The Deadline For Ratifying Constitutional Amendments

The question of whether there is a time limit for the ratification of constitutional amendments has been a topic of debate in the United States. While Article V of the US Constitution does not explicitly address the issue, the Supreme Court held in Dillon v. Gloss (1921) that Congress has the authority to set a definite time limit for ratification. Since 1917, Congress has typically imposed a seven-year deadline for ratification, with the exception of certain amendments like the Nineteenth Amendment, which had no time limit. The Equal Rights Amendment, proposed in 1972, faced a similar debate, with some arguing for the removal of its ratification deadline. The discussion surrounding the time limit for ratification of constitutional amendments continues to evolve, with various scholars and legal experts offering different interpretations and proposals.

Explore related products

Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788

$13.2 $24

Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States [1938]: State Convention Records and Laws

$29.95 $123

Encyclopedia of Constitutional Amendments, Proposed Amendments, and Amending Issues, 1789-2023

$239.99 $243

Responding to Imperfection - The Theory and Practice of Constitutional Amendment

$37.62 $75

No Easy Walk to Freedom: Reconstruction and the Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (Media and Communications; 50)

$85.5 $95

The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Volume 41: Bill of Rights, No. 5 (Volume 41)

$95

The Supreme Court's role in ratification time limits

The Supreme Court has played a significant role in interpreting and shaping the ratification process for constitutional amendments in the United States. While the Court itself does not have a direct role in drafting or ratifying amendments, its decisions have clarified and guided the understanding of ratification time limits.

One of the most notable Supreme Court cases regarding ratification time limits is Dillon v. Gloss (1921). In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution implicitly authorises Congress to set a definite time period for the ratification of amendments. This decision established the precedent that Congress has the power to determine the mode of ratification and, by extension, the ability to specify a deadline for states to ratify an amendment. The Court's ruling in Dillon v. Gloss upheld Congress's specification of a seven-year time limit for the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment, which established Prohibition.

In another significant case, Coleman v. Miller (1939), Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes suggested in his "Opinion of the Court" that Congress is responsible for facilitating the adoption of constitutional amendments. This responsibility, according to Hughes, includes the power to determine whether the ratification of a proposed amendment occurred within a "reasonable time." However, subsequent commentators have disagreed with this interpretation, arguing that the Constitution does not grant Congress such a role.

The Supreme Court has also addressed the constitutionality of time limits in the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) ratification process. After the ERA's original deadline expired, the Supreme Court dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of an extension as moot. Additionally, in its decisions in 1921 and 1939, the Court established the standards of "'reasonable' and 'sufficiently contemporaneous'" for ratification time limits, which influenced the ERA's ratification strategy.

While the Supreme Court has provided important interpretations and guidelines regarding ratification time limits, the process of amending the Constitution ultimately rests with Congress and the states. Congress proposes amendments, and three-fourths of the states must ratify them for them to become part of the Constitution. The Supreme Court's role is primarily to review and determine the constitutionality of laws and amendments, including the interpretation of ratification time limits.

The role of Congress in determining ratification time limits

In the Coleman case, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes suggested in his "Opinion of the Court" that Congress plays a crucial role in promulgating the adoption of constitutional amendments. This suggestion implies that Congress can decide if a proposed amendment's ratification occurred within a reasonable timeframe. However, critics have disputed this interpretation, asserting that the Constitution does not empower Congress with such a role.

Article V of the US Constitution grants Congress the authority to propose amendments and determine the mode of ratification, but it remains silent on Congress's ability to impose time restrictions or its role after ratification by three-fourths of the states. This ambiguity has led to differing interpretations and debates about the extent of Congress's power in the amendment process.

The Supreme Court's decision in Dillon v. Gloss in 1921 affirmed Congress's power to set a definite time limit for ratification. The Court upheld Congress's seven-year time limit on the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment, citing Congress's power to determine the mode of ratification as justification for their ability to specify a deadline. This decision set a precedent, influencing subsequent interpretations of Congress's role in determining ratification time limits.

Despite the Dillon decision, the question of whether Congress can place a deadline on states' ratification remains a subject of discussion and legal interpretation. Article V's silence on this issue has resulted in varying opinions, with some arguing that Congress's role ends once the required number of states have ratified an amendment.

In summary, the role of Congress in determining ratification time limits is complex and has been a topic of legal debate. While some interpret Congress's powers as including the ability to set time limits, others argue that the Constitution does not grant them this authority. The Supreme Court's Dillon decision affirmed Congress's power to set time limits, but the ongoing discussions highlight the ongoing evolution of interpretations regarding Congress's role in the amendment ratification process.

The Equal Rights Amendment ratification deadline

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit gender discrimination and guarantee equal legal rights for all citizens regardless of sex. It was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and was first introduced in Congress in December 1923.

