Talk:Corwin Amendment

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)

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)

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.

Hypothetical impact

Even if we accept the dubious premise that an amendment can be self-entrenching, would the Corwin Amendment if adopted have actually blocked the 13th Amendment? After all, it would have prohibited any amendment from authorizing Congress to abolish slavery. Th 13th Amendment does not do that. It instead directly abolishes slavery. The language of the Corwin Amendment also wouldn't have prohibited an amendment granting (for example) the President the power to abolish slavery.

No doubt this didn't occur to Corwin, since federal legislative power belongs solely to Congress. But that's only the case because the Constitution says so. If the Constitution were amended to grant the President the power to enact certain laws unilaterally, or to set up a mechanism for laws passed by popular referendum, or even doing something outright crazy like establishing a second parallel legislature, there's nothing in the Constitution's existing text to stop that. Since Article V allows any amendment, including one which radically alters the entire structure of government, so long as it doesn't strip states of equal representation in the Senate. — Red XIV ^(talk) 05:02, 13 December 2025 (UTC)