Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

Old comments
Should this article be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendment_27 ?? I don't know how to suggest that - Wiggs

I just put a merger template on that article.

Since that page contained the same material as this page, I redirected that page into this page.
 * Good call. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 14:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment.

An event mentioned in this article is a May 5 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment) --

When it's one line, why remove the source text?

Seriously, what's so odd about Massachusetts not ratifying the amendment, just because they acted in a certain way *almost 200 years* earlier?? Could it just be imaginable they changed their policies over the centuries...?

Kentucky's re-ratification

 * "when the June 1792 ratification of all twelve amendments by the Kentucky General Assembly during that commonwealth's initial month of statehood later came to light, it was quickly realized that the 27th Amendment's incorporation into the Constitution was actually finalized two days earlier than previously thought [...] Possibly unaware of the ratification actions taken in 1792, Kentucky lawmakers ceremonially approved the amendment a second time, nearly 204 years later in 1996, and almost four years after the amendment had already been made part of the nation's highest legal document."

When did Kentucky's earlier ratification come to light? The passage seems to imply that it was known about by the time of Kentucky's second ratification, but that there was a possibility that no one in the Kentucky legislature was aware of this and no one bothered to point it out to them. However, "ceremonially approved" seems to suggest that they did know about it and acted only to reaffirm their existing assent to the amendment. Is this sentence saying the approval was ceremonial on purpose, or just that it was ceremonial without them realizing it, because a second ratification was unnecessary, or perhaps that it was ceremonial because the amendment had already been enacted and Kentucky's ratification was therefore irrelevant in any case? It seems implausible to me that if the initial ratification was generally known about by 1996 the Kentucky legislature would have been under the impression that they were ratifying for the first time. Is anyone able to clear up the "possibly unaware" part? Were they or weren't they? 86.139.159.146 00:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been unable to find an answer to your question, but hunting for it led me on a merry chase spanning two centuries that eventually ended up having to do only very slightly tangentially with Jack Abramoff. It's the damnedest thing. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Don W. Wilson
Who is Don W. Wilson? Also, can someone in his position add amendments to the Constitution?
 * Well, like his article says, he was the Archivist of the United States. Technically, yes, the person holding his job is the one who would add amendments -- in the sense that once the required number of state legislatures have ratified an amendment, the Archivist gets to perform the ritual of declaring the Constitution amended. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * So, why don't the papers for the other amendments have any mention of the Archivist?
 * Oh! It took me a while to figure out what you meant -- the images. Looks to me like the image of the 27th is the proclamation by the Archivist, while the one for the 26th is the proposed amendment as (I imagine) sent to the states for ratification; others seem similar. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the Archives have to fix that.
 * I think so too! --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why wasn't this originally adopted?
One of the questions I had reading this article was the reasons why some states did not accept this. Does anyone happen to know? I don't care about it enough to do the research, and I wouldn't ask someone else to research it on my behalf, but if someone knows it off the top of their head I think it would be a good addition to the article.
 * Good question and suggestion. After doing a little research, I found a source that says it was delayed due to states' rights debate. See the new section "Why wasn't it originally ratified?" I just added to the article. The cited source sounds bogus but it's actually pretty good and it points to other reputable sources. If anyone has other reasons and can document them with valid references, please add them to the article. Truthanado 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced edit hot-links?
The "edit" hot links for the first four sections "Text" ... "The first hundred years" appear in the middle of "The first hundred years" text. Anyone know how to correct this obvious formatting error? Truthanado 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a consequence of the series of graphics boxes that extend down the right side of the page. They don't play well with the way the [edit] links are added.  Deleting the graphics boxes fixes it, but that seems a bit extreme.  It seems to be a buglet in the wikipedia software.Terry Carroll 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's bug #1629 in the bugs database.Terry Carroll 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I took a stab at improving this formatting issue. I read through and tried a number of approaches in WP:BUNCH, and finally settled on using the ImageStackRight template.  It's not perfect but at least on my browser it's a big improvement.  RV me if it sucks. Terry Carroll 05:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gregory Watson's 'Rediscovery'
The article states that the amendment was 'again largely forgotten until 1982, when University of Texas at Austin student Gregory Watson rediscovered it.' Later it is stated that Wyoming ratified the amendment in 1978. I imagine that one of these dates must be incorrect, Watson's work otherwise seeming rather unremarkable. Can someone put it right?


 * I don't see the contradiction. When it was proposed along with the Bill of Rights in 1789, a bunch of states ratified it.  Then it was pretty much forgotten about.  Ohio kinda-sorta ratified it in 1873 (the legislature voted to ratify, but they apparently never transmitted the ratification to Washington), the only state to touch it in the 19th century.   Wyoming ratified it in 1978; Then, upon Watson's urging, other states got the ball rolling, starting with Maine in 1983.


