ARTICLE V.-MODE OF AMENDMENT. 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; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. In General All of the amendments proposed by the first session of Congress, consisting of the first ten, were intended to apply only to the Federal Government, and not as restrictions on the State governments. They were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities inherited from our English ancestors and from time immemorial. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 247. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 281. See also Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet. 551. Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 434. Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 76. Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 90. Legal Tender Cases, 12 Wall. 535. Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 278. North Missouri R. Co. v. McGuire, 20 Wall. 46. U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 552. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 166. McElvaine v. Brush, 142 U. S. 158. Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U. S. 492. Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 174. Two-thirds of Both Houses The two-thirds vote in each House of Congress, which is required in proposing an amendment to the Constitution, is a vote of two-thirds of the Members present-assuming the presence of a quorum-and not a two-thirds vote of the entire membership, present and absent. National Prohibition Cases, 253 U. S. 350. Ratification of Amendments by Referendum Referendum provisions of State constitution and statutes can not be applied in the ratification or rejection of amendments to the Federal Constitution without violating the requirement of this article that such ratification shall be by the legislatures of the several States, or by conventions therein, as Congress shall decide. Hawke v. Smith, 253 U. S. 231. Time Limit This article implies that amendments be ratified within reasonable time after proposal. Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U. S. 368, in which case it was held that the eighteenth amendment became effective on January 16, 1919, when its ratification in the State legislatures was consummated. Approval of the President To the contention that the eleventh amendment had not been proposed in the form prescribed by the Constitution, because Article I, section 7, requires the approval or disapproval of the President of "every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary," Justice Chase replied: There can surely be no necessity to answer that argument. 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. Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 381. Proceedings to Have Amendments Declared Void Fairchild v. Hughes (258 U. S. 126) was a proceeding to have the nineteenth amendment declared void, which the court held could not be instituted by a private citizen in the Federal courts. In Leser v. Garnett (258 U. S. 130) it was held that official notice from a State legislature to the Secretary of State, duly authenticated, of its adoption of a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, is conclusive upon him, and, when certified to by his proclamation, is conclusive upon the courts, although it was held in Dillon v. Gloss (256 U. S. 368) that the eighteenth amendment became a part of the Constitution on the date when ratification by the States was consummated, and not on the date when ratification was proclaimed by the Secretary of State. See also U. S. v. Colby, 265 Fed. 998. |