Talk:List of amendments to the Constitution of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move from American Constitutional Amendments

I moved this page from American Constitutional Amendments to its current location (Amendments to the United States Constitution). This makes it consistent with the other pages dealing with the amendments, which are all in the form "Number Amendment to the United States Constitution". This new title is also less ethnocentric than the previous title (there are many other countries in the Americas with constitutions). — Mateo SA | talk 06:01, 24 December 2004 (UTC)

I've moved this article again to List of amendments to the United States Constitution - the first sentence reads:

This page lists all ratified and unratified amendments to the United States Constitution ...

It is a list!

Secondly, shouldn't this list only contain actual ratified and unratified amendments, not proposals for amendments. There is a separate List of unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Thirdly, since there are separate articles on each amendment, does this article need to include the text of each? Aren't they more appropriate for Wikisource anyway? (I expect they must be there already.)

Finally, this list could do with some references (I've added an image), so it can be listed on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. -- ALoan (Talk) 08:47, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

-- When I created this page, which is indeed a list, I wanted all of the information regarding attempts to amend the constitution (whether successful or un-) to be available in one place, all visible at one glance. I'm sad to see that the page has been eviscerated and turned into a page with a list of... links. I think an amendment at least ratified by the House merits inclusion here, text included. I also think that the amendment texts should be reintroduced, keeping all of the useful link which have been added, or else this page is kind of pointless. Please see my last version to get an idea of what I mean. -- andreidude Aug. 11, 2005

-- I've reverted the page back to its origins as a list which includes the amendment texts as well as the more important (judged by some degree of success) failed texts up to the revisions done until June 30, 2005. This is certainly a debatable move, but, please, let us debate it here before changing the nature of the page again. Like I said, I thought it useful to have a single synoptic view of successful and unsuccessful attempts to amend the constitution, which does not exist elsewhere, rather than a page which points to individual articles, link by link. I appreciate all of the work Mateo SA has done, and I apologize for unrevising his largest revision, but, respectfully, I think it killed the point of the page. Thanks, andreidude Aug. 11, 2005

Sorry, I think you are just plain wrong, but I agree that we should discuss it here rather than reverting each other back and forth.

I'm not sure that your intention when you created this article is that relevant, although I note that your first edit comment said there ought to be a page that links to all the amendments, passed and failed, and gives a brief description of each, and a date, which is what we had before your revert.

Wikipedia is not a repository for the full text of original source information: that is just not encyclopedic. The text of adopted amendments is already over at wikisource so we don't need it here, and each has its own article. All we need, as you originally said, is a list of amendments, links to their articles, and a brief description. There is a separate List of unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution, and again the most recent ones have their own articles, and we don't need to duplicate their contents here either. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've changed the page back to the revised, list version. The revised version had been around for several months, without objection, and with people maintaining it. The original version was simply not appropriate for Wikipedia, and should not be restored.
• It may be useful to have a presentation of the full texts of ratified and unratified amendments and proposals for amendments, but Wikipedia is not the place for it, as ALoan points out.
• The page is not pointless, and it does not simply "point[] to individual articles, link by link"—it provides a summarized list of information that is not easily discernible simply by looking at the full text of the amendments. The table format allows the reader to understand the organization and history of the amendments at a glance, and to understand each amendment's historical context. In other words, it provides a "single synoptic view of successful and unsuccessful attempts to amend the constitution", "all visible at one glance". Adding in the text of the amendments would make it impossible to see everything in one glance.
• Finally, regarding other attempts to amend the constitution: there is already an article on Proposals for amendments to the United States Constitution (though that article needs considerable work). The section on proposals was a problem in the original article, as one can see by looking at the article history. Items in that section were basically chosen haphazardly, according to whether they match the particular PO of individual contributors or have been in the news lately. This resulted in a random collection of proposals that did not really explain anything about the history of amending efforts. (By the way, in the original list by andreidude, only one of the three amendments listed (the Flag Burning Amendment) was "at least ratified by the House").

Mateo SA | talk 14:14, August 11, 2005 (UTC); 17:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC); 17:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

ALoan: I agree that original intent is rather irrelevant here, and I was not appealing to a special right as 'author'; I was giving my justification for the existence of this article, a reason for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Neither Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not nor encyclopedia have negative arguments against the old format of the article; please be more specific about why it is not encyclopedic, and who decides. Without an arbiter or clearer reference to a standard, we will just have a clash of different visions and/or egos.

