Talk:List of proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States

Amending process

This section should be deleted or moved, as it doesn't really list anything. Alternatively, the name for the article should be changed to something more appropriate. Any suggestions? Kdpssps (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's background. And why change the name? Outback the koala (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Change it to a title that doesn't make this section seem out of place. Kdpssps (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What if we changed the section on the amending process to "Background" or something like that instead? Other suggestions? Outback the koala (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. I also believe it would be useful to edit the statement so that it does not suggest that the two methods outlined by Article V do not limit the amendment process to those two alone.

Separating from main article

Why was this moved from the main article? It seems kind of paltry as a stand alone article. - SimonP 20:39, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

My reasoning to make it a stand-alone article included: 1)It's small today because it's a very incomplete list. There are dozens of amendments proposed every year. The main article is already over the recommended size limit. If we ever get this list more complete, it will be very large. 2) None of the "proposals" in the current list have advanced past the point of political rhetoric. They came across as a distraction to the main article. Moving them to a stand-alone seemed a better alternative than deleting. Rossami 21:46, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your probably right. The large advantage of the previous location was that it was close to the information on the successful and failed amendments of the past, information which is not easy to access from the current article. - SimonP 21:57, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Page moves

Move from Proposed amendments to the United States constitution

I moved this page from Proposed amendments to the United States constitution to Proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. This makes it consistent with the other pages relating to the U.S. Constitution, which all capitalize the c in Constitution. — Mateo SA | talk 05:55, Dec 23, 2004

Move from Proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

I moved this page again, from Proposed amendments to the United States constitution to Proposals for amendments to the United States Constitution. The term "proposed amendments" is often used to refer to proposals that have been passed by Congress and proposed to the states. "Proposals" is a better term for ideas not passed by Congress. Mateo SA | talk 04:26, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Proof?

Does anyone have proof that Steny Hoyer was the one to propose the most recent repeal to the twenty-second amendment?
updated a small bit of information from the page Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution along with the citing, on January 4, 2013, Rep. José Serrano attempted the most recent proposal to appeal the 22nd amendment 66.189.173.57 (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bricker Amendment

For some time I have been working on revisions to the Bricker Amendment article. I finally posted it and have a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Bricker Amendment/archive1. I'd welcome comments. I know all those references may seem extravagant, but I'm hoping to get it as an FA and those voters want lots of footnotes. PedanticallySpeaking 16:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian Amendment

The 'proposed mid-twentieth century' blurb here is contradicted by the content of the Christian amendment article--though I'm guessing the article's right, I don't know, and so will leave it to others to correct. Wilhelm Ritter 04:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Marriage between man and a woman.

Why isn't the so called constitutional amendment against gay marriage included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.111.215.111 (talk • contribs)

Personally, I haven't seen an actual legislative proposal on that topic. If you've got a source, add it. Rossami (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong definition of "proposed"?

Generally speaking, in the context of Constitutional amendments, a proposed amendment is one that has cleared the first phase for amendment, followed by ratification. For example, Article V says:

"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..."

While proposal is also a term used for introducing legislation in Congress, I feel that to mix the two meanings of proposal together makes the term ambiguous. Thus, I would restrict "proposed/proposal" to the Constitutional sense of the term (amendments approved by Congress or a Constitutional Convention) and then use a term such as "introduce" to refer to potential amendments introduced in a house of Congress that do not pass both houses. Thoughts? –Pakman044 23:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article thinking it was going to list every amendment of the said constitution ever proposed. It is still an interesting article and I got the information I wanted, but shouldn't the name be more like "List of proposed, but not yet accepted, amendments to the United States Constitution"- though it is a (bit) lengthy. -76.188.26.92 (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Needs to be changed its not congress decision of what to do Art V says shall call a convention. They dont get to decide what to do. 75.106.109.239 (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Madison's 17 amendments.

