[Deschler-Brown Precedents, Volume 17, Chapters 34 - 40]
[Ch. 34. Constitutional Amendments]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[Page 1]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
[[Page 1]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary and editing by Wm. Holmes Brown, J.D., Ethan Lauer,
J.D., Robert W. Cover, J.D., and Andrew S. Neal, J.D.; manuscript
editing by Deborah Woodard Khalili.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Introduction
Sec. 1. In General
Sec. 2. Form of Action
B. House Consideration
Sec. 3. Committee Jurisdiction
Sec. 4. Procedures for Floor Consideration
Sec. 5. Voting
C. Senate Consideration; House-Senate Relations
Sec. 6. Senate Consideration
Sec. 7. Conference Reports
Sec. 8. Amendments Between the Houses
D. Ratification
Sec. 9. Generally; Certification and Publication
Sec. 10. Submission to the States; Records of Ratification
Sec. 11. State Consent; Withdrawal and Rescission of Withdrawal
Sec. 12. Time Limits on Ratification
[[Page 3]]
[Page 3]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
A. Introduction
Sec. 1. In General
Article V of the Constitution provides as follows:
``The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,
shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one
or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; . .
.''
It is thus that the Constitution provides the methods by which that
governing document may be amended.
Although States have from time to time submitted memorials
requesting a constitutional convention for the purpose of discussing
amendments on specified subject matters,(1) no convention
has been held under Article V. This chapter therefore focuses on
precedents regarding proposed constitutional amendments originating in
the Congress.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See, e.g. , 147 Cong. Rec. 6129, 107th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 24,
2001. Some States have submitted memorials rescinding prior
applications for conventions. See, e.g. , 149 Cong. Rec. 11131,
108th Cong. 1st Sess., May 9, 2003 (memorial from Arizona
rescinding all of the State's previous calls for a
constitutional convention); 135 Cong. Rec. 19782, 101st Cong.
1st Sess., Sept. 7, 1989 (memorial from Alabama rescinding a
previous call for a constitutional convention to propose an
amendment requiring that Federal spending not exceed estimated
Federal revenues). See also 145 Cong. Rec. 18782, 106th Cong.
1st Sess., July 30, 1999 (memorial from Oregon urging Congress
to disregard calls for a constitutional convention on the
subject of a balanced Federal budget out of concern that such a
convention might intrude into other constitutional revisions).
2. For discussion in the House on the method of amending the
Constitution by convention, see 76 Cong. Rec. 124-134, 72d
Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 7, 1932. See also hearing of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary,
Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
to Provide a Procedure by which the States may Propose
Constitutional Amendments, Mar. 25, 1998 (regarding H.J. Res.
84, 105th Congress).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 4]]
[Page 4]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
A. Introduction
Sec. 2. Form of Action
Proposals originating in the Congress for amendments to the
Constitution are made in the form of joint resolutions, which have
their several readings and, if passed by both Houses, are enrolled and
signed by the presiding officers of the two Houses but are not
presented to the President for approval.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 191 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The form of the resolving clause for such a joint resolution is as
follows:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each
House concurring therein),
This adheres to the form for the resolving clause for all joint
resolutions(2) with the addition of the parenthetical phrase
relating to the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds margin in
each House for passage of such a joint resolution, which has been
included in all joint resolutions proposing constitutional amendments
that have been ratified.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 1 USC Sec. 102.
3. See, e.g., H.J. Res. 27 of the 80th Congress, which became the 22d
Amendment, the resolving clause of which is set out at 93 Cong.
Rec. 863, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Feb. 6, 1947; S.J. Res 39 of
the 86th Congress, which became the 23d Amendment, the
resolving clause of which is set out at 106 Cong. Rec. 1257,
86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 14, 1960; S.J. Res. 29 of the 87th
Congress, which became the 24th Amendment, the resolving clause
of which is set out at 108 Cong. Rec. 17655, 87th Cong. 2d
Sess., Aug. 27, 1962; S.J. Res. 1 of the 89th Congress, which
became the 25th Amendment, the resolving clause of which is set
out at 111 Cong. Rec. 7969, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13,
1965; and S.J. Res. 7 of the 92d Congress, which became the
26th Amendment, the resolving clause of which is set out at 111
Cong. Rec. 7570, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 23, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 5]]
[Page 5-6]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
B. House Consideration
Sec. 3. Committee Jurisdiction
Under Rule X clause 1,(1) jurisdiction in the House of
Representatives over joint resolutions proposing amendments to the
Constitution is vested in the Committee on the Judiciary. That
jurisdiction was established by the amendments to the standing rules of
the House made by the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946.(2) Before the revisions to House committee
jurisdiction made by that law, other committees had exercised
jurisdiction over joint resolutions proposing amendments to the
Constitution,(3) and the House on occasion had changed the
referral of such a resolution from another committee to the Committee
on the Judiciary.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 729 (2007).
2. 60 Stat. 812, 818, ch. 753, Aug. 2, 1946.
3. See Sec. 3.1, infra. See also 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4247 (former
Committee on Labor reported a resolution in 1884 proposing an
amendment to the Constitution limiting the hours of labor).
4. In 1900, and again in 1932, the House, by unanimous consent,
rereferred a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution addressing taxation from the Committee on Ways and
Means to the Committee on the Judiciary. See 4 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 4056; 7 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 1780.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent practice, jurisdiction in the House over joint
resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution has been vested
solely in the Committee on the Judiciary.(5) That committee
also has jurisdiction over memorials from States either requesting the
calling of a constitutional convention or for the rescinding of such a
request.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 3.2, infra.
6. See examples in footnote 1 of Sec. 1, supra.
-------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.1 Proposed amendment regarding elections and terms of office
referred to former Committee on Election of the President, Vice
President, and Representatives in Congress.
On Mar. 29, 1933,(1) the Speaker referred to the
Committee on
[[Page 6]]
Election of the President, Vice President, and Representatives in
Congress a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution
relating to the election of the President and Vice President. That
committee reported the joint resolution to the House with an amendment
on June 13, 1933.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. H. Jour. p. 122 (1933). The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946
abolished the Committee on Election of the President, Vice
President, and Representatives in Congress and vested the
jurisdiction of that committee in the new Committee on House
Administration. 60 Stat. 812, 818, ch. 753, Aug. 2, 1946.
2. H.J. Res. 136 of the 73d Congress. See H. Jour. p. 421 (1933).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 3.2 In recent practice, all joint resolutions proposing amendments
to the Constitution have been referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 reduced the number of
standing committees of the House from 48 to 19 and consolidated and
further delineated their jurisdiction. In so doing, the House made
express the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary over the
subject matter of constitutional amendments.
Before 1946, Rule XI [now Rule X] read, in relevant part, as
follows:
powers and duties of committees.
All proposed legislation shall be referred to the committees
named in the preceding rule, as follows, viz, subjects relating . .
.
4. To judicial proceedings, civil and criminal law--to the
Committee on the Judiciary.(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. Sec. 675, 680 (1945).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the House Rules and Manual (1945), the annotations to that rule
included the following: ``The committee [on the Judiciary] also has
general but not exclusive jurisdiction over joint resolutions proposing
amendments to the Constitution.''(2) Thus it was that most
but not all joint resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution
were referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at Sec. 680. See also 4 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 4056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 121(b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of
1946(3) amended Rule XI [now Rule X] to read, in relevant
part, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 60 Stat. 812, 818, ch. 753 (Aug. 2, 1946).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powers and Duties of Committees
(1) All proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials,
and other matters relating to the subjects listed under the
standing committees named below shall be referred to such
committees, respectively . . .
(l) Committee on the Judiciary.
1. Judicial Proceedings, civil and criminal, generally.
2. Constitutional amendments.
3. Federal courts and judges.
Parliamentarian's Note: The practice since the enactment of the
Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 has been to recognize sole
jurisdiction in the Committee on the Judiciary over matters relating to
amendments to the Constitution, regardless of the subject matter of a
proposed amendment.
[[Page 7]]
[Page 7-39]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
B. House Consideration
Sec. 4. Procedures for Floor Consideration
The House has used a number of procedures to consider joint
resolutions proposing amendments to the Constitution. Most of the
procedures used for any other variety of legislative measure have been
used, but special conditions have been applied in some circumstances.
The House has considered joint resolutions proposing amendments to
the Constitution--
(1) under suspension of the rules (under Rule XV clause
1),(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. House Rules and Manual Sec. 885 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) under a special order-of-business resolution reported from the
Committee on Rules (pursuant to Rule XIII clause 6(a)),(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at Sec. 857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) pursuant to a motion to discharge the Committee on the
Judiciary from further consideration of the joint resolution (pursuant
to Rule XV clause 2),(3) and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Id. at Sec. 892.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) under a special order-of-business resolution from which the
Committee on Rules has been discharged (pursuant to Rule XV clause
2).(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Ibid. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suspension of the Rules
Sec. 4.1 The joint resolution proposing the amendment to the
Constitution that became the 24th Amendment (abolishing the poll
tax) was considered by the House under suspension of the rules.
On Aug. 27, 1962,(1) after the Journal had been read in
full and four quorum calls had been completed or dispensed with by roll
call votes, Emanuel Celler, of New York, chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, moved that the House suspend the rules and pass a Senate
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. The motion
and related debate, particularly concerning the propriety of the use of
a motion for suspension of the rules for consideration of such a joint
resolution, were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 108 Cong. Rec. 17654-70, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Emanuel] CELLER [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to
qualifications of electors.
Mr. [Thomas Gerstle] ABERNETHY [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, a
point of order.
The SPEAKER.(2) The gentleman will state his point
of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 8]]
Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that this
is District Day, that there are District bills on the calendar, and
as a member of the Committee on the District of Columbia I
respectfully demand recognition so that these bills may be
considered.
Mr. [Carl] ALBERT [of Oklahoma].(3) Mr. Speaker, may
I be heard on the point of order?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Representative Albert was the Majority Leader.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER. The Chair is prepared to rule, but the gentleman
may be heard.
Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent, suspensions were
transferred to this day, and under the rules the Speaker has power
of recognition at his own discretion.
Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I respectfully call the attention
of the chairman to clause 8, rule XXIV, page 432 of the House
Manual, which reads as follows; and I respectfully submit it is a
mandatory rule:
The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the
disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the
disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires
reference only, shall, when claimed by the Committee on the
District of Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of
such business as may be presented by said committee.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that rule is clear that when the time is
claimed and the opportunity is claimed the Chair shall permit those
bills to be considered.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit my point of order
is well taken, and that I should be permitted to call up bills
which are now pending on the calendar from the Committee on the
District of Columbia.
Mr. [Howard W.] SMITH of Virginia.(4) Mr. Speaker, I
should like to be heard on this point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Representative Smith was chairman of the Committee on Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER. The Chair will hear the gentleman.
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House on
some things are very clear, and the rules of the House either mean
something or they do not mean anything.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Abernethy],
has just called the Chair's attention to clause 8 of Rule XXIV.
Nothing could be more clear; nothing could be more mandatory. I
want to repeat it because I hope the Chair will not fall into an
error on this proposition:
The second and fourth Mondays in each month, after the
disposition of motions to discharge committees and after the
disposal of such business on the Speaker's table as requires
reference only--
And that is all; that is all that you can consider--disposition
of motions to discharge committees--
and after the disposal of such business on the Speaker's table
as requires reference only--
That is all that the Chair is permitted to consider.
Mr. Speaker, after that is done the day--
[[Page 9]]
shall, when claimed by the Committee on the District of
Columbia, be set apart for the consideration of such business
as may be presented by said committee.
Mr. Speaker, I know the majority leader bases his defense upon
the theory that the House having given unanimous consent to hear
suspensions on this Monday instead of last Monday when they should
have been heard-- and I doubt if very many Members were here when
that consent order was made and I am quite sure that a great number
of them had no notice that it was going to be made, and certainly I
did not--now the majority leader undertakes to say that having
gotten unanimous consent to consider this motion on this day to
suspend the rules, therefore, it gives the Speaker carte blanche
authority to do away with the rule which gives first consideration
to District of Columbia matters.
Mr. Speaker, there was no waiver of the rule on the District of
Columbia. That consent did not dispose or dispense with the
business on the District of Columbia day. The rule is completely
mandatory. The rule says that on the second and fourth Mondays, if
the District of Columbia claims the time, that the Speaker shall
recognize them for such dispositions as they desire to call.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is prepared to rule.
Several days ago on August 14 unanimous consent was obtained to
transfer consideration of business under suspension of the rules on
Monday last until today. That does not prohibit the consideration
of a privileged motion and a motion to suspend the rules today is a
privileged motion. The matter is within the discretion of the Chair
as to the matter of recognition.
The Chair overrules the point of order.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Parliamentarian's Note: When more than one Member seeks to call up
privileged business, it is within the discretion of the Speaker
as to which of those Members the Chair recognizes. District of
Columbia business was privileged under Rule XXIV clause 8 [now
Rule XV clause 4, House Rules and Manual Sec. 894 (2007)]. The
motion to suspend the rules was equally privileged pursuant to
a unanimous-consent agreement making suspensions in order on
that day [now in order on certain days under Rule XV clause 1,
House Rules and Manual Sec. 885 (2007)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the resolution (S.J. Res. 29) as follows:
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
hereby 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 only if 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 to
vote in a primary or other election for President or Vice
President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for
Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or any
[[Page 10]]
State by reason of failing to pay any poll tax or other tax.
``Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation.'' . . .
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Celler] is
recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. CELLER. . . .
I regret that this constitutional amendment is brought up under
suspension of the rules with only 40 minutes of debate. I applied
for a rule. A rule was not forthcoming. A discharge petition was
filed but not processed. Such a petition is rarely used and has its
attendant difficulties if not embarrassments. Hence the suspension
of the rules. . . .
Mr. [John V.] LINDSAY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I am very much
opposed to poll taxes, and therefore I will vote for this bill, but
I do so with a heavy heart.
This is probably the greatest piece of political gamesmanship
that has come to the floor of the House in the 87th Congress. . . .
