Simone Lawson
The question of whether there is a time limit on constitutional amendments in the United States has been the subject of debate and legal interpretation. While the Constitution does not explicitly address the issue, the Supreme Court has held that Congress has the authority to set a definite period for the ratification of amendments. This was established in the case of Dillon v. Gloss, where the Court upheld a seven-year time limit on the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment. Since then, Congress has typically set a seven-year deadline for the ratification of proposed amendments, with the exception of the Nineteenth Amendment. The question of time limits has also arisen in relation to the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), where Congress extended the deadline and accepted a 203-year ratification period for the Madison Amendment, suggesting that it has the power to adjust or remove time constraints. However, some commentators disagree with this interpretation, arguing that the Constitution does not grant Congress the authority to determine the timeframe for ratification. The absence of a specified deadline has led to ongoing debates about the validity of state ratifications and the potential for 'dormant' amendments to be revived.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Whether there is a time limit on constitutional amendments | No explicit time limit mentioned in Article V of the Constitution |
| Who decides the time limit | Congress decides the time limit for ratification |
| Time limit for the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd Amendments | 7 years |
| Amendments without a time limit | 19th Amendment (Women's Suffrage) and the Child Labor Amendment |
| Time limit for the 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th Amendments | Deadline in the introductory text to the amendment |
| Time limit for the Equal Rights Amendment | Deadline extended to June 1982 |
| Minimum states needed for ratification | 38 states |
| States that attempted to rescind their ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment | Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Supreme Court's role
The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body in the United States, established by Article III of the Constitution. The Court is given the power to decide on matters pertaining to the Constitution and federal law, with the Judiciary Act of 1789 granting it original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus—legal orders compelling government officials to act within the boundaries of the law.
Secondly, the Supreme Court has ruled on the issue of whether Congress can place a deadline on states for the ratification of constitutional amendments. In Dillon v. Gloss, the Court held that the Constitution implicitly allows Congress to set a definite time period for ratification. The Court upheld a seven-year time limit on the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment. However, this decision has been disputed, with the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) arguing that an amendment becomes part of the Constitution once the requisite number of states have ratified it, regardless of any congressionally proposed deadline.
Interpreting Constitutional Amendments: Understanding the Blank Space
You may want to see also
Congress' power to determine time limits
The power of Congress to determine time limits on constitutional amendments has been a subject of debate and interpretation. While the Constitution does not explicitly address this issue, the Supreme Court has weighed in on the matter. In the case of Dillon v. Gloss (1921), the Court upheld Congress's ability to set a seven-year time limit for the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment. The Court's decision implied that Congress has the incidental authority to specify deadlines for ratification.
However, this interpretation has been contested by some commentators, who argue that the Constitution does not grant Congress the power to impose such time constraints. They cite the example of the Nineteenth Amendment, which lacked a specified deadline and was ratified without one. This exception to the trend of including time limits suggests that Congress's power in this regard may not be absolute.
Despite these differing viewpoints, Congress has historically played a significant role in setting time limits for the ratification of amendments. Starting with the Eighteenth Amendment proposed in 1917, Congress established a precedent of imposing a seven-year deadline for ratification. This practice has been consistently applied to proposed amendments, with the exception of the Nineteenth Amendment.
In the case of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), Congress demonstrated its ability to alter time limits. Initially, the ERA had a deadline of March 22, 1979, but Congress extended it to June 30, 1982. This action was challenged in the Supreme Court, but the challenge was dismissed as moot after the deadline passed. The Coleman decision supported Congress's authority to determine whether ratification occurred within a "reasonable time" and whether the amendment remained "responsive to the conception that inspired it."
The interpretation of Congress's power to set time limits is nuanced and has evolved over time. While the Supreme Court has acknowledged their authority to impose deadlines, the absence of explicit constitutional guidance leaves room for ongoing debate and interpretation.
Amendments to Libya's Constitution: A Historical Overview
You may want to see also
State ratification rescissions
The US Constitution does not explicitly address whether there is a time limit on constitutional amendments. However, the Supreme Court has held that Congress has the authority to specify a deadline for ratification. In the case of Dillon v. Gloss, the Court upheld a seven-year time limit on the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment. Subsequently, Congress has placed a seven-year deadline on the ratification of every proposed amendment except for the Nineteenth Amendment.