Mateo SA: About the failed amendments, I see what you mean about POV issues. However, just because the first few ones to make it to the list were the more obvious (i.e. visible) ones, that is certainly no justification for not expanding the list in time to be all-inclusive. And certainly if the new format is used, there is no reason to not include the failed amendments. The archetypal Wikipedia:structured_list, which is the kind of article you propose, is the massive (including its subpages) List_of_songs; in this case there is certainly room for more... Otherwise, simply as a collection of internal links which already exists the article is not much more useful than the collection of links at the very bottom of the page - and by Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not criteria ought not exist.

Mateo SA said that "revised version had been around for several months, without objection, and with people maintaining it." Though I'm not sure why it is relevant, in fact, on August 11 I reverted to the one month and one week older July 3 version, keeping all of the prior revisions (although I think 'time' is as thin an argument as 'authorial intent' on Wikipedia). I'm not sure how a date allows the reader to "understand each amendment's historical context" or any kind of "history"; the linked articles do that, and did that.

When I said "synoptic", I meant that the amendments themselves out to all be visible at one glance; the old format permitted this within the limits of the lengths of the text. If you are worried that the texts are not synoptic enough, we can talk about having a the summarized list of links before the list of texts - although this will defeat your summarized list's point of keeping the article shorter. I repeat, a list of links to all of those articles already exists at the bottom of the page; this article needs stand-alone content. andreidude Aug. 20, 2005

I hope this is not a clash of egos! I just don't think the article should include the text of the amendments. For example, United States Constitution does not include the text of the constitution. That it at wikisource. Similarly, this should be an encyclopedia article listing the amendments, not the plain text of the amendments themselves: again, they should be at wikisource.

As for Wikipedia is not: paragraph 3 in Section 1.5 of says "Mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, un-modified wording. Complete copies of primary sources should go into Wikisource." - -- ALoan (Talk) 00:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

---

The current version of the article is marginal. I think it provides a useful, brief guide to the amendments, but we can easily do without it. However, the original version, containing all the original texts, is definitely not appropriate for Wikisource. I originally considered putting the article up for deletion, but decided it could be salvaged by turning it into a summarized list. I would not be too upset if this article were deleted, but I must strongly object to returning it to its original, inappropriate form.

For more specific information about putting original texts on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources. This makes it quite clear that collections of original texts are not appropriate for Wikipedia. It is unfortunate for our purposes that the article encyclopedia does not explicitly state that an encyclopedia summarizes and explains other sources of info; maybe we should create a page on Wikipedia explaining that. But you can deduce that fact by looking at the format of actual encyclopedias. Look up the subject of the United States Constitution or the Patriot Act in or on Encarta or the Encyclopedia Britannica, or any similar article—you will see that the article explains that law, rather than reproducing it.

andreidude, you say that you want to see a page that makes all the amendments "visible at one glance". Go look at the page Constitution of the United States on Wikisource. This contains the full text of the Constitution and all the ratified amendments. If you want to create a page listing the full text of all proposed amendments, you can create a page on Wikisource.

Once again, I'll say that the current version is not simply a list of links. The article does have "stand-alone content". It describes the basic structure and history of the process of adding the amendments. That is, it shows the total chronology of how amendments were added, and how long they took to be ratified. The reader cannot understand this by looking at each individual amendment's page—most people simply don't have the memory to keep all those facts in their mind at one time. This is why Wikipedia, for example, has separate pages for each British monarch, and a separate page, List of British monarchs, showing the individual monarchs' relationships to each other over time.

"There is no reason not to include the failed amendments": Yes, there is a reason not to do so. As the page Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution points out, hundreds of amendments are proposed each year in Congress. Including all of them would making this page massively large. This would make it difficult for the readers to use the page, both to physically load it in their browsers and to read the whole thing—I don't know about you, but I can't read a multiple page document "at one glance", even if it's presented as on continuous page; most people just aren't built like that. There is also a separate page for listing Proposals for amendments to the United States Constitution. But if you really want a page that lists every single attempt, successful and unsuccessful, to amend the Constitution, I suggest you create a separate page called something like List of successful and unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution. That way we will still have the use of this page as a basic guide to the amendments. Mateo SA | talk 01:16, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Vice President and President of the Senate

I most of the amendment papers, it states that the Vice President is also the president of the Senate. Does that still apply today? The later amendment papers have the Vice President part cancelede out. (24.87.43.26 04:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

Yes, the Vice President is still the Presiding Officer of the Senate. --Thrashmeister 02:16, 6 June 2006 (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)

16th amendement

There is proof that there is more than one ratified 16th amendement. Where the first text of the 16th amendement was stating that no person of title may hold power in office, congress or senate. Lord Metroid 16:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have noticed that this page tends to get vandalized quite a bit. Do you think that this page should be protected from editing from non-logged-in users? -- Will T Brown (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a General Inquiry...

