Talk:Dillon v. Gloss

must vs may
The article currently states "The Justices did not rule that Congress must impose a such deadline, merely that Congress may do so" but I'm not sure how to square that with the text from the opinion which states "We conclude that the fair inference or implication from article 5 is that the ratification must be within some reasonable time after the proposal." Now, this is probably just a historical footnote in light of the subsequent Coleman v. Miller and Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, and to put this in the article without some kind of learned opinion would quite likely be WP:OR, but it might be wise to remove the sentence in question, or point to Coleman v. Miller on the subject. Kingdon 16:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Article 5 implies a time limit?
Article 5 reads: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The entry as it now reads tells us: "Article V of the Constitution implies that amendments submitted there under must be ratified, if at all, within some reasonable time after their proposal. " I really do not see how Article 5 can be read to imply a time limit.Cross Reference (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)