[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 17, Chapters 34 - 40]
[Ch. 34. Constitutional Amendments]
[D. Ratification]
[Â§ 12. Time Limits on Ratification]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[Page 56-60]
 
                               CHAPTER 34
 
                       Constitutional Amendments
 
                            D. Ratification
 
Sec. 12. Time Limits on Ratification

    Beginning with what became the 18th Amendment, Congress has 
generally imposed a time limit on the period for State ratification of 
a proposed amendment. The customary time limit is seven years from the 
date of the submission of the proposed amendment to the States by 
Congress. Initially, these time limitations were made part of the text 
of the proposed amendment.(1) In recent practice, the 
limitation has been made part of the text of the joint resolution 
preceding the text of the proposed amendment, rather than part of the 
text of the amendment. In one case, a simple majority in both Houses 
extended the limitation when it was contained in the joint resolution 
rather than the amendment itself.(2) In the case of the 27th 
Amendment, the ratification of which spanned an unusually long 
interval, each House of Congress separately declared the amendment duly 
ratified.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See, e.g., U. S. Const. amend. 18 Sec. 3.
 2. See Sec. 12.3, infra.
 3. See Sec. 12.4, infra.                          -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.1 A proposed amendment to the Constitution may contain a limit 
    on the period for State ratification.

    The 18th Amendment was submitted to the States with the following 
limitation on ratification:

        Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall 
    have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the 
    legislatures of the several States, as provided in the 
    Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission 
    hereof to the States by the Congress.

Sec. 12.2 Congress may include a limitation on the time for State 
    ratification of a proposed amendment to the Constitution in the 
    joint resolution proposing the amendment rather than in the body of 
    the amendment itself.

    Rather than including a period for State ratification in the text 
of a proposed constitutional amendment itself, Congress may set forth 
such a limitation in the text of the joint resolution proposing such 
amendment. An example of this form of limitation on a ratification 
period was included in Senate Joint Resolution 7 of the 92d Congress, 
which was considered by the House on Mar. 23, 1971,(1) and 
which became the 26th

[[Page 57]]

Amendment. That resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. See 117 Cong. Rec. 7570, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  S.J. Res. 7

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each 
    House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed 
    as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which 
    shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the 
    Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of 
    the several States within seven years from the date of its 
    submission by the Congress:

                                 ``Article ----

            ``Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, 
        who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be 
        denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on 
        account of age.
            ``Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this 
        article by appropriate legislation.

Sec. 12.3 The House by majority vote passed a joint resolution 
    extending the ratification period for a constitutional amendment 
    previously submitted to the States.

    A proposed constitutional amendment regarding equal rights on 
account of sex was submitted to the States on Mar. 22, 
1972,(1) upon the passage by the Senate of House Joint 
Resolution 208 of the 92d Congress by the requisite two-thirds 
majority. That joint resolution included in its text a seven-year 
ratification limitation preceding the text of the proposed amendment. 
The text of the joint resolution was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. 118 Cong. Rec. 9598, 92d Cong. 2d Sess. The House had passed the 
        joint resolution by the requisite two-thirds majority and 
        transmitted it to the Senate on Oct. 12, 1971. 117 Cong. Rec. 
        35815, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 H.J. Res. 208

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each 
    House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed 
    as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which 
    shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the 
    Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of 
    the several States within seven years from the date of its 
    submission by the Congress:

                                 ``Article ----

            ``Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be 
        denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on 
        account of sex.
            ``Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by 
        appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
            ``Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after 
        the date of ratification.''

    During 1978, with the ratification deadline for the proposed 
amendment approaching and with

[[Page 58]]

fewer than the requisite number of States having ratified the proposed 
amendment, Congress considered various proposals to extend the 
ratification period. On Aug. 15, 1978,(2) the House 
considered a joint resolution to extend(3) the ratification 
period. Before the joint resolution was considered, the House 
considered, and laid on the table, a resolution considered as a 
question of the privileges of the House declaring that a two-thirds 
vote was necessary to pass the joint resolution extending the 
ratification period. The House then passed the joint resolution by 
majority vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 2. 124 Cong. Rec. 26203, 26204, 26239, 26265, 95th Cong. 2d Sess.
 3. Parliamentarian's Note: Rule XIII clause 3 (the Ramseyer Rule), 
        does not apply to a joint resolution extending the period for 
        State ratification when the joint resolution does not 
        specifically, by amendment, change the text of the ratification 
        deadline in the joint resolution by which Congress submitted 
        the amendment to the States but rather extends the period by a 
        superseding provision. Id. at p. 26204.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proceedings were as follows:

        Mr. [James] QUILLEN [of Tennessee]. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a 
    question of the privileges of the House and offer a privileged 
    resolution (H. Res. 1315) involving a question of the privileges of 
    the House, and I ask for its immediate consideration.

