unenforceable 100 years and 1 day after it is passed. Additionally, amendments can include a ratification deadline or sunset clause, after which they expire and are no longer valid. |
| Can amendments with expired deadlines be revived? | It is generally accepted that Congress cannot extend ratification deadlines or revive expired amendments without restarting the Article V process. However, there are debates about the shelf life of constitutional amendments, and some argue that "dormant" amendments could be eligible for more ratification votes even after their original deadlines have expired. |
| What is the process for an amendment to become part of the Constitution? | An amendment becomes part of the Constitution when it is ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by conventions in three-fourths of the states. The Archivist of the United States administers the ratification process and officially notifies each state's governor, who then submits the amendment to their state's legislature or ratifying convention. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Do the constitution's amendments have a shelf life?
The question of whether constitutional amendments have a shelf life has been a topic of debate and discussion. While there is no explicit mention of expiration dates for amendments in the US Constitution, there are certain provisions and interpretations that provide insight on the matter.
One perspective on this issue revolves around the idea of "dormant" amendments. In some cases, proposed amendments have missed their ratification deadlines, leading to questions about their potential revival. For instance, the Equal Rights Amendment fell short of the required ratification by three states within the seven-year deadline. Similarly, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment missed its deadline in 1985, with only 16 states ratifying it. These instances suggest that there might be a shelf life for amendments, after which they are no longer viable for ratification.
However, there are also arguments against the concept of a shelf life for constitutional amendments. In the case of Coleman v. Miller (1939), the Court held that the timeliness of ratification is a political question left to Congress's discretion. This suggests that the length of time between proposal and ratification may not be a determining factor in an amendment's validity. Additionally, in 2020, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment was ratified and became part of the Constitution more than 200 years after it was proposed, indicating that amendments can remain pending indefinitely until ratified by the necessary number of states.
Article V of the US Constitution, which outlines the procedures for amending the Constitution, does not specify any time constraints on ratification. While Congress often sets ratification deadlines, usually seven years, there have been instances where amendments have been ratified without such deadlines, like the Nineteenth Amendment. The absence of a specified time limit in Article V implies that amendments do not have a shelf life in the traditional sense.
Despite the lack of explicit expiration dates, certain provisions within the Constitution have been shielded from amendment for a limited duration. For example, two clauses concerning the importation of slaves and the apportionment of direct taxes were shielded from amendment until 1808. After this date, they could be amended through the procedures outlined in Article Five.
In conclusion, while there is no explicit mention of expiration dates for constitutional amendments, the concept of "dormant" amendments and ratification deadlines suggests a potential shelf life. However, the absence of time constraints in Article V and the ability of amendments to remain pending indefinitely indicate that the validity of an amendment may depend more on the ratification process than a fixed timeline.
Amendments: Understanding the Count and Their Impact
You may want to see also
Can amendments be revived after their deadline?
The revival of amendments after their deadline is a complex and highly debated topic. While there is no explicit mention of expiration dates in the US Constitution's Article V, which outlines the amendment process, the inclusion of ratification deadlines or sunset clauses in proposed amendments has sparked discussions about their shelf life.
In 2020, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) advised that Congress does not have the authority to extend ratification deadlines or revive amendments after their initial deadline without restarting the Article V process. This stance is supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Dillon v. Gloss, which held that Congress has the implicit authority to set a definite period for ratification. However, the OLC's opinion and the Court's decision in Dillon have been challenged by commentators who argue that Congress does not have the power to impose time constraints on the amendment process.
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a notable example of a proposed amendment that has sparked debates about revival after its deadline. In 1972, Congress approved the ERA with a seven-year ratification deadline, which was later extended to 1982. Despite falling short of the required number of state ratifications, Illinois ratified the ERA in 2018, 36 years after the original deadline expired. This action revived discussions about the viability of deadlines imposed by Congress and the potential for dormant amendments to be revived.
While there is no clear consensus on the revival of amendments after their deadline, the ratification of the 27th Amendment in 1992, more than 200 years after it was proposed, is often cited as a precedent for the possibility of reviving dormant amendments. However, the unique circumstances surrounding the 27th Amendment's ratification and the absence of a congressionally imposed deadline complicate its applicability to other cases.
In conclusion, the revival of amendments after their deadline remains a contentious issue with legal and political implications. While Congress is generally considered to have the authority to set ratification deadlines, the ability to revive amendments after those deadlines is less clear and may require restarting the Article V process. The interpretation of constitutional provisions and precedents plays a crucial role in shaping the ongoing debate surrounding this complex question.
Amending the Constitution: A Kid's Guide
You may want to see also
Can Congress extend ratification deadlines?
The question of whether Congress can extend ratification deadlines has been a topic of debate and interpretation of the US Constitution, specifically Article V. The text of Article V does not explicitly address whether Congress can place a deadline on the states' ratification of a proposed amendment. However, in Dillon v. Gloss, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution implicitly authorises Congress to "fix a definite period" for ratification. The Court's decision in Dillon v. Gloss suggested that Congress's power to determine the mode of ratification implies the authority to specify a deadline.
Subsequently, in Coleman v. Miller (1939), the Court modified its stance. In this case, related to the proposed Child Labor Amendment, the Court held that the timeliness of ratification is a political and non-justiciable issue, leaving the matter to Congress's discretion. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes suggested that Congress has the power to determine whether ratification occurred within a "reasonable time."
