Paradox of Self-Amendment by Peter Suber vote on a Delaware constitution. The 1973 constitution was actually proposed as a series of amendments in 1969, but the legislature considered it an "amendment of the whole constitution of 1897" and it was ratified by the two successive legislatures (1971, 1973) as required for amendments. Delaware distinguishes piecemeal amendment from wholesale revision, Opinion of the Justices, 254 A.2d 342 (1970), and revision must be performed by convention. Arguably, Delaware has violated its AC by revising under a procedure for mere amendment. Florida Current constitution: 1968 AC: Article 11 Prior constitutions: 1885 AC: Article 17 1868 AC: Article 18 1865 AC: Article 14 1861 AC: Article 14 1838 AC: Article 14 AC amended? No. Comment. The 1885 AC §1 was amended in 1948, and AC §4 was amended in 1964. Georgia Current constitution: 1968 AC: Article 12 Prior constitutions: 1945 AC: Article 13, §2-8101-8104 1877 AC: Article 13 1868 AC: Article 12 1865 AC: Article 5, §1.11 1861 AC: Article 5, §6 1798 AC: Article 4, §15 1789 AC: Article 4, §7 1777 AC: Article 63 AC amended? Yes. AC §1 was amended November 7, 1978. Comment. The 1945 AC was amended five times. At the same election in which the voters ratified the 1968 constitution, they ratified several amendments to the 1945 constitution; under Article 13, §1 of the 1968 constitution those amendments were incorporated into the 1968 constitution. This is an unusual case of amendments to one constitution applying to another. (See the entry on North Carolina, for a similar case, and on New Mexico, for an Attorney General Opinion that this practice is lawful.) Hence the AC of the earlier constitution had quasi-authority for amending (not merely instituting) its successor, though it had some help from provisions in its successor. Another way to put this is that the amendments in the 1968 election were proposed under one AC and ratified under two ACs working together. At least in Georgia in 1968 it was false that an AC and its self-authorized successor were had periods of validity that were cleanly distinct and not overlapping in time. Hawaii Current constitution: 1968 AC: Article 18 Prior constitutions: none AC amended? Yes. The AC was renumbered from Article 15 to Article 18, November 7, 1978. AC §§2, 3 were substantively amended at the same time; AC §5 was added, November 5, 1968. Idaho Current constitution: 1889 AC: Article 20 Prior constitutions: none AC amended? Yes. AC §1 was amended November 5, 1974. A proposed amendment to AC §2 was defeated November 5, 1968. Illinois Current constitution: 1970 AC: Article 14 Prior constitutions: 1870 AC: Article 14 1848 AC: Article 12 1818 AC: Article 7 AC amended? No. Comment. The 1870 AC §2 was amended November 7, 1950, after proposed amendments had been defeated in 1946, 1932, 1924, 1896, and 1892. Two new constitutions made by convention were rejected by the voters on July 17, 1862, and December 12, 1922. The current AC is unusual in containing (§4) procedures for ratifying amendments to the federal constitution and for calling a federal constitutional convention. These may be the result of Illinois' embarrassment when it defectively ratified a federal amendment proposal (the pro-slavery Corwin amendment, see Appendix 180