Talk:Corwin Amendment

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Constitution Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Constitution, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Constitution of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States ConstitutionWikipedia:WikiProject United States ConstitutionTemplate:WikiProject United States ConstitutionUnited States Constitution articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Events."

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events".

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Is the amendment still eligible for ratification

I find this very uncomfortable, and embarrassing, but it seems this Amendment is still (technically) being considered by the states. Is it appropriate to speak of it in a purely past tense? It seems as late as the 1960s, a politican in Texas was promoting it.

The 27th Amendment was initially proposed in 1789, but not ratified until 1992, so a lack of current interest doesn't mean it's dead ... just sleeping. I've submitted some changes that clarify the amendment is still open for consideration. The changes have been rolled, back - not sure why.

I'm not usually a contributor to Wikipedia, so if gone about things the wrong way, I apologize. Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe the ratification process in the present tense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:400:5B40:5938:E171:3E53:4AC (talk) 07:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need a reliable secondary source to make that claim--trying to interpret the legal meaning of a primary source is not allowed by WP:Primary. Rjensen (talk) 11:56, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another page says the Corwin amendment did not pass the Senate. But I assume this is incorrect: https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/proposed-thirteenth-amendment-prevent-secession-1861

Madison's apportionment amendment would still technically be open for ratification. But perhaps one could make an argument that the actual 13 Amendment supersedes Corwin's (assuming it did pass the Senate). One would have to find an essay making this case. That would make sense, but I've never seen an article considering this. Sorry I'm not sure how to sign this comment.