21:
53:
I imagine the only way this would be valid would be if the amendment revoked the amendment process entirely. Considering the effect this would have on the
Constitution, and the fact that it would almost necessitate the creation of a new constitution, it would seem reasonable to assume a court would
49:
Regarding the Corwin
Amendment: This would be extremely interesting in the courts, as the Supreme Court has ruled (please excuse my inability to cit a given case at the moment) that Congress cannot, by congressional enactment, limit the powers of future congresses. It would be very interesting to
122:
this article should either be deleted or merged with the article "list of proposed amendments to the united states constitution". I would recommend limited merging, and largely support deleting the "unsuccessful attempts..." article since it isnt as well organized and is largely redundant to the
112:
The U.S. Constitution was "adopted" by a convention of the states on
September 17, 1787. The document provides that it would become established as between (among) the states so ratifying upon ratification of nine states. See Article VII. The ninth state to ratify was New Hampshire -- on June 21,
31:
113:
1788. The official version of the
Constitution as published by the United States Government printing office lists June 21, 1788 as the date of "ratification" of the Constitution, even though other states obviously ratified it on later dates. Yours,
70:
73:. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes.
117:
77:
74:
27:
20:
93:
This proposed amendment was created because of the
Supreme Court's decisions finding many of the
66:
98:
50:
see if the
Supreme Court would rule in a like manner as to constitutional amendments.
114:
87:
Unlikely since it was proposed in 1924 and
Roosevelt wasn't elected until 1932.
94:
131:
There are typos on this page, some obvious misspellings and errors.
54:
deem this constitutional hari-kari, and decide it to be void.
15:
65:
For some time I have been working on revisions to the
97:
laws proposed by the
Roosevelt administration to be
134:I do not know what the accurate text should be.
71:Knowledge:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1
69:article. I finally posted it and have a PR at
8:
83:Remove statement from child labor amendment
123:information in "list of proposed...".
7:
14:
30:on 20 March 2007. The result of
19:
26:This article was nominated for
1:
118:03:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
57:Just some food for thought.
148:
78:16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
75:PedanticallySpeaking
108:Ratification date
67:Bricker Amendment
61:Bricker Amendment
42:
41:
139:
99:Unconstitutional
23:
16:
147:
146:
142:
141:
140:
138:
137:
136:
129:
110:
85:
63:
47:
12:
11:
5:
145:
143:
128:
125:
109:
106:
105:
104:
103:
102:
84:
81:
62:
59:
46:
43:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
144:
135:
132:
126:
124:
120:
119:
116:
107:
100:
96:
92:
91:
90:
89:
88:
82:
80:
79:
76:
72:
68:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
133:
130:
121:
111:
86:
64:
56:
52:
48:
35:
115:Famspear
95:New Deal
45:Untitled
28:deletion
127:Typos
36:keep
34:was
101:.
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