 * I don't think it's a misstatement to say it was largely forgotten, when only two states had taken action on the amendment in 196 years, even if the latter was four years before Watson learned about it. It may even be that the Wyoming ratification helped bring it to Watson's attention: a fairly recent ratification of an old amendment turning up while he was researching the Equal Rights Amendment certainly could have piqued his interest.  It would have piqued mine.Terry Carroll 23:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But then you could hardly call it a "discovery", could you? 24.6.66.193 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * However according to this Watson did not learn about the amendment via the Wyoming ratification - indeed that only came to light after Maine and Colorado ratified. Instead he found it via looking at unsuccessful attempts to amend the constitution. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * See here for a document that mentions it, in 1978. The article Timrollpickering refers too talks about 1977. I looked pretty hard, but I can't find any decent source as to why exactly Wyoming ratified it, nor why it kept sleeping for another four years. FST777 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Adding states to Union ups ratification threshold?
"From 1789 to 1791, the compensation proposal was ratified by legislators in only six states—Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Delaware, Vermont and Virginia—out of the ten then required. As more states entered the Union, the ratification threshold increased. In 1873, more than 80 years after Congress offered it to the nation's state lawmakers,"

What is now "27th amendment" passed September 25, 1789, by which time 11 states had ratified the Constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_statehood At the time of execution of Article V of "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", 3/4ths of 11 is 8.25 (9?) whereby we should expect "Wyoming (March 6, 1978)" to be the final ratification required assuming this view is appropriate.

Assuming it's not appropriate, it is obviously not a clear and well understood process that can stand without citation to come court case or piece of law effecting it. The bolded section cannot stand as a matter of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.189.71 (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A proposed amendment is not adopted until it is ratified by three-fourths of the States. If a new State is added to the Union, that new State counts toward calculating what amounts to three-fourths of the States. This is required under the "equal footing doctrine". SMP0328. (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

When do pay raises actually take effect?
The article claims that pay raises take effect at the beginning of the new term, but the actual amendment text says pay raises can take effect right after an election. What (besides congressional restraint) would keep the pay raise from happening on the Wednesday following a general election? An unrestrained Congress could thus draw the higher pay rate for two more months. Co149 (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The amendment says the election must have "intervened" before the pay raise could take effect. For example, a pay raise passed in the current Congress wouldn't take effect until the next Congress. SMP0328. (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit buttons
There are a group of six edit buttons side by side in the middle of the article. Someone should fix this. I would, but I don't know how. SMP0328. (talk) 04:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Which state is #38?
The article currently says that Alabama was the thirty-eighth State to ratify, but the article's ratification list puts Michigan as the thirty-eighth to ratify. An editor insists that the ratification list should list Michigan as the thirty-eighth based on the federal government's certification in 1992. However, the discovery that revealed that Kentucky ratified this amendment in 1792 occurred after that certification. Rather than having an edit war, I would like to hear from other editors as to how this dispute should be resolved. SMP0328. (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Tcarterva has reliable sourcing for Michigan being the 38th to ratify, while I have not found reliable sourcing for Alabama being the 38th. I have heard of the claim regarding Alabama, but that is rightly not enough for Wikipedia. So I've removed the material in dispute from the article and placed it here below:"The amendment became the Constitution's Twenty-seventh Amendment when it was ratified a decade later on May 5, 1992, by the Alabama Legislature, the thirty-eighth state to do so. It was believed that the May 7, 1992, ratification by the Michigan Legislature added the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution. However, when the June 1792 ratification of all 12 amendments by the Kentucky General Assembly during that state's initial month of statehood later came to light, it was quickly realized that the Twenty-seventh Amendment's addition to the Constitution was actually finalized on May 5, 1992, by Alabama (whose legislature had acted immediately before Michigan's). In 1989, the North Carolina General Assembly re-ratified the amendment, having first adopted it two centuries earlier in 1789. Possibly unaware of the 1792 ratification, Kentucky lawmakers ceremonially approved the amendment a second time in 1996 (almost four years after the amendment had already been made part of the Constitution)." If reliable sourcing is found for this material it can be restored to the article; until then, it should only be here. SMP0328. (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have done some additional research since you posted this. Through the help of an archivist at the Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives, and a librarian at the Kentucky Law Library, I have been able to document that Kentucky did, indeed, ratify all 12 amendments on June 27, 1792. However, this did not consequently make Alabama the 38th ratifying state; rather it was Missouri. Both Alabama and Missouri ratified the amendment on May 5, 1992, but the Archivist of the United States, Don Wilson (unaware of Kentucky's action in 1792), notified Alabama that it was the 36th state to ratify it and Missouri the 37th state to do so. Push those both forward a notch because of Kentucky, and you have Missouri as the 38th state.