First of all, this is a fantastic procedure under which to amend
the Constitution--an up or down vote, no amendments permitted, no
motion to recommit possible, a total of 40 minutes of debate. . . .
The leadership on the majority side who are running this show,
Mr. Speaker, ought to be proud of themselves for handing us this
dish of tea. Under this kind of gag procedure they casually and
cynically tinker with the U.S. Constitution, for political reasons,
to get off the hook on civil rights. . . .
Mr. SMITH of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, 4 minutes; 4 minutes. I
have been here a long time. I hope the walls of this Hall will
never ring with the kind of a farce that has been put on here
today, with the Constitution of the United States to be amended,
when no one can offer an objection or an amendment to it, when no
one can raise his voice in extended debate, but 20 minutes for it
and 20 minutes supposedly against it. It is unprecedented in the
annals of this Government for an amendment to the Constitution, no
matter how insignificant it may be, to be considered under this
procedure.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Parliamentarian's Note: A joint resolution proposing an amendment
to the Constitution had been considered by the House under a
motion to suspend the rules on at least one previous occasion.
See 76 Cong. Rec. 7, 12, 13, 72d Cong. 2d Sess., Dec. 5, 1932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
. . . [T]his resolution could have been brought up here in the
regular way. Some of you will remember that just 18 months ago the
leadership of this House packed the Committee on Rules so that they
would have a majority vote on it. They could have gotten it out of
the Committee on Rules with a majority vote if they wanted to do it
in the democratic way and permit the House to vote on it. Yet, this
House is going to vote for this extraordinary situation, and they
are going to do it under political pressure to please a minority
group. . . .
Mr. HALLECK. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into any
controversy with any of my colleagues, but I just want it clearly
stated for the record and understood that today is the regular day
for considering legislation under suspension of the rules under the
arrangement made last Monday;
[[Page 11]]
and so far as suspensions are concerned, it was within the province
of the Speaker and the majority leadership to schedule them, and
that is what has been done. . . .
Mr. [Seymour] HALPERN [of New York]. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I would much prefer that the poll tax be outlawed
by statute rather than by amendment to the Constitution, as this
House has authorized five times previously. There is a big question
as to the effectiveness of going the amendment route--obtaining
approval of three-fourths of the State legislatures is a long,
difficult, and tedious process, to say the least.
We are now, however, faced with no other alternative under the
rule and the circumstances here today but to support this
constitutional amendment. Despite the question of the effectiveness
of this method, I definitely shall support this Senate joint
resolution. . . .
Mr. [Byron Giles] ROGERS of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret
that the gentleman from Virginia should say that we were placed
under a gag rule, that we could not present the matter to the House
so that this constitutional proposal could be amended. I want to
direct attention to and read a letter from the gentleman from
Virginia, addressed to the chairman of our committee, which reads
as follows:
House of Representatives, U.S.,
Committee on Rules
Washington, D.C., June 15, 1962.
Hon. Emanuel Celler,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House Office Building, Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This will acknowledge your letter of June 14
requesting that the Committee on Rules schedule a hearing on Senate
Joint Resolution 29, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States relating to qualifications of electors.
I shall endeavor to schedule a hearing on this measure at the
earliest possible time and shall be glad to advise you when a date
has been set.
Sincerely,
Howard W. Smith,
Chairman.
If the gentleman from Virginia and others are interested and do
not want the Constitution amended, or us to have an opportunity to
say how it should be amended, why did he not, upon the request of
the chairman of this committee grant a rule so that we could come
in here and discuss it in every particular? . . .
Mr. ABERNETHY. . . .
There are resolutions and bills which may be properly and
satisfactorily considered under a time limitation of 40 minutes as
the rule under which we are now operating provides. There are
resolutions and bills of such simple character that amendments
thereto would be unworthy. But, Mr. Speaker, indeed a resolution
which has the effect of changing, altering, amending, defacing, or
whatever you may call it, the Constitution of our great country
should never be submitted to and swept through this House in such a
ruthless and tornado-like fashion. What a terrible precedent. . . .
Mr. John Bell WILLIAMS [of Mississippi]. Mr. Speaker, this is a
sad day for those who believe in constitutional government. It is a
sadder day
[[Page 12]]
for those who believe in representative government and those who
have had faith in the House of Representatives and its historical
tradition of justice.
Under the current suspension procedure which we are operating
today, we are considering a far-reaching amendment to the
Constitution in only 40 minutes.
The U.S. Constitution will be 175 years old on September 17.
During that time, the Congress and the respective States have
amended it only 23 times. Nevertheless, the leadership of this
body, in the New Frontier tradition of running roughshod over those
who disagree, has taken the unusual step of limiting debate on such
a historical step to less than an hour. What will future
generations think of such behavior? . . .
Mr. [Joseph P.] ADDABBO [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of Senate Joint Resolution 29, a constitutional amendment
to abolish the poll tax.
Although I believe a serious question involving an amendment to
the Constitution should be brought up under the regular order of
the House and sufficient time be given for debate and amendment, to
fully protect the rights of all voters. It is our responsibility
when such process is stopped by the power of one man and a small
minority to take this action to protect the right of all qualified
to vote, even though under present laws only a few may be denied
this right because of a poll tax. . . .
The SPEAKER. The time of the gentleman from Colorado has
expired; all time has expired.
The question is, Will the House suspend the rules and pass the
resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 29?
Mr. ABERNETHY. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 294, nays 86,
answered ``present'' 1, not voting 54, as follows:
[Roll No. 202] . . .
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the rules were
suspended and the joint resolution was passed.
Sec. 4.2 When the House considered a joint resolution proposing a
constitutional amendment under a motion to suspend the rules, a
Member objected to various unanimous-consent requests associated
with such consideration (namely, to revise and extend remarks).
On Nov. 15, 1983,(1) as the House was considering under
a motion to suspend the rules a joint resolution proposing an amendment
to the Constitution, Mr. Robert S. Walker, of Pennsylvania, objected to
a request of the manager of the joint resolution for unanimous consent
to revise and extend his remarks and announced his intention to object
to all similar unanimous-consent requests for the duration of the
debate on that measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 129 Cong. Rec. 32668, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings were as follows:
[[Page 13]]
Mr. [Peter W.] RODINO [of New Jersey]. Mr. Speaker, I move to
suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
relative to equal rights for men and women.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.J. Res. 1
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of
both Houses concurring therein), That the following article is
proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States of America, 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.
``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce,
by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
``Section 3. This article shall take effect two years after
the date of ratification.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(2) Pursuant to the rule, a
second is not required on this motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. James C. Wright, Jr. (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) will be recognized
for 20 minutes and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner)
will be recognized for 20 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Rodino).
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania
reserves the right to object.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object, because
a process was determined here and the process says that there is
going to be 20 minutes for the entire case to be made. There are
many of us in this House who feel that that was not an appropriate
kind of a decision to be made.
So therefore, I am reserving the right to object to tell the
Members that I am going to object to all unanimous-consent
requests, both to revise and extend remarks, as well as for the
purpose of getting general leave, so that the entire debate on this
matter will take place on the Democratic side within the 20 minutes
allotted.
Mr. Speaker, I do object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
Despite Mr. Walker's announced intent to object to all such
requests, the Speaker himself was granted leave to revise and extend
his remarks made from the floor during debate,(3) and other
Members obtained individual permission to insert remarks in the debate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 129 Cong. Rec. 32675, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 14]]
Mr. RODINO. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the
distinguished Speaker of the House, the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. O'Neill).
(Mr. O'Neill asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. [Thomas P.] O'NEILL, [Jr., of Massachusetts]. I rise in
support of the resolution. . . .
Later the same day,(4) after debate had concluded and
the House had moved on to other business, Mr. Leon E. Panetta, of
California, obtained, by unanimous consent, general leave for all
Members to revise and extend their remarks on the joint resolution:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Id. at p. 32719.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. PANETTA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their
remarks on House Joint Resolution 1.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(5) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from California?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Ronald Coleman (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was no objection.
Still later the same day, the order obtained by Rep. Panetta was
vacated by unanimous consent at the request of Rep.
Walker:(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 129 Cong. Rec. 32746, 98th Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 15, 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
motionzgarding House Joint Resolution 1 made by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Panetta) be vacated.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Special Rule
Sec. 4.3 The House may consider a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution pursuant to a special order-of-
business resolution reported by the Committee on Rules, and such an
order-of-business resolution may provide for an amendment in the
nature of a substitute to the joint resolution to be considered in
the House.
On June 3, 2003,(1) the House considered, pursuant to a
special rule, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution addressing physical desecration of the flag. The
proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 149 Cong. Rec. 13492, 13497, 108th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [John] LINDER [of Georgia]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 255 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
[[Page 15]]
H. Res. 255
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to
consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 4)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration
of the flag of the United States. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) two hours of debate on the joint resolution equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) an amendment in
the nature of a substitute offered by Representative Conyers of
Michigan or his designee, which shall be considered as read and
shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent;(2) and
(3) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Parliamentarian's Note: The rule did not specify the text of the
amendment permitted under the rule, nor did it waive any points
of order against the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(3) The gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Lee Terry (NE).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LINDER. . . .
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 255 is a modified closed rule
that provides for the consideration of H.J. Resolution 4,
legislation proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical
desecration of the American flag.
This rule provides for 2 hours of debate in the House, equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member
of the Committee on the Judiciary. House Resolution 255 waives all
points of order against consideration of the joint resolution.
It makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
if offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) or his
designee, which shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally
divided between the proponent and an opponent.
Finally, this rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move
the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The House proceeded to consider the joint resolution and, after
rejecting the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered
by a designee of Mr. Conyers, passed the joint resolution by a
vote of 300-125. 149 Cong. Rec. 13497-524, 108th Cong. 1st
Sess., June 3, 2003. The Senate took no action on the House-
passed joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.4 A special order-of-business resolution may provide for a joint
resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to be considered in
the Committee of the Whole, may make in order
[[Page 16]]
more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute to the joint
resolution, and may provide that, if more than one such amendment
is adopted, only the last such amendment adopted shall be reported
to the House.
On Oct. 1, 1982,(1) the House considered a special
order-of-business resolution reported by the Committee on Rules
providing for consideration in the Committee of the Whole of a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution regarding the
Federal budget process and making in order two amendments in the nature
of a substitute to the joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 128 Cong. Rec. 27172, 27178, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. For a similar
special order-of-business resolution providing for five
amendments in the nature of a substitute, see 138 Cong. Rec.
14225-359, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June 10, 1992. For more
information on this type of amendment procedure, sometimes
informally referred to as ``king of the hill,'' see Ch. 30
Sec. 58.5, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Richard] BOLLING [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, by direction
of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 604 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 604
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution the House
shall resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consideration of the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 350) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution altering Federal budget procedures, and the first
reading of the joint resolution shall be dispensed with. After
general debate, which shall be confined to the joint resolution
and to the amendments made in order by this resolution and
shall continue not to exceed two hours, to be equally divided
and controlled by a Member in favor of the joint resolution and
a Member opposed, the joint resolution shall be considered as
having been read for amendment under the five-minute rule. No
amendment to the joint resolution shall be in order in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole except the following
amendments which shall be considered only in the following
order and which shall not be subject to amendment but shall be
debatable as provided herein:
(1) an amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in
the Congressional Record of September 30, 1982, by, and if
offered by, Representative Alexander of Arkansas, and said
amendment shall be debatable for not to exceed one hour, to be
equally divided and controlled by Representative Alexander and
a Member opposed thereto; and
(2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting
only of the text of H.J. Res. 350 as introduced if offered by
Representative Conable of New York, and said amendment shall be
debatable for not to exceed one hour, to be equally divided and
controlled by Representative Conable and a Member opposed
thereto, and said amendment shall be in order even if the
amendment designated (1) above has been adopted. At the
conclusion of the consideration of the joint resolution for
amendment, the Committee shall rise and report the
[[Page 17]]
joint resolution to the House, but only the last amendment
adopted shall be considered as having been finally adopted and
reported back to the House. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on the
amendment if adopted to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. The resolution (H. Res. 450) providing for the
consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 350) proposing
an amendment to the Constitution altering Federal budget
procedures is hereby laid on the table.(2) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Parliamentarian's Note: H. Res. 450 was the object of a discharge
petition that on Sept. 29, 1982, had received the requisite
number of signatures for floor consideration. That resolution
provided for consideration of H.J. Res. 350 and precluded
consideration of any amendments to that joint resolution. H.
Res. 604 was reported by the Committee on Rules to provide for
consideration of that joint resolution under procedures
allowing consideration of a specified amendment in the nature
of a substitute. And, in order to provide a vote that would be
the equivalent of proceeding under the discharge process, H.
Res. 604 made in order an amendment consisting of the
underlying text of H.J. Res. 350 that would be in order even if
the first amendment in the nature of a substitute were adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. BOLLING. . . .
Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Parliamentarian's Note: During consideration of H.J. Res. 350
pursuant to H. Res. 604, the first amendment in the nature of a
substitute that was made in order under the rule was not adopted, and
so the second one, which contained the same text as the underlying
joint resolution, was not offered. The joint resolution then failed to
receive the requisite two-thirds majority for passage.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 128 Cong. Rec. 27254, 27255, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 1, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.5 A special order-of-business resolution providing for
consideration of a House joint resolution proposing a
constitutional amendment may also discharge a House committee from
consideration of a similar Senate joint resolution and make in
order a motion to amend the Senate measure with the text of the
House joint resolution as passed by the House.
