Isabella Carter
The United States Constitution is a living document that has been amended and interpreted over time to reflect the changing needs and values of American society. While no part of the original Constitution has been rescinded, there have been efforts to rescind or amend previous convention calls and executive orders. For instance, between 2011 and 2017, ten states introduced unsuccessful measures to rescind previous convention calls, and in 2025, the White House issued an order to rescind or amend certain harmful executive orders and actions implemented by the previous administration. Additionally, there have been debates and legal disputes over the ratification process of constitutional amendments, with some states voting to rescind their ratifications. These actions and debates highlight the dynamic nature of constitutional interpretation and the ongoing efforts to shape the document to align with current societal values and priorities.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| States that have rescinded previous convention calls | Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Louisiana, North Dakota |
| States that have voted to rescind their ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment | Idaho, Illinois, and three other states |
| Executive Orders rescinded by the President | 14015, 14018, 14019, 14020, 14021, 14022, 14023, 14027 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Rescinding previous convention calls
The United States Constitution is a powerful document that outlines the fundamental laws and principles of the nation. Over time, various states have initiated efforts to amend or reinterpret specific provisions within it. These attempts have sometimes led to calls for a Constitutional Convention, a gathering with the potential to significantly impact the country's foundational charter. However, recognising the risks associated with such conventions, several states have also taken steps to rescind previous calls for them.
California's Stand Against Extremism
In the face of threats to rewrite the Constitution, California Senator Scott Wiener introduced SJR 1, a resolution to rescind all seven of the state's previous calls for a Constitutional Convention. This move aimed to safeguard the civil liberties and democratic values cherished by Californians. The resolution was co-authored by Senators Tom Umberg and Ben Allen, reflecting a bipartisan concern for preventing extremists from exploiting a convention to strip away core rights and protections guaranteed under the Constitution.
A Preventive Measure
The push to rescind California's calls for a Constitutional Convention was driven by the understanding that such gatherings carry significant risks. As Dora Rose, Deputy Director of the League of Women Voters of California, emphasised, there are no limitations or safeguards in place to constrain the actions of a Constitutional Convention. This lack of guardrails raises the alarming possibility of special interest groups influencing the process to serve their purposes, potentially endangering the rights of marginalised communities and undermining democratic institutions.
Historical Precedents
California would not be the first state to rescind previous calls for a Constitutional Convention. New Jersey and Illinois recently took similar actions in 2021 and 2022, respectively. Additionally, between 2011 and 2017, ten states introduced unsuccessful measures to rescind past convention calls. This includes states like Arkansas, Kansas, and Massachusetts, indicating a widespread recognition of the potential dangers associated with convening such gatherings.
The Role of Congress and the Supreme Court
The process of amending the Constitution is outlined in Article V, which empowers Congress to play a critical role in proposing and promulgating amendments. However, the interpretation and final determination of the amendment process often fall within the purview of the Supreme Court. This dynamic was evident in the 1982 debate surrounding the Equal Rights Amendment, where five states voted to rescind their ratifications, and the Court was called upon to settle the matter.
The Senate's Place in the Legislative Branch
You may want to see also
Rescinding executive orders
While I could not find explicit information on parts of the constitution being rescinded, I did find information on executive orders being rescinded.
Executive orders can be rescinded by subsequent administrations. For example, President Donald Trump rescinded several of President Joe Biden's executive orders during his first three weeks in office. These included Executive Order 13985, "Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government," and Executive Order 14031, "Advancing Equity, Justice, and Opportunity for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders." The latter order had supported the White House Initiative for Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, Economic Opportunity for Native Americans, and Strengthening Tribal Colleges and Universities.
Additionally, President Biden rescinded Executive Order 14087, "Lowering Prescription Drug Costs for Americans," issued by the previous administration. This order had addressed prescription drug affordability through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) Innovation Center.
The rescinding of executive orders can have significant impacts on existing policies and initiatives. For example, the rescinding of Executive Order 14031 by President Trump was met with concern by tribal colleges and universities, as it had provided support for Indigenous education and promoted the success and growth of Indigenous education in various educational institutions.
It is important to note that the rescinding of executive orders can be a politically charged issue, as it involves the reversal of policies implemented by a previous administration. In some cases, newly elected presidents may seek to undo the work of their predecessors, leading to a back-and-forth dynamic in policy-making.
The Constitution's Clause on Presidential Term Limits
You may want to see also
Rescinding state ratification
The process of rescinding state ratification is complex and not well defined. While Article V of the US Constitution outlines the states' power to ratify an amendment, it does not explicitly address the ability to rescind a ratification. This has led to legal ambiguity and varying interpretations.
Historically, there have been instances where states attempted to rescind their ratification of constitutional amendments. For example, during the promulgation of the 14th Amendment in 1868, New Jersey and Ohio passed resolutions to rescind their ratifications. Similarly, North Carolina and South Carolina initially rejected the amendment before ratifying it later. However, Congress included all four states in the official tally of ratifying states, implying that attempted withdrawals of ratifications were considered legally invalid.
