Skip to main content

Mississippi Ratifies 13th Amendment! Who Cares?

In the last couple of days, a common fluff piece making the news rounds, just in time for Presidents Day, deals with the fact that the state of Mississippi finally ratified the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. Or, to be accurate, they ratified it back in 1995, but since the appropriate documentation was never submitted to the proper federal authorities, that ratification was not "official".

While some may find it interesting that the movie "Lincoln" inspired a person, a recent immigrant from India no less, to research the 13th Amendment's ratification history only to discover that Mississippi had not yet officially ratified it, that state's ratification itself is, outside of its public relations value, absolutely meaningless.

Per Article V of the US Constitution, a proposed amendment to the Constitution becomes a part of that esteemed document when it has been ratified by three-fourths of the states. In other words, once the final state needed to put the amendment at (or over) three-fourths of the states ratifies the amendment (currently 38 out of 50), it becomes "the supreme Law of the Land". And once it has been adopted, and becomes the supreme law of the land, ALL of the states are subject to its terms, even those states that have not ratified it!

Accordingly, once Georgia became the 27th state to ratify the 13th Amendment (there being, at the time, 36 states), the Amendment was adopted and became a part of the Constitution. Even if the remaining nine states never took the step of officially ratifying the 13th Amendment, they would still be subject to its provisions.

I mean, if this is such big news, where is the outcry regarding the ratification status of the 24th Amendment? The 24th Amendment, the one prohibiting poll taxes in federal elections, has been ratified by no more than 42 states!*

[* According to The U.S. Constitution Online (http://www.usconstitution.net/), only 40 states have ratified it, whereas the Wikipedia entry on the 24th Amendment lists 42 states. The two states in dispute are Alabama and Texas. In the 2009 Regular Session of the Texas Legislature, House Joint Resolution 39 post-ratifying the 24th Amendment was passed by the House on May 4, passed by the Senate on May 22, reported enrolled on May 23, and filed with the Texas Secretary of State on May 26. Similarly, it appears that the Alabama Legislature passed HJR 14 ratifying the 24th Amendment during that legislature's 2002 Regular Session. However, the Proposal and Ratification notes following the text of the Amendment in the 2006 edition of the United States Code does not mention Alabama's ratification, nor are the ratifications of either Alabama or Texas mentioned in any of the Supplements. Therefore, it could be that these resolutions were never officially submitted to the US Archivist, much like Mississippi's forgotten post-ratification of the 13th Amendment.]

That means that at least eight states, including Mississippi, have not ratified the 24th Amendment! Why aren't we freaking out about that? Because their ratifications would be meaningless, except as PR stunts. Just because they haven't ratified the 24th Amendment, that doesn't mean they are somehow allowed to prevent citizens from voting in federal elections for failure to pay a poll tax. Because the requisite 38 states ratified it back in the 1960s, the remaining states are subject to its terms as well, making any "post-ratifications" superfluous at best.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades

It’s that time of year again. Law students across the country are poring over their class notes and supplements, putting the finishing touches on their outlines, and fueling their all-night study sessions with a combination of high-carb snacks and Java Monsters. This can mean only one thing: exam time is approaching.

If you’re looking for a brief but effective guide to improving your exam performance, the O’Quinn Law Library has the book for you. Alex Schimel’s Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades, now in its second edition, provides a clear and concise strategy for mastering the issue-spotting exams that determine the majority of your grade in most law school classes. Schimel finished second in his class at the University Of Miami School Of Law, where he taught a wildly popular exam workshop in his 2L and 3L years, and later returned to become Associate Director of the Academic Achievement Program. The first edition of his book was written shortly after he finished law school, …

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …