CargoAdmin, Bureaucrats, Moderators (CommentStreams), fileuploaders, Interface administrators, newuser, Push subscription managers, Suppressors, Administrators
5,230
edits
Constitution of the United States: Difference between revisions
Constitution of the United States (view source)
Revision as of 23:08, 21 February 2025
, 21 FebruaryText replacement - "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom"
m (1 revision imported) |
m (Text replacement - "United Kingdom" to "United Kingdom") |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| image = Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg | | image = Constitution of the United States, page 1.jpg | ||
| image_size = | | image_size = | ||
| caption = Page one of [[Jacob Shallus]]' officially [[Enrolled bill|engrossed]] copy of the Constitution signed in | | caption = Page one of [[Jacob Shallus]]' officially [[Enrolled bill|engrossed]] copy of the Constitution signed in Philadelphia by delegates of the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]] in 1787<ref>{{cite web |title=Engrossed in the Constitution |author=John H. Lienhard |url=https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1003.htm |access-date=April 8, 2022}}</ref> | ||
| jurisdiction = [[United States]] | | jurisdiction = [[United States]] | ||
| date_created = September 17, 1787 | | date_created = September 17, 1787 | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| citation = {{citation |url= https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf |title= {{small|The Constitution of the United States of America, As Amended}} |date= July 25, 2007 }} | | citation = {{citation |url= https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc50/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf |title= {{small|The Constitution of the United States of America, As Amended}} |date= July 25, 2007 }} | ||
| location_of_document = [[National Archives Building]] in [[Washington, D.C.]], U.S. | | location_of_document = [[National Archives Building]] in [[Washington, D.C.]], U.S. | ||
| commissioned = [[Congress of the Confederation]] in | | commissioned = [[Congress of the Confederation]] in Philadelphia, U.S. | ||
| writer = [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Philadelphia Convention]] | | writer = [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Philadelphia Convention]] | ||
| signers = 39 of the 55 delegates | | signers = 39 of the 55 delegates | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| wikisource = Constitution of the United States of America | | wikisource = Constitution of the United States of America | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{United States constitutional law}} | {{United States constitutional law}} | ||
{{US Constitution article series}} | {{US Constitution article series}} | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
[[File:Constitution.ogg|thumb|Reading of the United States Constitution of 1787]] | [[File:Constitution.ogg|thumb|Reading of the United States Constitution of 1787]] | ||
The '''Constitution of the United States''' is the [[Supremacy Clause|supreme law]] of the [[United States]].{{sfn|Maier|2010|p=35}} It superseded the [[Articles of Confederation]], the nation's first [[constitution]], on March 4, 1789. Originally including seven articles, the Constitution delineates the frame of the [[Federal government of the United States|federal government]]. The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the [[separation of powers]], in which the federal government is divided into three branches: the [[United States Congress|legislative]], consisting of the [[bicameralism|bicameral]] Congress ([[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article I]]); the [[Federal government of the United States#Executive branch|executive]], consisting of the [[President of the United States|president]] and subordinate officers ([[Article Two of the United States Constitution|Article II]]); and the [[Federal judiciary of the United States|judicial]], consisting of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] and other federal courts ([[Article Three of the United States Constitution|Article III]]). [[Article Four of the United States Constitution|Article IV]], [[Article Five of the United States Constitution|Article V]], and [[Article Six of the United States Constitution|Article VI]] embody concepts of [[federalism]], describing the rights and responsibilities of [[State governments of the United States|state governments]], the [[U.S. state|states]] in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. [[Article Seven of the United States Constitution|Article VII]] establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 states to [[Ratification|ratify]] it. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest and longest-standing written and codified national constitution in force in the world.<ref>[http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/sep/22/bob-goodlatte/goodlatte-says-us-has-oldest-working-national-cons/ Goodlatte says U.S. has the oldest working national constitution], Politifact Virginia website, September 22, 2014.</ref>{{efn|Other countries, such as the | The '''Constitution of the United States''' is the [[Supremacy Clause|supreme law]] of the [[United States]].