Constitutional amendments proposed but never ratified!

[UrbScotty]

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/bbody3.shtml

How would you have voted on them if you were in Congress or a state legislature?

1876: An attempt to abolish the United States Senate

1876: The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding

1878: An Executive Council of Three should replace the office of President

1893: Renaming this nation the "United States of the Earth"

<snip>

1894: Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs.

<snip>

1916: All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes has to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army

<snip>

How I would have voted:

• Abolishing the Senate: No
  
• No religious leaders in governmental office: Yes; if the Pope wants to visit the Prez, have him do so at St. Patrick's
  
• Executive Council replacinmg the President: Yes, as long as it's not Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld
  
• US of the Earth: Yes... just kidding
  
• Abolishing Army and Navy: No; we do need to protect ourselves from the Iraanians, North Koreans, and Republicans
  
• God and Christ as supreme authorities: Yes... just kidding again
  
• No interracial marriage: No
  
• No divorce: No
  
• National vote on war: Sure, why not?
  
• $1 million limit on wealth: Probably no
  
• Forbidding of drunkenness: Yes
  
• 25% income tax: No
  
• Right to segregate: Heck no
  
• Right to pollution-free environment: Yes, but how could it be enforced?
  

[struggle4progress]

1. Gotta love that National Vote on war. eom

[justa]

2. it would exclude all of *'s staff.

[Bucky]

16. Or it would have raised the level of propaganda lies being put out

If you democratize a decision, you always run the risk of demogoguing the debates that lead up to the decision. In some ways I like the idea of war declarations by plebicite. In other ways I think the results could horrify us.

[rasputin1952]

11. LOL...That is the only one on the list that makes sense!

I am willing to bet, those that are so vociferous in going to war, would sit down and shut up in a heartbeat!

People that don't have to go to war, vote for it. In thruth, (I am in Nebraska, and a combat Vet), I have asked those who were in favor of this war to either go to a recruiter and sign up, or, if they are too old, take their children to be sacrificed on the Altar of War. Not one has gone to a recruiter, even afer I offered a ride! And those with military age offspring, instantaneously shut up and sit down; without fail.

Cowards call for war....then hide behind the Flag. The rest of us have fought in them, and the heroes lie beneath marble markers around the world, or in places we know nothing of...unknown with no marker to remind us of their sacrifice. They rest under that Flag, they never hid behind it; they stood before it, and protected us all. O8)

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

3. Just goes to show that nut cases in the Congress is nothing

new.
And these are the ones which got out of committee! Imagine some of the goofy ones that no one else would support?

I do like the "vote for war, then volunteer" idea.

[JohnKleeb]

4. hmm

1876: An attempt to abolish the United States Senate
No, this is a democracy, d-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y
1876: The forbidding of religious leaders from occupying a governmental office or receiving federal funding
Yeah, seperation of church and state
1878: An Executive Council of Three should replace the office of President
No, Rome had triwhatmacallits and it didnt't work
1893: Renaming this nation the "United States of the Earth"
No, thats just silly
<snip>

1894: Acknowledging that the Constitution recognize God and Jesus Christ as the supreme authorities in human affairs.
No, even though God and Christ are important, I dont need religious language in my constituional.
<snip>

1916: All acts of war should be put to a national vote. Anyone voting yes has to register as a volunteer for service in the United States Army
Hah sure.

[UrbScotty]

5. Oh come on! No U.S. of the Earth?

Tsk tsk tsk! I thought you would be better than to say no to that.

About the Roman 'triwhatmacallits...' I think you mean "Triumvirates."

[JohnKleeb]

6. United States of Earth is just stupid

yes, triumvirates.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

7. well, technically the Senate and democracy don't really go

hand-in-hand.
Since the Senate is based on the mere fact of statehood, ie.. each state gets two no matter what size, this means states like NY, PA, CA, and (God forbid) Tx are under-represented and states like RI, ME, AK, N and S Dakota are over-represented.
So, the Senate alone does not equal the big D.

That is why the foundling (sic) fathers came up with the cesspool which is the House of Reps, which has gone out of its way to re-define corruption over its lifespan.

[Spider Jerusalem]

8. in 1876, election of Senators was undemocratic.

They were chosen by the state legislatures, and not by the people.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

9. Good point. I knew I forgot to put something else in there.

Thanks.

[rasputin1952]

12. JOHN....!!!!!! How are ya?

:D

[JohnKleeb]

15. great, yourself?

[Xithras]

10. An explanation of the anti-Senate proposal (I would have voted yes)

American history books conveniently overlook the fact that the US Senate was originally one of the Constitutions great failed experiments, and that it used to be an extremely undemocratic body. As originally drafted in the constitution, Senators were NOT elected by the people, they were SELECTED by the legislatures of the states. This led to serious cronyism problems, people being promoted into the Senate by suspected bribery, deadlocks in state legislatures leaving Senate seats unfilled for YEARS at a time, legislatures promoting immensely unpopular figures into the Senate, legislatures ALWAYS selecting people from the states dominant party, and the PEOPLE couldn't do a thing about it. By the latter half of the 1800's many people saw the Senate as a corrupt institution, and the majority of Americans thought that it should be abolished or radically altered. The 1876 attempt was a justified attempt to abolish it completely.