Regarding state ratification rescissions, there is precedent indicating that states do not have the power to rescind their ratification of a constitutional amendment. Article V of the Constitution speaks only to the states' power to ratify an amendment and not to the power to rescind ratification. In the case of the Fourteenth Amendment, both the Secretary of State and Congress included New Jersey and Ohio in the official tally of ratifying states, even though these states had passed resolutions to rescind their ratifications. Similarly, North Carolina and South Carolina, which had initially rejected the amendment, were also included in the tally after they ratified it later. These precedents suggest that attempted withdrawals of ratifications and previous rejections prior to ratification have no legal validity.
In the case of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), five states (Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, Kentucky, and South Dakota) attempted to rescind their initial ratification. The legality of these rescissions is questionable, and it has been argued that such actions are not valid. However, there is also a counterargument that Congress has the power to adjust or repeal the previous time limit on the ERA and determine the validity of state ratifications.
The ERA was passed by Congress in 1972 and sent to the states for ratification. By 1977, 35 states had approved the amendment. Congress extended the original deadline from March 1979 to June 1982, but no additional states ratified the ERA during this period. The fate of the five states that voted to rescind their ratifications is still undecided, and it may require intervention from Congress or the Supreme Court to settle the matter.
The Ninth Amendment: Our Unenumerated Rights
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Equal Rights Amendment
The ERA was reintroduced in Congress in 1971 by Representative Martha Griffiths and approved by the U.S. House of Representatives that year and by the U.S. Senate in 1972, thus submitting the ERA to the state legislatures for ratification. Congress included a seven-year deadline for ratification by March 1979, which was later extended to June 30, 1982, by a simple majority in Congress. Despite the efforts of supporters like President Carter, who urged the public to acknowledge the contributions of women and support the ERA, the amendment fell three states short of the 38 states required for ratification.
The failure to ratify the ERA by the deadline has led to ongoing debates about its status. Some argue that the ERA remains pending, while others believe that the deadline expirations have rendered it ineligible for inclusion in the Constitution. In 2025, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley introduced a joint resolution calling for establishing the ratification of the ERA, notwithstanding the time limit placed on the amendment in 1972. Despite these efforts, the ERA has not become part of the Constitution, and there are differing opinions on whether it can still be successfully ratified.
The ERA's ratification process highlights the complexities and uncertainties surrounding constitutional amendment deadlines in the United States. While some argue that Congress has the authority to set time limits, others contend that the absence of a specified deadline should keep an amendment pending. The ERA's journey also underscores the ongoing pursuit of gender equality in the United States and the challenges faced in translating social movements into legal change.
Amendments: Constitution's Evolution and Adaptation
You may want to see also
The Eighteenth Amendment
While the amendment led to a decline in alcohol consumption, enforcing Prohibition proved challenging, particularly in cities. Alcohol smuggling, illicit bars, gambling, and prostitution became prevalent, and public sentiment turned against the amendment during the 1920s. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 1932 Democratic presidential nominee, called for its repeal, and it was eventually overridden by the Twenty-first Amendment on December 5, 1933, making it the only constitutional amendment in American history to be repealed.
The Constitution: Roe vs Wade Amendment?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Article V of the Constitution does not specify a time limit for the ratification of a constitutional amendment. However, Congress has included a seven-year deadline for the ratification of all proposed amendments since 1917, except for the proposal that became the Nineteenth Amendment recognizing women's suffrage.
In Dillon v. Gloss, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution implicitly authorizes Congress to fix a definite period for ratification. Congress has the power to determine whether ratification of a proposed amendment occurred within a "reasonable time" and if the amendment is "no longer responsive to the conception which inspired it".
In the absence of a congressionally proposed deadline, an amendment remains pending before the states. The Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has advised that an amendment becomes part of the Constitution once the Archivist of the United States certifies that the requisite number of states have ratified it.
There is no clear answer to this question. Some argue that a proposed amendment can be revived, especially if it meets the "reasonable" and "sufficiently contemporaneous" standards required by Supreme Court decisions. Others argue that the implicit time limit thesis introduces uncertainty into the constitutional process.
The amendment process can begin with the states, where two-thirds of the state legislatures or conventions from three-fourths of the states propose an amendment. The amendment is then approved by Congress and must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
![The Act for the Amendment of the Law with Respect to Wills, (1 Victoria, C. 26): With Notes and ... 1838 [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/617DLHXyzlL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
