Skip to main content

Mississippi Ratifies 13th Amendment! Who Cares?

By

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.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le...
1 comment
Read more

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda

By Anonymous
“Man’s inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” –Martin Luther King Jr.   Last week, I had the pleasure of attending  Professor Zachary D. Kaufman ’s presentation on  Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda  hosted by the  Johannesburg Holocaust & Geno cide Ce ntre . Among the many takeaways highlighted by Professor Kaufman and drawn from  Lessons from Rwanda: Post-Genocide Law and Policy   were ten simple yet profound lessons:   Lesson #1: Hate speech is dangerous.   To illustrate the role that hate speech played in the Rwandan genocide, Professor Kaufman discussed multiple forms of  propaganda , such as Kangura, Radio Rwanda, and RTLM “hate radio.”   He concludes that we must have limits, including with respect to social media, and further asserts that social media must do a better jo...
Post a Comment
Read more