[Hinds' Precedents, Volume 5]
[Chapter 145 - Amendments to the Constitution]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Constitutional provision. Sections 7025, 7026.
2. Construction of the requirement of a two-thirds vote.
Sections 7027-7036.
3. Differences as to, committed to conference. Section 7037.
4. Yeas and nays not essential on passage. Sections 7038, 7039.
5. Not presented to President for approval. Section 7040.
6. General precedents. Sections 7041-7044.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
7025. The Constitution provides the methods by which amendments to it
may be proposed and adopted.
No amendment to the Constitution may deprive any State, without its
consent, of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Article V of the Constitution provides:
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 tbree-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.
7026. Instance of the receipt and reference of the application of a
State legislature for the calling of a convention to amend the
Constitution of the United States.--On February 15, 1907,\1\ under the
head of executive communications, the following appears in the Journal
and Record, as having been referred under section 2 of Rule XIV:\2\
Application of the legislature of Kansas for the calling of a
constitutional convention to consider amendments to the Constitution of
the United States--to the Committee on Election of President, Vice-
President, and Representatives in Congress.
7027. The vote required on a joint resolution proposing an amendment
to the Constitution is two-thirds of those voting, a quorum being
present, and not two-thirds of the entire membership.--On May 11,
1898,\3\ Mr. John B. Corliss, of Michigan, called up the joint
resolution (H. Res. 5) proposing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Fifty-ninth Congress, Record, p. 3072.
\2\ See section 3089 of Volume IV of this work.
\3\ Second session Fifty-fifth Congress, Record, p. 4826.
Sec. 7028
an amendment to the Constitution providing for the election of Senators
of the United States.
The question being taken on the passage of the resolution, there were
yeas 184, nays 11, and the Speaker announced that the joint resolution
was passed, two-thirds having voted in favor thereof.
Mr. Ebenezer J. Hill, of Connecticut, called attention to this clause
of the Constitution:
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.
and made the point of order that the vote required was two-thirds of
the entire membership, not two-thirds of a quorum.
The Speaker \1\ said:
The question is one that has been so often decided that it seems
hardly necessary to dwell upon it. The provision of the Constitution
says ``two-thirds of both Houses.'' What constitutes a House? A quorum
of the membership, a majority, one-half and one more. That is all that
is necessary to constitute a House to do all the business that comes
before the House. Among the business that comes before the House is the
reconsideration of a bill which has been vetoed by the President;
another is a proposed amendment to the Constitution; and the practice
is uniform in both cases that if a quorum of the House is present the
House is constituted and two-thirds of those voting are sufficient in
order to accomplish the object. It has nothing to do with the question
of what States are present and represented, or what States are present
and vote for it. It is the House of Representatives in this instance
that votes and performs its part of the function. If the Senate does
the same thing, then the matter is submitted to the States directly,
and they pass upon it.
The first Congress, I think, had about 65 members, and the first
amendment that was proposed to the Constitution was voted for by 37
members, obviously not two-thirds of the entire House.\2\ So the
question seems to have been met right on the very threshold of our
Government and disposed of in that way.\3\
The result of the vote was then announced as above recorded.
7028. On February 26, 1869,\4\ the Senate agreed by a vote of yeas
39, nays 13, to the report of the committee of conference on the
resolution (S. No. 8) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States (suffrage amendment).
Mr. Garrett Davis, of Kentucky, made the point of order that, as the
Senate consisted of 74 Members, a vote of 50 was necessary to
constitute the two-thirds vote.
During the debate Mr. Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois, recalled that the
same question was raised before the war, in the last years of Mr.
Buchanan's administration, when Mr. Breckinridge was presiding officer
of the Senate, and after debate, the Senate decided by a large vote
that the two-thirds required was two-thirds of the Senators present, if
a quorum.
A decision having been asked, the President pro tempore \5\ sustained
the view enunciated by Mr. Trumbull, as in accordance with the
precedents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, Speaker.
\2\ First session First Congress, Journal, p. 121 (Gales & Seaton
ed.).
\3\ On September 21, 1789 (first session First Congress, Journal, pp.
115, 116), on a question of agreeing to Senate amendments on articles
of amendment to the Constitution proposed by the House, the House
agreed to certain amendments and disagreed to others, ``two-thirds of
the Members present concurring on each vote.''
\4\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Globe, pp. 1641, 1642.
\5\ Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, President pro tempore.
