| | As a matter of tradition, and, IMHO logic, the ratification of an amendment to the US Constitution required identical wording and punctuation, at least. Traditionally, voting on an amendment resolution with any differences in these was used, among other things, as a means of appearing to support what in reality was opposed. Thus, to declare differences to be insignificant, as in this account, is to declare a change in the rules, and to take a victory that might not have been earned in a fair fight. Considering that 1913 was a fatal year for the US, and not only in this respect, it was a great shame that this ploy was acquiesced to, in the case of the 16th Amendment.
Being unable to find, in either Article V of the US Constitution, or in The Federalist, an explicit account of this requirement, I presume that it was taken for granted that in order for the same amendment to be ratified in 3/4 of the states, the amendment voted upon must, in fact, be identical everywhere, in its language. Similarly, there does not appear to be any such provision concerning the passage of a bill by both houses of Congress, or its signing by the President -- although adding instructions for executive implementation would not necessarily affect the law and therefore wouldn't necessarily be wrong. As a related point, before the MA SJC's corrupt decision re markings in Walsh vs. Secretary of the Commonwealth, and continuing today, it is forbidden to change the summary
on an initiative or referendum petition in any way whatsoever; even highlighting is banned.
The book, BTW, contained photographic copies of the ratifications. (A now-deceased friend showed it to me.)
|
|