Shouldn't there be minor changes in the article? For example, instead of "cruel & unusual punishment", shouldnt it be "NO cruel & unusual punishment" or something? It just seems kind of odd to me right now. I made such a change to the 3rd amendment. - Bagel7^T's 08:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC) njsdhufuiogwr8ohubvgf dn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.186.52.194 (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Original 13th amendment

I'd like to start the discussion on how to incorporate the information contained in: http://www.nwo101.com/2007/12/original-thirteenth-article-of.html Ignorance is strength (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt you will get very far with that source; this is because blogs run afoul of verifiability criteria. --Aarktica (talk) 03:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

\

27th Amendment ratified 1992

May 7, 1992 the last state needed ratified. It was proposed in 1789 and stated that no law varying the pay or salary of members of Congress can take effect until after the next congressional election Radio Guy (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Usability of this list

This page isn't especially useful when navigation is considered. The 'full text' links from the WikiSource: "amendments to the US constitution" seem gratuitous.

It was difficult for me to understand why wikipedia links to wikisource, and it requires about a dozen clicks to get to the text of a particular amendement.

Here's a suggested structure:

Bill of rights -> The text of the 10 ratified amendements -> (click on a link within the text of each amendement) -> get to an analysis page explaining court decisions that strengthen or weaken it. Wikip rhyre (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

somebody's messed up the proposal dates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.107.116 (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I find this page is very difficult to use.

First of all, most of the US Constitutional amendments are clear and self explanatory.

What I'd suggest is breaking it down to 3 pages.

Main Page - The original Text of all of the 27 Amendments.

Summary Page (linked near the top of the main page). This gives a 1-line summary of each amendment. Perhaps good for 6 yr olds, but hardly useful for others. One might consider relegating the one-liners to simple.wikipedia.

Annotated Page - Full text annotated with ratification dates, Legal Briefs, Case History, etc.Keelec (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Dead amendments?

The articles says, of the 6 unratified:

Four of these amendments are still technically pending before state lawmakers—the other two have expired by their own terms.

I read in my textbook that these four were declared dead by the Senate upon passing the 27th amendment. Is that false? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.17.228 (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just speculating here -- see the wiki article on the twenty-seventh amendment... it may have to do with the fact that neither house adopted the concurrent resolution of the other. 74.190.139.75 (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Madison's 17 amendments.

Question at Talk:List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution#Madison's 17 amendments. -- Jeandré, t 09:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Links to Full Text of amendments point to articles page

Where is the full text of the amendments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire1975 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Add Equal Protection to 14th Ammendment Description

Someone with an account, please do this. It's an obvious omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.142.152 (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Added Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause to the 14th

I've added the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause to the description of the 14th amendment. I think these three are very important, most especially importantly etcly the due process one. If you feel like removing these, please discuss here first. Thanks! Gabiteodoru (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Expiration of Amendments

Can anyone provide a section that explains why the older Amendments are "Still pending before state lawmakers" while the newer ones are expired? I was aware that there was a 7 year limit for ratification of an amendment but i can't cite that info so I'm not sure...

205.197.255.250 (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This article needs some rewriting.

For starters, the contents box is way at the bottom. Second, the amendment tables are not broken into sections, and thus the first section is "See Also" when it should be something referring to the tables. Third, the picture of the bill of rights is great, but it's not in the right spot. Does anybody know how to mess with the Contents box? I can't find it anywhere in the edit code. Ctrlaltdecimate (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I tried to move the picture to the correct place but ended up deleting it by accident. I'm glad someoe figured out how to put it back, but how do we move it so the text goes around it or next to it? 71.139.156.8 (talk) 04:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a Wiki editor...what's the story with the "pothead amendment" dated 1420? Should that be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.97.57 (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Modification of Summary of 26th Amendment Summary

Doesn't the 26th amendment only set the maximum voting age to 18, not the official voting age? Suggest replacing text:

Establishes the official voting age to be 18 years old.

with:

Establishes the official maximum voting age to be 18 years old.