According to A more perfect union: the creation of the U.S. constitution "Madison was able to shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate." The 12 are:

• 1. Article the First/Congressional Apportionment Amendment
• 2. 27th
• 3-12. Bill of rights

but what are the 5 that were trimmed? -- Jeandré, 2008-11-25t10:01z

constitutiona convention of 2008?

http://www.newswithviews.com/Levant/nancy116.htm http://thebulletin.us/articles/2008/12/16/news/nation/doc494744dc48e97242563036.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.192.100 (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

why no mention in wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.192.100 (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps because it's complete bunk and that comes nowhere close to being a reliable source.

-IkonicDeath —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC).

Proposed Page Merge

These two articles are extremely similar and the information they contain could easily be fused together. Having both articles is counterproductive. I propose that the Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution be merged into this page. Said page will then become a redirect to this page.Outback the koala (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support since I am the nominator for the merge. Outback the koala (talk) 08:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support Chadlupkes (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support The article, as is, is more flimsy than tissue paper. Seeyardee (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

War of 1812

I have deleted the references, including pictures, to the War of 1812. The article on Titles of Nobility Amendment clearly shows that the amendment continued to be voted on by those state legislatures that had not done so prior to the beginning of the War of 1812. When the war started on June 18, 1812 there were 18 states (Louisiana joined on April 30, 1812) and it was necessary to obtain 14 votes to approve the amendment at that time. The amendment simply failed to obtain the necessary number of votes at the time and there is no evidence that the War of 1812 influenced the voting. Dwalrus (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a mention of it all on the TONA page, so it's best if we exclude that from the article for now. Outback the koala (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

New heading

I suggest that a separate heading be established for the 2 amendments that were proposed by Congress but have expired: the Equal Rights Amendment and DC Voting Rights Amendment. Dynzmoar (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this would make sense. We should include a background regarding the debate surrounding the proposed amendments but expired amendments. Outback the koala (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering why the ERA wasn't listed here.... PurpleChez (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

quit removing bill of federalism

prof larry sabato has his own article (2007)and randy barnett cannot.why?.bill of federalism is getting revalent in todays us political system as the federal govt is overreaching its limits manchurian candidate 05:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Scope of article

I think we need to limit the scope of this article to those amendments that were actually proposed by Congress or a state, and remove the ones made by individuals. Those can be covered elsewhere. As of now, it's a bit difficult to tell what was an actual proposed amendment, and what was made by an individual for whatever purposes. - BilCat (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

the bill of federalism is a imp proposed amendment just like the bill of rights.we dont need seperate articles.status quo should be maintained.if any non public representative offers groundbraking amendments it should be added as there are exceptions always. 203.153.44.130 (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

National Debt Relief Amendment

This link, while from a think-tank and therefore not a reliable source for Wikipedia in and of itself, was the first I had read of any sort of a National Debt Relief Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Probably will bear watching, and may become notable if/as it is covered by other media over the coming months. N2e (talk) 19:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Massive changes

The order was massively changed and I don't see why the proposed order is better. Additionally several proposed amendments were removed because they weren't proposed in congress, but that is within the scope of this list. Outback the koala (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Mixing two amendments that actually passed Congress in with a random list of amendments introduced by Congressmen is a disservice to the reader. As to what qualifies an amendment as "proposed", introduction by a Congressman is a bright line measure that can be cited with RS. Including other "suggested proposed amendments" from the general public would result in a very long list as the thousands of ideas for amending the Constitution have been discussed. If a suggestion can't even get the support of one Congressman to introduce it in Congress, is it really notable? Rillian (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Amendments included here should have received significant coverage in the media and is therefore notable enough to have sources, even if not introduced into the congress directly. As long as they are cited why not include them??

additionally, why do you want to put them in reverse order? Since we are still discussing I have undone your revision until the issue is resolved here. Why would the original order not be better to the reader. My main thought is that it goes in the order that a constitutional amendment makes and is therefore easier to follow when reading. But, I am open to hearing your prospective. Outback the koala (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions of possible amendments (even suggestions with lots of media coverage) are not "proposed amendments" (as the title of this article states). As defined within the article itself, Article V allows for two methods of "proposing an amendment": by Congress or by a national convention. Perhaps a new article titled "Things people have suggested be changed in the U.S. Constitution" could be created to hold the other items. Rillian (talk) 14:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with separating out the amendments that were not officially proposed throguh the amendment process into another article. - BilCat (talk) 14:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

