Another proposal calling for popular ratification of proposed amendments was that advanced by Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, in 1869, which provided that the fifteenth amendment, which was then under consideration, and all other amendments, should not become effective until favorably voted on by a majority of the people entitled to vote in three-fourths of the several States."

78. Recent attempts to change Article V.

Although in recent years the attempts to alter Article V have been numerous, the methods suggested have also been numerous. In the 18 amendments on this subject introduced since 1911 there have been embodied almost as many different plans for effecting that change in the organic law, which it is generally recognized may be necessary as new conditions present themselves.

It is practically impossible to group these amendments so that they will fall into any few definitely limited classes. They differ from each other in so many features as to make it almost necessary to describe each one by itself. For convenience in treatment, however, I have in some measure divided them, but it must be understood that where an amendment is placed in one of the following sections this does not mean that it necessarily contains none of the features discussed in another section.

The first amendment of this series, which commenced in 1911, indicated that the author, Senator Bristow, of Kansas, felt that while ratification of a proposed amendment should be difficult, and therefore the system in that respect should remain as it is, the matter of proposal should be very simple. He therefore resolved that " whenAmes, p. 294.

ever the legislature of any State wishes the Constitution altered it shall pass a resolution embodying the proposed change or amendment and send a copy to the Secretary of State, who shall without delay transmit a copy thereof to the governor of every State with a request that it shall be brought before the State legislature either at the next regular session or at a special session, as the governor may think advisable." In 1912, Mr. Jackson and, in 1914, Mr. Doolittle, both also of Kansas, introduced practically the same resolution."

79. Changing majorities required for congressional proposals, calling of conventions, and ratifications.

On the contrary, Mr. Crumpacker, of Indiana, in 1913 introduced an amendment to make easier the ratification of proposed amendments. After stating that a majority of the Members of both Houses was sufficient to propose amendments and that on the application of two-thirds of the State legislatures Congress should call a convention, it went on to declare that ratification could be effected by the legislatures of two-thirds of the States containing a majority of the inhabitants of the United States or by convention in two-thirds thereof.R

An amendment of a somewhat similar nature was presented by Mr. Lafferty, of Oregon, in the same year, it differing from the preceding proposal only in that the will of a majority of the States was sufficient to call a convention, and that in the individual States the legislatures

"App., No. 578.

'App., Nos. 652, 747.
App., No. 664.

could, if they desired, arrange for ratification by a direct vote of the people."

Still carrying out the proposition that an absolute majority of both Houses of Congress should suffice for proposing amendments, Mr. Chandler, of New York, went further with regard to the calling of conventions and proposed in his resolution, introduced June 10, 1913, that one-fourth of the States, containing at least one-fourth of the population of the United States, were to have the authority to call a convention, and that the call by the States might be made by the legislatures thereof or by a vote of a majority of the electors voting thereon. The amendments proposed under either of these were to be submitted to the people, and "if in the majority of States a majority of the electors voting thereon approve the proposed amendments, and if the majority of all the electors voting thereon shall also approve the proposed amendments," they shall be considered ratified. This resolution also provided that Congress should call a constitutional convention in 1920, and one every 30 years thereafter.10 Mr. Chandler reintroduced this proposal in 1916.11

Along this same order was the resolution introduced by Mr. MacGregor, of New York, in 1920, proposing that upon the application of the people of two-thirds of the States by a referendum of the electors of such States, Congress" shall call a convention for proposing amendments," and that amendments proposed by Congress or such convention "shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part 9App., No. 704. 10 App., No. 717. 11App., No. 859.

of this Constitution when ratified by the people of threefourths of the several States who shall express their approval or disapproval of the proposed amendment by a referendum vote of the electors of the several States." 12

In 1911, 1924, 1926, and 1928, Mr. Berger, of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment stipulating that a constitutional convention could be convened on the affirmative vote to that effect of both Houses of Congress.18

80. Senator La Follette's plan.

Senator La Follette, of Wisconsin, twice sponsored resolutions designed to facilitate amendments to the Constitution. His plan provided that amendments may be proposed by a majority of both Houses of Congress or by resolutions adopted in the legislatures of 10 States, which proposals shall be submitted to the several States for ratification by the electors qualified to vote for the election of Representatives in Congress, the vote to be taken "at the next ensuing election of Representatives, in such manner as the Congress prescribes. If in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed amendments, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed amendment, they shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution." He introduced this resolution in 1912 and 1913.14

A simple and easy change of Article V was recommended by Mr. Thompson, of Kansas, in his resolution of 1913 declaring that a majority of both Houses of Con

gress and a majority of the legislatures of the States were sufficient to respectively propose and ratify amendments.15 81. Senator Owen's plan.

In 1911, 1913, 1915, 1917, 1921, and 1923, Senator Owen, of Oklahoma, introduced an amendment stipulating that a majority vote of both Houses be sufficient to propose amendments, and that a request from a majority of the States be sufficient authority for Congress to call a convention. If one of the Houses twice rejected the proposal made by the other, and three months' delay without favorable action was to be considered equivalent to a rejection, the proposing House could proceed as if it had the consent of the other. In the constitutional conventions Congress was to be permitted to submit competing

measures.

The proposed amendments were to be voted on by the people throughout the States, and the returns of the election were to be counted by the House of Representatives. In such an election the vote of a double majority was to prevail—“ a majority of those who vote on the measure in a majority of the congressional districts and a majority of all the votes cast thereon." Another unique feature of this plan was that the voters were to be furnished with a pamphlet containing the arguments for and against the contemplated amendment, the same to be prepared by two committees composed of leading representatives of the opposing sides.18 Supporting his amendment introduced in 1915, Senator Owen introduced a bill (S. 1084) "to provide a direct, truthful, and inexpensive means of 15 App., No. 677.

16 App., Nos. 615, 699, 797, 894, 1053, 1191.