That proposed amendment, was proposed but never Ratified by the states, but some people said it was, but the acceptance of that ratification was destroyed when the British Burned Washington in 1814.
It is in this list of un-ratified amendments:
http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.htmlText of the proposed amendment (last ratified by a state in 1812):
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.This proposed amendment to restrict noble tiles, , the proposed "Slavery Amendment of 1861" and the "Child Labor Amendment of 1926" and the First Article of the Bill of Rights were NEVER ratified by 2/3rds of the states AND did not have a time limit (As did the "Equal Rights Amendment of 1972".
Please note the Second Article in the Bill of Rights, proposed at the same time as the First Article of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Bill of Rights was sent to the states by Congress in 1789, it was only ratified by 2/3rds of the states in 1992. Yes, the rest of the Bill of Rights had been on the books since 1792, the second articles, restricting pay raises for congress, was NOT ratified till 1992.
Of the outstanding amendments, the First Article has no chance of being ratified, it limited the number of congressmen for a very short period of time, a period long past. The "Slavery Amendment of 1861" was an attempt to show the South that the North was willing to compromise with the South over Slavery, but when the South Seceded from the Union it died and the 13th Amendment did the exact opposite of what was proposed in 1861.
Thus the only two Amendment with any chance of being ratified by 2/3rds of the States is the Anti-nobility Amendment of 1810 and the Child Labor Amendment of 1926. The later is deemed no longer needed for the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can ban child labor without that Amendment. The Amendment was to reverse a decision of the US Supreme Court that forbade Congress from being able to ban or regulate child labor. That case was reversed in the 1930s so the push to have it ratified died with that reversal.
The Equal Rights Amendments did have a seven year time limit upon its passage, but that was extended by Congress by three years. There is a question as to Congress's ability to restrict the time for Ratification, which if more states would ratified the ERA, as it stands now, the Supreme Court may have to decide if Congress has the Authority to restrict the time period an amendment can be ratified. This has never been tested in the Courts, the closes it has come is the ratification of the 15th Amendment, the only amendment where you have a situation where States withdrew their ratification before it was finally ratified, but other states withdrew their REJECTION of the Amendment and ratified it, before it was ratified by 2/3rds of the states. The Court (Who really wanted the power of Due Process granted in the 15th) ruled that the states could NOT withdraw a ratification, but could withdraw a rejection. Thus 2/3rds of the States ratified the 15th. Some scholars reject this, but there are a clear (and very small) minority. There rationale is that if more then 1/3 of the states REJECT ratification, it can never be ratified. That is the case with the 15th, but the court ruled otherwise (Mostly because they wanted the power of being able to declare states actions unconstitutional for violating Due Process). The 15th is part of the Constitution and has been for over 140 years and no one is proposing it be stricken. The same with the ERA, the restriction as to time can be viewed as an unconstitutional restriction as to the rights of the state to ratify the ERA and thus the time limit, set by Congress, is NOT binding. The real problem is getting enough states to ratify the ERA to get to the 2/3rds number. Until then we can NOT say the ERA was ratified, once 2/3rds of the states ratify it, we get a chance at going to court and having the court accept it or reject it. While they are people on the Court who would vote against the ERA, many of those same people will have to basically say if the ERA was NOT properly ratified, what are the exact rules? and that brings up the 15th, which ALL nine members of this Court will fight to preserve.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
