Talk:Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

COLA

The article says that courts have ruled that COLAs are not affected by this amendment. Surely it would be more accurate to say that COLA laws affecting lawmakers are subject to the same time restrictions as concerns when they take effect, but after they do take effect they are not restrained from making adjustments according to the rules previously set forth. Is anyone able to verify that this is a more correct account of the courts' rulings? 2601:441:8300:486B:ACAC:9BBD:563A:2F19 (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Ratification date

In my edit summary of this edit, I incorrectly wrote the wikilink. The relevant court case is Dillon v. Gloss. Libertybison (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Libertybison and UConnectome: I think we should possibly have two "start" dates: the date the amendment "became part of the United States Constitution" (the ratification date, May 5) in the last paragraph and the date it "became effective" (the certification date, May 18) in the first. I know the definitions of ratification vs. certification but I don't know which date "became part" vs. "became effective".

Let's say that the president signed a law that increased Congress's salary on May 10. Would that law be constitutional or not? If the amendment became effective when the Archivist signed the certification then the increase would be constitutional. If the amendment became effective when the 38th state ratified it then the increase would not be constitutional.

I don't know whether any amendment becomes effective on its ratification date or its certification date. I've read the Wikipedia article Dillon v. Gloss and I'm even more confused. Why is there a one year difference between the 18th Amendment's ratification (January 20, 1919) and when it was effective (January 20, 1920, see the effective date in the info box of Dillon v. Gloss)? Plus I don't know if becoming part of the Constitution is the same as becoming effective. (And there's a third term: enter into force on such-and-such a date.) If they are different then we should have separate dates. Regardless, in my opinion, we should have one date in the first paragraph on the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This link has a copy of the Dillon V. Gloss ruling. The case is usually discussed about in discussions of the validity of time limits placed on ratifications placed by Congress because of the court's opinion including a discourse on the subject, but the heart of the case was actually when the 18th amendment took effect. The 18th amendment received the necessary state ratifications on 16 January 1919 and was certified as such on 29 January 1919. According to section 1 of the amendment it didn't take effect until one year after its ratification. Dillon was arrested for violating the Volstead Act on 17 January 1919 1920. His argument before the court was that the one year from ratification should start one year from 29 January 1919 when the amendment was officially proclaimed as ratified not when enough state legislatures ratified it. He argued that since he was arrested on the 17th, his conviction should be overturned because the amendment had not taken effect yet and thus Congress did not have the authority to make the Volstead Act go into effect before 29 Jan. 1920 since Congress didn't have those powers before the amendment was passed. The court disagreed and said that amendments take effect after 3/4 of the states barrier has been passed Libertybison (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You mean 17 January 1920. If it were 17 January 1919 that would be quite a different finding. Nil Einne (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Dillon was arrested on 17 Jan. 1920. I've corrected that in my original post. Thanks. Libertybison (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)