As I cited in my references in the article (notes 5, 6 and 7), the official record of the U.S. Government is that Michigan was the 38th ratifying state on May 7, 1992. These same sources also cite Alabama and Missouri as the 36th and 37th states, respectively. I will add back in your material to the article, but revise it to show that Missouri was the 38th state, rather than Alabama, add to the discussion and cite primary sources to document all of this. Before doing that, however, do you have any issues remaining with this to discuss? Thanks.Tcarterva (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As long as you have proper sourcing, I look forward to that material being restored. How about making a clearer distinction between the official list and what appears to be the factual list? Maybe we should place this material immediately after the list of ratifying States. SMP0328. (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good, we're in agreement. I like your idea about making a clearer distinction between the "official" and "factual" versions. I'll reference my primary source materials, so this will stick. Poor Alabama, however, still doesn't get the honors of #38, but Missouri does instead. I could see where people could get confused on this one since the two states ratified the same day, but the Archivist settled this one. Something more could come to light later, but for now it seems pretty clear.108.18.160.143 (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I still see a potential problem with this "factual" version. It sounds like this is taking information from different primary sources and putting it together in a way that reliable sources haven't.  If that is what is happening, this information is original research.  Editors are not supposed to be taking pieces of information and putting those pieces together in new ways and publishing that here in the articles.  We are supposed to be paraphrasing what others have already said.   GB  fan  02:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still a little green with Wikipedia standards, but you make a very good point. So perhaps the best approach is to keep the "reliable sources," (i.e., the sources I cited in notes 5, 6 and 7) in primary position, then describe the alternative position, citing primary sources. Do you think this would be an acceptable approach? It seems to me that it would, as it would encourage independent research, as I have done. I'm not going to rush into this, as there has been a good amount of dispute (including with Gregory Watson). I've seen your comments on earlier revisions and appreciate your assiduousness. Looking forward to everyone's comments (including Gregory Watson's, if he's watching).Tcarterva (talk) 04:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

--

I'm pretty much in favor of running with what the Archivist certified as the "official" record, but still including the note about Kentucky's ratification (with source, or at least a cite needed tag). If Gregory Watson says this happened, I think we can safely keep it in the article - remember, citation needed tags are used for good material that needs a cite, it's the suspicious material that gets removed.

In fact, I'd actually advocate changing the ratification list's split to be "states that ratified pre-certification" and "post-certification" to be crystal clear and to doge the issue of "which state was really the 38th." (So congrats to Michigan, NJ, and Illinois.) Why should we use that? Two reasons. One, it's totally verifiable and noncontroversial. Two, certification arguably matters more, anyway? Suppose a wave of Kentucky-like "we actually ratified this already" discoveries was made, and it turned out that the amendment should have been ratified in 1795. If the amendment wasn't on the books and wasn't enforced and wasn't acknowledged, it wasn't really an amendment or live law in any sense of the term. Certification and acknowledgement are what really matter. Flip side, assume that exactly enough legislatures ratified in 1992 to get to 38 states, but no more looked likely to ratify. The Archivist and Congress would have been well within their rights to do the equivalent in a normal election of triggering an automatic recount - with so many ratifications so old, they could have held off certifying until they were darn sure the amendment was live. However, the extra two-three ratifications from NJ and Illinois removed that worry from consideration, so they're arguably just as relevant as Alabama / Missouri / Michigan's. SnowFire (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @SnowFire, I think most of us are in agreement with what the Archivist (and Congress) certified as the "official" record. But to be clear about your "pre-certification" and "post-certification" lists, are you suggesting that we just relabel the titling of the lists, but otherwise leave them as-is? I think the dates are important for historical reference, and with those there's a natural ranking. You're not suggesting that we take out the language that Michigan was the 38th ratifying state that met the three-fourths requirement are you? After all, this is part of the official record. I agree that it's worthwhile putting back in the note about Kentucky, because it actually did happen, albeit without affecting the outcome. I can cite the source for this, which is from Kentucky's "Original Acts of 1792," where Kentucky ratified both the Constitution and the originally proposed twelve articles of amendment. The "Original Acts" book is in the Kentucky State Law Library, and I've read the relevant pages confirming this. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? I'd like to have a consensus before changing the article again, so that we can finalize this issue and lay it to rest. Thanks!Tcarterva (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of keeping Michigan as the 38th, yes, but changing the "gap" so that it goes 39. NJ 40. Illinois, then the explanation (and the Kentucky footnote), then the "these states ratified afterward."


