Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Twenty-seventh 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."

Contents

[edit] Old comments

Should this article 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 Massachusetts 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 realizing 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)
    • I think the Archives have to fix that.

[edit] Why wasn't this originally 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 research 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.

Good question and suggestion. After doing a little research, I found a source that says it was delayed due to states' rights debate. See the new section "Why wasn't it originally ratified?" I just added to the article. The cited source sounds bogus but it's actually pretty good and it points to other reputable sources. If anyone has other reasons and can document them with valid references, please add them to the article. Truthanado 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misplaced edit hot-links?

The "edit" hot links for the first four sections "Text" ... "The first hundred years" appear in the middle of "The first hundred years" text. Anyone know how to correct this obvious formatting error? Truthanado 23:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a consequence of the series of graphics boxes that extend down the right side of the page. They don't play well with the way the [edit] links are added. Deleting the graphics boxes fixes it, but that seems a bit extreme. It seems to be a buglet in the wikipedia software.Terry Carroll 19:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it's bug #1629 in the bugs database.Terry Carroll 19:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I took a stab at improving this formatting issue. I read through and tried a number of approaches in WP:BUNCH, and finally settled on using the ImageStackRight template. It's not perfect but at least on my browser it's a big improvement. RV me if it sucks. Terry Carroll 05:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gregory Watson's 'Rediscovery'

The article states that the amendment was 'again largely forgotten until 1982, when University of Texas at Austin student Gregory Watson rediscovered it.' Later it is stated that Wyoming ratified the amendment in 1978. I imagine that one of these dates must be incorrect, Watson's work otherwise seeming rather unremarkable. Can someone put it right?

I don't see the contradiction. When it was proposed along with the Bill of Rights in 1789, a bunch of states ratified it. Then it was pretty much forgotten about. Ohio kinda-sorta ratified it in 1873 (the legislature voted to ratify, but they apparently never transmitted the ratification to Washington), the only state to touch it in the 19th century. Wyoming ratified it in 1978; Then, upon Watson's urging, other states got the ball rolling, starting with Maine in 1983.
I don't think it's a misstatement to say it was largely forgotten, when only two states had taken action on the amendment in 196 years, even if the latter was four years before Watson learned about it. It may even be that the Wyoming ratification helped bring it to Watson's attention: a fairly recent ratification of an old amendment turning up while he was researching the Equal Rights Amendment certainly could have piqued his interest. It would have piqued mine.Terry Carroll 23:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
But then you could hardly call it a "discovery", could you? 24.6.66.193 (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)