The proceedings of Apr. 13, 1965,(1) are illustrative of
this proposition:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 111 Cong. Rec. 7931, 89th Cong. 1st Sess. A special order-of-
business resolution also may prospectively make in order a
motion by a Member to consider a comparable joint resolution if
passed by the Senate and, if necessary, to move to strike all
after the resolving clause of the Senate joint resolution and
substitute the text of the House-passed joint resolution
therefor. See 138 Cong. Rec. 14225, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June
10, 1992 [H. Res. 450].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 18]]
Mr. [John A.] YOUNG [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, by direction of
the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 314 and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read as follows:
House Resolution 314
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the resolution (H.J. Res. 1) proposing an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to
succession to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency and to cases
where the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the resolution and shall continue not to exceed
four hours, to be equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary, the resolution shall be read for amendment under the
five-minute rule. At the conclusion of such consideration the
Committee shall rise and report the resolution to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted, and any member
may demand a separate vote in the House on any of the
amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
resolution or committee substitute. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the resolution and amendments to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit, with or without instructions. After the passage of
H.J. Res. 1, the Committee on the Judiciary shall be discharged
from further consideration of S.J. Res. 1, and it shall then be
in order in the House to move to strike out all after the
resolving clause of said Senate joint resolution and to insert
the provisions of H.J. Res. 1 as passed by the House.
Parliamentarian's Note: Following adoption of H. Res. 314, the
House proceeded to consider H.J. Res. 1. After agreeing to an amendment
adopted by the Committee of the Whole and rejecting a motion to
recommit, the House passed the measure by a vote of 386-29. Immediately
following that vote, the manager of the resolution called up S.J. Res.
1 for immediate consideration, as made in order by the rule, and
offered an amendment to strike the text of the Senate measure and
insert the text of H.J. Res. 1 as passed by the House. The amendment
was adopted by a voice vote and then the Senate joint resolution, as
amended by the House, was passed by the House. The vote on passage,
although a voice vote, carried with two-thirds of those voting having
voted in the affirmative.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 111 Cong. Rec. 7968, 7969, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., Apr. 13, 1965.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.6 Where a special order-of-business resolution provided that
general debate on a
[[Page 19]]
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution be
divided between a Member in favor and a Member opposed, and the
joint resolution had not been reported from committee, the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole recognized the ranking minority
member of the committee of jurisdiction to control the time in
favor and the chairman of that committee to control the time in
opposition.
After the House had adopted a special order-of-business resolution
providing for consideration of a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution regarding Federal budget procedures where
the joint resolution had not been reported by the committee to which it
had been referred (the Committee on the Judiciary) and where the
special order-of-business resolution specified that time for general
debate would be divided between a Member in favor and a Member opposed
to the unreported joint resolution (as opposed to specifying that time
for general debate would be divided between the chairman and ranking
minority member of the committee of jurisdiction),(1) the
Chairman of the Committee of the Whole accorded the time in favor of
the joint resolution to the ranking minority member of the committee of
jurisdiction and the time opposed to the chairman of that
committee.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. For the text of this special order-of-business resolution, see
Sec. 4.4, supra.
2. 128 Cong. Rec. 27178, 27179, 97th Cong. 2d Sess., Oct. 1, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER.(3) Pursuant to the provisions of House
Resolution 604, the House resolves itself into the Committee of the
Whole House of the State of the Union for the consideration of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 350) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution altering Federal budget procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 350, with Mr. [Edward
Patrick] Boland [of Massachusetts] in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the first reading of the
joint resolution is dispensed with.
Is the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. McCLORY) in favor of the
joint resolution?
Mr. [Robert] McCLORY.(4) Mr. Chairman, yes, I favor
House Joint Resolution 350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Mr. McClory was the ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman qualifies.
[[Page 20]]
Is the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) opposed to the
joint resolution?
Mr. [Peter W.] RODINO, [Jr.].(5) I am opposed, Mr.
Chairman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Mr. Rodino was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman qualifies.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. McCLORY) will be recognized
for 1 hour, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rodino) will be
recognized for 1 hour.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
McCLORY).(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Although in this case a member of the majority controlled the time
for general debate in opposition to the joint resolution and a
member of the minority controlled the time in favor, a member
of the minority who was opposed to the joint resolution
nevertheless had priority of recognition to offer a motion to
recommit, in accordance with the general rules applicable to
motions to recommit. 128 Cong. Rec. 27254, 27255, 97th Cong. 2d
Sess., Oct. 1, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.7 Where a special order-of-business resolution providing for
consideration of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution divided control of time for general debate among three
named Members, the Chair determined that recognition for the
purpose of closing debate would be accorded to the Member who was
the primary sponsor of the measure.
On June 10, 1992,(1) the House proceeded to consider a
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution pursuant to
the terms of a special order-of-business resolution. The special order-
of-business resolution had been introduced by Mr. Charles W. Stenholm,
of Texas, and was the object of a successful discharge petition filed
by him. The resolution provided for general debate on the joint
resolution in the Committee of the Whole to be divided among three
named Members, the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary and Mr. Stenholm, the primary sponsor of the
joint resolution under consideration. Although the Chair ordinarily
recognizes Members to close general debate in the reverse order of
opening, in this case the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole
nevertheless determined that the right to close general debate in this
circumstance would be accorded to Mr. Stenholm, the primary proponent
of the measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 138 Cong. Rec. 14225, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proceedings were as follows:
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the unanimous consent
agreement offered by the gentleman from
[[Page 21]]
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) and the order of the House of Thursday,
June 4, 1992, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 450) providing for
the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 290) proposing
an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget
for the U.S. Government and for greater accountability in the
enactment of tax legislation, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
H. Res. 450
Resolved, That immediately upon the adoption of this
resolution the House shall resolve itself into the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration
of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 290) proposing an amendment
to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the
United States Government and for greater accountability in the
enactment of tax legislation, all points of order against the
joint resolution and against its consideration are hereby
waived, and the first reading of the joint resolution shall be
dispensed with. After general debate, which shall be confined
to the joint resolution and which shall not exceed four and
one-half hours, to be equally divided and controlled by
Representative Brooks of Texas, Representative Fish, of New
York, and Representative Stenholm of Texas, or their designees,
the joint resolution shall be considered for amendment under
the five-minute rule. . . .
Following adoption of the resolution, the House resolved into the
Committee of the Whole to consider the joint resolution.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 138 Cong. Rec. 14235, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. [G.V. (Sonny)] Montgomery (of
Mississippi). Pursuant to House Resolution 450, the Chair declares
the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the
Union for the consideration of the joint resolution, House Joint
Resolution 290.
{time} 1255
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the
joint resolution, House Joint Resolution 290, proposing an
amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for
the U.S. Government and for greater accountability in the enactment
of tax legislation, with Mr. [Raymond Hoyt] Thornton [Jr., of
Arkansas] in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the joint resolution is
considered as having been read the first time.
Pursuant to the order of the House of Thursday, June 4, 1992,
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Brooks], or his designee, the
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], will be recognized for 3
hours;(3) the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] will be
recognized for 3 hours; and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm]
will be
[[Page 22]]
recognized for 3 hours. The Chair will attempt to rotate
recognition in a manner mutually agreeable to the managers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In the order of the House entered into pursuant to the unanimous-
consent agreement providing for consideration of H. Res. 450,
time for general debate on H.J. Res. 290 was increased from the
four and one-half hours specified in the resolution to nine
hours. 138 Cong. Rec. 13617, 13618, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June
4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt).(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Id. at p. 14235.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard M. Gephardt, of Missouri, the Majority Leader, was the
designee of Mr. Jack Brooks, of Texas, the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary, and was recognized first for general debate in the
Committee of the Whole. Following the expiration of the debate time for
Mr. Brooks and Mr. Hamilton Fish, Jr., of New York, the ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the Chairman
recognized Mr. Stenholm to close debate.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore.(5) . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Kweisi Mfume (MD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) to
close debate.(6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. 117 Cong. Rec. 14331, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discharge Petition With Respect to Joint Resolution Proposing an
Amendment to the Constitution
Sec. 4.8 A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution
may be the object of a discharge petition, as in the case of any
other measure, and a discharge petition with respect to such a
joint resolution need garner only 218 signatures, a majority of the
total membership of the House, as in the case of any other measure.
Following the introduction of a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution and after the completion of the requisite
period of time, Mr. Chalmers P. Wylie, of Ohio, filed a discharge
petition on the measure pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 3.(1)
The discharge petition received the requisite number of signatures on
Sept. 21, 1971.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. This rule was later renumbered as Rule XV clause 2, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 892 (2007).
2. 117 Cong. Rec. 32576, 32577, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was as follows:
Motion to Discharge Committee
April 1, 1971.
To the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVII(3) I, Chalmers P.
Wylie, move to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary
[[Page 23]]
from the consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 191)
entitled ``A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States with respect to the offering of
prayer in public buildings,'' which was referred to said committee
January 22, 1971, in support of which motion the undersigned
Members of the House of Representatives affix their signatures, to
wit:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Parliamentarian's Note: During its deliberations preparatory to the
convening of the 98th Congress (1983-85) with respect to
changes to the standing rules of the House for that Congress,
the Democratic Caucus (the majority membership for that
Congress) considered and rejected a change to the House rules
to provide that, with respect to any joint resolution proposing
an amendment to the Constitution, two-thirds of the House
membership (rather than a majority) would be the requisite
number for signatures on a discharge petition, as well as for
adoption of a special order-of-business resolution providing
for consideration of such a joint resolution. On Jan. 3, 1983,
the date of the convening of the 98th Congress, the Majority
Leader, James C. Wright, Jr. [TX], in explaining to the House
the proposed changes in the standing rules recommended by the
majority party caucus, made the following statement: ``I should
announce at the outset for the benefit of any of those who are
unfamiliar with the fact that [an additional] change was
considered by the Democratic Caucus. . . . That proposal which
was omitted was the one which would have required that two-
thirds of the Members should have the requisite signatures on a
discharge petition in order to discharge a constitutional
amendment from the committee of jurisdiction.'' 129 Cong. Rec.
35, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Chalmers P. Wylie.
2. John E. Hunt. . . .
217. Floyd V. Hicks.
218. Charles J. Carney.
Sec. 4.9 Upon adoption of a motion to discharge a committee from
consideration of a public bill or resolution (including a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution) following
the securing of the requisite number of signatures on a discharge
petition, a motion to proceed to the immediate consideration of the
measure is privileged, if made by a Member who signed the discharge
petition, and is decided without debate.
On Nov. 8, 1971,(1) Speaker Carl Albert, of Oklahoma,
recognized a signatory to a successful discharge petition(2)
to move to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from further
consideration of a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 117 Cong. Rec. 39885, 39886, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
2. See Sec. 4.8, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings were as follows:
PRAYER AMENDMENT
Mr. [Chalmers P.] WYLIE [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
clause 4, rule
[[Page 24]]
XXVII,(3) I call up motion No. 1 to discharge the
Committee on the Judiciary from the further consideration of House
Joint Resolution 191, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of
the United States relative to the offering of prayer in public
buildings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Now Rule XV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER. Did the gentleman sign the motion?
Mr. WYLIE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I signed the motion.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio calls up a motion to
discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from the further
consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 191) which the
Clerk will report by title.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution. . .
. -------------------
PRAYER AMENDMENT
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Wylie) will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Celler) will be recognized for 10 minutes.
The motion to discharge was debated and agreed to. The Speaker then
recognized the same Member to offer a motion that the House proceed to
consider the measure.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 117 Cong. Rec. 39889, 92d Cong. 2d Sess., Nov. 8, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of clause 4,
rule XXVII, I move that the House now proceed to the immediate
consideration of House Joint Resolution 191.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the joint resolution.
The Clerk read the joint resolution as follows:
H.J. Res. 191
Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States with respect to the offering of prayer in
public buildings
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
hereby 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:
``Article--
``Section 1. Nothing contained in this Constitution shall
abridge the right of persons lawfully assembled, in any public
building which is supported in whole or in part through the
expenditure of public funds, to participate in
nondenominational prayer.
``Sec. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall
have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within
seven years from the date of its submission to the States by
the Congress.''
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wylie).
The motion was agreed to.
Sec. 4.10 A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
[[Page 25]]
Constitution is considered in the House, not in the Committee of
the Whole, when considered in consequence of a discharge petition.
On July 24, 1979,(1) the requisite number of signatures
having been obtained, the House agreed to a motion to discharge the
Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of House Joint
Resolution 74, proposing an amendment to the Constitution regarding
school busing. The House having adopted that motion, it was then in
order for a Member who had signed the motion to discharge to move that
the House proceed to the immediate consideration of the joint
resolution. Proceedings after the motion to discharge was agreed to
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 125 Cong. Rec. 20358, 20362, 96th Cong. 1st Sess. In general, joint
resolutions proposing constitutional amendments are not
required to be considered in the Committee of the Whole. 8
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 2395.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Ronald M.] MOTTL [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the
provisions of clause 4, rule 2,(2) and the order of the
House of June 28, 1979, I move that the House proceed to the
immediate consideration of House Joint Resolution 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Parliamentarian's Note: Although the Congressional Record states
that Mr. Mottl's motion referred to ``clause 4, rule 2,'' the
reference clearly should have been to ``clause 4, rule 27,''
the ``Discharge Rule,'' now Rule XV clause 2, House Rules and
Manual Sec. 892 (2007). See Mr. Mottl's discharge motion,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER.(3) The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mottl).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was agreed to. . . .
The Clerk read the joint resolution. . . .
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Mottl) is recognized
for 1 hour.
Sec. 4.11 A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution
that is considered pursuant to a successful motion to discharge the
committee of jurisdiction is susceptible to the motion to recommit.
On Aug. 10, 1970,(1) Mrs. Martha W. Griffiths, of
Michigan, moved to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from the
further consideration of House Joint Resolution 264, the requisite
number of signatures having been obtained for such a motion to be in
order. After an affirmative vote on the motion to discharge, a
subsequent affirmative vote on a motion for immediate consideration
[[Page 26]]
of the joint resolution, and debate on the joint resolution, Mr.