Robisodd (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Repealing process

Can someone explain repealing (meaning and process)? (80.186.70.15 (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC))

Once an amendment is ratified, it becomes part of the Constitution. Therefore, repealing or altering a ratified amendment is the same as altering any other part of it: ratifying a new amendment is required. DMacks (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 October 2012

Please change "Protects the freedom of speech, freedom of religion," in the summary of the First Amendment to "Protects the freedom of religion, freedom of speech,". The actual wording of the First Amendment begins with the ban of establishing a state religion and guarantees the free exercise thereof. Thank you, Paul Lampe 75.31.175.205 (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done You want to change the order of religion and speech? I think that's spitting hairs. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Summary of 22nd Amendment is wrong

Technically, the 22nd Amendment doesn't limit the length of time that a person can serve as president. It limites the number of times that a person can be elected. It's true that the likelihood of someone serving more than ten years is virtually zero, but there are other ways of becoming president (e.g., get elected to Congress, become speaker speaker of the house, then succeed to the presidency when the president and vice president both die). So in theory there is no limit to the amount of time someone can be president.

The wording should be changed to "Limits the number of times a person can be elected prsident to two (or one, if the person has served more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.144.50 (talk) 05:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My plea for a correction to the 22nd Ammendment summary has been here for two months, and no one has bothered responding or correcting the page. I have therefore done so myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.165.48.50 (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 February 2013

Note #1 contains two typos:

   ^ The certification of the twenty-seventh amendment's ratification came on May 7, 1992, with Michigan being the 38th state to ratify it. It later came to light that Kentucky had ratified the amendment in 1792, technically making Missouri's the 38th state to ratify it, with Missouri's ratification occurring on May 5, 1992. The federal government's official record still holds that Michigan was the 38th state to ratify the amendment.

It should read, "...technically making Missouri the 39th state..." (removing the "'s" from "Missouri's the 38th", and changing "38th" to "39th").

Lorettodave (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

2nd amendment

"Protects an individual's right to bear arms"

"All Supreme Court decisions have said "individual" " ~ArthurRubin

Since when is wikipedia supposed to just confirm what the US supreme court says? Consider the following, if UK's highest judicial institution suddenly said that a part of it's constitution, after hundreds of years, actually meant that it was O.K. to kill US citizens for no reason, would the article summary on wikipedia just acknowledge that, in fact, that's exactly what it means?

I suggest that _at least_ it's noted that the summary is what the supreme court decided it meant.

Also, consider the following, the supreme court decides what it means. There's no mention of consensus. For example, imagine the following imaginary situation: the american supreme court can decide that they are in fact, "Number 1". However, there's consensus in the statistics that the united states are number 33, number 37, number 107, etc. There's also consensus among many that USA, if anything, is a 3rd world country and americans are ill educated religious bigots. Now, wikipedia steps in. At least, in my humble opinion, the article about that would at first and mainly mention the scientific consensus. Next, one can add that many argue the opposite. And here's how many damns it's going to give about what the supreme court thinks: zero.

Yeah I know it's a bit absurd comparison, but you get the idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dany0 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Supreme Court is the organization which defines the meaning of the Amendments. There is no possible alternative. They are the final arbiter of meaning of the Constitution. UK courts are actually not final; their decisions are subject to reversal by the legislature, or by the monarch. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final." SCOTUS's interpretation of the second amendment is the correct legal interpretation. DC vs Heller is controlling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.222.225.23 (talk) 03:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 June 2013

The link for "poll tax" in the description of the 24th Amendment needs to be fixed. It redirects to "Tax per head", an unrelated concept (though also known as "poll tax"). The "poll tax" to which this amendment applies is the one discussed at "Poll tax (United States)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.195.223.230 (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 05:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent enhancements

I have added 2 charts to the article, one summarizing the state-by-state ratification data for each ratified Constitutional amendments and one summarizing the state-by-state ratification data for each unratified Constitutional amendment. I also expanded the introduction and modified the section and subsection headings as necessitated by the added charts.Drdpw (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Improvements to infobox on constitutional amendment articles

I had proposed a change to a semi-protected article on the 14th amendment. An editor made the observation that the change would best be applied to all constitutional amendment articles. So they recommended I seek consensus for the change. I'm not sure where to do that but this seems like a natural place.