Sec. 7029
7029. The requirement of a two-thirds vote for proposing
constitutional amendments has been construed, in the later practice, to
apply only to the vote on the final passage.--On February 4, 1811,\1\
the following was under consideration in Committee of the Whole:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses
concurring,\2\ That the following section be submitted to the
legislatures of the several States, which, when ratified by the
legislatures of three-fourths of the States, shall be valid and binding
as a part of the Constitution of the United States:
``No Senator or Representative shall be appointed to any civil
office, place, or employment, under the authority of the United States,
until the expiration of the Presidential term in which such person
shall have served as a Senator or Representative.''
This resolution was agreed to in Committee of the Whole, ayes 63,
noes 31.
In the House the question was taken on concurring with the Committee
of the Whole House in their agreement to the resolution, and there
appeared yeas 71, nays 40.
A question at once arose as to whether or not a two-thirds vote was
necessary on the intermediate stages as well as on the final
passage.\3\
After debate and on February 5, the Speaker \4\ decided that the
question taken yesterday being a question directly on the merits of the
proposed amendment, and less than two-thirds of the House voting in
favor of it, he considered the resolution as negatived.
Mr. John Randolph, of Virginia, having appealed, the House sustained
the decision, 61 yeas to 59 nays.
7030. On December 5, 1820,\5\ the House was considering a joint
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution in relation to
the election of electors of President and Vice-President of the United
States and Members of the House of Representatives.
The question being taken on ordering the resolution to be engrossed
and read a third time, there were yeas 103, nays 59.
A question arose as to whether or not a two-thirds vote was required.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Eleventh Congress, Journal, pp. 529, 531 (Gales &
Seaton ed.); Annals, pp. 897, 899, 904.
\2\ This is the form of resolving clause used in 1789, when the first
ten amendments to the Constitution were proposed, except that then the
words ``two-thirds of both Houses, deeming it necessary'' were used.
(First session First Congress, Journal, p. 89, Gales & Seaton ed.). In
1794, when the eleventh amendment was submitted, the word
``concurring'' was used, the clause being identical with that above.
(First session Third Congress, Journal, p. 79, Gales & Seaton ed.). The
same form appears in the resolution submitting the fifteenth amendment,
except that the phrase relating to two-thirds concurring appears in
parentheses. (15 Stat. L., p 346.)
\3\ Although concurrent resolutions and not requiring the approval of
the President, these resolutions have their several readings, and are
enrolled and signed by Speaker and President of the Senate like bills
and joint resolutions. In fact, they are classed as joint resolutions.
(See Journals, first session First Congress, p. 89; first session Third
Congress, pp. 79, 80, 87 (Gales & Seaton ed.); third session Fortieth
Congress, p. 469.)
\4\ Joseph B. Varnum, of Massachusetts, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Sixteenth Congress, Annals, p. 504.
Sec. 7031
The Speaker \1\ decided that the rules and practice of the House
recognized the principle that two-thirds of the votes were required on
the final passage \2\ of a resolution proposing to amend the
Constitution; but that any intermediate question might be carried by a
majority of the House.
7031. Proposed amendments to the Constitution may be amended by a
majority vote.--On April 13, 1900,\3\ the House was considering the
joint resolution (H. Res. 28) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution providing for the election of Senators of the United
States.
To this resolution Mr. W. W. Rucker, of Missouri, on behalf of the
minority of the committee reporting the bill, offered an amendment in
the nature of a substitute.
The question being upon agreeing to this substitute, Mr. John B.
Corliss, of Michigan, made the point of order that, as the original
resolution would require a two-thirds vote for its passage, the
amendment also should be agreed to by a two-thirds vote.
The Speaker \4\ said:
The Chair holds that in voting upon an amendment it is not necessary
for a two-thirds vote, although the original proposition requires it.
When the House considers any amendment, it can be voted upon in the
usual way; and this proposition of the gentleman from Missouri is but
an amendment. When it comes, however, to the passage of the bill, then
the point can be made. The Chair overrules the point made by the
gentleman from Michigan at this time.
7032. On February 9, 1872,\5\ the Senate, while considering the bill
(H. R. 380) for the removal of legal and political disabilities imposed
by the third section of the fourteenth article of amendments to the
Constitution of the United States, adopted as an amendment, on motion
of Mr. Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts, the provisions of a bill known
as the civil rights bill. This amendment was agreed to by 29 yeas to 28
nays, the Vice-President giving the casting vote. On the same day the
bill as amended was rejected, yeas 33, nays 19, the required two-thirds
not voting for the bill.