{{sfn|Maier|2010|p=35}} It superseded the [[Articles of Confederation]], the nation's first [[constitution]], on March 4, 1789. Originally including seven articles, the Constitution delineates the frame of the [[Federal government of the United States|federal government]]. The Constitution's first three articles embody the doctrine of the [[separation of powers]], in which the federal government is divided into three branches: the [[United States Congress|legislative]], consisting of the [[bicameralism|bicameral]] Congress ([[Article One of the United States Constitution|Article I]]); the [[Federal government of the United States#Executive branch|executive]], consisting of the [[President of the United States|president]] and subordinate officers ([[Article Two of the United States Constitution|Article II]]); and the [[Federal judiciary of the United States|judicial]], consisting of the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] and other federal courts ([[Article Three of the United States Constitution|Article III]]). [[Article Four of the United States Constitution|Article IV]], [[Article Five of the United States Constitution|Article V]], and [[Article Six of the United States Constitution|Article VI]] embody concepts of [[federalism]], describing the rights and responsibilities of [[State governments of the United States|state governments]], the [[U.S. state|states]] in relationship to the federal government, and the shared process of constitutional amendment. [[Article Seven of the United States Constitution|Article VII]] establishes the procedure subsequently used by the 13 states to [[Ratification|ratify]] it. The Constitution of the United States is the oldest and longest-standing written and codified national constitution in force in the world.<ref>[http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2014/sep/22/bob-goodlatte/goodlatte-says-us-has-oldest-working-national-cons/ Goodlatte says U.S. has the oldest working national constitution], Politifact Virginia website, September 22, 2014.</ref>{{efn|Other countries, such as the United Kingdom, [[Canada]], and [[New Zealand]], and other [[Commonwealth countries]], have constitutional provisions such as the [[Bill of Rights 1689]], among other statutes, that are older than the United States Constitution that are still in force to this day.}} | ||
The [[Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution|drafting of the Constitution]], often referred to as its framing, was completed at the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]], which assembled at [[Independence Hall]] in | The [[Timeline of drafting and ratification of the United States Constitution|drafting of the Constitution]], often referred to as its framing, was completed at the [[Constitutional Convention (United States)|Constitutional Convention]], which assembled at [[Independence Hall]] in Philadelphia between May 25 and September 17, 1787.{{sfn|Maier|2010|pp=27–28}} Delegates to the convention were chosen by the state legislatures of 12 of the [[Thirteen Colonies|13 original states]]; [[Rhode Island]] refused to send delegates.<ref name=Bio /> The convention's initial mandate was limited to amending the Articles of Confederation, which had proven highly ineffective in meeting the young nation's needs.{{sfn|Maier|2010|pp=11–13}} Almost immediately, however, delegates began considering measures to replace the Articles.{{sfn|Rakove|1996|pp=102–104}} The first proposal discussed, introduced by delegates from [[Virginia]], called for a bicameral (two-house) Congress that was to be elected on a proportional basis based on state population, an elected chief executive, and an appointed judicial branch.<ref name=AvalonVirginia /> An alternative to the [[Virginia Plan]], known as the [[New Jersey Plan]], also called for an elected executive but retained the legislative structure created by the Articles, a unicameral Congress where all states had one vote.<ref name=AvalonNewJersey /> | ||
On June 19, 1787, delegates rejected the New Jersey Plan with three states voting in favor, seven against, and one divided. The plan's defeat led to a series of compromises centering primarily on two issues: slavery and proportional representation.{{sfn|Warren|1928|pp=231–232}}{{sfn|Rakove|1996|p=58}} The first of these pitted Northern states, where slavery was slowly being abolished, against Southern states, whose agricultural economies depended on slave labor.{{sfn|Beeman|2009|pp=67–68, 310–311}} The issue of proportional representation was of similar concern to less populous states, which under the Articles had the same power as larger states.{{sfn|Rakove|1996|p=54}} To satisfy interests in the South, particularly in Georgia and South Carolina, the delegates agreed to protect the slave trade, that is, the importation of slaves, for 20 years.{{sfn|Maier|2010|p=123}} Slavery was protected further by allowing states to count three-fifths of their slaves as part of their populations, for the purpose of representation in the federal government, and by requiring the return of escaped slaves to their owners, even if captured in states where slavery had been abolished.{{sfn|Bernstein|1987|pp=167, 177}} Finally, the delegates adopted the [[Connecticut Compromise]], which proposed a Congress with proportional representation in the lower house and equal representation in the upper house (the Senate) giving each state two senators.{{sfn|Beeman|2009|pp=200–204}} While these compromises held the Union together and aided the Constitution's ratification, slavery continued for six more decades and the less populous states continue to have disproportional representation in the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]] and [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]].