[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 17, Chapters 34 - 40]
[Ch. 34. Constitutional Amendments]
[C. Senate Consideration; House-Senate Relations]
[Â§ 6. Senate Consideration]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 42-45]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
            C. Senate Consideration; House-Senate Relations
 
Sec. 6. Senate Consideration


    In the Senate, as in the House, although only a simple majority 
vote is required to amend a joint resolution proposing a constitutional 
amendment, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage. The 
Senate has converted, by amendment, a legislative joint resolution into 
a proposed constitutional amendment (such a resulting joint resolution 
requiring a two-thirds vote for passage). In addition, the Senate has 
entertained, to a joint resolution proposing a constitutional 
amendment, amendments to achieve a legislative purpose 
instead.                          -------------------

Vote Required for Passage

Sec. 6.1 The vote required in the Senate for passage of a joint 
    resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution is two-thirds 
    of those present and voting, a quorum being present, and not two-
    thirds of the total membership.

    The vote required in the Senate is the same as that required in the 
House,(1) as the proceedings of Feb. 26, 1869,(2) 
illustrate. On that day, the Senate concluded consideration of a 
conference report on a joint resolution proposing a constitutional 
amendment regarding suffrage. The proceedings relating to the 
announcement of the outcome of the vote were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See Sec. 5.1, supra.
 2. 41 Cong. Globe 1641, 1642, 40th Cong. 3d Sess. This precedent is 
        also carried at 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The PRESIDENT pro tempore.(3) The question is on 
    concurring in the report of the committee; and on this question the 
    yeas and nays must be called.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Benjamin F. Wade (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The question being taken by yeas and nays resulted--yeas 39, 
    nays 13; as follows: . . .
        The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this question the yeas are 39, 
    and the nays are 13. Two thirds of the Senators present having 
    voted in the affirmative, the report is agreed to.
        Mr. [George H.] WILLIAMS [of Oregon] obtained the floor.
        Mr. [Garrett] DAVIS [of Kentucky]. I rise to a question of 
    order. I ask the Chair what the number of votes was announced to 
    be.
        The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas were 39, and the nays were 
    13; being two thirds.
        Mr. DAVIS. The question of order that I make is that the 
    decision of this question has not been announced by the Chair 
    according to the Constitution. The Chair has announced that

[[Page 43]]

    the proposition has received the vote of two thirds of the Senate, 
    and therefore that it has passed. I controvert that fact. There are 
    now thirty-seven States in the Union. They are entitled to seventy-
    four members of the Senate.
        Mr. [James W.] NYE [of Nevada]. The honorable Senator will 
    allow me to correct him. The Chair did not make the announcement 
    that the honorable Senator says he did. He said it received two 
    thirds of the votes of all the members present. That was the 
    announcement by the Chair. . . .
        The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair desires the Senator to 
    understand what the Chair said in the announcement of the vote. It 
    was that two thirds of the Senators present had voted in the 
    affirmative. That is the way in which it was announced by the 
    Chair.
        Mr. DAVIS. But then the conclusion was--
        The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That the report was concurred in.
        Mr. DAVIS. That is just as I understood it. Now, the conclusion 
    does not follow the vote which the Chair announced, because the 
    Senate consists of seventy-four members, and to constitute two 
    thirds of the Senate a vote of fifty is necessary. My point of 
    order is, that when a less number than two thirds of the Senate is 
    required by the Constitution for any purpose, for instance to 
    ratify a treaty or to confirm a nomination, the Constitution 
    expressly says that it shall be two thirds of the members present. 
    In voting upon a proposition to amend the Constitution, the 
    Constitution does not limit the number of two thirds by reciting 
    that it is two thirds of the members present. . . .
        Mr. [Lyman] TRUMBULL [of Illinois]. If the Chair will indulge 
    me a moment, this very point was raised in regard to a 
    constitutional amendment some years ago, and the Senate decided by 
    a vote, almost unanimously, that two thirds of the Senators present 
    were sufficient to carry a constitutional amendment. I think that 
    the Presiding Officer upon reflection will recollect it. It was the 
    constitutional amendment that was proposed before the war. I myself 
    made the point for the purpose of having it decided, and it was 
    decided, I think by a nearly unanimous vote, that two thirds of the 
    Senators present, a quorum being present, was sufficient to carry a 
    constitutional amendment. . . .
        Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask for a decision on the question of order.
        The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I believe it has been decided 
    according to all the precedents. . . .