 * Also, great, if we've found a source! We should definitely restore that bit to the article, then. SnowFire (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I made the changes today based on our discussion here. Thanks to all for your comments. I believe we have a more solid article now.Tcarterva (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wordiness
@SMP0328 I don't think your edits that are cutting down on "wordiness" (which is a slight to the writers) are adding anything to the article. You're not changing any facts, just wording them the way that suits you. How about giving this a rest and finally stabilize the article? Can we agree to let this stand without any minor tweaking that really adds nothing? Let the other editors' words stand unless they're wrong or use bad grammar or syntax. This is really getting annoying.108.18.164.62 (talk) 05:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No offense was intended. Wording fixes are common at Wikipedia. They are a type of minor edit. The article's current wording is fine and I have no intention of changing it. SMP0328. (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, and no offense taken. Your edits weren't bad, just a bit unnecessary in my opinion. I think we'd all just like to see this article stabilized until any new information emerges. Thanks for your contributions, and I think the community produced a very informative and solid article.Tcarterva (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Any article may be "ruthlessly edited" at any time. The edits of SMP0328 were fairly minor but did improve the flow, in my opinion. Further improvements are welcome. Jonathunder (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Interpretation
Posters to Wikipedia have stated that Congressional compensation cannot be increased during a term of service in the House of Representatives i.e. "the beginning of the next term." That's not what the 27th Amendment itself says. All it requires is that the election for the next term of the House has taken place. That means that a member's compensation CAN be raised during the "lame duck" 2 months between the election in November and the seating of the subsequent Congress on January 3. It may be the current practice not to raise the compensation until seating the new Congress just elected, but such a delay is not constitutionally mandated. I object to the text as is for it implies a delay not actually required by the Amendment itself. 71.106.211.51 (talk) 07:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The amendment says a law changing how much Congress members are paid takes effect no sooner from when "an election of Representatives shall have intervened". The word "intervened" in this case means has an effect on the Congress (not merely that it has taken place). A Congressional election doesn't officially effect the Congress until the winners of it start their new terms in office. That's why the amendment delays a such a law from taking effect until the next Congress. SMP0328. (talk) 15:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

27th Amendment never been ratified?
11 states were states at the time that the 27th amendment was proposed in the Federal Congress. Arguably, only the votes of those states' legislatures would be effective to ratify the Amendment. (See my comment in 'United States Bill of Rights'). If so, they needed 3/4's of those specific state legislatures' votes, or 8.25 states, so they must round up to 9. This article states that three legislatures, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New York, never ratified the 27 amendment. 11-9 is 2, so with 3 non-ratifying states, the 27th is not yet ratified. Even if they claim it is. In principle, this means that at any time in the last 220 years, it would only have taken the votes of one of those states, PA, MA, or NY, to have ratified the amendment. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not the accepted interpretation of Article V. All that is needed for a proposed amendment to be adopted is for at least three-fourths of the States at that moment to have ratified the proposal at any time before that moment and after the Congress had submitted the proposal for ratification. SMP0328. (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read my comment on 'United States Bill of Rights' talk page. At that moment is nowhere defined in the U.S. Constitution. In 1939, I believe it was discovered that the entire Bill of Rights had not been properly ratified, which led to the new ratifications by three of the states which were states at the time the Bill of Rights had been originally proposed in the U.S. Congress. If you still doubt, explain why suddenly, almost 150 years after the last state-legislature vote had (seemingly) ratified the BOR, three specific states ratified when it appeared there was no need to do so. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Virginia's ratification of the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791, resulted in 11 of the then-14 States having ratified the Bill of Rights, thereby putting it into the Constitution. The 1939 ratifications were symbolic acts. Here's a source for more details. SMP0328. (talk) 23:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you've merely re-stated your assertions. Your first sentence claims that "11 of the then 14 states" ratified, which effectively just repeats the assertion that it's the number of states at the time of ratification that counts. You've provided no source for that assertion at all. You then assert that the 1939 ratifications were "symbolic acts". Which, of course, was probably the story they put out in 1939. You cannot explain why those specific three 1939 ratifications included ONLY and ALL of the states which had been states at the time of Congress' proposal of what has come to be known as the 27th amendment. Whereas, my assertion (that it's the number of ratifications of states were states at the time of Congress' vote) is consistent with the idea that it was discovered in 1939 that there was a vote missing, and that's why those three states (and only those three states) which occurred in 1939: None occurred after 1939, and none between 1795 and prior to 1939. I will check your cite, but I think the facts are clear. The meaning of those 1939 votes can be misrepresented, but their existence does not lie. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's get something clear. The burden is on you to prove that the Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution until 1939. Since December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights has been considered to be part of the Constitution. You are claiming that belief was wrong until some time in 1939. Such a radical theory must be proven by the party advocating it. So let's see some reliable sources for your theory. SMP0328. (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. I need merely cite the dates on which the BOR was ratified, and the dates on which the various states doing that ratification were admitted to the Union.  At that point, I need merely point out that there is a residual question about which states were supposed to be part of the ratification process:  I assert it's those which were states at the time of Congress' proposal; you assert it's the states which were states at the time of the eventual alleged ratification.  Does the Constitution say which?  Seemingly not.  Looking solely at the way it was declared that the BOR was ratified, a person might conclude your claim is proper.  But, if that were truly correct, there would have been no reason for any state to ratify the BOR in 1939, or in fact any date after 1791.  It's certainly true that states can ratify Constitutional amendment long after it becomes law, I am well aware of that, but in the specific case of 1939 it's obvious that the only states which ratified the BOR were exactly those that were states at the time BOR was voted by Congress.  Coincidence?  I don't think so!  I would only have the 'burden of proof' if I were asserting that my idea should be portrayed by this Wikipedia article as being "the only truth!".  I'm not.  I'm merely saying that my idea is consistent with the facts (dates, states, etc), and is inconsistent only with commonly-accepted wisdom.  ("Conventional wisdom").  And, I think you need to explain those 1939 ratifications, beyond merely saying they were "symbolic".  This article has a POV problem to the extent that it portrays only the conclusion which support your idea, and doesn't address an alternate idea, one which is consistent with the facts as well.  To its credit, this article does indeed cite the case of Kentucky, which has recently been discovered to have ratified the 27th amendment on June 27, 1792.  In other words, the article acknowledges that the previously-widely-accepted 'fact' (that Kentucky hadn't ratified the 27th amendment as of May 7, 1992) was actually NOT a 'fact' in reality. Indeed, it says that: "Nonetheless, the federal government's official record still holds that Michigan was the 38th state to ratify the amendment".  In other words, the article asserts that the Federal government's position is WRONG on this point. It is simply saying that there is a dispute.   I think it's fair for me to assert that this article should at least acknowledge the existence of a dispute as to whether it is a 'fact' that later-admitted states' votes ought to be counted in the amendment process.  In the absence of sources to prove that false, my position has a proper role in this article.  Otherwise, there is a "POV problem".   Jamesdbell8 (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jamesdbell8: It appears that you are doing original research and coming up with a theory (if I'm understanding you correctly) that the 27th Amendment has not been ratified.

