User talk:SMP0328./Archive 2019

Adoption vs. ratified

Thank you for your message.

The research I have done actually indicates that it is a three-step process.

Proposal, ratification, adoption.

George Washington brought the letter to congress that on Dec. 15, 1791 that the Virginia Congress's Senate agreed with what their General Assembly had resolved on December 5.[1]

Therefore, according to the Constitution it was law on this date.

However, as the sited pages shows, this was not presented to Congress until December 30. Adoption is "When the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents. It drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution."[2]

The executive branch has no legal document to enforce the amendment on the nonratifying states until the certificate is published along with the amendment. §106b [3]

This of course is a technical step but, as we have, arguable in the courts.

The proper way to construct the sentence would/could be:

It was ratified by the Virginia Legislature on December 15, 1791 into what was later adopted as the Bill of Rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philfromwaterbury (talk • contribs) 02:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I see your confusion. It is a two-step process, proposing and ratifying. If both steps are met, the proposed amendment immediately becomes part of the Constitution. The certification is simply a confirmation that the proposal was adopted because enough States ratified. The amendment would be part of the Constitution even without the certification, because the Constitution does not require certification. An amendment is adopted when it has been ratified by three-fourth of the States, not when that fact is certified. I hope this makes things clear. SMP0328. (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Didn't mean to come across as snotty (not to you, anyway). I had you mixed up with someone else. Plus I was reading the history backwards -- I thought it had read they for a long time. Go ahead and revert to he and we can start over with a discussion on the talk page. EEng 04:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/resources/bor/ratification_of_amendments2/
2. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution
3. http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=65&page=710