Despite the lack of explicit guidance in Article V, some states have successfully rescinded their ratification of certain amendments. Between 1972 and 1982, five states—Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Tennessee—voted to rescind their ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). These actions, however, have been deemed a "legal nullity," indicating that they may not have legal standing.
Additionally, there have been instances where states have rescinded their applications for a constitutional convention. For example, Alabama, Florida, and North Dakota rescinded their applications for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution in 1988, 1990, and 2001, respectively. In these cases, the states' actions were recognized, and they had to reapply for the same request later.
It's worth noting that the legal validity of rescinding state ratification remains a subject of debate. While some argue that it is not valid according to the constitutional amendment process outlined in Article V, others contend that states should have the power to revoke their consent. The complex nature of this issue underscores the evolving interpretation and implementation of constitutional principles.
Bylaws and Constitution: What's the Connection?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Rescinding legislative assembly applications
The process of rescinding legislative assembly applications, or "calls", for a constitutional convention is a formal procedure that has been employed by several states in the United States. These calls for a convention aim to propose amendments to the US Constitution, particularly regarding fiscal restraints and limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. However, some states have chosen to rescind these applications, often through the introduction of concurrent or joint resolutions.
Examples of Rescission
- Texas—In Texas, the House Joint Resolution No. 123 and No. 101 rescinded the 1899 application of the 26th Texas Legislature to the US Congress, calling for an unrestricted convention under Article V of the Constitution.
- New Jersey—Assembly Concurrent Resolution No. 46 and No. 17 rescinded all applications previously transmitted by the New Jersey Legislature to the US Congress, requesting a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.
- North Carolina—House Joint Resolution No. 374 and No. 1022 aimed to rescind all extant applications by the General Assembly to the US Congress for a convention to propose amendments.
- Florida—In 1988, Florida rescinded its 1976 application for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution. However, in 2010, the state resumed its application for the same topic.
- Alabama—Alabama rescinded its applications in 1988 but later approved a resolution in 2011, reprising its application for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment.
Reasons for Rescission
The reasons for rescinding legislative assembly applications vary, but some common concerns include:
- Unintended Consequences—There is a fear that a constitutional convention could lead to unintended consequences, such as amendments that may not be in the best interest of the state or country.
- Limited Government Power—Some states aim to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and thus, they may rescind applications that could grant the federal government more authority.
- Fiscal Restraints—States with a focus on fiscal conservatism may rescind applications that could lead to increased federal spending or debt.
Clathrin's Role in Constitutive: Explained in a Nutshell
You may want to see also
Rescinding presidential actions
While the US Constitution has never been fully rescinded, there have been instances of presidential actions being rescinded or revoked by subsequent administrations.
Presidential actions, executive orders, and policies can be rescinded or revoked by a subsequent president or administration. This is a way to undo or reverse the policies and decisions of a previous administration. A president may choose to rescind a particular action if they disagree with the policy or believe it is no longer in the best interest of the country.
For example, on January 21, 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued an order rescinding and replacing certain executive orders and actions from the previous administration, which he deemed "harmful." The revoked executive actions included:
- Executive Order 13994 (Ensuring a Data-Driven Response to COVID-19 and Future High-Consequence Public Health Threats).
- National Security Memorandum 3 (Revitalizing America's Foreign Policy and National Security Workforce, Institutions, and Partnerships).
- Presidential Memorandum (Advancing the Human Rights of LGBT+ individuals globally).
- Executive Order 14026 (Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors).
Additionally, President Trump also rescinded security clearances and access to classified information from specified individuals, including political opponents and members of the previous administration, such as Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Cheney, and Kamala Harris.
It is important to note that the power to rescind presidential actions is not absolute, and there may be legal or political constraints on a president's ability to undo the actions of their predecessor. The process of rescinding a presidential action can vary depending on the specific action and the legal framework surrounding it. In some cases, congressional approval may be required, while in other cases, the president may have the authority to act unilaterally.
Congressional Committees: Constitutional or Not?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, there have been several attempts by US states to rescind parts of the Constitution. For example, in 2009, Arkansas tried to rescind a previous application to the US Congress to call a Constitutional Convention to propose an amendment to balance the public debt. This attempt was defeated in the state's House of Representatives.
Yes, there have been successful attempts by US states to rescind their ratifications of proposed amendments to the Constitution. For example, in 1988, Florida rescinded its application for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment to the federal Constitution.
The process for rescinding a part of the Constitution can vary, but it typically involves legislative action at the state or federal level. In some cases, the US Congress or the Supreme Court may play a critical role in the rescission process.
![A digest of the laws of Texas; containing the laws in force, and the repealed laws on which rights rest, from 1754 to 1875, carefully annotated by George W. Paschal. Volume v.2 1875 [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81HiC2Oig0L._AC_UY218_.jpg)