First, whether the 27th Amendment has been ratified is a question of law. Under the U.S. legal system, the certification by the U.S. Secretary of State (in the olden days) and now, I believe, by the Archivist of the United States at the National Archives and Records Administration, that a particular amendment has been ratified by the requisite number of states is legally conclusive, as a general rule. It's not a question of you or I or anyone else coming up with our own legal theories. The only way to determine whether the Amendment was not ratified would be to somehow challenge it in a U.S. federal court. And if that happens, the person challenging the ratification will lose. Period.

Second, presenting your own original research is not the proper way to argue your point on an article talk page, just as it would not be proper for you to use that research in the article itself. Instead, look for reliable, previously published third party sources, and go with what those sources say. Famspear (talk) 04:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: If I'm understanding you correctly, Jamesdbell8, you're arguing that the Bill of Rights was not ratified until 1939. That would be a completely erroneous theory, from a legal standpoint. And the purpose of this talk page is not to debate that anyway. The same points that I made regarding the 27th Amendment argument would also apply here: The kind of original research you're describing is not appropriate for the point I think you're trying to make, and your analysis is incorrect as a matter of law. Yours, Famspear (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That's quite incorrect. It's not 'original research', it's merely paying attention to the dates of the various states admissions to the Union, and the dates they purportedly ratified the BOR. I am doing no more than the rest of the article does, citing asserted 'facts' of which some may be in dispute. Further, I will quote some material on the WWW, which takes the opposite conclusion, but it's a conclusion they came to in 1999: See below Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Quote from: http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html
 * "If to become part of the Constitution an amendment required only the number of ratifications that were required when it was first submitted to the states, the constitutional history of the United States would be very different.(132) The Congressional Apportionment Amendment, the original First Amendment, received ten ratifications; it would be part of the Constitution.(133) Similarly, the Twenty-seventh Amendment would not have become part of the Constitution in 1992 when it received its thirty- eighth ratification, but rather in 1983 when it received its ninth ratification.(134) Further, if only states that were eligible to vote on an amendment when it was submitted to the states are ever eligible to vote on that amendment, the constitutional history of the United States would be even more dramatically different. Only eight of the eleven states operating under the Constitution when the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states voted to ratify it in the eighteenth century; if states admitted later were not eligible to ratify it, then the Bill of Rights did not become part of the Constitution until 1939, when Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ceremonially ratified the first ten amendments,(135) marking the 150th anniversary of their drafting. Not even the most extreme of extremists appears to have put forward such a claim." [end of long quote from  http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html] Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Notice that this quote above simply asserts that that the number of states needed for ratification is 3/4s of those states at the time of that ratification, without providing any proof of this claim. I can make the opposite assertion from the same 'facts'. That means there is a dispute, and the Wikipedia "NPOV" rule says that the articles are not supposed to take one position over another. Saying "[my] analysis is incorrect as a matter of law" is simply coming to the conclusion I'm wrong. Well, I could say that I came to the conclusion that YOU are wrong. Does that solve anything? Let's find a source which can actually show why one position is correct, and another is not. The quote I cited above doesn't cut it, so there's still a dispute. See what WP says below, "Encyclopedic content must be VERIFIABLE". The position taken by the article is indeed "conventional wisdom", but that doesn't make it verifiable. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, "paying attention to the dates of the various states admissions to the Union" is meaningless without a legal theory presuming that the date of admission matters. Since the entire country operates under the theory that all amendments have been properly ratified, it is a decidedly fringe position to assert the opposite, and reporting such a proposition without reliable sources would be giving it undue weight. bd2412  T 05:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, James, what I am saying is correct. The material you're presenting is based on your original research -- as that term is used in Wikipedia's guidelines -- and from a legal standpoint, it is also incorrect research.


