
Unratified Amendments to the U.S. Constitution - happy-go-lucky
https://www.npr.org/2018/03/10/591758259/the-zombie-amendments-to-the-constitution-youve-probably-never-heard-of
======
tptacek
Of these, the most amusing might be the Titles of Nobility amendment, which,
recall from this article, revokes the citizenship of anyone who accepts such a
title:

 _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._

Mainstream US history strongly suggests that this amendment was never
ratified; it came within a hair's breadth before the process was interrupted
by the War of 1812. But enterprising conspiracy
theorists^H^H^H^H^H^Hhistorians claim to have uncovered printed copies of the
US Constitution indicating that Virginia had provided the critical 13th
ratification, and that the amendment is technically in force.

This forms the basis of a particularly virulent strain of Sovereign Citizenism
("Thirteentherism"). To wit: if the "original" 13th Amendment is in force, and
practicing lawyers use the "title" "Esquire", then no lawyer participating in
any legislature can be a citizen, and virtually all the laws passed in every
legislating body in the country are null and void.

This is silly on many levels ("esquire" wasn't a title of nobility, nor is it
a title of any sort since it isn't hereditary, and, obviously, there isn't a
secret original 13th Amendment) but that doesn't keep hundreds of people from
relying on it to avoid paying taxes or, for that matter, filing hundreds of
abusive false liens on the property of "illegitimate" public officials.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
This is an amusing one due to the recent surge in people relinquishing their
citizenship, and the government desiring to make that more difficult for tax
reasons. If it were true, I could see a country offering knighthoods for a
fee.

~~~
dijit
There is one. Although not internationally recognised:
[https://www.sealandgov.org/](https://www.sealandgov.org/)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand)

------
rukittenme
I found this article very interesting. I had no idea that Madison proposed 12
amendments (10 of which were the bill of rights and 1 of which was accepted in
1989). The 'lost' 12th amendment which "provided a formula for determining the
number of seats in the House of Representatives" has very much been on my
mind.

Ironically, it gave me some comfort to know that the issue was as politically
impossible to pass then as it is now. It gives me hope that it could be passed
knowing that opinion, not a cabal of interests, stands in the way.

~~~
philwelch
The hilarious part about the apportionment amendment is that there's nothing
stopping it from being passed into law if enough state legislatures ratify it.
Sure, it's extremely improbable, but if it happened, it would be extremely
disruptive. We wouldn't even be able to physically fit the House of
Representatives in the chamber anymore.

~~~
ditterdun
I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. 435 seems really arbitrary and
worse that it was put into law by the same people that yield more power by
limiting the number of their peers. It's really something that should be
constitutional. Most bills are drafted in committee anyway, I'm not sure
everyone needs to be sitting in the same room in 2018. More representatives
would also mean more local involvement, e.g. your city might actually have
their own federal representative. Also the campaigning would be less intense
since you have less to gain for your dollar.

~~~
philwelch
It would definitely be an improvement. It also makes gerrymandering super
hard. It's just a huge change that could happen at any time and completely
throw off the government.

~~~
austincheney
You can fix gerrymandering without changes to congressional limits. Simply use
this criteria:

* All boundaries of a congressional district must be either a state's boundaries or fixed to a single latitude and/or longitude and meet at an approximate 90deg.

* Exceptions to the prior mentioned rule are acceptable only in the cases of remainder space, which is space remaining for a congressional district only after the prior rule is otherwise fully executed.

* Remainder space districts must not be adjacent.

\---

An alternative approach:

* Congressional districts must be limited to county borders in the case of low population density districts that may comprise multiple counties or subdivided entirely within a single county for high density districts.

* Subdivision of a county must occur strictly upon either points of latitude or longitude, but not both and cannot exceed the borders of any single county.

\---

I believe the shape and size of congressional districts should be flexible to
account for variances of population density. I happen to live in a state with
a huge population and perhaps the most wild fluctuations in population
density. For horrid examples of gerrymandering view our current congressional
districts:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_de...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Texas)

~~~
philwelch
Sure, but passing a federal law or constitutional amendment that would
implement that solution is unlikely, because it is against the vested
interests of the congressmen from gerrymandered districts who would be voting
on it in the first place. On the other hand, ratifying the apportionment
amendment would create so many congressional districts that gerrymandering
would be effectively impossible.

Also, if you're going to go straight into fantasy land to solve
gerrymandering, you can just do party-list proportional representation by
state, or STV for smaller states, and then there's no districting at all.
There's nothing in the constitution requiring congressional districts at all.

~~~
austincheney
To me that doesn't make any sense. If it is in the vested interest of a
congressman to maintain the convention of gerrymandering then any action to
the contrary is equally unlikely. A constitutional amendment is the least
likely scenario since it requires majority support of the congress as well the
senate and states.

If you cannot expect congress to act in the peoples' interest the only viable
solution is through federal court action. In the mean time, since I am in
fantasy land (as you call it), I will prefer practical solutions no matter how
improbable in the real world over constitutional amendment which is even more
imaginary.

Also there is no reason to expect increased seats in congress will have any
effect upon gerrymandering and may even make it substantially worse. It
certainly won't make law making more efficient.

~~~
philwelch
The apportionment amendment was already passed in the eighteenth century, so
it just needs to be ratified by the states. No Congressional action necessary.

And while you could _try_ to gerrymander an 11,000 seat House of
Representatives, it would be a lot harder.

------
filchermcurr
What happens if the slavery one gets ratified? Does it invalidate the 13th?
Does the 13th invalidate it? Does it become a constitutional crisis and we
duke it out to figure out which one wins?

~~~
tdhoot
The later amendment always wins. See, for example, the 18th amendment which
was later repealed by the 21st amendment.

~~~
astura
I wouldn't use that as an example, the wording of the 21st amendment is "The
eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is
hereby repealed," not "the manufactuer, sale, and transportation of
intoxicating liquors should not be prohibited."

It's my opinion that if there was a new amendment that would be in direct
conflict with the other amendments without expressly repealing them the
conflicting amendment it would be a constitutional crisis and it would cause
political instability.

It would be, at the very least, go to the Supreme Court.

~~~
philwelch
That's empirically not the case--lots of boring procedural stuff in the
Constitution was repealed by amendments without having to specifically use the
word "repeal" in the amendment itself, e.g. the election of Senators, when
Congressional and Presidential terms begin and end, the succession procedure
for the Vice President to assume the Presidency, and so forth.

~~~
adrianratnapala
Yes, new laws overriding old ones is just common sense.

Where I imagine you could get a crisis is if an amendment passes and then some
(powerful) people then say "oh by the by -- did you notice that it implicitly
limits X part of the bill of rights".

Still this is not very likely. Not because people in the US don't want to wind
back fundamental rights. But because they have easier ways of doing it than
passing amendments -- even sly ones.

~~~
philwelch
Also, this is kind of the point of doing so by amendment. The old idea of
amending the constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage was designed to
forestall an Obergefell v. Hodges type decision. On the other side of the
aisle, constitutional amendments around campaign finance or corporate
personhood would supersede the interpretation of the First Amendment applied
in Citizens United v. FEC.

------
dheelus
I attended a popup theater in Austin where one of the guest speakers (Gregory
Watson) was the gentleman who was influential in getting the 27th amendment
passed.

He, per his teacher, was a mediocre student at UT Austin and only received a C
on the class he was attending. He was, however, dogged enough to persuade the
states to ratify the amendment.

His former teacher had learned of his role in getting the amendment passed and
during the show, the UT President presented Gregory with an upgraded grade
(A).