{{sfn|Amar|2005|pp=20–21, 310}}{{sfn|Rakove|1996|p=58}} | On June 19, 1787, delegates rejected the New Jersey Plan with three states voting in favor, seven against, and one divided. The plan's defeat led to a series of compromises centering primarily on two issues: slavery and proportional representation.{{sfn|Warren|1928|pp=231–232}}{{sfn|Rakove|1996|p=58}} The first of these pitted Northern states, where slavery was slowly being abolished, against Southern states, whose agricultural economies depended on slave labor.{{sfn|Beeman|2009|pp=67–68, 310–311}} The issue of proportional representation was of similar concern to less populous states, which under the Articles had the same power as larger states.{{sfn|Rakove|1996|p=54}} To satisfy interests in the South, particularly in Georgia and South Carolina, the delegates agreed to protect the slave trade, that is, the importation of slaves, for 20 years.{{sfn|Maier|2010|p=123}} Slavery was protected further by allowing states to count three-fifths of their slaves as part of their populations, for the purpose of representation in the federal government, and by requiring the return of escaped slaves to their owners, even if captured in states where slavery had been abolished.{{sfn|Bernstein|1987|pp=167, 177}} Finally, the delegates adopted the [[Connecticut Compromise]], which proposed a Congress with proportional representation in the lower house and equal representation in the upper house (the Senate) giving each state two senators.{{sfn|Beeman|2009|pp=200–204}} While these compromises held the Union together and aided the Constitution's ratification, slavery continued for six more decades and the less populous states continue to have disproportional representation in the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]] and [[United States Electoral College|Electoral College]].{{sfn|Amar|2005|pp=20–21, 310}}{{sfn|Rakove|1996|p=58}} | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
===First government=== | ===First government=== | ||
From September 5, 1774, to March 1, 1781, the [[Second Continental Congress]], convened in | From September 5, 1774, to March 1, 1781, the [[Second Continental Congress]], convened in Philadelphia in what today is called [[Independence Hall]], functioned as the [[provisional government]] of the United States. Delegates to the [[First Continental Congress]] in 1774 and then the [[Second Continental Congress]] from 1775 to 1781 were chosen largely from the [[American Revolutionary|revolutionary]] [[committees of correspondence]] in various colonies rather than through the [[Colonial government in the Thirteen Colonies|colonial governments of the Thirteen Colonies]].{{sfn|McLaughlin|1935|pp=83–90, 124}} | ||
===Articles of Confederation=== | ===Articles of Confederation=== | ||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
Congress was paralyzed. It could do nothing significant without nine states, and some legislation required all 13. When a state produced only one member in attendance, its vote was not counted. If a state's delegation was evenly divided, its vote could not be counted towards the nine-count requirement.{{sfn|Maier|2010|p=13}} The Congress of the Confederation had "virtually ceased trying to govern."{{sfn|Wood|1969|pp=356–367, 359}} The vision of a respectable nation among nations seemed to be fading in the eyes of revolutionaries such as [[George Washington]], [[Benjamin Franklin]], and [[Rufus King]]. Their dream of a [[republic]], a nation without hereditary rulers, with power derived from the people in frequent elections, was in doubt.{{sfn|Maier|2010|pp=14, 30, 66}}<ref>[[Thomas Dawes|Dawes, Thomas]]. ''An Oration, Delivered July 4, 1787, at the Request of the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, in Celebration of the Anniversary of American Independence,'' pp.15–19, printed by Samuel Hall, Boston, 1787.</ref> | Congress was paralyzed. It could do nothing significant without nine states, and some legislation required all 13. When a state produced only one member in attendance, its vote was not counted. If a state's delegation was evenly divided, its vote could not be counted towards the nine-count requirement.{{sfn|Maier|2010|p=13}} The Congress of the Confederation had "virtually ceased trying to govern."{{sfn|Wood|1969|pp=356–367, 359}} The vision of a respectable nation among nations seemed to be fading in the eyes of revolutionaries such as [[George Washington]], [[Benjamin Franklin]], and [[Rufus King]]. Their dream of a [[republic]], a nation without hereditary rulers, with power derived from the people in frequent elections, was in doubt.{{sfn|Maier|2010|pp=14, 30, 66}}<ref>[[Thomas Dawes|Dawes, Thomas]]. ''An Oration, Delivered July 4, 1787, at the Request of the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, in Celebration of the Anniversary of American Independence,'' pp.15–19, printed by Samuel Hall, Boston, 1787.</ref> | ||
On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress called a convention of state delegates in | On February 21, 1787, the Confederation Congress called a convention of state delegates in Philadelphia to propose revisions to the Articles.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a7s1.html |title= Resolution of Congress, 21 Feb. 1787 |work= The Founders' Constitution |publisher= University of Chicago Press |postscript= ;}} The Congress of the Confederation thus echoed a previous resolution of a conference at Annapolis; see {{cite web |url= http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/annapoli.asp |title= Proceedings of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government: 1786}}</ref> Unlike earlier attempts, the convention was not meant for new laws or piecemeal alterations, but for the "sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation." The convention was not limited to commerce; rather, it was intended to "render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the Union." The proposal might take effect when approved by Congress and the states.<ref>{{harvnb|Maier|2010|p=21}}</ref> | ||