 * Under the U.S. legal system, the general rule is that once an amendment has been declared ratified by the applicable officer, that's the end of the matter. The legal concept is related to a doctrine called the enrolled bill rule. I won't go into the details at this time.


 * James, I suspect that you believe you've "discovered" something. It appears you believe that you've "discovered" that the 27th Amendment was not ratified. You're wrong.


 * People have litigated issues regarding the supposed non-ratification of various constitutional amendments many, many times. The Supreme Court decisions that relate to this include Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892); Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922); and Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). There are also many court of appeals decisions on the subject.


 * The idea that any of the twenty-seven amendments has not been ratified is legally frivolous. For purposes of Wikipedia, it is a fringe position. It has no legal merit. Famspear (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "Incorrect research"? Now, that's FUNNY! Please explain how a mere (true) statement that the U.S. Constitution does not define how to compute the number (and identity) of state legislatures necessary to ratify a U.S. Constitutional amendment would constitute "research", and let alone "incorrect research". (It's just reading the document!) Most lawyers, and quite possibly any lawyer, would concede that fact. (Some might say it is 'implied', of course; others would agree it's ambiguous.) You also falsely claimed that I believed that the 27th amendment hadn't been ratified. Well, for me to have come to that conclusion, I would have had to check which states were states at the time of that amendment's proposal, and find out if 3/4s of those states had ratified that amendment at any point. That isn't difficult, but I haven't done that work yet. Wouldn't it be odd, though, if that veritable flood of ratifications in the 1980's and 1990's DIDN'T include enough ratifications from states that were states when the 27th was proposed, but hadn't ratified in the 1700s or 1800's? As if they'd intentionally avoided such ratifications? (No, I don't intend to include such a speculation on their intent.) BTW, I just looked for a WP page on the subject of "fringe position" and I couldn't find one. If any aspect of WP's policies were dependent on the concept of "fringe position", I would expect to be able to read about the definition of that term. However, I do see a WP article on "UFO" (unidentified flying object). My understanding about "UFO's" is that belief in their existence is pretty much a 'fringe position', by the common meaning of the words. Evidently, WP finds it appropriate to include some 'fringe positions' within its pages, huh? Is there a "NPOV, except if it's a 'fringe position'" policy in WP that I haven't noticed? Jamesdbell8 (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, "UFO" means "unidentified flying object", so of course UFO's exist, since not all flying objects can be identified. With respect to the proposition that some of these objects are spacecraft from other planets, that is a view shared by at least tens of millions of people, which has been the subject of hundreds of books, scholarly articles, TV documentaries, and countless depictions in film and literature. The phenomenon of belief in such things is therefore a widespread and well-document subject for encyclopedic coverage. Furthermore, the existence of UFOs is not exactly a question on which a court can make a determination, is it? Interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, however, is expressly delegated to the courts, which have never accepted the rule that you propose for ratification of amendments. Has there ever been a case examining the ratification of the Twenty-seventh Amendment? I know of none, but I do know that the ratification of other amendments has been challenged, and these challenges have failed. bd2412  T 16:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear James: No, I did not falsely claim that you believe that the 27th amendment was not ratified. My understanding is that you began this discussion by proposing the theory that the 27th amendment had not been ratified. Famspear (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * James, I recommend that you read up on the Equal Footing Doctrine. It precludes your theory regarding State ratifications. Any new State enters the Union with the same Constitutional authority as all other States. So a new State has as much authority to ratify a proposed Constitutional amendment as the States that were in the Union at the time the Congress submitted that proposal for ratification. SMP0328. (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If that were the case, then even once an amendment were ratified, subsequently-admitted states could, by failing or refusing to ratify a seemingly-previously-adopted amendment, "un"-ratify the amendment. Indeed, consider the Bill of Rights:  Maybe 11 states ratified, but except for 3 in 1939, only 14 of 50 states have (so far) ratified the BOR, far less than 3/4's.  If that's not the case that they can "un-ratify", then please explain why THAT'S not a violation of the "Equal Footing Doctrine"!  The answer is simple:  The "Equal Footing Doctrine" does not mean, and never meant, what you claim it means.  Being admitted into the Union does not automatically re-open all previously addressed issues, and one of them has to do with proposal and ratification of Constitutional amendments.  Another example would be treaties with foreign governments:  New states don't have a 'say'.  Another example is passed-laws. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * New states are admitted under the Constitution as it then exists - otherwise, even Article I would need to be re-ratified by every newly admitted state, or it would cease to have effect and Congress itself would become unconstitutional. The law does not allow for absurd results like that. You are therefore correct in stating that "being admitted into the Union does not automatically re-open all previously addressed issues"; but the ratification of amendments sent to the states by Congress does not need to be "re-opened" because, unless the amendment itself contains a time limit for its ratification, it is already an open issue, and continues to be one. This is how ratification has been treated since the very first new states were admitted. Given the 200+ year history of things being done this way, and accepted by Congress, the courts, the states, and the people as properly having been done this way, it would take some pretty extraordinary evidence to show that all such ratifications have been legally inoperative. bd2412  T 22:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to see http://www.thirdamendment.com/missing.html   Stanley I Evans makes the assertions, and I hope to get specific documentation very soon.  Quote from his rebuttal to Jol Silversmith:
