Talk:Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Old comments
If one deletes the actual text, they should take care to summarize its details.


 * One could do a lot by just mentioning why the amendment was passed. --134.198.82.72 20:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I took a crack at it - explaining why the 4-month lapse from election to beginning of term was necessary in the beginning but an impediment in the industrial age. More is needed. Ellsworth 20:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Anyone know why they still left a 2-month period between election and inauguration? Nik42 09:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The 20th Amendment itself doesn't set the 2-month period. The date of Election Day is set by statute, and Congress could move the date later if it wanted. But generally speaking, I suspect the reason there is now a 2-month gap is to allow the Electoral College time to meet, and to allow time to resolve disputed elections (e.g., the 2000 election). — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just curious about "3rd"...
Can someone find some historical reason why it is wrote "3d" instead of "3rd", or is it just some seriously mistaken typo? -- Aerno 01:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As no one has yet responded to your comment, I'm going to go ahead and change it to "3rd". If anyone disagrees or thinks the word "third" is more appropriate, post it here and then make the change. --70.113.79.34 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. As soon as I was about to edit it I saw this message by every 3rd on the edit page: "!-- '3d' is the spelling used in the original amend. text; please do not "correct" it to read '3rd'--." I haven't read the original text, but if someone has could you please verify this? --70.113.79.34 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

was there a different line of succession prior to this? If the president died before inauguration prior to this would the vice president not automatically have been next in line prior many don't know of very many supreme court cases!

Why is it a.k.a. the Lame-Duck Amendment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.125.241 (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In between the time of the amendment being discussed and its being the 20th Amendment, it was known as the Lame Duck Amendment. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Section 4
Does anyone know if the Congress ever passed legislation via Section 4 of the 20th Amendment that dealt with the situations mentioned in Section 4. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed what appear to be a pair of hand-inked commas in the National Archive copy of the document in the first sentence of Section 4? They're visible when the image is viewed at full resolution. This is curious for an official document. In particular the location of the second comma doesn't make sense. Does anyone know anything about this?69.141.155.252 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Congress vs. President
It seems like this article emphasizes the presidential aspects of the act, but the congressional aspects are actually much more significant. The amendment basically gave the president an additional one and a half months of non-lame duck time, out of a term of 48 months - that's slightly more than 3% of his presidency. On the other hand, before the passage of the amendment, probably about 40% (or more) of the time congress was in session it was the lame duck session, except for the fairly small number of congresses that had three sessions (and even then it was still a much higher percentage of the time than the 43 days shaved off the president's term). I'd imagine there must be sources on this, but I suspect that the effect on congress was much more prominent in the framers of the amendment's minds than the presidential issue, although obviously both are important. john k (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The History section seems balanced to me. If you want to add sourced material regarding the Congress, feel free to do so. SMP0328. (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not so much specific material that's the problem, but wording and emphasis, I think. john k (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hoover was a lame duck?
Heh... I had to chuckle when I read that... Is that ok for a encyclopedia to say that without citing some sources? I don't know anything about Hoover... but I guess I now know he was a lame duck. Thoughts? Strawberry Island (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reworded that sentence, located in the History section, so that it's not a run-on sentence and is much more compact. Also, that sentence no longer refers to any President as a lame duck. SMP0328. (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not concurrent?
Does anyone know why the president is inaugurated only on January 20th, but congress already meets on January 3rd? It seems to make so much more sense if they just start at the same time. They were also elected at the same time and all... Is this because the house of representatives decides the presidential election in case of a tie in the electoral college? It should be explained in the article if possible.

Finally, how did they decide on these precise dates? --KarlFrei (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The seventeen day difference between the start of the Presidential/Vice Presidential terms and those of members of the Congress is for dealing with problems in the Presidential election. Before this amendment, such problems had to dealt with by a lame duck Congress, because all federal elected terms began on March 4. SMP0328. (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

VP-elect dies before Inauguration Day
Section 3 of the XXth Amendment states that:
 *  If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.