==History== | ==History== | ||
| Line 286: | Line 286: | ||
====Safeguards of civil rights (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26)==== | ====Safeguards of civil rights (Amendments 13, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, and 26)==== | ||
The [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Thirteenth Amendment]] (1865) abolished [[Slavery in the United States|slavery]] and [[involuntary servitude]], except [[Penal labor in the United States|as punishment for a crime]], and authorized Congress to enforce [[Abolitionism in the United States|abolition]]. Though millions of slaves had been declared free by the 1863 [[Emancipation Proclamation]], their post | The [[Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Thirteenth Amendment]] (1865) abolished [[Slavery in the United States|slavery]] and [[involuntary servitude]], except [[Penal labor in the United States|as punishment for a crime]], and authorized Congress to enforce [[Abolitionism in the United States|abolition]]. Though millions of slaves had been declared free by the 1863 [[Emancipation Proclamation]], their post Civil War status was unclear, as was the status of other millions.<ref>{{cite web |title= The Emancipation Proclamation |url= https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured-documents/emancipation-proclamation |publisher= National Archives and Records Administration |access-date= August 6, 2014}}</ref> Congress intended the Thirteenth Amendment to be a proclamation of freedom for all slaves throughout the nation and to take the question of emancipation away from politics. This amendment rendered inoperative or moot several of the original parts of the constitution.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment13.html# |title=Thirteenth Amendment – Abolition of Slavery |last=FindLaw Staff |date=July 27, 2022 |website=constitution.findlaw.com |publisher=[[FindLaw]] |access-date=May 1, 2023}}</ref> | ||
The [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] (1868) granted [[United States nationality law|United States citizenship]] to former slaves and to all persons "subject to U.S. jurisdiction." It also contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws. These limitations dramatically expanded the protections of the Constitution. This amendment, according to the Supreme Court's Doctrine of [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|Incorporation]], makes most provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to state and local governments as well. It superseded the mode of apportionment of representatives delineated in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and also overturned the Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' (1857).<ref>{{cite web |last= Monk |first= Linda |title= Amendment XIV |url= http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-14-citizenship-rights |work= Annenberg Classroom |publisher= Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania |access-date= August 6, 2014 |archive-date= July 19, 2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130719064239/http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-14-citizenship-rights }}</ref> | The [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourteenth Amendment]] (1868) granted [[United States nationality law|United States citizenship]] to former slaves and to all persons "subject to U.S. jurisdiction." It also contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws. These limitations dramatically expanded the protections of the Constitution. This amendment, according to the Supreme Court's Doctrine of [[Incorporation of the Bill of Rights|Incorporation]], makes most provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to state and local governments as well. It superseded the mode of apportionment of representatives delineated in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and also overturned the Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Dred Scott v. Sandford]]'' (1857).<ref>{{cite web |last= Monk |first= Linda |title= Amendment XIV |url= http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-14-citizenship-rights |work= Annenberg Classroom |publisher= Leonore Annenberg Institute for Civics of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania |access-date= August 6, 2014 |archive-date= July 19, 2013 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20130719064239/http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-14-citizenship-rights }}</ref> | ||
| Line 298: | Line 298: | ||