 * "In 1816, a letter from James Monroe to General Winder, made it clear that he (James Monroe) was unsure if the newer states would need to be included in the voting process. The record is painfully clear that the 15th Congress, the President, the Secretary of State, and all of the governments of the several states were in agreement that only 13 ratification’s from the original 17 states, that existed in the union in 1810, when the proposal left Congress, were needed for adoption of the law."
 * "The newer states were not asked for their legislative position on the proposal."
 * "The newer states did not protest this position."
 * "All of the newer states published Article XIII as having been lawfully adopted."
 * "Even states that had rejected the amendment like New York, Conn. and Rhode Island published it as having been lawfully adopted from 1821 to 1827."
 * "As you know Mr. Silversmith. The introduction of the need for Louisiana and the newer states to have been included in the vote was made a part of the federal records in 1940. All records prior to that date, to include the federal governments own records of 1911, confirmed and held that the adoption of the amendment only required 13 votes from the 17 states in the union in 1810."
 * "This constitutes 128 years of legal precedence. Your opinion and assertion that the newer states should have been included, fly’s in the face of this legal precedence and infers that all of our politicians and government leaders from 1810 to 1827 were inept at interpreting and applying Constitutional law and federal procedures of that time." [end of quotation from Stanley I Evans.]
 * It at least sounds like Mr. Evans can show that prior to 1940, there was a different policy in place about 'new' states ratifying pending amendments. Rather than you merely asserting that "Given the 200+ year history of things being done this way..." you should at least consider the possibility that things were done 'that way' only from 1789 to 1939, and something did indeed happen to change that practice. I don't consider the matter proven, until I see some more documentation. If you can demonstrate that indeed this practice has been done for 220+ years, I will be happy to read your material as well. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should I care about what some crackpot says in an unpublished rebuttal to a published article? The Jol A. Silversmith article referenced here itself has references to 200 sources in support of its contentions. Where are the sources contradicting those? bd2412  T 02:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got an idea: Print out those two documents, and weigh each stack. The one that weighs the most, you believe. Hint: When Albert Einstein published his 1905 scientific paper on Special Relativity, he only cited a single other paper, an astonishingly low number. Nevertheless, he was right. Jamesdbell8 (talk) 05:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The weight of the documents is irrelevant, obviously. As for Einstein, he wasn't believed simply because of his 1905 paper. He did much more research and provided a greater amount of proof before Special Relativity or any of his other theories were accepted. SMP0328. (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Assumptions present in article page
In the section, "First Hundred Years", there is a statement that "As more states entered the Union, the ratification threshold increased." This statement contains an assumption that as new states were added to the Union, the number of states necessary to ratify a constitutional amendment increases based on the increased number, and not the number present at the time of Congress' 2/3's ratification vote. If this assumption is correct, it needs to be documented by facts and not merely a bare assertion. 71.214.84.152 (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Source added. SMP0328. (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's certainly a very interesting, and very partisan, source. But it arguably contains the seeds of its own downfall by including the following text:  " Only eight of the eleven states operating under the Constitution when the Bill of Rights was submitted to the states voted to ratify it in the eighteenth century; if states admitted later were not eligible to ratify it, then the Bill of Rights did not become part of the Constitution until 1939, when Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ceremonially ratified the first ten amendments,(135) marking the 150th anniversary of their drafting. Not even the most extreme of extremists appears to have put forward such a claim."  It is reasonable to ask the question:  "Why did Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts even bother to ratify the BOR over about a one month period in early 1939, if it was already ratified in 1791?".   Of course, if the idea that the number of states necessary for ratification increased as more states are added, then the discovery in 1939 that the BOR hadn't been ratified would have led to the conclusion that actual ratification would have required (at that time) 3/4's of 48 states, and not merely one extra state, let alone three.  The reference to "not even the most extreme of extremeists appears..." seems to be a somewhat embarrassed attempt to marginalize what ought to be a simple Occam's-razor-type counter-explanation:  That in 1939, scholars were embarrassed to discover that the BOR hadn't actually been ratified, and they sought a belated solution.  Evidently they didn't believe 36 ratifications were necessary; in fact they must have believed that only 1 ratification was necessary:  The ratification of one of the three states which had been states at the time of Congress' vote for the BOR.  I think that sources other than this one should be consulted.  Frysay (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason for the spate of 1939 ratifications was a few states realizing, "Holy crap, the 150th anniversary of the Bill of Rights is coming up, and we've been holdouts for almost 150 years and look really bad." It was all about ceremony, not about legal effect.  TJRC (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yours is an interesting yet fully-concocted reason. If that were a valid reason, then there were another 37 states to which that reasoning would have equally applied in 1939.  Yet, none of them seem to have added THEIR ratifications at that time. (Your "explanation" doesn't even attempt to explain, for example, why the three states which ratified in 1939 just happened to be the ONLY three states which had been states at the time of the proposal of the BOR in Congress in 1789.)   Indeed, no other states ratified the BOR subsequent to about 1791, prior to 1939, or subsequent to 1939.  What about the 50th anniversary, in 1839?  What about the 100th anniversary, in 1889 ? What about the 200th anniversary, in 1989?  Do you see why a person could find your explanation laughable? Please go back and try to do better.  If there's a valid reason, perhaps you'll find it.  Frysay (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This Google search may help you. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sell-by date
I came across this:
 * "Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."