William M. McCulloch, of Ohio, moved to recommit the joint resolution
to the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 116 Cong. Rec. 27999, 28000, 28004, 28036, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings in the House were as follows:
Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 4, rule XXVII,
I call up motion No. 5, to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary
from the further consideration of House Joint Resolution 264,
proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States
relative to equal rights for men and women.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The motion to discharge obtained the requisite 218 signatures and
was entered on the Discharge Calendar on July 20, 1970,
pursuant to Rule XXVII clause 4. House Rules and Manual
Sec. 908 (1969) [now Rule XV clause 2, House Rules and Manual
Sec. 892 (2007)]. 116 Cong. Rec. 24999, 25000, 91st Cong. 1st
Sess., July 20, 1970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER.(3) Did the gentlewoman sign the motion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I signed the motion.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman qualifies. The gentlewoman from
Michigan calls up a motion to discharge the Committee on the
Judiciary from the further consideration of the joint resolution
(House Joint Resolution 264) which the Clerk will report by title.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Emanuel] CELLER [of New York].(4) Mr. Speaker,
a parliamentary inquiry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Mr. Celler was the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I understand the rule provides for 20
minutes of debate, 10 minutes on either side. Is it correct that
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, being opposed to the
discharge petition, will be allocated 10 minutes?
The SPEAKER. The gentleman's statement is correct that the rule
provides for 20 minutes of debate, 10 minutes on each side. If the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler) is opposed to the motion, the
Chair will recognize him for 10 minutes.
Is the gentleman opposed to the motion?
Mr. CELLER. I am opposed to the motion, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the gentlewoman from Michigan
(Mrs. Griffiths) will be recognized for 10 minutes, and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Celler) will be recognized for 10
minutes. . . .
The gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Griffiths) is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mrs. GRIFFITHS. . . .
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to support the discharge motion; to
vote for the motion for immediate consideration; to support the
previous question; to vote against any motion to recommit with or
without instructions and to vote for the amendment. . . .
[[Page 27]]
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Griffiths) to discharge the
Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of House
Joint Resolution 264. . . .
So the motion to discharge was agreed to. . . .
Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of
clause 4, rule XXVII, I move that the House proceed to the
immediate consideration of House Joint Resolution 264.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Griffiths).
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the joint resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.J. Res. 264
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:
``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. Congress and the several States shall have
power, within their respective jurisdictions, to enforce this
article by appropriate legislation.
``Sec. 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall
have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.
``Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect one year after
the date of ratification.''
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from Michigan is recognized for 1
hour. . . .
Mrs. GRIFFITHS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on
the joint resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a
third time and was read a third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
motion to recommit
Mr. [William M.] MCCULLOCH [of Ohio]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the joint resolution?
Mr. MCCULLOCH. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. McCulloch moves that House Joint Resolution 264 be
recommitted to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions
that said committee shall promptly hold appropriate hearings
thereon. . . .
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the noes
appeared to have it. . . .
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
[[Page 28]]
Discharge of Special Rule
Sec. 4.12 When there has been pending before the Committee on the
Judiciary for the requisite period a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution, a special order-of-business
resolution providing for consideration of that joint resolution
that has been pending before the Committee on Rules for the
requisite time may be the object of a discharge petition.
On Dec. 14, 1937,(1) proceedings in the House relative
to the referral of a discharge motion to the Discharge Calendar were as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 82 Cong. Rec. 1517, 1518, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion to Discharge Committee
April 6, 1937.
To the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVII, I, Hon. Louis Ludlow, move
to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the
resolution (H. Res. 165) entitled ``A resolution to make House
Joint Resolution 199, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States to provide for a referendum
on war, a special order of business,'' which was referred to said
committee March 24, 1937, in support of which motion the
undersigned Members of the House of Representatives affix their
signatures, to wit:
1. Louis Ludlow. . . .
218. Dudley White.
This motion was entered upon the Journal, entered in the
Congressional Record with signatures thereto, and referred to the
Calendar of Motions to Discharge Committees, December 14, 1937.
After Mr. Hamilton Fish, of New York, announced to the House that
the petition had received the requisite 218 signatures, the following
exchange took place:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Id. at pp. 1516, 1517.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LUDLOW [of Indiana]. Mr. Speaker, I have just arrived in
the Chamber. I understand the gentleman from New York has announced
the completion of the signing of names to the discharge petition to
bring before the House the resolution (H. J. Res. 199) which
proposes to give the people of America the right to vote on
participation in foreign wars. . . .
Mr. [Hatton W.] SUMNERS [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. LUDLOW. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Can the gentleman tell me how much time
is allowed for discussion under the rule?
Mr. LUDLOW. I may say to the gentleman the petition has been
filed so long I have almost forgotten the terms of the resolution,
but I believe the rule provides for 6 hours of debate. . . .
[[Page 29]]
Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER.(3) The gentleman will state it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. William B. Bankhead (AL).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SUMNERS of Texas. How much time is allowed for debate on a
motion to discharge a committee from further consideration of a
measure?
The SPEAKER. The Chair may state, in answer to the inquiry of
the gentleman from Texas, that under the discharge rule only 20
minutes are allowed on the motion to discharge the Committee on
Rules from the consideration of the resolution, one-half controlled
by those in favor of and one-half those opposed to the motion to
discharge the committee.
The Chair has before him the resolution pending before the
Committee on Rules and observes that the resolution itself provides
not to exceed 6 hours of general debate in the event the matter
should be considered.
Mr. [William I.] SIROVICH [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. SIROVICH. If the Ludlow resolution comes before the House
and a vote is finally taken, is a two-thirds vote of the House
required to pass the resolution?
The SPEAKER. Under the Constitution of the United States any
proposal to amend the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of
the House of Representatives.
Mr. SIROVICH. Therefore, in order to pass the Ludlow resolution
the House will have to pass it by a two-thirds vote?
The SPEAKER. Undoubtedly.
Mr. [Wright] PATMAN [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. PATMAN. It is my understanding this resolution may come up
on the second or fourth Monday of the month, providing 7
legislative days have elapsed before such second or fourth Monday.
This being so, the resolution could not come up for consideration
until the second Monday in January, in view of the fact that the
fourth Monday in December will be the 27th.
The SPEAKER. The Chair may state to the gentleman the Chair has
no calendar before him, but it is a matter of calculation. The
Chair may say further the 7 days begin to run as of this date.
Mr. PATMAN. It is improbable we shall be in session on the
27th.
The SPEAKER. The Chair can make no statement as to that.
Mr. [John J.] O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, am I correct
in understanding this discharge petition is aimed at the Committee
on Rules?
The SPEAKER. The resolution seems to be aimed in that
direction.
Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to proceed for 1 minute.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Mr. Speaker, this is another example
of the anomalous situation caused by the method of legislating by
petition. There is a great deal of confusion about that in the
minds of representatives of the press as well as Members of the
[[Page 30]]
House. The Committee on Rules was never intended to be included in
any such discharge rule, because no bills are ever before the
Committee on Rules. It is not a legislative committee. For
instance, the committee has never heard of this matter. The bill
has not been reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. How the
Rules Committee can be discharged in any reasonable or
parliamentary sense I cannot imagine.
Take the case of the wage and hour bill. That bill was pending
on the calendar and would have been reached in the ordinary course
of the business of the House. I do not know yet from what the Rules
Committee was discharged; but as to this monstrosity, the present
petition, this bill is still pending in the Committee on the
Judiciary; it has never come before the Rules Committee, which has
never heard or had any knowledge of it. How the Committee on Rules
can be discharged from the consideration of such a bill I cannot
divine. Nor can I conceive of any reason for the existence of such
an anomalous parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Snell and Mr. Ludlow rose.
Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I yield to the gentleman from New
York.
Mr. [Bertrand H.] SNELL [of New York]. The gentleman has stated
the parliamentary inquiry I was about to submit to the Speaker with
respect to how they can discharge the Rules Committee from the
consideration of this bill.
Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Well, we are living in strange days
of parliamentary procedure, I will admit.
Mr. LUDLOW. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. I yield.
Mr. LUDLOW. I may say to the gentleman from New York that the
rules of the House are elaborately set forth in the book of rules.
This is one of the rules of the House and we are following a
perfectly proper parliamentary procedure.
Mr. O'CONNOR of New York. Why did not the gentleman direct his
petition against the recalcitrant committee which has his bill?
[Laughter.]
Mr. SNELL. I do not understand how we can discharge the Rules
Committee when the bill is before the Judiciary Committee and there
is nothing pending before the Committee on Rules.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Parliamentarian's Note: Although the joint resolution proposing a
constitutional amendment was not directly before the Committee
on Rules, the motion to discharge was directed at a simple
resolution proposing to provide for consideration of the joint
resolution that had been referred to that committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion to discharge was not called from the calendar until
after the third session of the 75th Congress had convened.
On Jan. 10, 1938,(5) proceedings relative to this matter
were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 83 Cong. Rec. 276-283, 75th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
referendum on war
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana
[Mr. Ludlow].
Mr. LUDLOW. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule XXVII, I call up the
motion
[[Page 31]]
to discharge the Committee on Rules from further consideration of
House Resolution 165.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Indiana calls up a resolution,
which the Clerk will report by title.
The Clerk read as follows:
Resolution to make House Joint Resolution 199, a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States to provide for a referendum on war, a special
order of business.
The resolution is as follows:
Resolved, That upon the day succeeding the adoption of this
resolution a special order be, and is hereby, created by the
House of Representatives for the consideration of House Joint
Resolution 199, a public resolution which has remained in the
Committee on the Judiciary for 30 or more days without action.
That such special order be, and is hereby, created,
notwithstanding any further action on said joint resolution by
the Committee on the Judiciary or any rule of the House. That
on said day the Speaker shall recognize the Representative from
Indiana, Louis Ludlow, to call up House Joint Resolution 199, a
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States to provide for a referendum on war, as a
special order of business, and to move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of
the Union for the consideration of said House Joint Resolution
199. After general debate, which shall be confined to the joint
resolution and shall continue not to exceed 6 hours, to be
equally divided and controlled by the Member of the House
requesting the rule for the consideration of said House Joint
Resolution 199 and the Member of the House who is opposed to
the said House Joint Resolution 199, to be designated by the
Speaker, the joint resolution shall be read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the
joint resolution for amendment the Committee shall rise and
report the joint resolution to the House with such amendments
as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution and the
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion,
except one motion to recommit. The special order shall be a
continuing order until the joint resolution is finally disposed
of. . . .
The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion of the gentleman
from Indiana [Mr. Ludlow] to discharge the Committee on Rules from
further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 165).
The question was taken, and the Speaker announced that the noes
seemed to have it.
Mr. LUDLOW. Mr. Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there were--yeas 188, nays 209,
answered ``present'' 4, not voting, 30[.] . . .
So the motion was rejected.
Sec. 4.13 After the requisite 218 Members have signed a petition to
discharge the Committee on Rules from consideration of a special
order-of-business resolution providing for consideration of a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution but before
the call of the Discharge Calendar, the House may consider the
resolution by unanimous consent.
[[Page 32]]
On May 20, 1992,(1) a motion to discharge the Committee
on Rules from further consideration of a resolution providing for
consideration of a joint resolution proposing a constitutional
amendment received the requisite number of signatures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 138 Cong. Rec. 12222, 12223, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The motion was as follows:
Motion to Discharge a Committee
May 20, 1992
To the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Pursuant to clause 4, rule XXVII, I, Charles W. Stenholm, move
to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the
resolution (H. Res. 450) providing for the consideration of the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 290) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the United States
Government and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax
legislation, which was referred to said committee May 6, 1992, in
support of which motion the undersigned Members of the House of
Representatives affix their signatures, to wit:
1. Charles W. Stenholm.
2. Robert F. (Bob) Smith. . . .
217. Jim Chapman.
218. Timothy J. Penny.
Before the motion to discharge became eligible to be called up on a
day when such business was in order,(2) the House, by
unanimous consent, dispensed with such business and provided for
consideration of the resolution under terms similar to those specified
in the discharge petition.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Under former Rule XXVII clause 3 (current Rule XV clause 2),
discharge petitions that have received 218 signatures and have
laid over on the calendar of motions to discharge for seven
legislative days may be called up on the second or fourth
Mondays of each month. House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2007).
3. 138 Cong. Rec. 13617, 13618, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The unanimous-consent request for such consideration was as
follows:
Mr. [Richard] GEPHARDT [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the business in order pursuant to clause 3
of rule XXVII on Monday, June 8, 1992, be dispensed with, and that
it be in order on Wednesday, June 10, 1992, for Representative
Stenholm or his designee, to call up House Resolution 450 for
consideration under the same terms as if discharged from the
Committee on Rules pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXVII.
Further, I ask unanimous consent that the period of general
debate provided for in House Resolution 450, if adopted, be
expanded to 9 hours, to be equally divided and controlled by
Representative Brooks of Texas, Representative Fish of New York,
and Representative Stenholm of Texas, or their designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore.(4) Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Missouri?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Allen B. Swift (WA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 33]]
Mr. [Charles] STENHOLM [of Texas]. Mr. Speaker, reserving the
right to object, it is not my intent to object. I would like to ask
the majority leader if I am correct in my understanding that this
unanimous-consent agreement will allow for the consideration of the
leading balanced budget constitutional amendment under the rule,
House Resolution 450, exactly as outlined in House Resolution 450,
the rule discharged on May 20, with two exceptions:
No. 1, the general debate will be increased to 9 hours, with
the division of time maintained proportionally as it is in House
Resolution 450; and No. 2, consideration of this matter will begin
on Wednesday, June 10, rather than the discharge day of Monday,
June 8.
Would the gentleman please confirm this understanding?
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, that is correct.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of
the gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
On June 10, 1992, the House proceeded to consider both the special
order-of-business resolution and the joint resolution proposing the
constitutional amendment.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Proceedings carried at Sec. 4.7, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.14 After the requisite 218 Members sign a petition to discharge
the Committee on Rules from further consideration of a special
order-of-business resolution providing for consideration of a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution but before
the call of the Discharge Calendar, that committee may report
another special order-of-business resolution providing for
consideration of the subject joint resolution and laying on the
table the special order-of-business resolution that is the object
of the motion to discharge.
On Sept. 29, 1982,(1) Discharge Petition 18,
petitioning for discharge of the Committee on Rules from further
consideration of House Resolution 450, received the requisite number of
signatures for placement on the Discharge Calendar. The petition was as
follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 128 Cong. Rec. 26127, 26128, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 29, 1982.
