Talk:Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category." |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low." |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event." |
If one deletes the actual text, they should take care to summarize its details.
- One could do a lot by just mentioning why the amendment was passed. --134.198.82.72 20:21, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- I took a crack at it - explaining why the 4-month lapse from election to beginning of term was necessary in the beginning but an impediment in the industrial age. More is needed. Ellsworth 20:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Anyone know why they still left a 2-month period between election and inauguration? Nik42 09:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The 20th Amendment itself doesn't set the 2-month period. The date of Election Day is set by statute, and Congress could move the date later if it wanted. But generally speaking, I suspect the reason there is now a 2-month gap is to allow the Electoral College time to meet, and to allow time to resolve disputed elections (e.g., the 2000 election). — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Just curious about "3rd"...
Can someone find some historical reason why it is wrote "3d" instead of "3rd", or is it just some seriously mistaken typo? -- Aerno 01:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
As no one has yet responded to your comment, I'm going to go ahead and change it to "3rd". If anyone disagrees or thinks the word "third" is more appropriate, post it here and then make the change. --70.113.79.34 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. As soon as I was about to edit it I saw this message by every 3rd on the edit page: "!-- '3d' is the spelling used in the original amend. text; please do not "correct" it to read '3rd'--." I haven't read the original text, but if someone has could you please verify this? --70.113.79.34 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
was there a different line of succession prior to this? If the president died before inauguration prior to this would the vice president not automatically have been next in line prior many don't know of very many supreme court cases!
Why is it a.k.a. the Lame-Duck Amendment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.125.241 (talk) 20:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
- In between the time of the amendment being discussed and its being the 20th Amendment, it was known as the Lame Duck Amendment. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Section 4
Does anyone know if the Congress ever passed legislation via Section 4 of the 20th Amendment that dealt with the situations mentioned in Section 4. --SMP0328. (talk) 04:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone noticed what appear to be a pair of hand-inked commas in the National Archive copy of the document in the first sentence of Section 4? They're visible when the image is viewed at full resolution. This is curious for an official document. In particular the location of the second comma doesn't make sense. Does anyone know anything about this?69.141.155.252 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Congress vs. President
It seems like this article emphasizes the presidential aspects of the act, but the congressional aspects are actually much more significant. The amendment basically gave the president an additional one and a half months of non-lame duck time, out of a term of 48 months - that's slightly more than 3% of his presidency. On the other hand, before the passage of the amendment, probably about 40% (or more) of the time congress was in session it was the lame duck session, except for the fairly small number of congresses that had three sessions (and even then it was still a much higher percentage of the time than the 43 days shaved off the president's term). I'd imagine there must be sources on this, but I suspect that the effect on congress was much more prominent in the framers of the amendment's minds than the presidential issue, although obviously both are important. john k (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
