However, other states, especially Massachusetts , opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February , a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina.
On June 21, , New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U. Constitution would begin on March 4, Constitution—the Bill of Rights—and sent them to the states for ratification.
Ten of these amendments were ratified in In November , North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the U. Rhode Island , which opposed federal control of currency and was critical of compromise on the issue of slavery, resisted ratifying the Constitution until the U.
On May 29, , Rhode Island voted by two votes to ratify the document, and the last of the original 13 colonies joined the United States. Today the U. Constitution is the oldest written constitution in operation in the world. But if you see something that doesn't look right, click here to contact us! On February 16, , under the pretext of sending reinforcements to the French army occupying Portugal, The controversial U.
Brigadier General John J. Four states had rescinded their ratifications and a fifth had declared that its ratification would be void unless the amendment was ratified within the original time limit. The Kentucky rescission was attached to another bill and was vetoed by the Lieutenant Governor, acting as Governor, citing grounds that included a state constitutional provision prohibiting the legislature from passing a law dealing with more than one subject and a senate rule prohibiting the introduction of new bills within the last ten days of a session.
Both the resolution and the veto message were sent by the Kentucky Secretary of State to the General Services Administration. South Dakota was the fifth state. The issue was not without its history. The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, both of which subsequently passed rescinding resolutions.
Contemporaneously, the legislatures of Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina rejected ratification resolutions. Pursuant to the Act of March 2, , 19 Footnote 14 Stat. Thus, there were presented both the question of the validity of a withdrawal and the question of the validity of a ratification following rejection. Congress requested the Secretary of State 20 Footnote The Secretary was then responsible for receiving notices of ratification and proclaiming adoption.
The Secretary then issued a proclamation reciting that 29 states, including the two that had rescinded and the three which had ratified after first rejecting, had ratified, which was one more than the necessary three-fourths. He noted the attempted withdrawal of Ohio and New Jersey and observed that it was doubtful whether such attempts were effectual in withdrawing consent. He therefore certified the amendment to be in force if the rescissions by Ohio and New Jersey were invalid.
The next day Congress adopted a resolution listing all 29 states, including Ohio and New Jersey, as having ratified and concluded that the ratification process was completed. The Secretary of State then proclaimed the Amendment as part of the Constitution. Miller , 23 Footnote U. The legislature of New York attempted to withdraw its ratification of the 15th Amendment; although the Secretary of State listed New York among the ratifying states, noted the withdrawal resolution, there were ratifications from three-fourths of the states without New York.
Although rescission was hotly debated with respect to the Equal Rights Amendment, the failure of ratification meant that nothing definitive emerged from the debate. The Fourteenth Amendment precedent and Coleman v. Miller combine to suggest that resolution is a political question committed to Congress, but the issue is not settled.
The Twenty-seventh Amendment precedent is relevant here. The Archivist of the United States proclaimed the Amendment as having been ratified a day previous to the time both Houses of Congress adopted resolutions accepting ratification. S, H That is, the memorandum argued that the Coleman opinion by Chief Justice Hughes was for only a plurality of the Court and, moreover, was dictum, as it addressed an issue not before the Court.
On the merits, OLC argued that Article V gave Congress no role other than to propose amendments and to specify the mode of ratification. An amendment is valid when ratified by three-fourths of the states, no further action being required.
Although someone must determine when the requisite number have acted, OLC argued that the executive officer charged with the function of certifying, now the Archivist, has only the ministerial duty of counting the notifications sent to him. Separation of powers and federalism concerns also counseled against a congressional role, and past practice, in which all but the Fourteenth Amendment were certified by an executive officer, was noted as supporting a decision against a congressional role.
First, finding that resolution of the question is committed to Congress merely locates the situs of the power and says nothing about what the resolution should be. That Congress in the past has refused to accept rescissions is but the starting point, because, unlike courts, Congress operates under no principle of stare decisis so that the decisions of one Congress on a subject do not bind future Congresses.
If Congress were to be faced with a decision about the validity of rescission, to what standards should it look? Resolution of political questions is not subject to judicial review, so the decisionmaker need not be troubled with the prospect of being overruled.
But both legislators and executive are bound by oath to observe the Constitution, 28 Footnote Article VI, para. Nixon, U. It may be, however, that the Constitution does not speak to the issue.
Generally, in the exercise of judicial review, courts view the actions of the legislative and executive branches in terms not of the wisdom or desirability or propriety of their actions but in terms of the comportment of those actions with the constitutional grants of power and constraints upon those powers; if an action is within a granted power and violates no restriction, the courts will not interfere.
How the legislature or the executive decides to deal with a question within the confines of the powers each constitutionally have is beyond judicial control.
Therefore, if the Constitution commits decision on an issue to, say, Congress, and imposes no standards to govern or control the reaching of that decision, Congress may be free to make a determination solely as a policy matter, restrained only by its sense of propriety or wisdom or desirability. The reason that these issues are not justiciable is not only that they are committed to a branch for decision without intervention by the courts but also that the Constitution does not contain an answer.
This interpretation, in the context of amending the Constitution, may be what Chief Justice Hughes was deciding for the plurality of the Court in Coleman. None are to be found in Constitution or statute. Article V may be read to contain a governing constitutional principle, however. Thus, it can be argued that, as written, the provision contains only language respecting ratification and that, inexorably, once a state acts favorably on a resolution of ratification it has exhausted its jurisdiction over the subject and cannot rescind, 30 Footnote See, e.
Until the new Constitution was ratified, the country was governed by the Articles of Confederation. The Confederation Congress endorsed his initiative, and representatives from all 13 states were subsequently invited to convene in Philadelphia on May 25, , to participate in the Convention. The initial purpose of the Convention was for the delegates to amend the Articles of Confederation; however, the ultimate outcome was the proposal and creation of a completely new form of government.
Three months later, on September 17, , the Convention concluded with the signing by 38 out of 41 delegates present of the new U. Under Article VII , it was agreed that the document would not be binding until its ratification by nine of the 13 existing states. Hamilton and James Madison led the lobbying efforts for votes in favor of ratifying the Constitution.
The essays were published in newspapers nationwide. Some states voiced opposition to the Constitution on the grounds that it did not provide protection for rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and press.
0コメント