In 1978, amid controversy, Congress extended the ratification deadline for the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to June 1982. However, this extension was met with legal challenges, and the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot after the ERA's deadline expired without achieving ratification. The Court's decision in this case suggested that Congress may lack the power to extend ratification deadlines.
In 2020, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) advised that Congress lacks the authority to extend the ratification deadline for an amendment pending before the states or to revive an amendment after the initial deadline has expired without restarting the Article V process. This advice was based on the interpretation that the Article V process requires maximum formal clarity and that allowing indefinite ratification would introduce uncertainty.
While Congress has historically included ratification deadlines in proposed amendments, there are examples of amendments without deadlines, such as the Nineteenth Amendment recognising women's suffrage, and the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, which became part of the Constitution more than 200 years after its proposal.
Amendments in Congress: How Many Have Been Introduced?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Can states rescind their ratification?
The question of whether states can rescind their ratification of a constitutional amendment is a complex one and has been the subject of debate and legal interpretation. While there is no explicit mention of a state's power to rescind ratification in the US Constitution, there have been instances where states have attempted to do so.
In the case of the Fourteenth Amendment, for example, New Jersey, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina initially rejected or ratified and then attempted to rescind their ratification. In 1868, Congress adopted a concurrent resolution declaring that the Fourteenth Amendment had been ratified, despite these attempts to rescind. The Supreme Court has indicated that whether a state can rescind its ratification is a political question for Congress to resolve. The Court's ruling suggests that attempted withdrawals of ratification are "ineffectual in the presence of an actual ratification."
Similarly, in the case of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), five states—Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee—voted to rescind their ratification between 1972 and 1982. In 1982, the National Organization of Women v. Idaho case brought arguments over the legality of states' ability to rescind their ratifications to the Supreme Court. While the Court dismissed the case as moot due to the ERA's deadline expiration, a lower court had ruled that Idaho had the right to rescind its ratification.
Additionally, in 1992, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, which addressed congressional pay raises, became part of the Constitution more than 200 years after it was proposed. This suggests that an amendment can remain pending before the states indefinitely if no ratification deadline is specified by Congress. However, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) advised in 2020 that Congress lacks the authority to extend ratification deadlines or revive expired amendments without restarting the Article V process.
While there is no clear consensus on whether states can rescind their ratification, the historical practice and legal interpretations suggest that it may be possible for states to rescind their ratification before an amendment becomes part of the Constitution, especially if it provides a truer picture of local sentiment. However, once an amendment is ratified by the necessary number of states, it becomes an operative part of the Constitution, and any attempted withdrawals of ratification may be deemed ineffectual.
Amendments: Who Proposes Changes to State Constitutions?
You may want to see also
Can amendments be proposed without deadlines?
Article Five of the United States Constitution outlines the procedures for amending the Constitution. However, it does not specify deadlines for the ratification of proposed amendments. The Constitution is also silent on whether Congress can limit the time available for states to ratify amendments.
Since 1917, most amendments proposed by Congress have included a deadline for ratification, typically set at seven years. This practice began with the Eighteenth Amendment. However, there have been exceptions, such as the Nineteenth Amendment, which did not have a ratification deadline. In the absence of a specified deadline, an amendment remains pending before the states, and they can continue to ratify it until the requisite number of states have done so. For example, the Twenty-Seventh Amendment, which addressed congressional pay raises, became part of the Constitution in 1992, over 200 years after it was first proposed without a deadline in 1789.
There have been debates about whether Congress has the authority to extend ratification deadlines or revive expired amendments without restarting the Article V process. In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the timeliness of ratification is a political and non-justiciable issue, leaving the decision to Congress's discretion. However, in 1981, a US District Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to extend deadlines. In 2020, the OLC advised that Congress could not extend ratification deadlines or revive expired amendments without restarting the Article V process.
While amendments without deadlines can be proposed, the absence of a timeframe can introduce uncertainty into the ratification process. States may be unsure if they can still ratify an amendment after a certain period, and the lack of a deadline may impact the validity of the amendment.
The process of proposing and ratifying amendments involves multiple steps:
- Congress proposes an amendment with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, in the form of a joint resolution.
- The Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is responsible for administering the ratification process.
- The Archivist notifies the states by sending a letter to each state's governor, along with informational material.
- Governors then submit the amendment to their state legislatures or call for a convention, as specified by Congress.
- When a state ratifies the amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the state's action, which is forwarded to the Director of the Federal Register.
- The Director examines the ratification documents for legal sufficiency and authenticity.
- If the documents are in order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody until the amendment is adopted or fails.
- Once an amendment is ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50), it becomes part of the Constitution.
- The amendment and its certificate of ratification are published in the Federal Register and United States Statutes at Large, serving as official notice of the successful ratification.
Amending the Constitution: A Difficult But Not Impossible Task
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Amendments to the US Constitution are proposed by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and the Senate, or by a convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. The proposed amendment must then be ratified by either three-fourths of the state legislatures or three-fourths of special ratifying conventions.
While the US Constitution does not explicitly address expiration dates for amendments, it is possible to include a ratification deadline or "sunset clause". This specifies a time limit, typically seven years, for the amendment to be ratified by the required number of states. If the deadline passes without ratification, the amendment is considered expired or "dormant".
There is debate about whether expired amendments can be revived without restarting the entire amendment process. Some argue that Congress lacks the authority to extend ratification deadlines or revive expired amendments without initiating a new proposal. However, there have been instances where states have ratified amendments after their original deadlines, creating uncertainty about the finality of expiration dates.