OK thats fair, I can agree that, we can remove 'suggested' amendments. But I don't agree with the order - I am reverting again to the original order. Outback the koala (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Rilian, please discuss here. I do not agree with your proposed change to reverse the order of the sections, I have made this clear above. Maybe we can compromise somehow. Please stop reverting the status quo without discussion. Outback the koala (talk) 03:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Failed amendments

If an amendment fails, like the Equal Rights Amendment, does the entire process have to start over? If Congress were to pass the amendment again, do the states that already ratified it have to re-ratify? StarDust787 (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Concerning a statement in the article " This is the only one of the original twelve amendments in the Bill of Rights never to have been ratified by the states." One night assume from this statement that 11 of the 12 were ratified at the time in 1789. Maybe a link to the 27th amendment or a clarification would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.126.26 (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Recentivism

Does anyone else think the section on the 21st century is too long relative to the 19th and 20th centuries? It covers just 10 years, yet the section contains 13 examples. The previous two centuries cite only 10 examples.--Work permit (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I do as well.Naraht (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade decision Text

Currently reads 'controversial Roe v. Wade decision'

should read 'Roe v. Wade decision' as controversial expresses an opinion. The ruling by the Supreme Court validates lower court rulings. The decision is not itself controversial, it is definitive to the law. Individual response to the decision might view it as controversial, but the legal decision is not.

108.91.140.62 (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)alan

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080509141821/http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly54.asp to http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly54.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ratified amendments

Does the article need a full list and description of the 27 ratified amendments? There's already a list article here describing them. This article is a list of proposed amendments, while including descriptions of the 6 unratified amendments is definitely appropriate; the 27 ratified amendments are no longer proposed amendments and kind of off topic. All that would be necessary is to mention that there have been 27 amendments, a link to the list of amendments, and a brief mention of the history of amendments touching on topics such as the Bill of Rights and the Reconstruction amendments. Any thoughts? Libertybison (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the larger question here (and it's not a new one) is, what's the purpose and scope of this list article? Is it to list every Constitutional amendment proposed by member of Congress? Is it to list every significant proposal that came close to passing or was adopted by Congress? Should the 33 proposed amendments (and I wouldn't differentiate between the 27 ratified proposals & the 6 unratified proposals) that Congress has sent to the states for ratification be included, or not? Also, for me at least, the subject of this list article's title is also part of this larger question. T's an issue that's been discussed on a couple of prior occasions. Personally, and in light of your comments above, I'd suggest we consider moving this page to something like List of proposals to amend the United States Constitution. The introduction could touch on the amendment process and link to the list of amendments article before pointing out that what follows is an incomplete list of proposals to amend the Constitution that have been introduced, but did not pass or are pending before Congress. Thanks for bringing this up; I've been thinking on-and-off for a while about how this page might be refined & improved. Drdpw (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

You raise several good points, and the name change you propose may be a good thing. Although, if the article is going to mention historical proposals like the Blaine and Bricker Amendments that didn't get the go-ahead by Congress, which are no longer advocated for now, then it should also mention the unratified amendments that were rejected by the states. Libertybison (talk) 01:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks; regarding the 2 amendments that passed Congress but ("timed-out") failed to be ratified by the states, I don't think they need to be covered specifically in the body of such an article as they, along with the other 31 that were sent to the states for ratification would be addressed in the introduction, and are covered, like the still pending and ratified amendments, in the other list article. Let's let this sit for several days, and hopefully others will comment. Be of good cheer. Drdpw (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Major edit message

Over time, there have been several conversations concerning what to include/not-include in this article. So, after contemplating those conversations, I have been bold and removed the section listing the 33 amendments approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Those approved amendments are listed at List of amendments to the United States Constitution, thus listing them here also is redundant. I have also added a hat note to the top of the article for clarity and ease of navigation:

This article is about proposals to amend the United States Constitution introduced in but not approved by the U.S. Congress. For the 33 constitutional amendments approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification since 1789, see List of amendments to the United States Constitution.

