I just read about the Corwin Amendment. Could this actually pass? If so, who would be enslaved? Would there be one group? I don’t think any one racial group would be a victim if it passed today, so where would the slaves come from? Finally, if it passed, and some persons were enslaved would you buy a slave?
SSG Schwartz
Shirley, you jest.
SSG Schwartz
Nobody would be enslaved, were the Corwin Amendment to achieve ratification by a 34th state. the 13th Amendment has already rendered it moot (at least, wrt slavery).
I’m not entirely sure what the legal effects would be if you passed an amendment saying a prior amendment couldn’t be passed.
It’s obvious what happens if you pass an amendment which specifically voids a prior amendment–we had this happen before (the 21st voided the 18th.) But the Corwin Amendment’s text, since it was written prior to the passage of the 13th Amendment, wouldn’t directly void the 13th.
Furthermore, I think a more interesting question is what happens if we pass an amendment saying “no amendment can be passed which does X.”
My opinion is that the answer is actually somewhat simple. The SCOTUS can’t strike down a constitutional amendment, they can only rule about what the constitution says right now they can’t prohibit changes to the constitution.
So what this means is, the Corwin Amendment could have been passed prior to the 13th Amendment. However, it would serve as no protection whatsoever from a future amendment that went against its intentions, since there is no body which can “stop” an amendment from passing if enough states agree on it, then an amendment prohibiting other amendments by its nature can’t really work.
delete duplicate
The text of the amendment:
“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”
As far as slavery is concerned, it’s irrelevant – it would prohibit any new anti-slavery amendments, but we already have a comprehensive anti-slavery amendment. The question of what else might be included within a state’s “domestic institutions” opens an interesting can of worms. I suppose it could be construed to prohibit any amendment that would (for example) interfere with a state’s right to define marriage as it sees fit… :dubious:
Does that also apply to the two “entrenchment clauses” (the 20-year protection of the slave trade and the protection of equal state representation in the Senate) in the original Constitution?
I hope that you mean “could” in the legal/theoretical sense, not “could” in a practical sense. Legally and theoretically, yes, this amendment could be ratified by the necessary number (38, less the two that ratified in 1861) of states and become part of the Constitution. There is no inherent time limit on constitutional amendments. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment was proposed in 1791 and ratified in 1992, and while there has been no definitive litigation, it’s assumed to be part of the United States Constitution.
In practical terms, I’m not hearing a lot of pro-slavery agitation these days. Are you?
Nobody. Nobody would be enslaved by barring future anti-slavery amendments when we already have an anti-slavery amendment. Also, I may hold an overly roseate view of my fellow Americans, but I believe that even if the federal Constitution didn’t ban slavery, no state government today would seek to re-establish it.
No, I’m really not into bondage of any kind. Good luck finding anybody brave enough to answer this “yes”!
I was wondering about this myself. I’m not sure how an amendment reading “no amendment can be passed which does X” could ever be useful. Surely then in the future if the appropriate majority wanted to create an amendment that did “X” they would simply first create an amendment that canceled the “no amendment can be passed which does X” amendment? Am I misunderstanding something?
I hope so! Eric sux!
Hah; that was what “Corwin” immediately brought to my mind as well.
That’s a good point. Maybe when you introduce the amendment to “Repeal the ‘No amendment can be passed with does x’ amendment” then a motion could be made that it is out of order or unconstitutional, because such an amendment could have no other purpose that doing x, which is not legitimate. (Got all that? 
)
Because we’ve got only one of those now, which is that no state shall be deprived of equal representation in the Senate. I would think that if you introduced an amendment to remove the prohibition on amending the constution to deprive a state of its equal representation in the Senate, that such an amendment could serve no other purpose than to open the doorway to do what the constitution says can’t be done.
Whew. Well, I understood what I was trying to say 5 minutes ago, but now I’m lost… :smack:
Mine too. Which is kind of scary.
You realize it’s 150 years old, right?
You realize that there is no time limit on proposed Amendments, right?
SSG Schwartz
But what’s your point? Is this a thought-exercise or do you think this has a serious chance of passing soon? It’s terribly anachronistic.
Og, I hope it doesn’t pass. I have sold out on everything else in my life for one thing or another. Hell, I may sell myself if slavery was allowed again. The OP was more of a thought exercise.
SSG Schwartz
I don’t know about that. Presumably, if the nation were supid enough, it could pass an amendment stripping the constitution of all mechanisms to create and pass future amendments.
Let me go check the couch for loose change.