My recommendation is to make the infobox more useful. Specifically, I think the infobox should identify when the amendment passed each house of congress, how many votes were for and against it, when it was ratified, and how long it took to ratify. For example, the article on the 14th amendment could display the following in an infobox:

Approved by Senate: June 8, 1866
  Yes votes: 33
  No votes: 11
Approved by House: June 13, 1866
  Yes votes: 138
  No votes: 36
Ratified: July 9, 1868
Time to ratify: 757 days (2 years, 26 days)

I have found infoboxes extremely useful in other articles. They provide a quick-reference to basic information about the topic. It saves the reader the trouble of searching through the article or tracking down an alternative source.

Consider the article on the United States. A person could read through the article to find out what the nation's GDP is or how large the population is. Alternatively, a person could track down a list that compares the GDP or population of various nations. In most cases it is much more convenient to find the information in the infobox.

In my case, I needed to know if an event in my local community happened before or after the 14th amendment was ratified. I had to read through the article to find that. I later discovered this page which lists the amendments with their ratification dates. Really, it would have been much faster and more convenient if the infobox identified the ratification date.

I see the article on the United States Constitution has three separate infoboxes. Perhaps separate infoboxes are the best solution. Whatever the case I think each article on a constitutional amendment should contain the basic information noted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.140.117 (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2014

The Second amendment description is wrong. it should be something like this "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 74.101.14.19 (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done "The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right vests in individuals, not merely collective militias" - Arjayay (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2014

The link for the 12th amendment in the synopsis box does not link to a page about the twelfth amendment- it links to the electoral college page. Could this be changed to a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution ?

Edit: Nevermind, I'm stupid.... Whoops. 108.89.30.47 (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

I believe the "N" listed under Connecticut having ratified the 15th amendment is invalid. Several records show Connecticut as having been the 15th state to ratify the amendment, on May 19, 1869. This information can be found with the Government Printing Office (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/HMAN-113/pdf/HMAN-113-pg104.pdf) and is listed in the certification of the amendment's ratification by Secretary Hamilton Fish, accessed here through the Library of Congress (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=016/llsl016.db&recNum=1166). Further, Wikipedia itself has Connecticut listed with the same May 19, 1869 date at this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution. I'm requesting "N" be changed to "Y". 76.21.94.161 (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Done - Thanks for contributing. --Drdpw (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2014

The first paragraph says there have been "thirty-three amendments" to the Constitution. Could someone make it say the correct "twenty-seven amendments"? 122.60.38.82 (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done It is correct that there have been 33 that have progressed to a very advanced stage, but you are correct that only 27 have made it through to the end to become part of the Constitution. I suspect you are being confused by the term "adopted", which is related to the legal process for amendments and does not mean what the common-language meaning might suggest--they then need to be "ratified". The first paragraph explicitly states these two facts with some detail and distinguishes between them. DMacks (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2014

DUMB IT DOWN

24.144.190.220 (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 06:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Delaware and the 17th Amendment

I refuse to edit Wikipedia anymore, but in case anyone is interested in fixing this: apparently Delaware ratified the 17th amendment in 2010. That affects the chart in this article. See [[1]]. SimpsonDG (talk) 05:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Done - Thanks for contributing. Drdpw (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

September 25, 1989 Hubatish (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC) On the passing of the 27th amendment - fairly certain this should be 1989 rather than 1789 (what it says right now). Quick google search backups that otherwise the current date is correct.

 Not done Actually no. See [2]. The amendment was proposed in 1789. It just took more than 200 years for Congress to act on it! Dwpaul ^Talk 15:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015

The synopsis of the third amendment is wrong. It does not say in times of PEACE AND WAR Pccore (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"Places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, prohibiting it during peacetime." seems to match how Third Amendment to the United States Constitution summarizes it and to my reading seems to agree with the text itself. Please state exactly what you think the article should say and get consensus before requesting a change. DMacks (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Maryland

Maryland never ratified the 18th Amendment. Not sure how to correct the chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.71.115.49 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

According to US government documents Maryland ratified the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on February 13, 1918. Drdpw (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

28th > 33rd Amendments?