The [[Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-fourth Amendment]] (1964) prohibits a [[Poll taxes in the United States|poll tax]] for voting. Although passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments helped remove many of the discriminatory laws left over from slavery, they did not eliminate all forms of discrimination. Along with literacy tests and durational residency requirements, poll taxes were used to keep low-income (primarily African American) citizens from participating in elections. The Supreme Court has since struck down these discriminatory measures.<ref>{{cite web|last=Monk|first=Linda|title=Amendment XXIV|url=http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-24-poll-tax-barred|publisher=Annenberg Classroom|access-date=August 6, 2014|location=Philadelphia, Pa.|archive-date=July 3, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140703090136/http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-24-poll-tax-barred}}</ref> | The [[Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-fourth Amendment]] (1964) prohibits a [[Poll taxes in the United States|poll tax]] for voting. Although passage of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments helped remove many of the discriminatory laws left over from slavery, they did not eliminate all forms of discrimination. Along with literacy tests and durational residency requirements, poll taxes were used to keep low-income (primarily African American) citizens from participating in elections. The Supreme Court has since struck down these discriminatory measures.<ref>{{cite web|last=Monk|first=Linda|title=Amendment XXIV|url=http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-24-poll-tax-barred|publisher=Annenberg Classroom|access-date=August 6, 2014|location=Philadelphia, Pa.|archive-date=July 3, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140703090136/http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-24-poll-tax-barred}}</ref> | ||
The [[Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-sixth Amendment]] (1971) prohibits the government from denying the right of United States citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age. The drive to lower the [[Voting age#United States|voting age]] was driven in large part by the broader [[student activism]] movement protesting the | The [[Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-sixth Amendment]] (1971) prohibits the government from denying the right of United States citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age. The drive to lower the [[Voting age#United States|voting age]] was driven in large part by the broader [[student activism]] movement protesting the Vietnam War. It gained strength following the Supreme Court's decision in ''[[Oregon v. Mitchell]]'' (1970).<ref>{{cite web|last=Monk|first=Linda|title=Amendment XXVI|url=http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-26-voting-age-set-to-18-years|publisher=Annenberg Classroom|access-date=August 6, 2014|location=Philadelphia, Pa.|archive-date=July 19, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130719072047/http://constitutioncenter.org/constitution/the-amendments/amendment-26-voting-age-set-to-18-years}}</ref> | ||
====Government processes and procedures (Amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25, and 27)==== | ====Government processes and procedures (Amendments 12, 17, 20, 22, 25, and 27)==== | ||
| Line 329: | Line 329: | ||
===Expired=== | ===Expired=== | ||
* The [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (proposed 1972) would have prohibited deprivation of equality of rights ([[discrimination]]) by the federal or state governments on account of sex. A seven-year ratification time limit was initially placed on the amendment, but as the deadline approached, Congress granted a three-year extension. Thirty-five states ratified the proposed amendment prior to the original deadline, three short of the number required for it to be implemented (five of them later voted to rescind their ratification). No further states ratified the amendment within the extended deadline. In 2017, Nevada became the first state to ratify the ERA after the expiration of both deadlines,<ref name="35 years after">{{Cite news| url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/21/520962541/nevada-on-cusp-of-ratifying-equal-rights-amendment-35-years-after-deadline | title=Nevada Ratifies The Equal Rights Amendment ... 35 Years After The Deadline | publisher=NPR | access-date=April 6, 2017 | language=en}}</ref> followed by Illinois in 2018,<ref>{{Cite web| url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2018-09-12/pdf/CREC-2018-09-12-pt1-PgS6141-3.pdf#page=1|title=Congressional Record—September 12, 2018}}</ref> and Virginia in 2020,<ref>{{cite tweet|user=JCarollFoy|number=1217510690413514753|date=January 15, 2020|title=BREAKING: The House of Delegates just passed HJ1, my resolution to have Virginia be the 38th and final state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.}}</ref><ref>[https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/virginia-becomes-38th-state-to-ratify-equal-rights-amendment-but-it-may-be-too-late/ Virginia becomes 38th state to ratify Equal Rights Amendment—but it may be too late], [[WTOP-FM]]</ref> purportedly bringing the number of ratifications to 38. However, experts and advocates have acknowledged legal uncertainty about the consequences of these ratifications, due to the expired deadlines and the five states' purported revocations.