What if the opposite happens? The Vice President-elect dies before inauguration? What happens then as this is not explicitly cared for in this amendment... Is the XXVth Amendment then applied and the Vice-Presidency remains vacant until the newly inaugurated President nominates a Vice-President and he is confirmed by both Houses of Congress. Or if the electoral college has still to meet, could they just vote for an other candidate? -- fdewaele, 8 September 2008, 21:33 (CET).


 * Section 2 of the Twenty fifth Amendment applies to any "vacancy" in the Vice Presidency. In your scenario, after taking the Presidential Oath of office, the President would nominate someone to be the Vice President. That nominee would become Vice President if confirmed by a majority vote in each House of Congress. SMP0328. (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I too thought that was an option but in theory, if the Vice President elect dies before the electoral college met to officially elect the President and Vice-President, couldn't the electors just vote for an other Veep... as if the electors from the winning party were all "faithless electors"? After all, unlike the succession of a President elect which is explicitly ruled by Constitutional Amendment, the succession of a Vice-President elect may have some latitude...
 * The luxury of the second option would be that the choice of a Veep would not be subject to Congress (which might be in the opposite party's control) and the choice would then be subject to whom the President is able to get confirmed. Whereas the second option would give him a blank check and would see a Veep on inauguration day. -- fdewaele, 9 September 2008, 11:50 (CET).


 * Constitutionally speaking, there is no President-elect or Vice President-elect before the Electoral College votes. So if either member of the winning ticket died, before the Electoral College voted, the electors would be free to vote for any person (other than the surviving member of that ticket) to replace the deceased person. Once the electors vote, this type of situation would be handled by what I said in my previous comment. SMP0328. (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sigh, the above scenario adds one more reason for the abolition of the Electoral College. If a President-elect is chosen through popular vote right away, then there would be not be a legal (or shall I say, constitutional) gap in presidential security from Election Day to the date of the meeting of the Electoral College members. I have one more question, can a President-elect or VP-elect resign his future job before getting inaugurated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if the Electoral College was abolished, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Twentieth Amendment would be unaffected. Presidents-elect and Vice Presidents-elect would still take office on January 20. As for your question, a President-elect could refuse to take the oath of office. If the Vice President-elect did take his oath, he would become Acting President under such a scenario. Alternatively, the President-elect could take the oath of office on January 20 and then resign. That would cause the new Vice President to succeed to the Presidency. SMP0328. (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the other way around?
What about turning the question around? Does the President-Elect fall in he line of succession--Roguebfl (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)?

Concerns about the goof during Obama's swearing in
Interestingly, the first section makes NO mention of the Oath of Office needing to be administered. Reading it straight forward, once noon hit on Jan 20, Obama replaced Bush...period, stop, end of discussion. The Oath would appear to be a mere formality...a public promise to the nation to do the job for which he was hired, not an instrument of transference of executive authority...kinda like a priest doing a wedding ceremony, when all that is REALLY need to legally marry a couple is signed approval by an authorized party...the exchange of vows and such isn't required.

As an aside...going by the first section of this Amendment...Obama actually became the 44th President during the musical quartet prior to his taking the Oath, since they were still playing at noon.


 * The Constitution states that the President MUST take the oath of office before assuming his duties as President. That could be interpreted as meaning before he does any kind of official act, like signing a bill or declaring war on the Barbary Pirates. The rest of his day on the 20th was taken up by ceremonial stuff, like the 237 Presidential Balls he had to go to, and the real work began on the 21st - long after he had re-taken the oath, in the White House, at 7:30 or so the night of the 20th, when Roberts came by and they got it right that time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But the 20th Amendment is just that...an amendment to an existing document...by definition,a change or update...in this case, more of a clarification than a wholesale change. I think the crux of any "is he or isn't he" argument is the question: does the 20th Amendment replace the necessity of the Oath being taken (which, reading the 20th by itself, would seem to imply), or does it simply clarify when the transference of office takes place without addressing when the USE of the powers of the office can begin?