This page offered a "complete list of the thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution" but only contains through the 27th. 2601:602:C300:82E9:D888:9720:6956:277A (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)sxtn102

As stated in the introduction, 33 amendments have been approved by Congress and proposed to the states for ratification. 27 have been ratified and are part of the Constitution. 6 have not been ratified and are not part of the Constitution. The article contains information about both the 27 ratified amendments and the 6 unratified amendments. The ratified amendments are, as you noted, numbered 1-27. The unratified amendments are not numbered, but are unown by unofficial common names. I hope this helps. Drdpw (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Maryland

Maryland never ratified the 18th Amendment. Not sure how to correct the chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.71.115.49 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

According to US government documents Maryland ratified the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution on February 13, 1918. Drdpw (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

28th > 33rd Amendments?

This page offered a "complete list of the thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution" but only contains through the 27th. 2601:602:C300:82E9:D888:9720:6956:277A (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)sxtn102

As stated in the introduction, 33 amendments have been approved by Congress and proposed to the states for ratification. 27 have been ratified and are part of the Constitution. 6 have not been ratified and are not part of the Constitution. The article contains information about both the 27 ratified amendments and the 6 unratified amendments. The ratified amendments are, as you noted, numbered 1-27. The unratified amendments are not numbered, but are unown by unofficial common names. I hope this helps. Drdpw (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thirty-three amendments

Why does the first line of the article say there are thirty-three amendments when there are only 27? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:bcbf:e640:1c08:4224:be92:9cf7 (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2016‎ (UTC)

The first line clearly identifies 33 as the number that have been proposed, with the next sentence saying only 27 were successfully ratified to become "actual" live ammendments to the constitution. DMacks (talk) 09:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of 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} 22:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

U.S.A. Constitution

Hoy Manu total amendment's are made in U.S.A.'s constitution till now. Answer please. Rohit goyal (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Confused regarding total amendment's till now. Rohit goyal (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

27 Justin15w (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

33 have been proposed, and 27 have been successfully ratified to become actual live amendments to the Constitution. Drdpw (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

2nd Amendment

This is a gross simplification of a complex topic. There appears to be plenty of room to either a) offer the full text of the amendment or b) add modifying language that nuances the subject. Truncating it to this level changes the basic meaning of the amendment. Jmchugh40 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

---

This page isn't meant to provide in-depth analysis of amendments. Regards, Justin15w (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not editorialize the amendments

In the section "Synopsis of each ratified amendment", the description of the second amendment is "Protects the right to keep and bear arms." That is not a synopsis, it is an interpretation. A popular one, but an interpretation nonetheless. It is extremely awkwardly worded, and open to broad interpretation, and, therefor, controversy. The full text includes the words "A well regulated Militia", and that can be seen as meaning that only citizens of a well regulated militia are protected by this amendment. A better synopsis might be the exact wording of the amendment itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.23.48 (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The synopsis of the II Amendment printed in the table comes from the opening sentence of Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (which reads, "The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted ..."). So, if you believe the synopsis here to be an editorialized interpretation, please initiate a discussion about that page's introduction on its talk page. The amendment synopses on this page follow (as close as possible) the introductory synopsis given on each individual amendment's article page. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

I just wanted to let you know that the 18th amendment didn't ban the manufacutring and sale of alcohol, it granted congress the right to ban the manufacturing and sale of alcohol, and they later excerise that right with the Volstead Act. So, you should change the 18th amendment from banned the manufacturing and sale of alcohol to granted congress the right to ban the manufacturing and sale of alcohol. (or something along those lines.) Apushhelpedme (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done – Apushhelpedme, Section 1 of A-18 did prohibit the "manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof". Congress and the several States were given concurrent power to enforce A-18 in Section 2. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 16:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Table of ratified states should indicate states ineligible to vote on it

There's an amendment from 1789 where the table indicates Alaska has not voted on it. That is not a surprise. The table should indicate the state did not exist at the relevant time. (can they vote on it??) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.144.238.10 (talk) 00:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The Summation of ratification data for each ratified amendment table does indicate what states were not in the Union at the time each of the 27 ratified amendments was ratified. The Summation of ratification data for each unratified amendment does not do so, as the four amendments that are still "before the states", are open to ratification by any of the 50 states, regardless of when they joined the Union. (For example, all 50 states could vote to ratify the proposal that in 1992 became the 27th Amendment, even though only 13 states were in the Union when it was proposed in 1789.) Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2018

Spelling correction needed in the 'Summation of ratification data for each ratified amendment' table: rescinded Moverob105 (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)