To the Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXVII, I, Barber B. Conable, Jr.,
[of New York] move to discharge the Committee on Rules from the
consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 450) entitled,
[[Page 34]]
``A resolution providing for the consideration of the resolution
(H.J. Res. 350) proposing an amendment to the Constitution altering
Federal budget procedures'' which was referred to said committee
May 4, 1982, in support of which motion the undersigned Members of
the House of Representatives affix their signatures, to wit:
1. Barber B. Conable, Jr. . . .
218. Charles Pashayan.
House Resolution 450, a resolution providing for the consideration
of the resolution (H.J. Res. 350) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution altering Federal budget processes, had been introduced by
Mr. Conable on May 4, 1982, and referred to the Committee on
Rules.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 128 Cong. Rec. 8659, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having received the requisite number of signatures, the motion to
discharge was placed on the Discharge Calendar on Sept. 29,
1982.(3) However, under Rule XXVII clause 4(4)
the motion could not be called up until the second or fourth Monday of
the month after having been on that calendar for at least seven days.
Because of a planned adjournment for the November 1982 congressional
election, the motion would not have been eligible to be called up until
after the election. Because the subject of the proposed constitutional
amendment, the so-called ``Balanced Budget Amendment,'' was a matter of
significant public interest and there was concern that the President
might call Congress back into session to force a vote on the matter
before the election, the Committee on Rules reported a special order-
of-business resolution allowing for consideration of the proposed
constitutional amendment before the planned adjournment but on terms
different from those provided in House Resolution 450, the object of
the discharge petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. See Id. at pp. 26127, 26128.
4. Now Rule XV clause 2, House Rules and Manual Sec. 892 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Oct. 1, 1982,(5) the House considered House
Resolution 604, which (1) provided for consideration of House Joint
Resolution 350, and (2) laid on the table House Resolution 450, the
object of the discharge petition.(5)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. 128 Cong. Rec. 27172, 27178, 97th Cong. 2d Sess.
6. The text of H. Res. 604 is set forth in Sec. 4.4, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Amendment Process
Sec. 4.15 A motion to recommit a bill reported by one committee with
instructions to report the bill back to the House in the form of a
joint resolution proposing to
[[Page 35]]
amend the Constitution to accomplish the purpose of the bill was
held not in order on the ground that the instructions were not
germane, inasmuch as a constitutional amendment would lie within
the jurisdiction of another committee.
On July 26, 1949,(1) the House was considering H.R.
3199, making unlawful the requirement for the payment of a poll tax.
The bill had been reported by the Committee on House Administration. A
motion was offered to recommit the bill to that committee with
instructions that would have converted the bill into a joint resolution
proposing to amend the Constitution. A point of order was made against
the motion. The Speaker, Sam Rayburn, of Texas, ruled that the motion
was not in order as the instructions were not germane as such
instructions addressed matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee
on the Judiciary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 95 Cong. Rec. 10247, 81st Cong. 1st Sess. See also Ch. 28,
Sec. 23.8, supra. In addition, when a proposed constitutional
amendment concerning one subject is under consideration, an
amendment to address another subject is not in order under
House Rule XVI clause 7 House Rules and Manual Sec. 928 (2007)
(the ``germaneness rule''). See, e.g., 151 Cong. Rec. 13538-42,
109th Cong. 1st Sess., June 22, 2005 (amendments regarding the
budget of the United States Government and a Social Security
trust fund offered to a proposed constitutional amendment
regarding physical desecration of the flag); 117 Cong. Rec.
35813, 35814, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Oct. 12, 1971 (amendment
proposing to add ``race, creed or color'' to a proposed
constitutional amendment regarding equality of rights on
account of sex).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings in the House were as follows:
Mr. [Robert] HALE [of Maine]. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HALE. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Hale moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3199 to the
Committee on House Administration with directions that they
report the legislation back to the House in the form of a joint
resolution amending the Constitution to make illegal payment of
poll taxes as a qualification for voting.
Mr. [Vito] MARCANTONIO [of New York]. Mr. Speaker, a point of
order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. MARCANTONIO. I make the point of order that the language
which is carried in the motion to recommit is not germane to the
bill. The motion calls for a constitutional amendment.
The SPEAKER. The Chair is inclined to agree with the gentleman
for the simple reason that a constitutional
[[Page 36]]
amendment involving this question would lie within the jurisdiction
of the Committee on the Judiciary and not within the Committee on
House Administration.(2) The Chair sustains the point of
order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. For discussion of committee jurisdiction, see Sec. 3, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.16 Where a joint resolution is under consideration in the House
and the Member controlling the time yields to another Member for
the purpose of amendment, a third Member seeking to move the
previous question on the joint resolution is entitled to
recognition for that purpose in preference to the Member seeking to
offer the amendment.
On Nov. 8, 1971,(1) the House, pursuant to a motion to
discharge, was considering in the House the joint resolution, House
Joint Resolution 191, proposing an amendment to the Constitution
relative to nondenominational prayer in public buildings. The manager,
Chalmers P. Wylie, of Ohio, yielded to another Member for the purpose
of offering an amendment, whereupon Mr. Emanuel Celler, of New York,
moved the previous question on the joint resolution. Because the motion
for the previous question is preferential to the motion to amend, the
Speaker(2) first recognized Mr. Celler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 117 Cong. Rec. 39945, 92d Cong. 1st Sess.
2. Carl Albert (OK).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings were as follows:
Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Buchanan) for the purpose of offering an amendment.
Mr. [John] BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman realize he will lose control of
the time?
Mr. WYLIE. The gentleman realizes he loses control of the time.
I do yield to the gentleman from Alabama for the purpose of
offering an amendment.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman has yielded the floor.
motion offered by mr. celler
Mr. CELLER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on House
Joint Resolution 191.
The SPEAKER. The motion is completely and highly privileged and
is in order.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. [Gerald R.] FORD [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. Gerald R. FORD. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is
voted down, does that permit the offering of an amendment by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Buchanan)?
The SPEAKER. If it is voted down, any proper motion can be
made.
The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Celler).
[[Page 37]]
The motion was rejected.
amendment offered by mr. buchanan
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Buchanan: Page 2, lines 1 and 2,
strike out the word ``nondenominational'' and insert in lieu
thereof the word ``voluntary''; and on page 2, line 2, strike
out the period and add the words ``or
meditation.''(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The House adopted the amendment offered by Mr. Buchanan and then
rejected the joint resolution. 117 Cong. Rec. 39945, 39957,
39958, 92d Cong. 1st Sess., Nov. 8, 1971.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 4.17 When the resolving clause of a joint resolution proposing an
amendment to the Constitution is not in the requisite form, an
amendment offered from the floor included a correction to the
resolving clause.
On June 11, 1992,(1) the House proceeded to consider a
joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution relating to
providing for a balanced budget. The resolving clause of the resolution
was not in the requisite form.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 138 Cong. Rec. 14392, 14393, 102d Cong. 2d Sess.
2. The form for the resolving clause of joint resolutions is set forth
in section 102 of title 1, United States Code. By usage, the
resolving clause for a joint resolution proposing an amendment
to the Constitution includes a parenthetical statement as
follows: ``(two-thirds of each House concurring therein).'' See
Sec. 2, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proceedings were as follows:
proposing an amendment to the constitution to provide for a
balanced budget
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty).(3) Pursuant
to House Resolution 450, the Chair declares the House in the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the
further consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 290).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Michael R. McNulty (NY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the committee of the whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the joint resolution, (H.J. Res. 290) proposing an
amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for
the United States Government and for greater accountability in the
enactment of tax legislation, with Mr. [Raymond] Thornton [Jr., of
Arkansas] in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday, June 10, 1992, all time for general debate had expired.
Without objection, the joint resolution is considered as having
been read under the 5-minute rule.
There was no objection.
The text of House Joint Resolution 290 is as follows:
[[Page 38]]
H.J. Res. 290
Resolved [sic],
Article--.
Section 1. Prior to each fiscal year, the Congress and the
President shall agree on an estimate of total receipts for the
fiscal year by enactment of a law devoted solely to that
subject. Total outlays for that year shall not exceed the level
of estimated receipts set forth in such law, unless three-
fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall
provide, by a rollcall vote, for a specific excess of outlays
over estimated receipts. . . .
The CHAIRMAN. No amendments to the joint resolution are in
order except the following amendments, which shall be considered
only in the following order, which shall not be subject to
amendment, and which shall be debatable for 60 minutes, equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent of the
amendment:
First, an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish] or his designee; . . .
Fifth, an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] or his designee[.]
The amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Charles
W. Stenholm, of Texas, included a correction to the form of the
resolving clause and added, before the text of the proposed amendment
itself, the customary text proposing the matter to the
States.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The form of the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
Mr. Stenholm differed from that typically used in the case of
an amendment in the nature of a substitute in that it did not
propose to ``strike all after the resolving clause'' and insert
new text. Rather, in this case, the amendment proposed to
``strike all after the word `Resolved' '' and insert new text.
That formulation allowed for the addition of new text as part
of (and at the end of) the resolving clause. 138 Cong. Rec.
14435, 102d Cong. 2d Sess., June 11, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. stenholm
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature
of a substitute.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Stenholm: Strike all after the word ``Resolved'' and insert the
following:
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 if ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths
of the several States within seven years after its submission
to the States for ratification:
``Article--
``Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not
exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths
of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by
law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a
rollcall vote. . . .
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from Texas
[Mr.
[[Page 39]]
Stenholm] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and a Member opposed,
the gentleman from California [Mr. Panetta], the chairman of the
Committee on the Budget, will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
[Page 39-41]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
B. House Consideration
Sec. 5. Voting
Under Article V of the Constitution, passage of a joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution requires a two-thirds
majority of each House.(1) Such a joint resolution may be
passed by each House only with a quorum present. During consideration
of such a joint resolution by either House, only a simple majority (not
a two-thirds majority) is required for adoption of an amendment to the
joint resolution, including an amendment to the text of the proposed
amendment to the Constitution itself. The Chair puts the question on
final passage of such a joint resolution first to a voice vote, as the
yeas and nays are not required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. The relevant portion of Article V reads as follows: ``The Congress,
whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution. . .
.'' -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Required on Final Passage
Sec. 5.1 The vote required in the House for adoption of a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution is two-thirds
of those Members present and voting, a quorum being present, and
not two-thirds of the total membership.
On Sept. 18, 1969,(1) the House was considering House
Joint Resolution 681, proposing an amendment to the Constitution
relating to the election of the President and Vice President. After
consideration was completed, the Speaker(2) put the question
on passage. The Speaker then responded to parliamentary inquiries as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 115 Cong. Rec. 26007, 91st Cong. 1st Sess.
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the joint
resolution.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. [Durward] Hall [of Missouri]. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state the parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, in view of article V of the
Constitution, am I correct in my calculation that it requires 289
Members voting for passage?
The SPEAKER. The answer to the gentleman's parliamentary
inquiry is
[[Page 40]]
that it requires two-thirds of the Members present and voting
thereon, a quorum being present.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, is this consistent with article V which
says:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem
it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution.
Would that be two-thirds of the total membership or two-thirds
of those present and voting?
The SPEAKER. In accordance with the precedents of the
House(2) and decisions of the Supreme
Court,(3) it requires two-thirds of those present and
voting thereon, a quorum being present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See, e.g., 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. Sec. 7027, 7029, 7030 and 8
Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3503.
3. See, e.g., National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chair's response to the gentleman's parliamentary inquiry
is that it requires two thirds of those present and voting thereon,
a quorum being present.
The question is on the passage of the joint resolution.
Sec. 5.2 A two-thirds vote is required to pass a joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution when the joint
resolution is considered under the discharge process.
On Dec. 14, 1937,(1) Speaker William B. Bankhead, of
Alabama, in response to a parliamentary inquiry, stated that the
requirement for a two-thirds vote to pass a joint resolution proposing
a constitutional amendment applied even when the joint resolution was
the object of a successful discharge petition. The proceedings are
discussed in Sec. 4.12, supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 82 Cong. Rec. 1517, 75th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vote Required to Amend Joint Resolution
Sec. 5.3 An amendment to a joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution is adopted by a majority vote.
On Feb. 24, 1931,(1) the House was considering House
Joint Resolution 292, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution addressing the assembly of Congress. The
Speaker,(2) in response to a parliamentary inquiry, stated
that only a majority of the House (and not two-thirds) was required to
adopt an amendment to the joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 74 Cong. Rec. 5906, 71st Cong. 3d Sess. See also 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. 7031 (point of order) and 8 Cannon's Precedents
Sec. 3504 (parliamentary inquiry).
2. Nicholas Longworth (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER. The previous question is ordered under the rule.
[[Page 41]]
The question is on the amendment.
Mr. [Lamar] Jeffers [of Alabama] and Mr. [Charles] Crisp [of
Georgia] demanded the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. [John] KETCHAM [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. KETCHAM. Will the Chair please advise the Members by what
majority the amendment would have to carry? Is a two-thirds
majority necessary?
The SPEAKER. No; a majority is only necessary on an amendment.
Yeas and Nays Not Required
Sec. 5.4 The yeas and nays are not required on the question of passing
a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.
On Mar. 9, 1928,(1) the Speaker, Nicholas Longworth, of
Ohio, responded to an inquiry by Mr. John Q. Tilson, of Connecticut, as
to whether the yeas and nays were required on joint resolutions
proposing amendments to the Constitution, as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 70 Cong. Rec. 4430, 70th Cong. 1st Sess. See also 5 Hinds'
Precedents Sec. Sec. 7038, 7039.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER. There is no rule which provides for a yea-and-nay
vote, and the Chair will quote from the Manual, section
224:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Now House Rules and Manual Sec. 192 (2007) (``The yeas and nays are
not required to pass a joint resolution proposing to amend the
Constitution. . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes and nays not required to pass a resolution amending
the Constitution
The question is on the passage of the resolution.
