Paradox of Self-Amendment by Peter Suber Appendix 1: Attempts to Amend the Federal Amendment Clause The amendment clause of the federal constitution is Article V. It has never been amended either by authorizing its own modification or by authorizing its replacement in a constitutional convention. Portions of the clause were under the control of sunset clauses inserted by the framers. The amending power was enhanced when the clauses expired in 1808, in effect amending the amending clause by augmenting its power or by revoking limitations on its power (see Section 14). Nothing in U.S. constitutional history comes closer to self-amendment at the federal level than the expiration of these sunset clauses and the limitations on the amending power they represented. Recently Article V has been seen as an obstacle to conservatives who foresee difficulties in passing amendments to prohibit abortion and require a balanced budget, and by liberals who lost the struggle to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Hence proposed amendments to Article V have increased recently, though mostly by conservatives. Another period of frequent proposals to amend Article V began after the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition) in 1919. The adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment (Women's Suffrage) in 1920 intensified the discussion. Both amendments were much criticized, and challenged in court, for violating supposed implied limitations on the content or substance of amendments (see Section 8). The validity of the Eighteenth Amendment was upheld in the face of attack by Hawke v. Smith No. 1, 253 U.S. 221 (1920), National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350 (1920), Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921), U.S. v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931), and Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939). The validity of the Nineteenth Amendment was affirmed in Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126 (1922), and Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922). The period culminated in Roosevelt's proposal in 1937 to expand (and "pack") the Supreme Court. Eighteen proposed amendments to Article V were proposed from 1911 to 1928, and five were proposed in 1937 alone.[Note 1] Most would have made the amendment process more democratic in procedure, or less so in substance by prohibiting amendments of certain kinds. A. Recent Proposals These are the proposed amendments to Article V from three recent Congresses during a period of important amendment activity. The Equal Rights Amendment was proposed in 1972 with a ratification period of seven years; after a three year extension of the ratification period, it expired unratified June 30, 1982. All the following proposals died in their respective judiciary committees without a floor vote. The 95th Congress: 1978-79 H.10,836. Sponsored by Hyde, Dornan, Grassley, Kelly, Logomarsino, Lunken, Thorne, and Young. It would provide procedures for calling a constitutional convention. H.11,546. Sponsored by Symms, Crane, Ashbrook, and MacDonald. It would prohibit the President and officers from the Executive Branch from attempting to influence State legislatures to ratify, or not to ratify, a constitutional amendment. H.11,600. Sponsored by Hyde, Cavanaugh, Smith (Neb.), Traxler, and Walsh. It would provide procedures for calling a constitutional convention. H.12,503. Sponsored by Wiggins, Hyde, Sawyer, Hughes, and Evans (La.). It would provide procedures to determine the validity of a State's ratification of a constitutional amendment. HJR.1110. Sponsored by LaFalce. It would allow Congress to determine that a simple majority of each house of a State legislature could suffice to ratify a constitutional amendment. The 96th Congress: 1979-80. HJR.595. Sponsored by Lujan. It would permit constitutional amendments to be ratified by a nationwide popular referendum. The 97th Congress: 1980-81. S.600. Sponsored by Helms. It would provide procedures for calling a constitutional convention. S.817. Sponsored by Hatch and Deconcini. It would provide procedures for calling a constitutional convention. Supported by the American Bar Association. H.297. Sponsored by Hansen (Ida.). It would give effect to State attempts to rescind ratification of constitutional amendments. H.353. Sponsored by Hyde and Lundgren. It would provide procedures for calling a constitutional convention. HJR.88. Sponsored by Jacobs. It would allow the States to propose amendments to the constitution. B. An historical proposal passed by Congress Only one attempt to amend Article V was among the select group of six proposed amendments that was actually passed by Congress and defeated by the states.[Note 2] It is the so-called Corwin amendment. Without its preamble it read: 172