Additionally, I updated the external links section (a few were dated). Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 20:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121023827/http://blogs.burlingtonfreepress.com/politics/2011/12/08/sen-bernie-sanders-i-vt-offers-constitutional-amendment-on-corporate-citizenship/ to http://blogs.burlingtonfreepress.com/politics/2011/12/08/sen-bernie-sanders-i-vt-offers-constitutional-amendment-on-corporate-citizenship/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Non notable proposals

There are a large number of "proposed" amendments in the 21st century, many of which don't pass wp:notable since their only citations are to the resolution itself or a press release. I've deleted them. As it stood, the list seemed to smack of Wikipedia:Recentism. The alternative would be to list every house or senate resolution introduced that proposed a constitutional amendment. Checking government records [1], that would mean 66 entries JUST for the the 2017-2018 session of congress. Lets discuss if you disagree.Work permit (talk) 02:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I've cited the proposals with wp:rs establishing (some) notability for every article where I could find them, and deleting proposals where I couldn't Work permit (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Every Vote Counts Amendment

It seems to have never been taken up by committee, much less less voted out of committee. I could find no coverage of it in the press. In the house it was sponsored by 9 representatives. Lets discuss what makes this notable. If we covered every proposal by every member of congress, we would have 100 per year. Work permit (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Liberty Amendement

I can find no independent coverage establishing notability of this constitutional proposal. The most prominent reference is a website for a group advocating for it. Work permit (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

No pages link to Proposed "Liberty" Amendment to the United States Constitution except this one. This proposal has not achieved any wp:notability. Work permit (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

My suggestion to you would be to start an afd about the article. It seems to warrant deletion. Drdpw (talk) 03:24, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I added a notability tag. Let’s see what happens. Work permit (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Issues regarding the AMENDING PROCESS section

@Work permit, SMP0328., and GoodDay: on 2/19, TySoltaur edited this article's "Amending process" section – here, and stated in the summary, "→‎Amending process: 3/4 is currently 39 states, not 38." Then, after I reverted the edit, the editor restored the reverted edit. Now, TySoltaur has called my effort a few days later to fine-tune the section's text and add reliable sources to it vandalism – here and subsequently here. So, my 1st question is, How many states must ratify a constitutional amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution? My second question is, is there any unnecesary any repetition of detail or any omission of detail in the "Amending process" section? Thanks in advance for your input. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to Question 1: 38 states are required to amend the US Constitution. Here's the math - Exactly 75% of 50 states, is 37.5 states. Since you can't have half a state & 37 isn't enough, you go with 38. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The answer 38 is also supported by this reliable and authoritative source: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Indeed 38 states is what was required to ratify the 23rd through 27th amendments. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Answer to Question 2: The version of the 'Amending process' section should be restored to its status quo. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree, the correct number is 38, and the amending process be restored to its previous version. I suggest referencing the number 38, https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution is fine with me. I would suggest a minor gramatical change in the status quo but that can occur after consensus is reached.-- Work permit (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback y'all. When the correct number of ratifications of state legislatures is restored, these 2 references could be used at key points in the section, as they expressly state the process, and the numbers required at the various stages of the process for advancement: the NARA's "Constitutional Amendment Process" page noted above by Work Permit, and Constitution Day: Proposed Amendments, which is already used once in the section. As far as the status quo text, I see a few words bearing uppercase letters that shouldn't, and a redundant sentence—Upon adoption by the Congress or a national convention, an amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or by special state ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states.—that could be cut (the ensuing bullet-points state the same thing). Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 06:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Update

I have: changed uppercase letters to lowercase where necessary, as per MOS:CAPS; restored correct number of state legislatures that must ratify an amendment for it to become operative - 38; expanded placement of references; and tweaked wording in a few places. Drdpw (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)