{{efn|Three states have ratified the ERA in recent years (Virginia, Illinois and Nevada), purportedly bringing the number of ratifications to 38. In January 2020, after the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] issued an opinion that the deadline for passage of the amendment expired at the time of the original 1979 deadline, the [[State attorney general|attorneys general]] of those three states filed suit in [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.]] challenging that opinion. As reported by | * The [[Equal Rights Amendment]] (proposed 1972) would have prohibited deprivation of equality of rights ([[discrimination]]) by the federal or state governments on account of sex. A seven-year ratification time limit was initially placed on the amendment, but as the deadline approached, Congress granted a three-year extension. Thirty-five states ratified the proposed amendment prior to the original deadline, three short of the number required for it to be implemented (five of them later voted to rescind their ratification). No further states ratified the amendment within the extended deadline. In 2017, Nevada became the first state to ratify the ERA after the expiration of both deadlines,<ref name="35 years after">{{Cite news| url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/21/520962541/nevada-on-cusp-of-ratifying-equal-rights-amendment-35-years-after-deadline | title=Nevada Ratifies The Equal Rights Amendment ... 35 Years After The Deadline | publisher=NPR | access-date=April 6, 2017 | language=en}}</ref> followed by Illinois in 2018,<ref>{{Cite web| url=https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2018-09-12/pdf/CREC-2018-09-12-pt1-PgS6141-3.pdf#page=1|title=Congressional Record—September 12, 2018}}</ref> and Virginia in 2020,<ref>{{cite tweet|user=JCarollFoy|number=1217510690413514753|date=January 15, 2020|title=BREAKING: The House of Delegates just passed HJ1, my resolution to have Virginia be the 38th and final state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment.}}</ref><ref>[https://wtop.com/virginia/2020/01/virginia-becomes-38th-state-to-ratify-equal-rights-amendment-but-it-may-be-too-late/ Virginia becomes 38th state to ratify Equal Rights Amendment—but it may be too late], [[WTOP-FM]]</ref> purportedly bringing the number of ratifications to 38. However, experts and advocates have acknowledged legal uncertainty about the consequences of these ratifications, due to the expired deadlines and the five states' purported revocations.{{efn|Three states have ratified the ERA in recent years (Virginia, Illinois and Nevada), purportedly bringing the number of ratifications to 38. In January 2020, after the [[United States Department of Justice|Justice Department]] issued an opinion that the deadline for passage of the amendment expired at the time of the original 1979 deadline, the [[State attorney general|attorneys general]] of those three states filed suit in [[United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit|U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.]] challenging that opinion. As reported by CNN, they are asking the court to force the archivist of the United States to "carry out his statutory duty of recognizing the complete and final adoption" of the ERA as the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution.<ref>{{Cite news| url=https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/politics/equal-rights-amendment-virginia-litigation-trnd/index.html| title=Three Democratic attorneys general sue to have Equal Rights Amendment added to Constitution| first=Veronica| last=Stracqualursi |publisher=CNN| date=January 30, 2020| access-date=January 31, 2020}}</ref>}} | ||
* The [[District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment]] (proposed 1978) would have granted the District of Columbia full representation in the United States Congress as if it were a state, repealed the Twenty-third Amendment, granted the District unconditional Electoral College voting rights, and allowed its participation in the process by which the Constitution is amended. A seven-year ratification time limit was placed on the amendment. Sixteen states ratified the amendment (twenty-two short of the number required for it to be implemented) prior to the deadline, thus it failed to be adopted. | * The [[District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment]] (proposed 1978) would have granted the District of Columbia full representation in the United States Congress as if it were a state, repealed the Twenty-third Amendment, granted the District unconditional Electoral College voting rights, and allowed its participation in the process by which the Constitution is amended. A seven-year ratification time limit was placed on the amendment. Sixteen states ratified the amendment (twenty-two short of the number required for it to be implemented) prior to the deadline, thus it failed to be adopted. | ||
| Line 443: | Line 443: | ||
The United States Constitution has been a notable model for governance worldwide, especially through the 1970s. Its international influence is found in similarities in phrasing and borrowed passages in other constitutions, as well as in the principles of the [[rule of law]], [[separation of powers]], and recognition of [[civil liberties|individual rights]].{{Citation needed|date=June 2024}} | The United States Constitution has been a notable model for governance worldwide, especially through the 1970s. Its international influence is found in similarities in phrasing and borrowed passages in other constitutions, as well as in the principles of the [[rule of law]], [[separation of powers]], and recognition of [[civil liberties|individual rights]].{{Citation needed|date=June 2024}} | ||