7033. In considering amendments to the Constitution a two-thirds vote
was not required in Committee of the Whole, but was required when the
House voted on concurring in Senate amendments.--On August 13, 1789,\6\
the House was considering in Committee of the Whole House \7\ certain
proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Amendments being proposed to the amendment under consideration, Mr.
Samuel Livermore, of New Hampshire, as a parliamentary inquiry, asked
whether or not two-thirds should agree to carry a motion in Committee.
In the course of the debate Mr. Thomas Hartley, of Pennsylvania,
recalled that in his State they had a council of censors who were
authorized to call a con-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ John W. Taylor, of New York, Speaker.
\2\ So decided on February 5, 1811 (Eleventh Congress, Journal, pp.
217, 219).
\3\ First session Fifty-sixth Congress, Record, p. 4128; Journal, pp.
467, 468.
\4\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\5\ Second session Forty-second Congress, Globe, pp. 919, 928, 929.
\6\ First session First Congress, Journal (Gales & Seaton ed.). p.
79; Annals, p. 744.
\7\ The Committee of the Whole House had then functions different
from those exercised at present.
Sec. 7034
vention to amend the Constitution, but two-thirds were required for
that purpose. He had been a member of that body when they had examined
the business in a committee of council; the majority made a report,
which was lost for want of two-thirds to carry it through the council.
The Chairman \1\ of the Committee of the Whole House decided that a
majority of the Committee were sufficient to form a report.
Upon an appeal this decision was sustained.
On September 24, 1789, the House proceeded to consider the report of
the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the proposed constitutional amendments, and on a question relating
to concurring in a Senate amendment with an amendment the yeas were 37
and the nays were 14. This was a two-thirds vote, but no question was
made as to whether a two-thirds vote was required.\2\ But on September
21,\3\ when the Senate amendments to the articles as agreed to by the
House were under consideration in the House, it was
Resolved, That this House doth agree to the second, fourth, etc.,
amendments; and doth disagree to the first, third, etc., amendments
proposed by the Senate to the said articles; two-thirds of the Members
present concurring on each vote.
7034. A two-thirds vote is required to agree to a Senate amendment to
a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.--On June
13, 1866,\4\ the House considered the Senate amendments to the joint
resolution (H. Res. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States. It was assumed, and stated as a matter of course by
the Speaker,\5\ that a two-thirds vote would be required on the motion
to agree to the several amendments.
7035. One House having by a two-thirds vote passed in amended form a
proposed constitutional amendment from the other House, and then having
by a majority vote receded from its amendment, the constitutional
amendment was held not to be passed.--On February 9, 1869,\6\ the
Senate proceeded to the consideration of the resolution of the House
(H. Res. 402) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States (the suffrage amendment), and several amendments were proposed
and voted on, most of them being decided in the negative. But one
amendment received yeas 37, nays 19 (not a two-thirds vote) and was
declared agreed to. Then the resolution as amended was passed by the
Senate by a two-thirds vote, the President pro tempore \7\ requiring
the yeas and nays to be taken in order to be certain that the vote was
two-thirds.
On February 15 \8\ the resolution, with the Senate amendment, came up
for consideration in the House, and the question being put on the
amendment, the Speaker \5\ said:
The question will first be taken upon concurring in the amendment
with regard to suffrage. A two-thirds vote is necessary to decide this
question in the affirmative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Elias Boudinot, of New Jersey, Chairman.
\2\ Journal (Gales & Seaton ed.), p. 121; Annals, p. 948.
\3\ Journal, pp. 115, 116; Annals, p. 939.
\4\ First session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, p. 833; Globe, p.
3148.
\5\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
\6\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Journal, p. 312; Globe, pp.
1042-1044.
\7\ Benjamin F. Wade, of Ohio, President pro tempore.
\8\ Journal, pp. 353, 354; Globe, p. 1226.
Sec. 7036
The question being taken, there were yeas 37, nays 133. So, two-
thirds not voting in favor thereof, the amendment was not concurred in.
The House then, having acted on other amendments, asked a conference
with the Senate.