Of course, what finally passed was the 17th Amendment in 1913 which took the power away from the legislatures and put the Senators up for a popular vote. Anti-Senate attitudes died pretty quickly after that.

[happyslug]

13. Why not stay with the Amendment that PASSED Congress but not the States?

My Favorite is the 1861 Amendment that would have prohibited Congress from ever passing any law abolishing slavery. All we need is a few more states to ratify it and it will be part of the Constitution (Like about 2/3 of the states for no states radiated the proposed amendment)


For a list of Failed Amendments that passed Congress:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/proamt.html

http://www.aallnet.org/products/2001_14.pdf#search='Failed%20Constitutional%20Amendments%20Slavery'

______

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS NOT RATIFIED BY THE STATES

The REAL first Amendment as passed by Congress (The existing Admentment 1, was a actaully Amendment 3, but Original #1 was never pased by the states, and origanl #2 was only radified by the needed num,ber of states in 1992):

________________________________________________________________________
FIRST PROPOSED ADMENDMENT NEVER RADIFED:

AMENDMENT #1:

Article I. After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.
________________________________________________________________________


At the same time Congress passed a law saying the same thing and the states found that was good enough and dropped any plans of aopting the above. It has been dead for 200 years, unlike it Comparion which was passed by more and more sttes every time Congress grabbed anothe rpay rasie so that over the last 200 years it was radified by the states and became part of the COnsitution in 1992.

________________________________________________________________________
The Second Amendment that is still waiting for the states to radified:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring), 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.

If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
________________________________________________________________________

This admendment has not gone far since the 11th Congress for we no longer fear that our politicans can be bribed by titles (We have found out what politcans want is MONEY not TITLES).


________________________________________________________________________
The Third PROPOSED ADMENDMENT NEVER RADIFED:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz:

``Article Thirteen

``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.''
________________________________________________________________________


The failed "Article Thirteen" is also the only amendment signed by the President of the United States (His Signature is NOT needed when it comes to Amendments).

________________________________________________________________________
Fourth PROPOSED ADMENDMENT NEVER RADIFED:


Joint Resolution Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution:

Article------

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit,regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under 18 years of age.
Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.

________________________________________________________________________
FIRST PROPOSED ADMENDMENT NEVER RADIFED which had a limitation as to time of Radification:


House Joint Resolution 208

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

``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.
``Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
``Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.''

________________________________________________________________________
Second PROPOSED ADMENDMENT NEVER RADIFED which has a time limitation:

House Joint Resolution 554

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three- fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:

``Article
``Section 1. For purposes of representation in the Congress, election of the President and Vice President, and article V of this Constitution, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall be treated as though it were a State.
``Sec. 2. The exercise of the rights and powers conferred under this article shall be by the people of the District constituting the seat of government, and as shall be provided by the Congress.
``Sec. 3. The twenty-third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
``Sec. 4. This article shall be inoperative, unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.''
________________________________________________________________________


Beginning with the proposed Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has
customarily included a provision requiring ratification within seven
years from the time of the submission to the States. The Supreme Court
in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of
States must act is a political question to be determined by the
Congress.

They is some question whether this limitation is valid for the Consitution does not set a limit as to the time to radified. The proposed Child Work Amendment is the last amendment that does NOT have a time limit with any possiblity of being passed (No one is pushing for any of them to be passed but no one bleives the States will radify the number of congressmen for out population already exceeds the numbers in the amendment. As to the anti-nobility amendment no one fears politicans accepting titles as bribes, they are more worried about politicans doing self-dealing than en-nobling)

[Imperialism Inc.]

14. Cool list. Bummer I missed it originally.

# Abolishing the Senate: Yes. The Senate was originally devised as a counter weight to democratic functioning of the system. As someone noted above, originally Senators were appointed not elected andstill today the office is more "elitist" in that it takes more money to win a statewide race than it does to win a more local race.

# No religious leaders in governmental office: No. Not a religious person myself but no citizen should be blocked from running for office.

# Executive Council replacinmg the President: Probably. Not sure though.


# US of the Earth: ummm no ;-)

# Abolishing Army and Navy: No

# God and Christ as supreme authorities: nope

# No interracial marriage: No

# No divorce: No

# National vote on war: yes

# $1 million limit on wealth: Probably yes

# Forbidding of drunkenness: Yes

# 25% income tax: No

# Right to segregate: Heck no

# Right to pollution-free environment: Yes, but how could it be enforced?

[Darranar]

17. Hmm...

Abolishing the Senate: Yes. It's an undemocratic institution.

No religious leaders in office: Yes. Theocracy is a bad idea.

Executive Council replacing the president: Yes. Concentration of power is bad.

United States of the Earth: No. We're arrogant enough already.

Abolishing Army and Navy: No.

God and Christ as supreme authorities: No.

No interracial marriage: No.

No divorce: No.

$1 million dollar limit on wealth: $1 billion dollar limit seems wiser.

Forbidding of drunkenness: No.

Right to segregate: No.

Right to pollution-free environment: No, unenforceable and extreme.

[Jose Diablo]

18. Anti-Title amendment of 1810

There are desputes as to if the 13 amendment was ratified.

The site that says it wasn't:

http://www.thirdamendment.com/nobility.html

The site that says it was:

http://www.barefootsworld.net/real13th.html

A site that explains this and other "failed amendments":

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamfail.html

You decide, was it or was it not ratified?