In 1971, the ERA was reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths, and it was approved by the US House of Representatives that year and by the US Senate in 1972. It was then submitted to the state legislatures for ratification, as provided by Article Five of the United States Constitution. A seven-year deadline of 1979 was included with the legislation by Congress, which was later extended by a simple majority of Congress to 1982.

However, by the June 30, 1982 deadline, no more states had ratified the ERA, and it was considered defeated. Despite this, there have been ongoing efforts to ratify the amendment, and as of 2024, thirty-eight states have finally ratified the ERA.

The question of whether the ERA's protections for women's rights will be added to the Constitution remains open. 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. In the absence of a congressionally proposed deadline, the OLC states that an amendment remains pending before the states.

The ERA's ratification deadline has been a subject of debate, with some arguing that the deadline had passed and the amendment was no longer pending before the states. Others have contended that the ERA's ratification period meets the "'reasonable' and 'sufficiently contemporaneous' standards required by Supreme Court decisions, and that Congress has the power to adjust or repeal the previous time limit.

Explore related products

The Reconstruction Amendments: The Essential Documents (Volume 2)

$64.99 $101.99

State Constitutional Politics: Governing by Amendment in the American States

$11.99 $17.99

The Constitution, as Amended, and Ordinances of the Convention of 1866, Together with the Proclamation of the Governor Declaring the Ratification of the Amendments to the 1866 [Leather Bound]

$29.57 $34.72

The Debate on the Constitution : Federalist and Antifederalist Speeches, Articles and Letters During the Struggle over Ratification, Part Two: January to August 1788 (Library of America)

$27.9 $42.5

It's Time for The 25th Amendment T-Shirt

$18.99

Time amendment--1974

$9.99

The Eighteenth Amendment's seven-year deadline

The Eighteenth Amendment, also known as the Prohibition Amendment, was the first constitutional amendment to have a time limit for ratification. Proposed in 1917, it included a seven-year deadline for ratification by the states. This deadline was specified in Section 3 of the Amendment, which stated that the article would be "inoperative" unless ratified within seven years of being submitted to the states by Congress.

The inclusion of a time limit was significant as no amendment before the 20th century had included one. The seven-year period was chosen by Congress without extensive discussion, and it was the first amendment to impose a deadline for ratification. The Amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919, within the specified time frame.

The Eighteenth Amendment established the prohibition of alcohol in the United States, making it illegal to manufacture, transport, or sell intoxicating liquors. It was the result of decades of efforts by the temperance movement, which argued that banning alcohol would address various societal issues, including poverty and immoral behaviour. The Anti-Saloon League, founded in 1893, played a significant role in campaigning against the sale of alcohol.

The Amendment also included a one-year time delay before it would take effect, which was the earliest date allowed by the Amendment. This delay allowed time for the enactment of enabling legislation, such as the National Prohibition Act, also known as the Volstead Act, which was passed in 1919. The Volstead Act defined the terms of prohibition and set the starting date for its enforcement as January 17, 1920.

The Eighteenth Amendment was in effect for 13 years before being repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment on December 5, 1933, making it the only constitutional amendment in American history to be repealed in its entirety.

The Article V process and state ratification

Article V of the U.S. Constitution outlines the process for amending the Constitution. This process begins with a proposal for an amendment, which can be initiated by Congress or by the state legislatures. For Congress to propose an amendment, two-thirds of each House must vote in favour of it. Alternatively, if two-thirds of state legislatures apply for a convention to propose amendments, Congress must call one.

The proposed amendment is then sent to the states for ratification. Congress has the power to determine the mode of ratification, which can be one of two methods: ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures, or ratification by three-fourths of state conventions. The president has no role in this process.

The text of Article V does not address the issue of a time limit for ratification. However, in Dillon v. Gloss, the Supreme Court held that Congress has the authority to set a deadline for ratification. This decision affirmed Congress's power to determine the mode of ratification and thus implied the authority to specify a deadline. In this case, the Court upheld a seven-year time limit on the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment.

Commentators have disagreed on whether Congress has the power to impose time limits. Some argue that Congress is responsible for determining whether ratification occurred within a "reasonable time," while others contend that the Constitution does not grant Congress this role. The first amendment with a time limit was the Eighteenth Amendment in 1917, with Congress specifying a seven-year deadline. Since then, Congress has included a time limit for the ratification of all proposed amendments except for the Nineteenth Amendment.

The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has advised that an amendment becomes part of the Constitution once the requisite number of states have ratified it. In the absence of a congressionally proposed deadline, the OLC states that an amendment remains pending, as states would not know if they could still ratify it.

Frequently asked questions