This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
I find this very uncomfortable, and embarrassing, but it seems this Amendment is still (technically) being considered by the states. Is it appropriate to speak of it in a purely past tense? It seems as late as the 1960s, a politican in Texas was promoting it.
The 27th Amendment was initially proposed in 1789, but not ratified until 1992, so a lack of current interest doesn't mean it's dead ... just sleeping. I've submitted some changes that clarify the amendment is still open for consideration. The changes have been rolled, back - not sure why.
I'm not usually a contributor to Wikipedia, so if gone about things the wrong way, I apologize. Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe the ratification process in the present tense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:400:5B40:5938:E171:3E53:4AC ( talk) 07:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Another page says the Corwin amendment did not pass the Senate. But I assume this is incorrect: https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/proposed-thirteenth-amendment-prevent-secession-1861
Madison's apportionment amendment would still technically be open for ratification. But perhaps one could make an argument that the actual 13 Amendment supersedes Corwin's (assuming it did pass the Senate). One would have to find an essay making this case. That would make sense, but I've never seen an article considering this. Sorry I'm not sure how to sign this comment.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
I find this very uncomfortable, and embarrassing, but it seems this Amendment is still (technically) being considered by the states. Is it appropriate to speak of it in a purely past tense? It seems as late as the 1960s, a politican in Texas was promoting it.
The 27th Amendment was initially proposed in 1789, but not ratified until 1992, so a lack of current interest doesn't mean it's dead ... just sleeping. I've submitted some changes that clarify the amendment is still open for consideration. The changes have been rolled, back - not sure why.
I'm not usually a contributor to Wikipedia, so if gone about things the wrong way, I apologize. Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe the ratification process in the present tense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:400:5B40:5938:E171:3E53:4AC ( talk) 07:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Another page says the Corwin amendment did not pass the Senate. But I assume this is incorrect: https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/proposed-thirteenth-amendment-prevent-secession-1861
Madison's apportionment amendment would still technically be open for ratification. But perhaps one could make an argument that the actual 13 Amendment supersedes Corwin's (assuming it did pass the Senate). One would have to find an essay making this case. That would make sense, but I've never seen an article considering this. Sorry I'm not sure how to sign this comment.