Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Should this artical 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.
-
- 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 Massachussetts 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...?
[edit] 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 realising 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 damndest thing. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 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∇∆∇∆ 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∇∆∇∆ 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] why wasn't this orginally 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 reserach 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.