[[Page 42]]
[Page 42-45]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
C. Senate Consideration; House-Senate Relations
Sec. 6. Senate Consideration
In the Senate, as in the House, although only a simple majority
vote is required to amend a joint resolution proposing a constitutional
amendment, a two-thirds majority vote is required for passage. The
Senate has converted, by amendment, a legislative joint resolution into
a proposed constitutional amendment (such a resulting joint resolution
requiring a two-thirds vote for passage). In addition, the Senate has
entertained, to a joint resolution proposing a constitutional
amendment, amendments to achieve a legislative purpose
instead. -------------------
Vote Required for Passage
Sec. 6.1 The vote required in the Senate for passage of a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution is two-thirds
of those present and voting, a quorum being present, and not two-
thirds of the total membership.
The vote required in the Senate is the same as that required in the
House,(1) as the proceedings of Feb. 26, 1869,(2)
illustrate. On that day, the Senate concluded consideration of a
conference report on a joint resolution proposing a constitutional
amendment regarding suffrage. The proceedings relating to the
announcement of the outcome of the vote were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 5.1, supra.
2. 41 Cong. Globe 1641, 1642, 40th Cong. 3d Sess. This precedent is
also carried at 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7028.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRESIDENT pro tempore.(3) The question is on
concurring in the report of the committee; and on this question the
yeas and nays must be called.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Benjamin F. Wade (OH).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question being taken by yeas and nays resulted--yeas 39,
nays 13; as follows: . . .
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this question the yeas are 39,
and the nays are 13. Two thirds of the Senators present having
voted in the affirmative, the report is agreed to.
Mr. [George H.] WILLIAMS [of Oregon] obtained the floor.
Mr. [Garrett] DAVIS [of Kentucky]. I rise to a question of
order. I ask the Chair what the number of votes was announced to
be.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The yeas were 39, and the nays were
13; being two thirds.
Mr. DAVIS. The question of order that I make is that the
decision of this question has not been announced by the Chair
according to the Constitution. The Chair has announced that
[[Page 43]]
the proposition has received the vote of two thirds of the Senate,
and therefore that it has passed. I controvert that fact. There are
now thirty-seven States in the Union. They are entitled to seventy-
four members of the Senate.
Mr. [James W.] NYE [of Nevada]. The honorable Senator will
allow me to correct him. The Chair did not make the announcement
that the honorable Senator says he did. He said it received two
thirds of the votes of all the members present. That was the
announcement by the Chair. . . .
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair desires the Senator to
understand what the Chair said in the announcement of the vote. It
was that two thirds of the Senators present had voted in the
affirmative. That is the way in which it was announced by the
Chair.
Mr. DAVIS. But then the conclusion was--
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That the report was concurred in.
Mr. DAVIS. That is just as I understood it. Now, the conclusion
does not follow the vote which the Chair announced, because the
Senate consists of seventy-four members, and to constitute two
thirds of the Senate a vote of fifty is necessary. My point of
order is, that when a less number than two thirds of the Senate is
required by the Constitution for any purpose, for instance to
ratify a treaty or to confirm a nomination, the Constitution
expressly says that it shall be two thirds of the members present.
In voting upon a proposition to amend the Constitution, the
Constitution does not limit the number of two thirds by reciting
that it is two thirds of the members present. . . .
Mr. [Lyman] TRUMBULL [of Illinois]. If the Chair will indulge
me a moment, this very point was raised in regard to a
constitutional amendment some years ago, and the Senate decided by
a vote, almost unanimously, that two thirds of the Senators present
were sufficient to carry a constitutional amendment. I think that
the Presiding Officer upon reflection will recollect it. It was the
constitutional amendment that was proposed before the war. I myself
made the point for the purpose of having it decided, and it was
decided, I think by a nearly unanimous vote, that two thirds of the
Senators present, a quorum being present, was sufficient to carry a
constitutional amendment. . . .
Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask for a decision on the question of order.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. I believe it has been decided
according to all the precedents. . . .
Vote Required to Amend Joint Resolution
Sec. 6.2 In the Senate, when a joint resolution proposing an amendment
to the Constitution is under consideration, an amendment to the
joint resolution is adopted by a majority vote.
On Oct. 2, 1970,(1) the Presiding Officer of the
Senate,(2) in response to parliamentary inquiries, advised
the Senate of the vote required to adopt amendments, or
[[Page 44]]
amendments thereto, to joint resolutions proposing constitutional
amendments. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 118 Cong. Rec. 34755, 91st Cong. 2d Sess.
2. Clifford P. Hansen (WY).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Howard H.] BAKER [Jr., of Tennessee]. A further
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.
Mr. BAKER. Do I correctly understand that the amendment in the
nature of a substitute now proposed by the distinguished Senator
from North Carolina could be adopted as a substitute by a simple
majority vote, and not require a two-thirds vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is right.
Mr. BAKER. And by that same token, a new substitute to the
resolution itself, striking the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, could also be adopted by a majority vote?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Any amendment to the substitute of the
pending resolution could be adopted by a simple majority vote.
Vote Required When Joint Resolution Proposing Legislation is Pending
Sec. 6.3 In the Senate, a joint resolution that is legislative in
nature may be amended by majority vote to convert the joint
resolution into one proposing an amendment to the Constitution.
Upon adoption of such an amendment, a two-thirds vote is required
for passage of the joint resolution.
On Mar. 27, 1962,(1) when the Senate was considering
Senate Joint Resolution 29, proposing a national monument, Mr. Spessard
L. Holland, of Florida, offered an amendment that would propose a
constitutional amendment instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 110 Cong. Rec. 5072-106, 87th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the alexander hamilton national monument -- amendment to the
constitution dealing with poll taxes
The Senate resumed consideration of the joint resolution (S.J.
Res. 29) providing for the establishing of the former dwelling
house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.
Mr. [Mike] MANSFIELD [of Montana]. Mr. President, what is the
pending question?
The VICE PRESIDENT.(2) The question is on agreeing
to the amendment of the Senator from Florida [Mr. Holland],
striking out all after the resolving clause, as amended, of Senate
Joint Resolution 29, and inserting in lieu thereof certain other
words.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Lyndon B. Johnson (TX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. MANSFIELD. This is a proposed constitutional amendment
seeking to abolish the poll tax in the several States, is it?
Before putting the question to the Senate on a point of order
against the Holland amendment based on constitutional grounds,
[[Page 45]]
the Chair responded to a parliamentary inquiry concerning the vote
required to adopt the Holland amendment.
Mr. [Carl T.] CURTIS [of Nebraska]. If the resolution were to
be amended by the Holland amendment, it has been stated it would
require a two-thirds vote for passage. My question is, Will it
require a two-thirds vote to adopt the Holland amendment to Senate
Joint Resolution 29?
The VICE PRESIDENT. Only a majority vote is required in acting
upon an amendment.
After the Senate tabled the point of order and the Holland
amendment was adopted, the Senate voted on passage of the amended joint
resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.(3) The joint resolution
having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass? On
this question the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Lee Metcalf (MT).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Chief Clerk called the roll. . . .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two-thirds of the Senators present and
voting having voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution is
passed.
Yeas and Nays Not Required
Sec. 6.4 The yeas and nays are not required in the Senate on the
question of passing a joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution.
On June 27, 2006,(1) the Senate ordered the yeas and
nays on Senate Joint Resolution 12, proposing an amendment to the
Constitution regarding physical desecration of the flag, as follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 152 Cong. Rec. 12654, 109th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PRESIDING OFFICER.(2) The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the joint resolution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Lamar Alexander (TN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third
reading and was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read
the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution, as
amended, pass?
Mr. [Orrin G.] HATCH [of Utah]. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second. The clerk will call the roll.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
[Page 45-46]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
C. Senate Consideration; House-Senate Relations
Sec. 7. Conference Reports
Differences between the two Houses on a joint resolution proposing
a constitutional amendment may be committed to a committee of
conference,(1) the report thereof requiring a two-thirds
vote for adoption.(2) As with the vote on initial passage of
the joint resolution,(3) the yeas and nays are
[[Page 46]]
not required on the vote on adopting the conference report in the
House.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7037.
2. Id. at Sec. 7036.
3. See Sec. 5.4, supra.
4. See, e.g., 111 Cong. Rec. 15212-16, 89th Cong. 1st Sess., June 30,
1965. The same is true in the Senate, although on one occasion,
upon putting the question on agreeing to a conference report
proposing an amendment to the Constitution, the Presiding
Officer announced that the ``yeas and nays must be called.'' 41
Cong. Globe 1638, 1641, 40th Cong. 3d Sess., Feb. 26, 1869
(proceedings carried in Sec. 6.1, supra).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 46-48]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
C. Senate Consideration; House-Senate Relations
Sec. 8. Amendments Between the Houses
When one House has passed a joint resolution proposing a
constitutional amendment and has transmitted it to the other House, the
House receiving the joint resolution may adopt amendments by a simple
majority vote, but a two-thirds vote is required for
passage.(1) If one House passes with amendments such a joint
resolution that originated in the other House, a two-thirds vote is
required in the House in which the joint resolution originated in order
to concur in the amendments of the other House.(2) In the
rare case where one House amends and passes a joint resolution of the
other House by a two-thirds vote and then recedes from that amendment
by a simple majority vote, the joint resolution is not considered as
having been passed.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 8.1, infra.
2. See Sec. Sec. 8.2, 8.3, infra.
3. See 5 Hinds' Precedents
Sec. 7035. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 8.1 Vote required to adopt an amendment before passage of other
House's joint resolution.
On Apr. 13, 1965,(1) the House agreed to an amendment to
a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment that had
originated in the Senate. The amendment was adopted by a simple
majority vote and the Senate joint resolution, as amended, was then
passed by the requisite two-thirds vote. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 111 Cong. Rec. 7969, 89th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the title of the Senate joint resolution, as
follows:
S.J. Res. 1
Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States relating to succession to the Presidency and
Vice-Presidency and to cases where the President is unable to
discharge the powers and duties of his office[.] . . .
The SPEAKER.(2) The Clerk will report the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. John W. McCormack (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 47]]
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. [Emanuel] Celler [of New York]:
``Strike out all after the resolving clause of Senate Joint
Resolution 1 and insert the provisions of House Joint
Resolution 1, as passed by the House.''
The SPEAKER. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the third reading of the Senate
joint resolution.
The Senate joint resolution was ordered to be read a third
time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the Senate joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the Senate joint resolution was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
A similar joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1) was laid on the table.
Sec. 8.2 A two-thirds vote is required in the House to adopt a motion
that the House concur in Senate amendments to a House joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.
On Mar. 21, 1947,(1) the House concurred in Senate
amendments to House Joint Resolution 27, proposing a constitutional
amendment regarding the term of office of the President of the United
States, by a two-thirds vote. Proceedings were as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 93 Cong. Rec. 2389, 2392, 80th Cong. 1st Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Earl] MICHENER [of Michigan]. Mr. Speaker, I ask the
Speaker to lay before the House for immediate consideration House
Joint Resolution 27, a joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of
office of the President, with Senate amendments.
The SPEAKER.(2) The Clerk will report the title of
the joint resolution and the Senate amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Joseph W. Martin, Jr. (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The Clerk read the Senate amendments[.] . . .
Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, this bill with the Senate amendment
was returned to the House on March 13. It was taken informally
before the full Committee on the Judiciary, and I am instructed by
that committee to call the resolution up at this time for the
purpose of agreeing to the Senate amendment. I have followed
precedent and cleared through the majority leader and the minority
leader.
I therefore move that the House concur in the Senate amendment.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Michener moves that the House concur in the Senate
amendment.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 1
hour. . . .
Mr. MICHENER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
[[Page 48]]
The previous question was ordered.
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
[Robert] Thomason [of Texas]) there were--ayes 81, noes 29.
Mr. [Aime J.] FORAND [of Rhode Island]. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground a quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will count.
Mr. FORAND. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the point of order.
So (two-thirds having voted in favor thereof) the Senate
amendments were concurred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Sec. 8.3 A two-thirds vote is required in the Senate to adopt a motion
that the Senate concur in House amendments to a Senate joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.
On Dec. 18, 1917,(1) the Senate had under consideration
Senate Joint Resolution 17, proposing a constitutional amendment
prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating
liquors, with House amendments thereto. After a motion was made that
the Senate concur in the House amendments, Mr. William E. Borah, of
Idaho, asked as a parliamentary inquiry whether a two-thirds vote was
required to agree to the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 56 Cong. Rec. 477, 65th Cong. 2d Sess. See also 106 Cong. Rec.
12850-58, 86th Cong. 2d Sess., June 16, 1960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VICE PRESIDENT.(2) 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Thomas R. Marshall (IN).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49]]
[Page 49-50]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
D. Ratification
Sec. 9. Generally; Certification and Publication
Unlike a joint resolution of a legislative nature, a joint
resolution proposing a constitutional amendment is not presented to the
President under Article I, Sec. 7, clause 2 of the Constitution.
Rather, such a joint resolution is submitted to the States for
ratification. -------------------
Sec. 9.1 Constitutional amendments that have passed both Houses are not
presented to the President.
On Feb. 25, 1869,(1) Speaker Schuyler Colfax, of
Indiana, overruled a point of order that a proposed constitutional
amendment would have to be presented to the President for approval. The
ruling of the Chair was as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 41 Cong. Globe 1563, 40th Cong. 3d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SPEAKER. The gentleman having stated the point of order the
Chair will decide it. It has been raised once before and decided by
the Chair. He will repeat the substantial points of that decision,
which he thinks will satisfy the gentleman that his point is not
well taken, although based by him upon the Constitution of the
United States. The question was raised distinctly in 1803 in the
Senate of the United States, on a motion that the then proposed
amendment to the Constitution should be submitted to the
President[.] . . .
On a distinct vote of 23 to 7 the Senate voted that the
Committee on Enrolled Bills should not present the proposed
amendment. This is a decision made by one of the early Congresses.
But the Chair is not satisfied with having it rest on that; he is
disposed to present higher authority in overruling the point of
order.
