[Cannon's Precedents, Volume 8]
[Chapter 275 - Amendments to the Constitution]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Chapter CCLXXV.\1\
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Construction of the requirement of a two-thirds vote.
Sections 3503-3505.
2. Yeas and nays not essential to passage. Sections 3506, 3507.
3. General precedents. Section 3508.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3503. The vote required for passage of a joint resolution proposing
an amendment to the Constitution is two-thirds of those voting, a
quorum being present, and not two-thirds of the entire membership.--On
May 13, 1912,\2\ the House was considering the Senate amendments to the
joint resolution (H. J. Res. 39) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution providing that Senators shall be elected by the people of
the several States.
A motion by Mr. William W. Rucker, of Missouri, that the House concur
in the Senate amendment being put, and the yeas and nays being ordered,
the yeas were 238, nays 39, answering present 5, not voting 110.
Mr. Thomas U. Sisson, of Mississippi, submitted that the
constitutional requirement had not been complied with and the motion
had not been agreed to. He cited Article V of the Constitution
providing that two-thirds of the two Houses might submit amendments to
the Constitution and took the position that under this provision more
than 260 votes would be required for affirmative action, whereas only
238 had voted in the affirmative.
The Speaker \3\ said:
Two-thirds of the House means two-thirds of a quorum.
It has been held uniformly, so far as the Chair knows, that two-
thirds of the House means two-thirds of those voting a quorum being
present.
When the phrase or collocation of words, ``the House of
Representatives,'' is used, it means a quorum of the House. If it can
do one thing with a bare quorum it can do anything; and what precedents
there are, both of the Supreme Court and of the Speaker--because Mr.
Speaker Reed rendered an opinon--held that in a situation like this
``two-thirds'' meant two-thirds of those voting, provided it was a
quorum.
By the vote just taken the House votes to recede from its
disagreement to the Senate amendment and to concur in the Senate
amendment, two-thirds having voted therefor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Supplementary to chapter CXLV.
\2\ Second session Sixty-second Congress, Record, p. 6368.
\3\ Champ Clark, of Missouri, Speaker.
Sec. 3504
3504. Proposed amendments to the Constitution may be amended by a
majority vote.--On February 24, 1931,\1\ the House had under
consideration the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 292) proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, fixing the
commencement of the terms of the President and Vice President and
Members of Congress and fixing the time of the assembling of Congress.
The sixth section of the joint resolution having been read, Mr. John
J. O'Connor, of New York, proposed an amendment changing the
requirement that at least one branch of the ratifying legislatures be
elected subsequent to the date of submission of the proposed amendment,
to a requirement that all branches should have been elected prior to
the date of submission.
The question being put by the Speaker, Mr. John C. Ketcham, of
Michigan, submitted a parliamentary inquiry as to whether the amendment
required a majority vote or a two-thirds vote for agreement.
The Speaker \2\ held that a majority vote was sufficient.
3505. A two-thirds vote is required to agree to amendments of the
other House to joint resolutions proposing amendments to the
Constitution.--On December 18, 1917,\3\ the Vice President laid before
the Senate with House amendments the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 17)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating
liquors.
Mr. Morris Sheppard, of Texas, moved that the Senate concur in the
amendments of the House.
Whereupon, Mr. William E. Borah, of Idaho, rising to a parliamentary
inquiry, asked if a two-thirds vote was required to agree to the
motion.
The Vice President \4\ replied:
That is the opinion of the Chair. It is the view of the Chair that an
amendment to a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States needs only a majority in order to be adopted; but the
resolution having once been adopted by the Senate and gone to the House
and returned here for the final action of the Senate, it is necessary
to have a two-thirds vote on the amendments of the House, for this
constitutes the final passage of the resolution.
3506. The yeas and nays are not necessarily taken on the passage of a
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.--On March 9,
1928,\5\ the House was considering the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 47)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States fixing
the time of the assembling of Congress.
Consideration having been concluded and the question being on the
passage of the joint resolution, Mr. John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut,
inquired if a yea-and-nay vote was not required on resolutions
proposing amendments to the Constitution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Seventy-first Congress, Record, p. 5906.
\2\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\3\ Second session Sixty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 477.
\4\ Thomas R. Marshall, of Indiana, Vice President.
\5\ First session Seventieth Congress, Record, p. 4430.
Sec. 3507
The Speaker \1\ said:
There is no rule which provides for a yea-and-nay vote, and the Chair
will quote from the Manual, section 224:
``The ayes and nays are not required to pass a resolution amending
the Constitution.''
The question is on the passage of the resolution.
3507. The original notice of ratification of a constitutional
amendment by a State is transmitted to the Secretary of State and a
copy to the House, where it is laid before the House by the Speaker and
filed in its archives.
On December 5, 1932,\2\ the Speaker laid before the House a
communication from the Governor of Alabama announcing the ratification
by that State of the proposed twentieth amendment to the Constitution
fixing the terms of the President, Vice President, and Members of
Congress and the time of the assembling of Congress.
Mr. Charles L. Underhill, of Massachusetts, as a parliamentary
inquiry, asked if the notice of ratification should not properly go to
the Secretary of State rather than to the House of Representatives.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The original goes to the Secretary of State and a copy comes to the
House of Representatives for its archives.
3508. The law makes no provision for notifying the States of the
submission of a constitutional amendment and a concurrent resolution
requesting the President to transmit to the States such proposed
amendments is without privilege.--On July 19, 1909,\4\ Mr. Charles L.
Bartlett, of Georgia, asked unanimous consent for the consideration of
concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 20) as follows:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That the President of the United States be, and he is, requested to
transmit forthwith to the executives of the several States of the
United States copies of the article of amendment proposed by Congress
to the State legislatures to amend the Constitution of the United
States, passed July 12, 1909, as contained in Senate joint resolution
No. 40, providing that ``the Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without
apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any
census or enumeration,'' to the end that said States may proceed to act
upon the said article of amendment; and that he request the executives
of each State that may ratify said amendment to transmit to the
Secretary of State a certified copy of such ratification.
Consent for consideration being denied, Mr. Bartlett again proposed
consideration of the concurrent resolution on June 23 \5\ and was again
refused.
On July 26, however, the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res.)
identical in language with the House concurrent resolution proposed by
Mr. Bartlett, was messaged over from the Senate and by unanimous
consent was taken from the Speaker's table and agreed to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Nicholas Longworth, of Ohio, Speaker.
\2\ Second session Seventy-second Congress, Record, p. 35.
\3\ John N. Garner, of Texas, Speaker.
\4\ First session Sixty-first Congress, Record, p. 4514.
\5\ Record, p. 4597.