," it declared), so it is now customary to have such a limit. Nonsense! The Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to place a time limit on a proposed Article of Amendment. "Time limits" is just another example of congressional over-reaching. If it's such a good idea, change the Constitution to permit it.
There is more than one way to change the Constitution. Here are the ways it can be done:
"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 three 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; ..."
Since the Constitution was adopted, there have been 27 amendments added and 6 which have NOT been ratified. The following have been offered by Congress but not ratified by the states:
1789 - Re-apportionment. Still open for ratification. [Defines a number limit of constituents for Representatives, i.e., 30,000; 40,000; 50,000; etc. This is a very bad idea. It would allow an unlimited number of seats in the House. -- Instead of re-apportionment, the House would just add members as the population increases.]
1800 - Titles of Nobility. Still open. [If anyone accepts a title, i.e., King, Duke, Baron, Earl, etc., citizenship is forfeited. This proposal was printed by the government as part of the Constitution (as though it had been ratified) from the time it was proposed until about 1850 when the error was discovered. It has not been ratified.]
1861 - Slavery. Still open but you can bet it will never be ratified. Here's the proposed text:
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.[NOTE: In 1865 the states ratified Amendment XIII which is exactly what the Congress of 1861 wanted to prohibit.]
1926 - Child Labor. Still open. [Gives Congress the power to regulate child labor. It DID NOT get ratified but Congress never lets technicalities stand in its way. It regulates child labor anyway, and the Supreme Court, which has seldom been hampered by the WORDS of the Constitution, has made numerous rulings on the subject without considering the legality of the underlying question.]
1971 - Equal Rights - Women (ERA). Expired after one extension. [All 12 women who supported this abomination are still upset. Here is the whole proposal:
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
Can't you just see a woman, 8 months pregnant, running across a battlefield in full field pack? How about the woman who demands to play in the National Football League? Rework the words ladies, and it will sail right through. But the real question is, who needs it? Equality is already guaranteed, but without the "MUST DO IT" implications. If enforcement of existing law is the problem, go after that.]
1978 - District of Columbia - To Vote Like States. Expired after 7 years. [This proposal (often called the Jesse Jackson amendment) was intended to add two PERMANENT Democrats to the Senate and one PERMANENT Democrat to the House. If this plan had worked the idea was to do the same thing with Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands. That would have added ten PERMANENT Democrats in the Senate and five PERMANENT Democrats in the House. We oppose the addition of any new states as long as California remains a single state.
Of course, the whole subject of amendments is silly. No one pays any attention anyway. Congress does whatever it wishes and the Supreme Court does whatever it wishes. Even the subject of taxes has been 