 * As you said, tho...Obama had the presence of mind to redo the oath before he did anything, so in reality, botching the Oath did no damage....but some people who can't handle Obama winning will grasp at any straw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.66.3 (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Twentieth Amendment changed the dates of the start/end of the Presidential, Vice Presidential and Congressional terms. The Presidential Oath of Office must be taken by the new President before "he enter on the Execution of his Office" (i.e., he can use the Presidential powers). Nothing regarding the Twentieth Amendment suggests it was meant to modify or abolish that oath. So while President Obama became President at noon on January 20, he could not use the President powers until he took the oath. SMP0328. (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and going to Presidential balls or organizing his Oval Office desk doesn't count. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Legislative history
I'd be interested in a fuller history. For example: --Who made the original proposal? --How were the dates of 1/4 and 1/20 chosen? --Was there any opposition or debate in Congress or the legislatures? Dynzmoar (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Primary purpose
I have serious doubts about the statement that the primary purpose of the amendment was to reduce the amount of time between Election Day and the beginning of terms. Indeed, the citation provided does not support the claim. It does mention it first, but that does not mean it was the primary purpose.

I came to this article after reading a few contemporary newspaper articles in the New York Times on the amendment. In every one, it was referred to the "lame duck" amendment, and everything in those articles suggests that the purpose was to eliminate the "lame duck" session of Congress.

I am sure that reducing the time was one of the purposes, but I do not think it was the primary purpose. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 06:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed the wording so the article no longer refers to the amendment's "purpose". Instead, it simply refers to the amendment's effect. SMP0328. (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed synthesis
I have removed the following from the History section:"Notably in each historical case above, there had been a concurrent, decisive, change in the political composition of both the incoming Congress and the executive administration, brought about by a robust national debate in the just prior election. From the standpoint of democratic political theory therefore, the national election, and its outcome, had worked as intended in carrying out the process of the democratic formulation of public policy alternatives, as embodied by the people's selection of a specified group of individuals who embodied those public policy choices." That material is unsourced and appears to simply be a conclusion reached from material earlier mentioned in that section. This violates the ban on original research, specifically for being unsourced synthesis.

If reliable sourcing is added, that material can be restored to the article. Before such restoration, I recommend wording improvements. SMP0328. (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not change election day?
Congress set the date for elections as the Constitution allows it to; it could have shortened the time between elections and taking office by setting an election date in February; by the 30s travel wasn't nearly as difficult in winter as it had been before 1900. Changing election day requires no amendment to the Constitution. 4.233.194.21 (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As your question has nothing to do with improving the article, you might want to consider re-posting it at one of the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Rating errors
I've noticed that this article's Article Feedback Tool is displaying some weird average results in the 'Trustworthy' and 'Complete' sections. BCG999 Out.  (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

October 1933
If this amendment didn't take effect until October 15, 1933, then Garner wouldn't have been constitutionally able to become President on March 4, 1933 - had Roosevelt been killed in February 1933. GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Section 5 of the amendment delayed only Sections 1 and 2 from taking effect. Sections 3 and 4 took immediate effect. If President-elect Roosevelt had been assassinated, then pursuant to Section 3 Vice President-elect Garner would have become President on March 4, 1933. SMP0328. (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Before this amendment kicked in -- President at the Capitol as his term ended?
I recall hearing somewhere that the President was available at the Capitol to immediately sign last-minute legislation clearing the Congress, due the Presidential term and the Congress both ending on March 4. This was ended by this amendment, because the new Congress now starts on Jan. 3, with the terms of President & Vice President starting Jan. 20.

So did someone write (in a Wikipedia article) about the old practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

House electing President?

 * Because of this amendment, if the Electoral College fails to resolve who will be the President or Vice President, the incoming Congress, as opposed to the outgoing one, would choose who would occupy the unresolved office or offices.

I don't understand how the 20th amendment does that? Nowhere in the text does it say that that the President must be chosen after the new Congress starts its term. In fact, the 12th amendment actually states "if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President." which would suggest that it would have to be the outgoing Congress who resolves the election, since waiting the approximately one month between when the Electoral College votes and January 3 would not be "immediately". Granted, it would be preferable for the incoming Congress to choose, since allowing the outgoing Congress to choose could, if the Party in control changed, result in a very hostile relationship between the new President and the incoming Congress, but it doesn't seem to be Constitutionally sound XinaNicole (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe it was an intended result of the amendment, although not explicitly required by the amendment. SMP0328. (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean?
While this lapse was a practical necessity at the end of the 18th century, when any newly elected official might require several months to put his affairs in order and then undertake an arduous journey from his home to the national capital, it eventually had the effect of impeding the functioning of government in the modern age.