On February 17 \1\ the resolution came back to the Senate with the
amendment of the Senate disagreed to and a conference requested. A
proposition to recede from the amendment having been made, Mr. Roscoe
Conkling, of New York, raised a question as to the vote by which the
motion to recede should be agreed to, whether by a majority or by a
two-thirds vote.
The question was debated at length, and finally Mr. Thomas A.
Hendricks, of Indiana, asked the Chair to decide that the motion to
recede would require two-thirds.
The President pro tempore said:
The Chair does not so understand it.
Thereupon the question arose whether, under this ruling, a vote to
recede would pass the resolution, and the question being put to the
Senate was decided in the negative, without division.
The question was taken on the motion to recede, and it was decided in
the affirmative, yeas 33, nays 24.
Thereupon a question arose as to the further action of the Senate. As
it had originally given its two-thirds vote, not to the resolution as
it came from the House, but to the resolution as it stood with the
amendment from which it had now receded by a majority vote, it was
evident that the resolution of the House had not received the approval
of the required two-thirds. The President pro tempore ruled that the
resolution would not be amendable, and then, after debate, the question
was taken on concurring in the resolution as it came from the House,
and on the vote there appeared yeas 31, nays 27, not the required two-
thirds, so the resolution of the House was rejected.
7036. A two-thirds vote is required to agree to a conference report
on a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.--On
February 25, 1869,\2\ the House was considering the joint resolution
(S. No. 8) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States (suffrage amendment), the question before the House being on the
adoption of the report of the committee of conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the House to
the joint resolution.
Mr. William E. Niblack, of Indiana, rising to a parliamentary
inquiry, asked if a two-thirds vote was required to agree to the
conference report.
The Speaker \3\ said:
It is the opinion of the Chair that every part of the proceeding must
be covered by a two-thirds vote in both branches.
In the Senate \4\ a two-thirds vote was required on the same report.
7037. A difference between the two Houses as to an amendment to a
proposed constitutional amendment may properly be committed to a con-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Globe, pp. 1291-1300; Journal, p. 374.
\2\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 1563.
\3\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
\4\ Globe, pp. 1641, 1642.
Sec. 7038
ference.--On February 15, 1869,\1\ the House had considered and
disagreed to an amendment of the Senate to the resolution of the House
(H. Res. 402) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States (suffrage amendment) and a motion had been made that the House
ask a conference.
Thereupon Mr. George W. Woodward, of Pennsylvania, raised the
question of order that this was not a proper case to submit to a
committee of conference, which was simply a legislative device, and did
not tend to secure proper conformation with the Constitutional
requirement that amendments should receive the assent of two-thirds of
both Houses.
The Speaker \2\ said:
The gentleman makes the point of order that a proposed amendment to
the Constitution is an extraordinary measure of legislation, and
therefore the rules of the House do not apply to it. The Chair
overrules that point of order, not by parliamentary law, not by the
Digest, but by the language of the Constitution itself. Section 5 of
article 1 provides:
``Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its
Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-
thirds, expel a Member.''
Under that provision of the Constitution the House has adopted
certain rules; and on page 67 of the Digest it is provided that there
may be committees of conference in all cases of difference of opinion
between the two Houses. I will read the exact language:
``It is on the occasion of amendments between the Houses that
conferences are usually asked; but they may be asked in all cases of
difference of opinion between the two Houses on matters depending
between them.''
It is further provided on page 68 as follows:
``In the case of disagreeing votes between the two Houses, the House
may either recede, insist, and ask a conference, or adhere, and motions
for such purposes take precedence in that order.''
The Constitution declares that each House may determine the rules of
its proceedings, etc., and under that the House has adopted a rule that
in all cases of difference of opinion between the two Houses
conferences may be asked. The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of
order.
On February 17 \3\ the resolution was received in the Senate with the
request of the House for a conference. Objection was at once made to
putting so important a matter into the hands of a committee of
conference, the precedent of the military reconstruction bill in a
former case being cited as an instance, when the Senate decided to
consider and settle the matter in open Senate, rather than intrust it
to a committee of conference. After debate the proposition to agree to
the conference asked by the House was abandoned, and the Senate
proceeded to recede from their amendment, and then to disagree to the
resolution of the House.
But in the case of another resolution (S. Res. 8), proposing the same
amendment in a modified form, the differences of the House were
submitted to a committee of conference, which reported February 25,
1869.\4\
7038. The yeas and nays are not necessarily taken on the passage of a
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution.--On February 13,
1902,\5\ the House was considering, the joint resolution (H. J. Res.