It makes me wonder if the ratification here isn't tainted or unconstitutional or something, since it wasn't done within the 7yr limit. Is it? TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  02:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Such a provision is in the Eighteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-first, and Twenty-second Amendments. It's also in the rejected District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Since Coleman v. Miller (1939), such a provision is not necessary for Congress to impose a time limit on a particular amendment's ratification. However, there is no time limit if Congress does not impose one. Before the Eighteenth Amendment, Congress did not impose time limits on any proposed amendment. There was no time limit on the Twenty-seventh Amendment's ratification and so it was validly adopted, even though its ratification took over two-hundred years to be completed. SMP0328. (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thx for that, & for the quick response. :D  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  03:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. SMP0328. (talk) 03:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Nebraska
Can someone who knows what they're doing update the colored U.S. map, showing which states and when they ratified, to include Nebraska? This same page states Nebraska ratified the amendment on 1 April 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.235.71.153 (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that it was April Fool's Day made me skeptical, but I checked the reference and it appears to be correct. Jonathunder (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Political questions, etc.
The text contains this statement:


 * In Coleman, the Supreme Court further ruled that the ratification of a constitutional amendment is political in nature—and so not a matter properly assigned to the judiciary.

Another user added the following commentary to that statement:


 * Such a view is inconsistent with the pronouncement in Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court declared "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). The notion that the Supreme Court is without authority to determine whether a proposed amendment has been validly ratified negates the idea that the Court is the final arbiter of the Constitution.  If the Court is without authority to determine the content of the Constitution, how can it possess final authority to determine its meaning?

I deleted the added material. The quote from Marbury v. Madison is correct. And, the editor's argument has some logic to it. However, under the rule on No Original Research, I believe that Wikipedia editors should not insert this kind of unsourced opinion into articles. Instead, look for places where a reliable, previously published third party source has made this argument. Famspear (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good call. TJRC (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Receiving a 'C' grade on his paper
A normative judgment on the intrinsic merits of the idea should not be the basis for a good or bad grade --- it's how you argue for it that decides the academic quality of your essay or dissertation. (In the case at hand, that judgment also turned out to be erroneous, but that is by the by.) Either the text here oversimplifies what transpired, or the nameless "instructor" acted with a certain lack of professionalism (or, perhaps, it is deemed acceptable at this university that academics' political views determine grades; there are US universities where this is definitely the case, but I did not think UoT was one of them). In any event, this ought to be clarified.137.205.183.31 (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's something Watson frequently points out. It may be relevant in an article about him, but I'm not sure it's at all relevant here. Jonathunder (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's in the article because it motivated him to get the amendment ratified, so it is relevant in discussing the amendment's background. SMP0328. (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's worth including either, but I don't feel so strongly that I'd delete it. Watson used to exhibit ownership of this article, but seems to have backed off in recent years, and always kept it. I wouldn't object to its deletion; I think that would strengthen the article. But, again, I don't feel that strongly about it. TJRC (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My view differs a bit on that. I think it's the sort of thing any magazine article about the topic would include, since it adds a bit of color to the story – even though we only seem to have one person's self-serving perspective on that. Someone studying the topic would probably want to know about the story and might feel a bit cheated if it were left out – even though if they're smart they'll know that the full context is probably missing. Maybe the grade was well-justified – we don't really know. It's certainly possible to be right about something and still write a not-very-good paper about it. Note that the cited Post-Gazette article doesn't say the grade was for being "unrealistic" – it says "she said I had not convinced her the amendment was still pending". Maybe the paper was written unconvincingly, and the student on the receiving end of that grade responded the way all professors hope they would – by taking the negative feedback to heart as a learning experience to motivate them to do a better job in the future. Maybe the paper had other flaws too – that comment was described as only a remembered verbal remark, not something recorded as a written justification for the grade. The only information that we have about it probably comes directly or indirectly from Watson himself.
 * I don't have a copy of the other source that is cited – Frantzich, Stephen E. (2008). It would be interesting to know whether it really supports what the article says ("an instructor who regarded Watson's idea 'unrealistic) – since the Post-Gazette article does not.
 * Let's test my theory – do most of the lengthy in-depth accounts of the topic that are written for general broad readership mention that 'C' grade? What percentage of them don't?
 * —BarrelProof (talk) 19:06, 11 August 2016 (UTC)