For clarification, I believe the reason for this necessity at that time but not later relates to limited technology; there were no automobiles; people rode horses. Georgia guy (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * So what part of the quoted material do you not understand? SMP0328. (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand the difference between the early days of the Presidents and today that made it so necessary back in early history for it to take 4 months. Georgia guy (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It was pretty much an accident. SMP0328. (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice - discussion related to this article
Neutral notice: There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics which may be of interest to editors of this article and its talk page. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  19:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Beginning and ending of terms" -> "beginning of terms"
I changed the "beginning and ending of terms" to "beginning of terms" in the lead because 1) the ending is immediately before the beginning, implying that the ending date is the same as or 1 day before the beginning date, depending on whether the term of office starts at midnight or not, and 2) the previous text implied that the end date for Congressional terms was March 4. Whether it was March 4 or March 3 is disputed. Rather than clutter up the lead I just removed "and ending." davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  06:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My edit was reverted, so I tagged the statement as "disputed". There is existing discussion over the end-date of Congressional terms at WT:WikiProject Politics and past and possibly-existing discussion at several pages mentioned in that discussion. Unless a consensus on the end-date develops soon, I recommend reverting to the change I made earlier today so the page isn't ugly. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  06:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You have been reverted. That was highly inappropriate since, as you well know, there is a contentious RfC regarding the March 3/March 4 issue taking place right now. One in which you are participating! For you to come here minutes after I quoted that precise content you changed, so you could discredit my argument and bolster your own, is abhorrent. No one is to make any edits to any content relating to the issue under debate until it is settled. Czoal (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have apologized here. I see you beat me to the punch and reverted my "disputed" tag before I got a chance to do so. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  07:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Until the question is settled, neither March 4 nor March 3 may be mentioned in the lede, the text of the Amendment does not mention any of these dates. Kraxler (talk) 03:10, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This article should not be brought into this dispute. This article is about what the 20A does, not what happened before the amendment's adoption. SMP0328. (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there's an "Historical background" section. The problem here is that the lede says "beginning and ending". It is undisputed that the congressional and presidential terms began on March 4. There has been, and still is, controversy about when they ended. This amendment remedied the omission, and it should be explained how it was, without taking sides. See WP:NPOV. Kraxler (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The article should definitely say the 20A dealt with the beginning and ending of Congressional, Presidential, and VP terms, as the amendment does so expressly. As for the March 3/4 issue, as long as there are RS let's show that the Constitution was silent, vague, or ambiguous in this area. SMP0328. (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Until the question is settled, neither March 4 nor March 3 may be mentioned in the lede." Actually, no, Kraxler. No changes are to be made regarding March 3/4 until the RfC is settled. Therefore, the text reverts to the way it appeared when the RfC began. Czoal (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC) 23:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC has no defined scope. Anybody can edit this article, as long as general content guidelines and policy are followed. I admit that it would be improper to exchange March 4 for March 3, or vice-versa, pending the RfC (by assuming that the RfC attempts to decide on either one), but the omission of the controversial part is absolutely in order. Kraxler (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Kraxler, no content related to the issue under debate at the current RfC is to be changed until the matter is resolved. You are the only editor in violation of this process, so please stop edit-warring. Czoal (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Czoal, I suggets you cease the ad hominem arguments and the personal attacks. Debate the issue, not the debater. Kraxler (talk) 18:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, Kraxler, was that comment about the issue or the debater? What I suggest* is that you understand that your statement of course cannot be taken seriously because it confirms your hypocrisy, based not only on that comment but also on comments from you like this gem about my alleged "rant". This also comes to mind. If you think that pointing out the fact that you are the lone editor in violation of the process is a personal attack, then you really need to educate yourself on what constitutes a personal attack. Czoal (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To ask other debaters to WP:Assume good faith and to make WP:No personal attacks is a policy statement. Kraxler (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization
An editor recently used the AWB tool to change a bunch of capitalizations in a way that hurts the article. I undid his edit. There are probably a few things that need to be lowercased but they will require case-by-case analysis.