41) proposing an amendment to the Constitution, providing for the
election of Senators of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 1226.
\2\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
\3\ Globe, p. 1284.
\4\ Globe, p. 1563; Journal p. 449.
\5\ First session Fifty-seventh Congress, Record, pp. 1721, 1722.
Sec. 7039
Mr. John B. Corliss, of Michigan, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
asked whether a roll call was necessary, or it would be sufficient if
in the judgment of the Speaker a two-thirds vote was cast.
The Speaker \1\ said:
If the House orders it, it must be had. In the early times, during
the war period, when great amendments were pending, the Speaker ordered
a roll call; but in the more recent times the practice has been to put
it to vote, the presumption being that a quorum was present, and the
Chair deciding, in his opinion, whether there was a two-thirds vote in
favor of the measure. It is always within the power of the House to
test the matter.
7039. On January 30, 1869,\2\ the House was considering the joint
resolution of the House (H. Res. 402) proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States (suffrage amendment), and the
question was on the passage of the resolution.
Mr. Robert C. Schenck, of Ohio, rising to a parliamentary inquiry,
asked if the Constitution did not require the vote to be taken by yeas
and nays.
The Speaker \3\ said:
It does not. The only imperative requirement of the yeas and nays
under the Constitution is in regard to a veto, where a concurrent vote
of two-thirds of each House by yeas, and nays is required. On all other
question requiring a two-thirds vote, such as proposed amendments to
the Constitution and relief from political disabilities, the
Constitution does not command the vote to be taken by yeas and nays any
more than on bills which only require a majority vote. On bills
relieving from disability under the fourteenth amendment the Chair has
ruled, with the assent of the House, that the Constitution does not
require the yeas and nays, but that the result must be arrived at by a
two-thirds vote, to be declared by the Chair. On constitutional
amendments, however, on account of their gravity and the value of the
record, the usage has been to take the vote by yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were then demanded by one-fifth of those present.
7040. It has been conclusively settled that a joint resolution
proposing an amendment to the Constitution should not be presented to
the President for his approval.--On February 25, 1869,\4\ Mr. George S.
Boutwell, of Massachusetts, presented the report of the committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of the House and Senate on the
resolution (S. No. 8) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States (suffrage amendment).
Mr. George W. Woodward, of Pennsylvania, made the point of order that
the subject of the report of the committee would have to be sent to the
President of the United States for his approval, under that clause of
the Constitution which provides that--
Every order, resolution, or vote on which the concurrence of the
Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a
question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the
United States, etc.
The Speaker \3\ said:
The gentleman having stated the point of order, the Chair will decide
it. It has been raised once before and decided by the Chair. He will
repeat the substantial points of that decision, which he thinks will
satisfy the gentleman that his point is not well taken, although based
by him upon the
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ David B. Henderson, of Iowa, Speaker.
\2\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 745; Journal, p. 237.
\3\ Schuyler Colfax, of Indiana, Speaker.
\4\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Globe, p. 1563.
Sec. 7041
Constitution of the United States. The question was raised distinctly
in 1803 in the Senate of the United States, on a motion that the then
proposed amendment to the Constitution should be submitted to the
President:
``On motion that the Committee on Enrolled Bills be directed to
present to the President of the United States for his approbation the
resolution which has been passed by both Houses of Congress, proposing
to the consideration of the State legislatures an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States respecting the mode of electing
President and Vice-President thereof, it was decided in the negative,
yeas 7, nays 23.''
On a distinct vote of 23 to 7 the Senate voted that the Committee on
Enrolled Bills should not present the proposed amendment. This is a
decision made by one of the early Congresses. But the Chair is not
satisfied with having it rest on that; he is disposed to present higher
authority in overruling the point of order.
In 1798 a case arose in the Supreme Court of the United States
depending upon the amendment to the Constitution proposed in 1794, and
the counsel, in argument before the court, insisted that the amendment
was not valid, not having been approved by the President of the United
States. The Attorney-General, Mr. Lee, in reply to this argument, said:
``Has not the same course been pursued relative to all other
amendments that have been adopted? And the case of amendments is
evidently a substantive act, unconnected with the ordinary business of
legislation, and not within the policy or terms of investing the
President with a qualified negative on the acts and resolutions of
Congress.''