    After holding that the resolution did present a question of the 
privileges of the House under Rule IX,(4) the Speaker, 
Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr., of Massachusetts, directed the Clerk to report 
the resolution. The resolution was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 4. House Rules and Manual Sec. 698 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  H. Res. 1315

            Whereas H.J. Res. 638 of this Congress amends H.J. Res. 208 
        of the 92nd Congress, proposing an amendment to the 
        Constitution;
            Whereas H.J. Res. 208 of the 92nd Congress was passed by an 
        affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Members present and 
        voting, as required by Article V of the Constitution, and 
        submitted for ratification on March 22, 1972;
            Whereas the integrity of the process by which the House 
        considers changes to H.J. Res. 208 of the 92nd Congress would 
        be violated if H.J. Res. 638 were passed by a simple majority 
        of the Members present and voting;
            Whereas the constitutional prerogatives of the House to 
        propose amendments to the Constitution and to impose necessary 
        conditions thereto in accordance with Article V of the 
        Constitution would be abrogated if H.J. Res. 638 were passed by 
        a simple majority of the Members present and voting;
            Resolved, That an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the 
        Members present and voting, a quorum being present, shall be 
        required on final passage of H.J. Res. 638.

    The privileged resolution was laid on the table. The House then 
resolved itself into the Committee

[[Page 59]]

of the Whole to consider House Joint Resolution 638. The joint 
resolution read as follows:(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 5. 124 Cong. Rec. 26239, 95th Cong. 2d Sess., Aug. 15, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
    United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
    notwithstanding any provision of House Joint Resolution 208 of the 
    Ninety-second Congress, second session, to the contrary, the 
    article of amendment proposed to the States in such joint 
    resolution shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of 
    the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths 
    of the several States within fourteen years from the date of the 
    submission by the Congress to the States of such proposed article 
    of amendment.

    After debate and adoption of an amendment striking the matter 
beginning ``within fourteen years'' and all that follows and inserting 
``not later than June 30, 1982.'', the House passed the joint 
resolution by a simple majority vote.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 6. After passage by the Senate, the joint resolution was signed by the 
        President but not assigned a public law number. Upon receipt of 
        the joint resolution, the Archivist notified the States of its 
        passage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 12.4 The House adopted a concurrent resolution declaring the 
    ratification of a constitutional amendment.

    On Sept. 25, 1789,(1) the First Congress submitted to 
the States for ratification 12 proposed amendments. Of those 12, 10 
were ratified by Dec. 15, 1791,(2) and became the Bill of 
Rights. These amendments were proposed without a deadline for 
ratification, and the remaining two remained pending before the States. 
In May of 1992, one of those proposed amendments, to limit the power of 
Congress to increase the salaries of its Members, was ratified by the 
38th State (the number of States needed to constitute ratification by 
the requisite three-fourths of the States) and on May 18, 1992, was 
declared by the Archivist of the United States to have been ratified. 
In light of the unprecedented period of time between submission of the 
amendment to the States and the ratification by the final State 
necessary for adoption of the amendment, and in order to quell 
speculation over the efficacy of a ratification process spanning two 
centuries, the House adopted(3) a concurrent 
resolution(4) declaring the ratification of the amendment. 
The concurrent resolution read as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 1. S. Jour. Vol. 1, p. 88, 1st Cong. 1st Sess.
 2. See Sec. 10.1, supra.
 3. 138 Cong. Rec. 12051, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., May 20, 1992. The 
        concurrent resolution was debated on the preceding day, May 19, 
        1992, Id. at pp. 11779-85.
 4. The concurrent resolution was considered under suspension of the 
        rules. The House had previously considered by unanimous consent 
        a similar measure declaring the 14th Amendment ratified. See H. 
        Jour. 1126, 1127, 40th Cong. 2d Sess., July 21, 1868.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 60]]

                                H. Con. Res. 320

        Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 
    concurring), That Congress declares that the proposed article of 
    amendment providing as follows:

            ``No law, varying the compensation for the services of the 
        Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an 
        election of Representatives shall have intervened.''
    has been ratified by a sufficient number of the States and has 
    become a part of the Constitution.

    On the same day, the Senate adopted both a simple and a concurrent 
resolution to the same effect.(3) Neither body acted on the 
measure of the other.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 3. S. Res. 298 and S. Con. Res. 120 at 138 Cong. Rec. 11869, 11870, 
        102d Cong. 2d Sess., May 20, 1992. The Senate adopted the two 
        resolutions by a single, en bloc vote of 99-0. Earlier, the 
        Senate had adopted a resolution requesting the Archivist to 
        transmit to the Senate a list of States having ratified the 
        amendment. S. Res. 295, at 138 Cong. Rec. 11010, 102d Cong. 2d 
        Sess., May 12, 1992.
 4. For Supreme Court decisions relevant to the ratification process 
        generally, see Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) 
        (ratification must be within a reasonable time after proposal); 
        Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) (efficacy of State 
        ratification of proposed amendments is a political question 
        upon which Congress must make the final determination).
                   DESCHLER-BROWN-JOHNSON PRECEDENTS
Ch. 34 

[[Page 61]]