The American experience of fundamental law with amendments and [[judicial review]] has motivated [[Constitutionalism|constitutionalists]] at times when they were considering the possibilities for their nation's future.{{sfn|Billias|2009|loc=xi–xv}} It informed | The American experience of fundamental law with amendments and [[judicial review]] has motivated [[Constitutionalism|constitutionalists]] at times when they were considering the possibilities for their nation's future.{{sfn|Billias|2009|loc=xi–xv}} It informed Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War,{{refn|group= lower-alpha |"Secession was indeed unconstitutional ... military resistance to secession was not only constitutional but also morally justified.{{sfn|Farber|2003|p=3}} "the ''primary'' purpose of the Constitution was ... to create 'a more perfect union' ... the Constitution was an exercise in nation building.{{sfn|Farber|2003|p=198}}}} his contemporary and ally [[Benito Juárez]] of Mexico,{{refn|group= lower-alpha |Juarez regarded the United States as a model of republican democracy and consistently supported Abraham Lincoln.{{sfn|Stacy|2003|p=436}}}} and the second generation of 19th-century constitutional nationalists, [[José Rizal]] of the Philippines{{refn|group= lower-alpha |The institutions of the two countries which have most influenced constitutional development are Spain and the United States". One of the reforms, "sine quibus non", to use the words of Rizal and Mabini, always insisted upon by the Filipinos, was Philippine representation in the [[Cortes Generales|Spanish Cortes]], the promulgation in the Islands of the Spanish Constitution, and the complete assimilation equal to that of any in the Spanish provinces on the continent.{{sfn|Malcolm|1920|p=109}}}} and [[Sun Yat-sen]] of China.{{refn|group= lower-alpha |In the modern history of China, there were many revolutionaries who tried to seek the truth from the West in order to overthrow the feudal system of the [[Qing dynasty]]. [[Sun Yat-sen]], for example, was much influenced by American democracy, especially the U.S. Constitution.{{sfn|Qing Yu|1988|p=193}}}} The framers of the [[Australian constitution]] integrated federal ideas from the U.S. and other constitutions.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Aroney|first=Nicholas|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/constitution-of-a-federal-commonwealth/E685089E543B0D14B22136FD7FEA922D#fndtn-information|title=The constitution of a federal commonwealth: the making and meaning of the Australian constitution|date=2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-139-12968-8|location=Cambridge, UK|oclc=774393122}}</ref> | ||
Since the 1980s, the influence of the United States Constitution has been waning as other countries have created new constitutions or updated older constitutions, a process which [[Sanford Levinson]] believes to be more difficult in the United States than in any other country.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="jr-diusc">{{cite news |last=Weigel |first=Margaret |date=April 9, 2013 |title=The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution |url=http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/federalstate/decline-influence-united-states-constitution/ |access-date=April 23, 2015 |website=Journalist's Resource |publisher=[[Harvard Kennedy School of Government]] [[Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy]]}}</ref><ref name="diusc">{{cite journal |last1=Law |first1=David S. |last2=Versteeg |first2=Mila |year=2012 |title=The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution |journal=[[New York University Law Review]] |volume=87 |issue=3 |pages=762–858 |ssrn=1923556}}</ref> | Since the 1980s, the influence of the United States Constitution has been waning as other countries have created new constitutions or updated older constitutions, a process which [[Sanford Levinson]] believes to be more difficult in the United States than in any other country.<ref name=":0" /><ref name="jr-diusc">{{cite news |last=Weigel |first=Margaret |date=April 9, 2013 |title=The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution |url=http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/federalstate/decline-influence-united-states-constitution/ |access-date=April 23, 2015 |website=Journalist's Resource |publisher=[[Harvard Kennedy School of Government]] [[Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy]]}}</ref><ref name="diusc">{{cite journal |last1=Law |first1=David S. |last2=Versteeg |first2=Mila |year=2012 |title=The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution |journal=[[New York University Law Review]] |volume=87 |issue=3 |pages=762–858 |ssrn=1923556}}</ref> | ||
| Line 452: | Line 452: | ||
The United States Constitution has faced various criticisms since its inception in 1787. | The United States Constitution has faced various criticisms since its inception in 1787. | ||
The Constitution did not originally define who was [[Voting rights in the United States|eligible to vote]], allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only [[White Americans|white]] male adult property owners to vote; the notable exception was New Jersey, where women were able to vote on the same basis as men.