Vote Required to Amend Joint Resolution

Sec. 6.2 In the Senate, when a joint resolution proposing an amendment 
    to the Constitution is under consideration, an amendment to the 
    joint resolution is adopted by a majority vote.

    On Oct. 2, 1970,(1) the Presiding Officer of the 
Senate,(2) in response to parliamentary inquiries, advised 
the Senate of the vote required to adopt amendments, or

[[Page 44]]

amendments thereto, to joint resolutions proposing constitutional 
amendments. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 34755, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
 2. Clifford P. Hansen (WY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. [Howard H.] BAKER [Jr., of Tennessee]. A further 
    parliamentary inquiry.
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
        Mr. BAKER. Do I correctly understand that the amendment in the 
    nature of a substitute now proposed by the distinguished Senator 
    from North Carolina could be adopted as a substitute by a simple 
    majority vote, and not require a two-thirds vote?
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is right.
        Mr. BAKER. And by that same token, a new substitute to the 
    resolution itself, striking the amendment in the nature of a 
    substitute, could also be adopted by a majority vote?
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. Any amendment to the substitute of the 
    pending resolution could be adopted by a simple majority vote.

Vote Required When Joint Resolution Proposing Legislation is Pending

Sec. 6.3 In the Senate, a joint resolution that is legislative in 
    nature may be amended by majority vote to convert the joint 
    resolution into one proposing an amendment to the Constitution. 
    Upon adoption of such an amendment, a two-thirds vote is required 
    for passage of the joint resolution.

    On Mar. 27, 1962,(1) when the Senate was considering 
Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing a national monument, Mr. Spessard 
L. Holland, of Florida, offered an amendment that would propose a 
constitutional amendment instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 110 Cong. Rec. 5072-106, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

         the alexander hamilton national monument -- amendment to the 
                      constitution dealing with poll taxes

        The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. 
    Res. 29) providing for the establishing of the former dwelling 
    house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.
        Mr. [Mike] MANSFIELD [of Montana]. Mr. President, what is the 
    pending question?
        The VICE PRESIDENT.(2) The question is on agreeing 
    to the amendment of the Senator from Florida [Mr. Holland], 
    striking out all after the resolving clause, as amended, of Senate 
    Joint Resolution 29, and inserting in lieu thereof certain other 
    words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Lyndon B. Johnson (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Mr. MANSFIELD. This is a proposed constitutional amendment 
    seeking to abolish the poll tax in the several States, is it?

    Before putting the question to the Senate on a point of order 
against the Holland amendment based on constitutional grounds,

[[Page 45]]

the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning the vote 
required to adopt the Holland amendment.

        Mr. [Carl T.] CURTIS [of Nebraska]. If the resolution were to 
    be amended by the Holland amendment, it has been stated it would 
    require a two-thirds vote for passage. My question is, Will it 
    require a two-thirds vote to adopt the Holland amendment to Senate 
    Joint Resolution 29?
        The VICE PRESIDENT. Only a majority vote is required in acting 
    upon an amendment.

    After the Senate tabled the point of order and the Holland 
amendment was adopted, the Senate voted on passage of the amended joint 
resolution.

        The PRESIDING OFFICER.(3) The joint resolution 
    having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? On 
    this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk 
    will call the roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. Lee Metcalf (MT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Chief Clerk called the roll. . . .
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two-thirds of the Senators present and 
    voting having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution is 
    passed.

Yeas and Nays Not Required

Sec. 6.4 The yeas and nays are not required in the Senate on the 
    question of passing a joint resolution proposing an amendment to 
    the Constitution.

    On June 27, 2006,(1) the Senate ordered the yeas and 
nays on Senate Joint Resolution 12, proposing an amendment to the 
Constitution regarding physical desecration of the flag, as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 152 Cong. Rec. 12654, 109th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The PRESIDING OFFICER.(2) The question is on the 
    engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. Lamar Alexander (TN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third 
    reading and was read the third time.
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read 
    the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution, as 
    amended, pass?
        Mr. [Orrin G.] HATCH [of Utah]. I ask for the yeas and nays.
        The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
        There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
        The yeas and nays were ordered.