While there is some capitalization that could be changed without controversy, there is some which clearly should be kept capitalized and some which may be debatable.


 * Note: In the "rules" listed below, I'm assuming the rules of capitalization haven't changed significantly since the 1930s, and that we can rely on the capitalization used in Amendment XX as a guide. If this is false then let me know and I'll strike everything that follows.

Cases where capitalization should be copied verbatim:
 * The text of Amendment XX should be copied verbatim from accurate transcripts.

Other cases that clearly need capitalization:
 * Any form of Congress, President, Senator, etc. which is being used in the article in substantially the same way as it is being used Amendment XX, where it is capitalized in the Amendment (other than at the start of a sentence or any other place where any word would be capitalized).

Other cases that clearly do not need capitalization:
 * Any form of those words that do not specifically apply to offices or officeholders of the federal government of the United States of America.
 * Any form of those words which is being used in the article in substantially the same way as it is being used Amendment XX, where it is NOT capitalized in the Amendment or where it clearly would not be capitalized but for the fact that it appears at the start of a sentence or or any other place where any word would be capitalized.

Other cases that may require discussion (or which may fall into one of the above categories - I'm going to plead grammatical ignorance here): — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 22:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Forms of those words which are ambiguous as to whether they are specific the United States federal government or not and which it is unimportant to make the distinction.
 * Any form of those words which is being used in the article in substantially the same way as it is being used Amendment XX, where it is capitalized because it is at the start of a sentence or any other place where any word would be capitalized, and it's unclear if the word would be capitalized but for that fact.
 * Forms of those words where they clearly apply to the federal office but the use doesn't map directly to the use in Amendment XX (this is the case where I'm unclear on the rules of grammar).


 * 1) You should read and understand the guideline at WP:JOBTITLES. I see no mention there of using a different style of capitalization when the topic of the article is a legal document that uses gratuitous capitalization (gratuitous by Wikipedia's standards, anyway). 2) You might want to avoid describing another person's careful edits as "blindly changing capitalization"; I'm sure you can understand that offense could be taken. No changes were made to any capitalization of the quoted amendment. Chris the speller   yack  03:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've the changed the thread header to avoid offense. As for policy, I believe "President" is correct because "[w]hen the correct formal title is treated as a proper name" capitalization is correct. The formal title is "President of the United States", so "President" is appropriate when used as an abbreviated version of that formal title. SMP0328. (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the guideline is clear. It does not advise capitalizing abbreviations of a title, only a "correct formal title". It says that president is a common noun. Chris the speller   yack  04:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If "President of the United States" is a proper noun, why would "President" when used to refer to that proper noun be a common noun? SMP0328. (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should ask this question on the talk page at WP:JOBTITLES. Or perhaps you should ask macmillandictionary.com why they have as an example "Clinton was elected president in 1992". To me, the guideline is clear and the dictionary is clear, so clear that I might have difficulty making it clear to you. Chris the speller   yack  05:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * According to macmilliondictionary.com a proper noun is "a noun that names a particular person, place, or thing and begins with a capital letter." Source "President" is referring to a particular thing (the office of President of the United States). The opposing view is contrary to the difference between proper and common nouns, and treats abbreviating a proper noun as a taint that relegates the proper noun down to being a common noun. SMP0328. (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