<ref>{{cite web|title=Expansion of Rights and Liberties—The Right of Suffrage|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html|website=Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom|publisher=National Archives|access-date=April 21, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html|archive-date=July 6, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=U.S. Voting Rights|url=http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html|publisher=Infoplease|access-date=April 21, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Voting in Early America|journal=Colonial Williamsburg|volume=Spring 2007|url=http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm|access-date=April 21, 2015}}</ref> Until the [[Reconstruction Amendments]] were adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the | The Constitution did not originally define who was [[Voting rights in the United States|eligible to vote]], allowing each state to determine who was eligible. In the early history of the U.S., most states allowed only [[White Americans|white]] male adult property owners to vote; the notable exception was New Jersey, where women were able to vote on the same basis as men.<ref>{{cite web|title=Expansion of Rights and Liberties—The Right of Suffrage|url=https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html|website=Online Exhibit: The Charters of Freedom|publisher=National Archives|access-date=April 21, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160706144856/http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters_of_freedom_13.html|archive-date=July 6, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=U.S. Voting Rights|url=http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html|publisher=Infoplease|access-date=April 21, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Voting in Early America|journal=Colonial Williamsburg|volume=Spring 2007|url=http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm|access-date=April 21, 2015}}</ref> Until the [[Reconstruction Amendments]] were adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the American Civil War, the Constitution did not abolish slavery, nor give citizenship and voting rights to former slaves.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/reconstruction/essays/reconstruction-amendments-official-documents-social-history |last= Foner |first= Eric |title= The Reconstruction Amendments: Official Documents as Social History |publisher= The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History |access-date= December 5, 2012 |url-access=subscription}}</ref> These amendments did not include a specific prohibition on discrimination in voting on the basis of sex; it took another amendment—the [[Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Nineteenth]], ratified in 1920—for the Constitution to prohibit any United States citizen from being denied the right to vote on the basis of sex.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/amendment_19/ |title= The Constitution: The 19th Amendment |publisher= National Archives and Records Administration |access-date= December 5, 2012}}</ref> | ||
According to a 2012 study by David Law and Mila Versteeg published in the ''[[New York University Law Review]]'', the U.S. Constitution guarantees relatively few rights compared to the constitutions of other countries and contains fewer than half (26 of 60) of the provisions listed in the average bill of rights. It is also one of the few in the world today that still features the [[right to keep and bear arms]]; the other two being the constitutions of [[Guatemala]] and [[Mexico]].<ref name="jr-diusc" /><ref name="diusc" /> | According to a 2012 study by David Law and Mila Versteeg published in the ''[[New York University Law Review]]'', the U.S. Constitution guarantees relatively few rights compared to the constitutions of other countries and contains fewer than half (26 of 60) of the provisions listed in the average bill of rights. It is also one of the few in the world today that still features the [[right to keep and bear arms]]; the other two being the constitutions of [[Guatemala]] and [[Mexico]].<ref name="jr-diusc" /><ref name="diusc" /> | ||
=== Difficult to amend === | === Difficult to amend === | ||
Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 that it has been the most difficult constitution in the world to amend since the fall of Yugoslavia.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=February 15, 2012 |title='We the People' Loses Appeal With People Around the World - NYTimes.com |website= | Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 that it has been the most difficult constitution in the world to amend since the fall of Yugoslavia.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Liptak |first=Adam |date=February 15, 2012 |title='We the People' Loses Appeal With People Around the World - NYTimes.com |website=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html |access-date=February 15, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120215225846/https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html |archive-date=February 15, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Millhiser |first=Ian |date=2024-07-29 |title=Biden's new Supreme Court reform proposals are mostly useless |url=https://www.vox.com/scotus/363557/supreme-court-biden-kamala-harris-reform-term-limits-ethics |access-date=2024-07-31 |website=Vox |language=en-US}}</ref> Levitsky and Ziblatt argue that the US Constitution is the most difficult in the world to amend, and that this helps explain why the US still has so many undemocratic institutions that most or all other democracies have reformed, directly allowing significant [[democratic backsliding in the United States]].<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Levitsky |first1=Steven |title=Tyranny of the Minority: why American democracy reached the breaking point |last2=Ziblatt |first2=Daniel |date=2023 |publisher=Crown |isbn=978-0-593-44307-1 |edition= |location=New York |chapter=Chapter 7}}</ref> | ||
==Commemorations== | ==Commemorations== | ||