In 1798, a case(2) arose in the Supreme Court of the
United States depending upon the amendment to the Constitution
proposed in 1794, and the counsel, in argument before the court,
insisted that the amendment was not valid, not having been approved
by the President of the United States. . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court, speaking through [Justice Chase] . . . observed:
``The negative of the President applies only to the
ordinary cases of legislation. He has nothing to do with the
proposition or adoption of amendments to the Constitution.''
As the Supreme Court of the United States has settled this
question by a decision, the Chair does not need to read further
authorities. . . .
The Chair, therefore, thinks that the question is settled, not
only by the practice of Congress but by a decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States, and therefore overrules the point of
order.
[[Page 50]]
Sec. 9.2 Enrolled joint resolutions proposing constitutional amendments
are submitted to the appropriate Federal official, designated by
law, for submission to the States.
Responsibility for receiving from Congress enrolled joint
resolutions by which Congress proposes to the States amendments to the
Constitution and for transmitting the same to the States has been
vested in different officials of the executive branch over time.
Currently, that responsibility is vested in the Archivist of the United
States.(1) The delivery of such measures to the appropriate
official is reported to the House originating the amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See Sec. 10, infra, and 1 USC Sec. 106b (relating to amendments to
the Constitution), and related annotations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An example from 1947 is as follows:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. See 93 Cong. Rec. 2482, 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Mar. 24, 1947.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
enrolled joint resolution signed
Mr. [Joseph] LeCOMPTE [of Kentucky], from the Committee on
House Administration, reported that that committee had examined and
found truly enrolled a joint resolution of the House of the
following title, which was thereupon signed by the Speaker:
H.J. Res. 27. Joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of
office of the President.
joint resolution filed with the secretary of state
Mr. LeCompte, from the Committee on House Administration,
reported that that committee did on this day present to and file
with the Secretary of State of the United States a joint resolution
of the following title:
H.J. Res. 27. Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of
office of the President.
Another instance occurred on June 17, 1960:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 106 Cong. Rec. 13101, 86th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
enrolled joint resolution presented
The Secretary of the Senate reported that on today, June 17,
1960, he presented to the Administrator, General Services
Administration, the enrolled joint resolution (S.J. Res. 39)
proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States
granting representation in the electoral college to the District of
Columbia.
[Page 50-55]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
D. Ratification
Sec. 10. Submission to the States; Records of Ratification
The process by which a proposed amendment to the Constitution
leaves Congress as officially proposed and eventually becomes effective
as part of the Constitution has changed over the years
[[Page 51]]
and occasionally has included actions by the President not necessary to
the effectiveness of the amendment. For example, the two Houses by
concurrent resolution asked the President to transmit copies of the
proposed 15th Amendment to the executives of the States,(1)
and the President informed Congress of the promulgation of the
ratification of the 15th Amendment.(2) The President was
officially involved only in the first 11 amendments(3) and
the 15th.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7043. Such a concurrent resolution is not
privileged in the House. 8 Cannon's Precedents Sec. 3508.
2. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7044.
3. See Sec. Sec. 10.1, 10.2, infra.
4. 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ministerial functions of transmitting proposed amendments to
the States, receiving the notices of ratification by States, and, in
some instances, declaring an amendment effective have been carried out
successively by the Secretary of State,(5) the Administrator
of General Services,(6) and the Archivist of the United
States.(7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. See Sec. 10.2, infra.
6. See Sec. 10.3, infra.
7. See Sec. 10.4, infra. -------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Early Practice
Sec. 10.1 President communicated ratification of Bill of Rights to
Congress.
The President notified the Congress of the ratification of the
first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) by message as
follows:(1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 1 Annals of Cong. 54, 2d Cong. 1st Sess., Dec. 30, 1791.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following Message from the President of the United States
was received:
Gentlemen of the Senate, and
of the House of Representatives:
I lay before you a copy of the ratification, by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, of the articles of amendment proposed by
Congress to the Constitution of the United States; and a copy of a
letter which accompanied said ratification, from the Governor of
Virginia.
G. WASHINGTON
United States, December 30, 1791.
The papers referred to in the Message are as follows:
Council Chamber,
Richmond, Dec. 22, 1791.
Sir: The General Assembly, during their late session, have
adopted, on the part of this Commonwealth, all the amendments
proposed by Congress to the Constitution of the United States;
their ratification whereof I do myself the honor herewith to
transmit.
I have the honor to be, &c.
HENRY LEE.
The President of the United States.
Virginia:
General Assembly, begun and held at the Capitol, in the city of
Richmond, on Monday, the 17th day of October, in the year of our
Lord 1791.
Monday, December 5, 1791.
[[Page 52]]
Resolved, That the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth,
seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth articles of
the amendments proposed by Congress to the Constitution of the
United States, be ratified by this Commonwealth.
December 15th, 1791: Agreed to by the Senate.
JOHN PRIDE,
S[ecretary]. [of the] S[enate].
THOS. MATTHEWS,
S[ecretary]. [of the] H[ouse of] D[elegates].
Examined.
The House received the same message:(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. H. Jour., Vol. 1, p. 483, 2d Cong. 1st Sess, Dec. 30, 1791.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message, in writing, was received from the President of
the United States, by Mr. Lear, his Secretary, as followeth:
United States,
December 30th 1791.
Gentleman of the Senate and the
House of Representatives:
I lay before you a copy of the ratification, by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, of the articles of amendment proposed by
Congress to the Constitution of the United States, and a copy of a
letter which accompanied said ratification from the Governor of
Virginia.
G. WASHINGTON.
The papers referred to in the said message were read, and ordered
to lie on the table.
Sec. 10.2 President declares 11th Amendment; Secretary of State assumes
record-keeping responsibility.
The Senate adopted a resolution setting out the history of
ratification of the first 13 proposed amendments and requesting the
President to ascertain whether any States other than those recorded had
ratified the 11th Amendment: (1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. S. Jour. Vol. 2, pp. 315, 316, 4th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 31, 1797.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. [Henry] Tazewell [of Virginia] reported, from the committee
on the subject of amendments to the constitution of the United
States, which was read, as follows:
``That, of the twelve amendments proposed by Congress, at their
session begun and held in New York on the 4th of March, 1789, the
following States ratified the 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th,
10th, 11th, 12th, prior to the first day of March, 1791, viz. New
Jersey, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire,
Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island; which States
making three-fourths of the then thirteen United States, the said
amendments have become a part of the constitution.
``That the first amendment was ratified prior to the first day
of March, 1791, by the following States, viz. New Jersey, Maryland,
North Carolina, South Carolina, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode
Island, and, subsequent to that period, by Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and Vermont; which number
[[Page 53]]
not making three-fourths of the States at the period of
ratification, the said amendment has not as yet become a part of
the constitution.
``That the second amendment was ratified prior to the 1st day
of March, 1791, by the following States: Maryland, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Delaware, and, subsequent to that period, by
Virginia and Vermont; which number not making three-fourths of the
States, the said amendment has not become a part of the
constitution.''
``That the amendment respecting the suability of States, which
has been proposed by Congress since March, 1791, has been ratified
by the following States: New York, Massachusetts, Vermont, New
Hampshire, Georgia, Delaware, Rhode Island, and North Carolina, as
appears by authentic documents returned to Congress. The committee
have strong reasons to believe that other States have ratified this
latter amendment, and that the evidences of the fact have not been
as yet returned to the proper departments of the government;
wherefore, as the number returned do not amount to three-fourths of
the States, the said amendment cannot, under present circumstances,
be reported as forming a part of the constitution.
Whereupon,
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States, That the President be requested to adopt some speedy
and effectual means of obtaining information from the States of
Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, and South Carolina, whether they have ratified
the amendment proposed by Congress to the constitution concerning
the suability of States; if they have, to obtain the proper
evidences thereof.
Ordered, That the Secretary desire the concurrence of the House
of Representatives in this resolution.
The House agreed to the resolution on Feb. 24, 1797.(2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. H. Jour. Vol. 2, p. 718, 4th Cong. 2d Sess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President transmitted to the Congress a message not only
indicating that a particular State had ratified an amendment, but also
declaring that the amendment had become part of the Constitution. The
Journal recorded receipt of the message as follows:(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. H. Jour. Vol. 3, p. 126, 5th Cong. 2d Sess., Jan. 8, 1798.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A message, in writing, was received from the President of the
United States, by Mr. Taylor, Chief Clerk in the Department of
State, as followeth:
Gentleman of the Senate and Gentleman of the House of
Representatives:
I have now an opportunity to transmit to Congress a report of
the Secretary of State, with a copy of an act of the Legislature of
the State of Kentucky, consenting to the ratification of the
amendment of the Constitution of the United States, proposed by
Congress in their resolution of the second day of December, one
thousand seven hundred and ninety-three, relative to the suability
of States. This amendment having been adopted by three-fourths of
the several States, may now be declared to be a part of the
Constitution of the United States.
JOHN ADAMS.
United States, January 8th, 1798.
[[Page 54]]
The said message, and papers referred to therein, were read,
and ordered to lie on the table.
The message also indicates that the President directed the
Secretary of State to keep records on the ratification of amendments by
the States, beginning an historical pattern that continued until the
Reorganization Plan No. 20 of 1950 transferred the responsibility from
the Secretary of State.(4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. See Sec. 10.3, infra. For an example of a State's certificate of
ratification sent to the Secretary of State with a copy laid
before the House, see 76 Cong. Rec. 35, 72d Cong. 2d Sess.,
Dec. 5, 1932.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification, Publication, and Preservation Functions Vested in the
Administrator of General Services
Sec. 10.3 A Presidential reorganization plan transferred responsibility
for certification, publication, and preservation of constitutional
amendments from the Secretary of State to the Administrator of
General Services.
Under the authority of the Reorganization Act of
1949,(1) President Harry S Truman transmitted Reorganization
Plan No. 20 of 1950(2) to the Congress on Mar. 13, 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 63 Stat. 203
2. 5 USC App. Reorganization Plan No. 20 of 1950.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The plan, in pertinent part, read as follows:
STATUTES AT LARGE AND OTHER MATTERS
Section 1. Functions Transferred from Department of State to
Administrator of General Services
There are hereby transferred to the Administrator of General
Services the functions of the Secretary of State and the Department
of State with respect to: . . .
(c) The certification and publication of amendments to the
Constitution of the United States (. . . [1 U.S.C. 106b]) and the
preservation of such amendments;
The message of the President transmitting the reorganization plan
included the following:
Since its establishment in 1789 the Department of State has
performed certain routine secretarial and recordkeeping functions
for the Federal Government which are entirely extraneous . . . to
the conduct of foreign relations. While these activities do not
properly belong in the Department, they were assigned to it and
continued under its jurisdiction for want of an appropriate agency
for their performance. . . .
Through the National Archives and Records Service the General
Services Administration is especially staffed and equipped for the
conduct of activities of these types.
Functions Vested in the Archivist of the United States
Sec. 10.4 Archivist charged with printing and certifying adoption of
amendments.
[[Page 55]]
Effective Apr. 1, 1985, section 106b of title 1, United States
Code, (1) was amended(2) to transfer from the
Administrator of General Services to the newly established Archivist of
the United States the responsibility for publishing and certifying the
adoption of amendments to the Constitution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Section 106b of title 1, United States Code, reads as follows:
Sec. 106b. LAmendments to Constitution
Whenever official notice is received at the National
Archives and Records Administration that any amendment proposed
to the Constitution of the United States has been adopted,
according to the provisions of the Constitution, the Archivist
of the United States shall forthwith cause the amendment to be
published, with his certificate, specifying the States by which
the same may have been adopted, and that the same has become
valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the
Constitution of the United States.
2. Section 107(d) of the National Archives and Records Administration
Act of 1984 (Pub. L. No. 98-497; Oct. 19, 1984, 98 Stat. 2291).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Archivist of the United States first executed this
responsibility under Sec. 106b of title 1, United States Code, in 1992
when the 27th Amendment was published and certified as having been
adopted.(3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. House Rules and Manual Sec. 258, footnote 18 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Page 55]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
D. Ratification
Sec. 11. State Consent; Withdrawal and Rescission of Withdrawal
Under Article V of the Constitution, the approval of three-fourths
of the States is required to ratify an amendment to the Constitution.
Whether a State may rescind its ratification of a constitutional
amendment has been the subject of discussion(1) and
litigation.(2) A State, having previously rescinded its
ratification before the effectiveness of an amendment, has later
ratified the amendment (after it had become effective). For example, on
Mar. 12, 2003,(3) the Ohio General Assembly passed a joint
resolution ratifying the 14th Amendment. The joint resolution recited
the history of Ohio's action with respect to the 14th Amendment, as
follows: Ohio ratified the amendment on Jan. 11, 1867, but rescinded
such ratification on Jan. 15, 1868 (the amendment becoming effective
six months later).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. See 5 Hinds' Precedents Sec. 7042.