That was the remark of the Attorney-General. But the Chair does not
rest his decision upon that. He sustains it by the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States. The court, speaking through Chase,
justice, in reply to the Attorney-General, observed:
``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.''
As the Supreme Court of the United States has settled this question
by a decision, the Chair does not need to read further authorities. But
this question came before the Senate of the United States recently,
since the recent exciting questions have been before the country, and
the chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the Senate (Mr. Lyman
Trumbull, of Illinois) offered the following resolution:
``Resolved, That the article of amendment proposed by Congress to be
added to the Constitution of the United States respecting the
extinction of slavery therein having been inadvertently presented to
the President for his approval, it is hereby declared that such
approval was unnecessary to give effect to the action of Congress in
proposing said amendment, inconsistent with former practice in
reference to all amendments to the Constitution heretofore adopted, and
being inadvertently done, should not constitute a precedent for the
future; and the Secretary is hereby instructed not to communicate the
notice of the approval of said proposed amendment by the President to
the House of Representatives.''
Upon that resolution the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Reverdy Johnson,
who had been formerly Attorney-General of the United States, made a
speech which the Chair will not quote, corroborating, however, the
opinion of the Chair, and the Senate adopted the resolution of Mr.
Trumbull without a division and without the yeas and nays.
The Chair therefore thinks that the question is settled, not only by
the practice of Congress but by a decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States, and therefore overrules the point of order.
7041. The filing with the Secretary of State and the transmission to
the States of joint resolutions proposing amendments to the
Constitution.--On June 18, 1866,\1\ Mr. Amasa Cobb, of Wisconsin, from
the Committee on Enrolled Bills, reported that the committee did, on
the 16th day of June, 1866, present to and file with the Secretary of
State of the United States a joint resolution of the following title,
viz:
H. Res. 127. Joint resolution proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ First session Thirty-ninth Congress, Journal, pp. 859, 866, 889;
Globe, pp. 3241, 3357.
Sec. 7042
On the same day the House considered under suspension of the rules
and agreed to the following:
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),
That the President of the United States be requested to transmit
forthwith to the executives of the several States of the United States
copies of the article of amendment proposed by Congress to the State
legislatures to amend the Constitution of the United States, passed
June 13, 1866, respecting citizenship, the basis of representation,
disqualification for office, and validity of the public debt of the
United States, etc., to the end that the said States may proceed to act
upon the said article of amendment; and that he request the executive
of each State that may ratify said amendment to transmit to the
Secretary of State a certified copy of such ratification.
On June 19 the Speaker, by unanimous consent, laid before the House a
letter from the Clerk of the House, stating that he did this day
present to the President a certified copy of the concurrent resolution
of the 18th instant, requesting, etc.
On June 22 a message was received from the President submitting a
report of the Secretary of State relating to the submission of the
amendment to the legislatures of the States calling attention to the
fact that the amendment was not submitted to the President for his
approval, that several States were still out of the Union, etc., and
stating that the act of the administration in submitting the amendment
should be regarded as purely ministerial, and not as an endorsement of
it.
7042. On February 22, 1870,\1\ occurred a learned and carefully
considered debate in the Senate concerning the power of a State to
recall its assent duly given to a constitutional amendment. This debate
arose over the act of the legislature of New York in attempting to
recall the assent of a previous legislature to the Fifteenth amendment.
7043. The two Houses requested the President to transmit to the
States forthwith certain proposed amendments to the Constitution.--On
March 2, 1869,\2\ the Senate and House adopted a concurrent resolution
requesting the President to transmit forthwith to the executives of the
several States copies of the article of amendment proposed to the
Constitution of the United States, and passed February 26, 1869,
respecting the exercise of the elective franchise, in order that the
States tight proceed to act on the amendment, and also to request the
executive of each of the States that might ratify the amendment to
transmit to the Secretary of State a certified copy of the
ratification.
7044. The President may notify Congress by message of the
promulgation of the ratification of a constitutional amendment.--On
March 30, 1870,\3\ President Grant by message notified Congress of the
promulgation of the ratification of the fifteenth amendment to the
Constitution, saying that he was aware that such a course was not
usual, but in view of the importance of the subject he transmitted the
notification, with the expressed hope that Congress would take all
means within their powers to promote popular education in the country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Globe, pp. 377, 1477.
\2\ Third session Fortieth Congress, Journal, p. 502; Globe, p. 1816.
\3\ Second session Forty-first Congress, Journal, p. 548.