All of Chris the speller's capitalization edits were correct and should be restored. Unless it's at the start of a sentence, it's president, presidential, vice president, vice presidential, and congressional. Saying that "Any form of Congress, President, Senator, etc. which is being used in the article in substantially the same way as it is being used Amendment XX" "clearly need capitalization" is, with all due respect, ludicrous. The rules of capitalization apply in this article as they do in all other articles. Davidwr, where did you get that from? And Chris correctly made no changes to quotes directly from the amendment itself, which indicates how thoughtful he was in his edits. Czoal (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Davidwr, where did you get that from?" - I got it form the authors of Amendment XX, an assumption that they were using an accepted writing style of the time, an assumption writing styles haven't changed so much in the last 80-odd years that ignoring their style is absolutely required (contrast to an article about the original US Constitution, where the rules of writing have changed noticeably over 200+ years) [I recognize that this assumption may be flawed], and a recognition of the general Wikipedia practice of being internally consistent within a page (e.g. consistently using British or American spelling within a single page). davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  16:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The authors of the amendment had their style, and Wikipedia has its style. Nobody should expect an encyclopedia article to change its style to match quoted text when discussing that quoted text. BTW, what kind of reception did you get on the talk page of WP:JOBTITLES? Chris the speller   yack  19:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Davidwr, I was going to say almost exactly what Chris did (except for the last sentence), but he beat me to it. I'm sorry, but "I got it form the authors of Amendment XX" obviously has no merit. It would be absurd to say that articles must match the styles of the quoted content to which they're alluding. Wikipedia decides its style. Period. Czoal (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest that Davidwr self-revert since he has not presented any policy- or guideline-based reasons to support his argument against the standard rules of capitalization. Actually, I think Wikipedia is very lucky to have an editor like Chris. Based on a sampling of his 300,000-plus edits, I would consider him a resident expert on spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and related issues. What's more impressive is that he addresses concerns and objections with clear explanations and relevant policies and guidelines, when needed. Czoal (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have restored the changes to use lower case for president, vice president, etc. where they are used generically, following the specifications in WP:JOBTITLES. Chris the speller   yack  17:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Required Meeting of Congress in Absence of Special Session
The Twentieth Amendment was ratified on January 23, 1933. Section 1, changing the date for the beginning of the presidential term to January 20, would not take effect until October 15, 1933 (Section 5), so Franklin Roosevelt was inaugurated on March 4, 1933. Section 2 changed the annual meeting date of Congress to January 3. Although Section 2 did not take effect until October 15, 1933, it effectively eliminated the requirement of an annual meeting in December, 1933. So, if Franklin Roosevelt had not convened a special session to be meet on March 9, 1933, there would have been no required meeting of Congress until January 3, 1934.John Paul Parks (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Section 6
The ratification process is spelled out in the Article Five of the Constitution so why was Section 6 included in the amendment? The only reason why I can think of is to establish the seven year deadline but why did the author of the amendment feel that was necessary? It got enough to ratify it in less than a year. I think some more information should be included in the article about Section 6 if there is a reliable source that explains it. --FordGT90Concept (talk) 09:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The practice of putting the ratification time limit in an amendment's text started with the Eighteenth Amendment and continued with the Twentieth through Twenty-second Amendments. It was done out of concern that Congress might not have the authority to do so otherwise. With the Supreme Court's decision in Coleman v. Miller, ruling that the amendment process was a political question, Congress no longer had that concern and so stopped putting the time limit in the proposed amendment's text. Instead, the time limit is now in the resolution adjoining the proposed amendment. See Equal Rights Amendment for disputes regarding the current practice and District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment, an exception to the current practice. SMP0328. (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Why Was January 20 Chosen?
When I was growing up in the Washington, DC area, the apocryphal explanation for January 20 as being the day of a president's inauguration was that it was most likely to be in the middle of the "January Thaw." However, the National Weather Service page for January doesn't really show anything really interesting about that day in the period 1981-2010. My research skills aren't sufficient to learn more about this.

Bwanameister (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a good question and I at first thought it would be in the article, and of course it wasn't. A quick google search didn't turn up much that was definitive, other than the improvements in technology made it obvious that the original 4 month delay from elections to inauguration was too long.  This page offered the idea that the House and Senate both proposed different dates and January 20th was the compromise in the middle.  That would be where the answer would have to come from - minutes of the deliberations when this amendment was being created.  Ravensfire  (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Sic
The use twice of "[sic]" after the abbreviation "3d" suggests that 3d is a misspelling. It's not common today, but that doesn't make it erroneous. I'm taking the "sic"s out. Revert and discuss if you disagree. Dgndenver (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. SMP0328. (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

FYI Unknown-Tree, I undid your edit as per this discussion. If you did read this and there's a different reason why you brought the sic back, feel free to add to this discussion Rdelfin (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)