2. For relevant case law, see House Rules and Manual Sec. 192 (2007).
3. The memorial was noted at 150 Cong. Rec. 100, 108th Congress 2d
Sess., Jan. 20, 2004. See also Id. for a memorial from New
Jersey revoking an earlier attempt to withdraw its ratification
of an amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56]]
[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]]
[Page 61-66]
CHAPTER 34
Constitutional Amendments
D. Ratification
Sec. INDEX TO PRECEDENTS
Amendments to joint resolution passed by other House
concur in amendments, motion to, requires two-thirds vote in House
in which joint resolution originated
House joint resolution, Sec. 8.2
Senate joint resolution, Sec. 8.3
vote, majority, to adopt, Sec. Sec. 8, 8.1
vote, two-thirds, required for passage of joint resolution after
amendments adopted, Sec. 8
Amendments to joint resolution, see Joint resolution proposing
amendment to Constitution; Voting
Archivist of the United States, role see Passage of joint resolution,
procedures after; Ratification, procedures relating to
Article V of Constitution as prescribing procedures, Sec. 1
Assembly of Congress, amendment relating to, Sec. 5.3
Bill of Rights, ratification of (see also Ratification, procedures
relating to), Sec. Sec. 10.1, 12.4
Budget, balanced, amendment relating to, Sec. Sec. 4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.13,
4.14, 4.17
Certification and publication of amendment after adoption, see
Ratification, procedures relating to
Committee jurisdiction over joint resolutions proposing amendments
history, Sec. Sec. 3-3.2
Judiciary, Committee on the, jurisdiction of, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.2
subject matter of amendment as not affecting jurisdiction of
Committee on the Judiciary, Sec. 3.2
Committee of the Whole, consideration in, of joint resolution proposing
amendment to Constitution (see also Special rules providing for
consideration of joint resolutions proposing amendments to
Constitution)
generally, Sec. Sec. 4.6, 4.7
amendment in nature of substitute to joint resolution, rule
provided for consideration of, Sec. Sec. 4.4, 4.17
special rule, pursuant to, Sec. Sec. 4.6, 4.7
Compensation of Members of Congress, amendment relating to power to
increase, Sec. 12.4
Conference report on joint resolution
vote, two-thirds, required for adoption, Sec. 7
yeas and nays not required for adoption in House, Sec. 7
Consideration of joint resolutions proposing amendments to Constitution
(see also Subject matter of proposed constitutional amendment)
generally, Sec. 4
amendments to joint resolution
other House, adopted by, see Amendments to joint resolution
passed by other House
voting on, see Voting
debate, see Debate
discharge of joint resolution, consideration in House following
(see also generally, Discharge), Sec. 4.10
President, not presented to, for approval, Sec. 2
quorum required for final passage (see also Voting), Sec. Sec. 5,
5.1
resolving clause
amendment from floor corrected form of, Sec. 4.17
form, Sec. Sec. 2, 4.17
[[Page 62]]
statute prescribing form, Sec. Sec. 2, 4.17
Senate, in, see Senate, proceedings in
special rules, under, see Special rules providing for consideration
of joint resolutions proposing amendments to Constitution
suspension of the rules, under, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
voting generally, see Voting
Debate
amendment to joint resolution
previous question, priority in recognition to Member seeking to
move, over Member yielded to for purpose of offering
amendment, Sec. 4.16
substitute, amendment in nature of, form of, Sec. 4.17
voting on, see Voting
discharge, motion to, debate on (see also Discharge),
Sec. Sec. 4.11, 4.12
previous question, priority in recognition to Member seeking to
move, over Member yielded to for purpose of offering amendment,
Sec. 4.16
recognition
previous question, priority in recognition to Member seeking to
move, over Member yielded to for purpose of offering
amendment, Sec. 4.16
special rule, pursuant to
close debate, recognition to, where rule divided control of
debate among three Members, Sec. 4.7
reported, where joint resolution was not, Sec. 4.6
unanimous consent, modification by, of terms governing debate,
Sec. 4.13
unanimous consent, modification of terms of special rule governing
debate, Sec. 4.13
Discharge
debate on motion to discharge, Sec. Sec. 4.11, 4.12
joint resolution, of
consideration in House after discharge, Sec. 4.10
House, consideration in, after discharge, Sec. 4.10
motion to proceed to immediate consideration is privileged
after adoption of motion to discharge, Sec. 4.9
signatures required, Sec. 4.8
recommit joint resolution, motion to, following discharge, see
Recommit joint resolution, motion to
special rule providing for consideration of joint resolution,
discharge of
Calendar, Discharge, substitute rule reported prior to call of,
Sec. 4.14
debate on motion, Sec. 4.12
subsequent rule reported prior to call of Discharge Calendar
where first rule was object of motion to discharge,
Sec. 4.14
unanimous consent, consideration of rule by, before motion
called up, Sec. 4.13
vote on joint resolution considered under discharge process, see
Voting
District of Columbia, amendment granting representation in Electoral
College to, Sec. 9.2
Eighteen-year-olds, amendment granting right to vote to, Sec. 12.2
Election of President and Vice President, amendment regarding (see
Subject matter of proposed constitutional amendment)
Committee, referred to, under former practice, Sec. 3.1
[[Page 63]]
reported with amendment, joint resolution was, Sec. 3.1
Equal rights for men and women, amendment concerning, Sec. Sec. 4.11,
12.3
Flag, desecration of, amendment relating to, Sec. 6.4
Joint resolution proposing amendment to Constitution (see Subject
matter of proposed constitutional amendment)
amendment in nature of substitute to
form, Sec. 4.17
amendments to
voting on, see Voting
conference report on, see Conference report on joint resolution
consideration
generally, Sec. 4
special rule, under, see Special rules providing for
consideration of joint resolutions proposing amendments to
Constitution
suspension of rules, under, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.2
form of resolving clause, Sec. 2
germane, instructions in motion to recommit bill held not to be,
where requiring that content of bill be reported as joint
resolution, Sec. 4.15
President, not presented to, for approval, Sec. 2
quorum required for final passage (see Voting) Sec. Sec. 5, 5.1
recommit bill, instructions in motion to, were not germane where
requiring that content of bill be reported as joint resolution,
Sec. 4.15
resolving clause
amendment to correct form of, Sec. 4.17
form, Sec. Sec. 2, 4.17
statute prescribing form, Sec. Sec. 2, 4.17
Senate, consideration in, see Senate, proceedings in
voting generally, see Voting
Judiciary, Committee on the, has jurisdiction over joint resolutions
proposing amendments, Sec. Sec. 3, 3.2
Jurisdiction, committee, see Committee jurisdiction over joint
resolutions proposing amendments
Legislative proposal, effect to convert, to proposal to amend
Constitution, Sec. Sec. 4.15, 6, 6.3
Passage of joint resolution, procedures after (see Ratification,
procedures relating to)
enrolled joint resolution submitted to designated official for
transmission to States, Sec. 9.2
President, joint resolution not presented to, for approval,
Sec. Sec. 2, 9, 9.1
states, submission to, Sec. 9.2
submission of enrolled joint resolution to designated official for
transmission to states, Sec. 9.2
Poll tax, amendment to abolish, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.15, 6.3
Prayer in public buildings, amendment concerning, Sec. Sec. 4.8, 4.9,
4.16
Present and voting, two-thirds of Members, as required, see Voting
Presidential and Vice Presidential succession, see Subject matter of
proposed amendment
President, joint resolution proposing amendment not presented to, for
approval, Sec. Sec. 2, 9, 9.1
Procedures for amendment to Constitution
Article V as prescribing, Sec. 1
[[Page 64]]
Committee jurisdiction over joint resolution, Sec. Sec. 3-3.2
Congress may propose amendment, Sec. 1
convention requested by states, Sec. 1
Joint resolution introduced in Congress
consideration generally, see Joint resolution proposing
amendment to Constitution
President, not presented to, for approval, Sec. 2
resolving clause, form of, Sec. 2
Procedures for consideration of joint resolution, see Consideration of
joint resolutions proposing amendments to Constitution
Prohibition of liquors, amendment concerning, Sec. Sec. 8.3, 12.1
Quorum for consideration, see Voting
Ratification, procedures relating to
Archivist of the United States, role of
certification and publication, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.4, 12.4
notification of ratification by states given by Archivist,
Sec. Sec. 10, 10.4, 12.4
time limit for ratification, extension of, notification to
states of, Sec. 12.3
Bill of Rights, President notified Congress of ratification of,
Sec. 10.1
certification and publication
Administrator of General Services, duties formerly vested in,
Sec. Sec. 10.3, 10.4
Archivist of the United States, role of, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.4,
12.4
Reorganization Plan transferred functions to designated
official, Sec. 10.3
Secretary of State, former role of, Sec. Sec. 10.2, 10.3
statute transferred functions to Archivist of the United
States, Sec. 10.4
effectiveness of ratification
declarations, separate, by two Houses in simple and concurrent
resolutions concerning, Sec. 12.4
political question for Congress to determine, Sec. 12.4
notification of ratification by states
Archivist of the United States, role of, Sec. Sec. 10, 10.4,
12.4
historical development of procedures, Sec. Sec. 10-10.4
rescission of ratification by state, Sec. 11
Secretary of State, former role of, Sec. Sec. 10.2, 10.3
States, submission of proposed amendment to, see States, submission
of proposed amendment to
Supreme Court, decisions by
effectiveness of ratification as political question for
Congress, Sec. 12.4
reasonable time, ratification within, Sec. 12.4
time limits on ratification
extension of time limit, majority vote on joint resolution to
grant, where time limit was not part of amendment,
Sec. 12.3
no time limits applied to earlier amendments, Sec. 12.4
reasonable time, ratification must be within, Sec. 12.4
salaries of Members of Congress, amendment to limit power of
Members to raise, ratified after two centuries, Sec. 12.4
seven years as customary limit, Sec. Sec. 12-12.3
text of amendment, stated in, under earlier practice,
Sec. Sec. 12, 12.1
text of joint resolution, stated in, rather than in amendment
itself in current practice, Sec. Sec. 12.2, 12.3
[[Page 65]]
withdrawal of ratification by State, Sec. 11
Recognition, see Debate
Recommit joint resolution, motion to
discharge, where joint resolution being considered pursuant to
motion to, Sec. 4.11
Recommit, motion to, with instructions to report contents of bill in
form of joint resolution proposing to amend Constitution, Sec. 4.15
Rescission or withdrawal of ratification, see Ratification, procedures
relating to
Salaries of Members of Congress, limitation on power to increase,
Sec. 12.4
School busing, amendment concerning, Sec. 4.10
Senate, proceedings in
amendment to joint resolution proposing constitutional amendment
vote, adopted by majority, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.2, 6.3
conference report on joint resolution, see Conference report on
joint resolution
legislative proposal was converted by amendment to proposal to
amend constitution, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.3
voting
amendment to joint resolution to amend Constitution, majority
vote required for, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.2, 6.3
legislative proposal converted by amendment to proposal to
amend Constitution, Sec. Sec. 6, 6.3
present and voting, two-thirds of Senators, required for
passage of joint resolution to amend Constitution,
Sec. Sec. 6.1, 6.3
yeas and nays not required on vote on passage, Sec. 6.4
Special rules providing for consideration of joint resolutions
proposing amendments to Constitution
adoption, vote required for, Sec. 4.8
amendment in nature of substitute to joint resolution, rule
providing for, to be considered in Committee of the Whole,
Sec. 4.4
amendment in nature of substitute to joint resolution, rule
providing for, to be considered in House, Sec. 4.3
amendments in nature of substitute to joint resolution, multiple,
rule providing for, Sec. 4.4
debate, modification of terms governing, by unanimous consent,
Sec. 4.13
debate, provisions concerning
division between Member in favor and Member opposed, Sec. 4.6
three Members, control of time divided among, Sec. 4.7
discharge of House committee from consideration of similar Senate
joint resolution, rule provided for, Sec. 4.5
discharge of special rule, see Discharge
vote required for adoption, Sec. 4.8
States, memorials or applications submitted by
committee jurisdiction of, Sec. 3
conventions, requesting, Sec. 1
rescinding request for convention, Sec. 1
States, submission of proposed amendment to (see Ratification,
procedures relating to)
generally, Sec. 9.2
Archivist of the United States, role of, Sec. 9.2
Subject matter of proposed constitutional amendment
assembly of Congress, Sec. 5.3
Bill of Rights, see Bill of Rights, ratification of
[[Page 66]]
budget, balanced, provision as to, Sec. Sec. 4.4, 4.6, 4.7, 4.13,
4.14, 4.17
Committee on the Judiciary, jurisdiction of, as not affected by,
Sec. 3.2
compensation of Members of Congress, proposals to change, Sec. 12.4
Congress, salaries of Members of, limitation on power to increase,
Sec. 12.4
District of Columbia, granting representation in electoral college
to, Sec. 9.2
eighteen-year-olds, right to vote granted to, Sec. 12.2
election of President and Vice President, Sec. Sec. 3.1, 5.1
equal rights for men and women, Sec. Sec. 4.11, 12.3
flag, desecration of, Sec. 6.4
jurisdiction of Committee on the Judiciary as not affected by,
Sec. 3.2
poll tax, amendment to abolish, Sec. Sec. 4.1, 4.15, 6.3
prayer in public buildings, Sec. Sec. 4.8, 4.9, 4.16
President and Vice President, election of, Sec. Sec. 3.1, 5.1
Presidential and Vice Presidential succession, Sec. Sec. 4.5, 8.1
President, term of office of, Sec. Sec. 8.2, 9.2
prohibition of liquors, Sec. Sec. 8.3, 12.1
referenda on war, Sec. Sec. 4.12, 5.2
salaries of Members of Congress, limitation on power to increase,
Sec. 12.4
school busing, Sec. 4.10
states, suits against, Sec. 10.2
term of office of President, Sec. Sec. 8.2, 9.2
voting rights, Sec. Sec. 6.1, 12.2
war, referenda on, Sec. Sec. 4.12, 5.2
women, equal rights for, Sec. Sec. 4.11, 12.3
Suspension of rules, consideration of joint resolution proposing
constitutional amendment under
poll tax, amendment to abolish, Sec. 4.1
Time limits on ratification, see Ratification, procedures relating to
Voting
amendments to joint resolution, motion to concur in, requires two-
thirds vote in House in which joint resolution originated,
Sec. Sec. 8.2, 8.3
amendment to joint resolution, majority vote required for adoption
of, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.3, 8, 8.1
conference report, see Conference report on joint resolution
joint resolution, two-thirds vote required for passage of,
Sec. Sec. 2, 4.12, 5, 5.1
present and voting, two-thirds of Members, required for passage,
Sec. 5.1
voice vote, question on final passage of joint resolution first put
to, Sec. 5
yeas and nays not required for passage of joint resolution to amend
Constitution, Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4
Voting rights, amendments to grant, see, Subject matter of proposed
constitutional amendment
War, referenda on, amendment concerning, Sec. Sec. 4.12, 5.2
Withdrawal or rescission of ratification, see Ratification, procedures
relating to
Yeas and nays not required on passage of joint resolution (see Voting),
Sec. Sec. 5, 5.4