Talk:Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

It went into effect on 8/26 NOT 8/18

Fix it! Amendments don't go into effect until they are certified as part of the Constitution. It's not automatic upon the requisite number of ratifications. 192.42.55.22 (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Please review Article Five of the United States Constitution#Ratification of amendments. You are incorrect. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

You can't cite Wikipedia for proof of something claimed on Wikipedia. That paragraph is incorrect. The Archivist of the United States must formally certify the amendment as part of the Constitution.

In this case, the amendment was certified on August 26, 1920. Before that, the amendment was not valid. Fix the article or else you will be promoting misinformation. 192.42.55.22 (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

"You can't cite Wikipedia for proof of something claimed on Wikipedia" - certainly you can, on the talk page, while discussing article improvement. That section of that WP article is clearly cited to Dillon v Gloss, you're welcome to read it yourself. An amendment comes into effect once the ratification process is complete, not after it has been 'certified' by the archivist. Here also is the National Archives own statement on the matter,[1] "A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)." The archivist can issue a proclamation 'certifying' the amendment's addition to the constitution - for the purposes of formal publication - but it becomes part of the Constitution once states have ratified it (within whatever conditions congress posed when proposing it).

You may also find this of interest.[2] Only one amendment to the Constitution in United States history has ever been "certified" by the nation's Archivist. By that measure, and your claim, only the 27th amendment to the constitution is valid. I don't think that's a hill worth dying on. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 05:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Here's a quote from the latter archives article that should put the matter to rest: "Some members of Congress expressed concern about the legality of an amendment that had been proposed over 200 years ago and thought the Archivist should seek congressional approval before signing. Wilson’s response was that it was unnecessary because the votes by three-fourths of the states—not his signature—added the amendment to the Constitution." That's about as definitive as it gets. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Well that part of the article is simply talking about the fact that Wilson did not have the right to go against the decisions of the states. But his certification was still required before the Amendment formally went into effect. 192.42.55.22 (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to supply a reliable and verifiable third-party source that supports your position. Otherwise, no, the article isn't going to be 'corrected' to match your speculations. Sorry. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

If you are right, and the certification was just a meaningless formality, then why is National Women's Suffrage Day commemorated on August 26, rather than August 18? You see my point? Well that's because an amendment is not a real amendment until it is ratified by enough states AND the government certifies that this ratification has occurred. It's in the second paragraph of this article by the NATIONAL CONSTITUTION CENTER, hopefully that will be reliable enough for you: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-august-26-is-known-as-womans-equality-day 192.42.55.22 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The National Park Service also states that the Secretary's signature was the final step required in the process: https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/on-this-day-august-26-1920-the-significance-of-ratification-of-the-19th-amendment.htm 192.42.55.22 (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Those are both good finds, but they are incorrect. I think the circumstances of the 19th lend themselves to the erroneous conclusion that the certification was what made the amendment a part of the constitution, but that was largely a product of the significant controversy surrounding it. But as a matter of settled law, it is ratification that makes an amendment the law of the land, not certification - based upon Dillon v. Gloss, 1921, Coleman v Miller, 1939, the statement at the National Archives I linked to further above[3], and the text of Article Five. The completion of ratification makes the amendment part of the constitution. The certification may formalize that the process was completed in a legal fashion with the required number of ratification - but that doesn't mean that in the interval between ratification and certification the amendment is not part of the constitution - nor that the amendment lacks the full force of law before certification.

Dillon v. Gloss: "It is a fair inference that the ratification by these States of the Eighteenth Amendment became complete and effective on January 16, 1919, when that of Nebraska was consummated."

Coleman v. Miller: the Court noted that the Secretary of State's proclamation of an amendment's adoption serves as "conclusive evidence" of ratification, but that that documentation serves as notice, it does not effectuate it.

The National Archives: "A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed."

The words in the constitution itself, which by their locus, make them the last word on the matter: "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

When ratified, not when certified. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, as a footnote, imagine if the National Archivist, for political reasons, either delayed or refused to certify ratification. Do you really think that the efforts and powers of two-thirds of congress, and three-fourths of the states, could or should be usurped by a single government bureacrat? Article V makes clear that no bureaucrat has that power. Only congress followed by the states have it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Things have to be CERTIFIED before they are valid, especially when going from state governments to the federal government. For example, when new members of Congress are elected, they can't just walk into the Capitol; they must have a certificate of election, confirming that they shall be the lawful holder of the office. Also, Presidential elections must be CERTIFIED on January 6, when Congress confirms the electoral results in each state. It's not just automatic because the states said so. So the same applies here. An amendment must be certified by the Archivist to become valid.

This was even a controversy a few months ago, when some Democrats tried to demand the Archivist to certify the Equal Right Amendment as part of the Constitution, but she refused to do this because she did not think it met the criteria for ratification. Why were they trying to get her to do this if it doesn't really matter? Is the ERA actually part of the Constitution right now? Of course not. There needs to be a federal official who determines whether 3/4 of the states have approved the amendment, and ONLY WHEN THIS DETERMINATION IS MADE has the amendment actually entered into law.

So the 19th Amendment granted women the right to vote on August 26, 1920. Now there was obviously no election in the middle of August, so in effect this squabble over the date has no real impact. But our job is to tell people the full truth, and the full truth is that this amendment was not a valid one until August 26. I have cited multiple government sources and recent news events in order to back up my position. If you don't change it then you will be giving people misinformation. 192.42.55.22 (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

You've provided one citation to a government source - The National Park service, not canonical for matters of the Constitution - and a blog. Both sources only talk about that one amendment. I've provided four sources, all of which would be acceptable in the article - though the two court cases would ideally be addressed by secondary sources. The words of the constitution are canonical; the court cases confirm that. Certainly certification is a desired part of the process. But as a matter of recognition of a right, it becomes part of the constitution at the completion of ratification - certification only confirms that but it does not modify the completion of ratification, which is the overriding fact.

And yes, I'm aware of the dispute about the ERA recently. Politicians can bloviate all they like - the proposed amendment placed limitations on the process, which were exceeded (the time ran out). Dillon v Gloss confirmed that congress had the authority to place those limitations on the process. The ratification failed, and that's why it's never been certified - neither back when it expired, nor recently. Everything else is just imaginative ramblings by politicians ignoring the actual fact that only 35 states ratified that amendment before the 1979 deadline, nor any further states after the deadline was extended to 1982. And that's without the recissions, which would only make the numbers worse for an already failed amendment.

In a basketball game, a player shoots a game-winning three-pointer 0.1 seconds before the shot clock expires, and the game ends. The referrees review the play, taking a few minutes, then confirm that fact. But their confirmation doesn't change the reality that the game was won, and ended, at the moment the ball went through the hoop. A successful ratification is the game-winner; that it's later confirmed by the 'referee' doesn't change that it was successfully ratified. A weak analogy, to be sure.

This has been a long discussion, and I appreciate your position. I've learned a lot more about the amendment process in the course of researching this. The courts have made clear that the certification doesn't determine the date an amendment has the full force of law: the last state ratifying the amendment, meeting the requirements of the constitution, determines the date it becomes part of the constitution. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)