Humanities desk
< January 20	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 22 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 21

text of executive order

Hi. On 2025-01-20, POTUS signed an executive order titled "Ending Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants"[1]. This event has been reported by virtually every major news outlet in the world.

It is now 2025-01-20 9PM Washington time, and I have been trying to find the exact text, or even portions of its text, for a while now, to no avail.

1. Is the full text of this executive order available to the general public?

This Library of Congress site[2] claims that: "All Executive Orders and Proclamations issued after March 1936 are required by law to be published in the Federal Register."

2. Assuming that the above claim is true, is there any requirement or guideline on how quickly an EO is published after it has been signed by POTUS? Epideurus (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. The full text was posted[3] some time around 2025-01-20 8:45PM Washington time. None of the news agencies reporting before that got the title right, so I'm guessing that the title of the EO was only released when its full text was released. Epideurus (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the order literally, it implies that persons to which birthright citizenship is denied by force of Section 2 (a) of the order can also not be naturalized at a later date (or, if they can, no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing the acquired citizenship). --Lambiam 10:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline for ratification of amendments to the US constitution

Hello, and thank you for this opportunity to ask the experts. There's been talk recently about the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the US constitution after former president Biden stated the he considered the amendment to be ratified and part of the US constitution, as it had been ratified by 38 states, reaching the bar of three quarters of the states the Article 5 of the US constitution sets.

The National Archives disagreed and pointed to a deadline (later extended) for ratification set by Congress; since the required number of states had not been reached by the final deadline and since the deadline had not been extended further, it said, the amendment could not be considered ratified.

This appears to be plainly at odds with the text of Article Five of the United States Constitution, which contains no mention of Congress being able to impose a deadline, or in fact any other requirement, for the ratification process. The best argument I've seen in non-scholarly sources is, in essence, that "the 5th Amendment is silent on this", but that strikes me as unconvincing. The 5th prescribes a process, and there is no reason (that is readily apparent to me) to presume that this process may be changed by Congress in either direction. Just like Congress may not declare that ratification by one half of the states (rather than three quarters) is sufficient, it may not impose that additional steps must be taken or additional hurdles passed: say, it may not require that four fifths of the states must ratify and that three quarters is not enough. The Constitution prescribes what conditions are necessary for an Amendment to become part of the Constitution — but it also dictates that when these conditions are met, this does happen.

As such I find the National Archives' position to be inconsistent with the Constitution and the 5th, and Congress's attempt to impose an additional requirement in the form of a deadline strikes me as out of line with the Constitution, rendering said additional requirement null and void.

That said, and this is where my question comes in, I am not a legal expert. I haven't studied law, nor do I work in or with law in any way; I am merely curious. And although appeals to authority are fallacious as far as logical reasoning is concerned, I don't doubt that the National Archives (as well as, presumably, Congressional staff) have considered this matter and concluded that yes, a) the imposition of a deadline by Congress, above and beyond the process prescribed by the 5th, is constitutional; b) meeting of said deadline is then an additional condition for ratification; and c) since this deadline has not been met here, the ERA is not part of the Constitution.

And my question is: why? On what legal basis? Surely Congress cannot create additional requirements out of whole cloth; there must be some form of authorization in it. What's more, since we are talking about a process prescribed by the Constitution itself, said authority must itself be grounded in the Constitution, rather than taking the form of e.g. a simple law (Congress cannot arbitrarily empower itself to change the rules and processes laid down by the Constitution).

I would be very grateful if someone with a background in law (professional or otherwise) could explain this to me. Thank you very much! 2003:D5:AF0E:DE00:95C4:DF2F:3B13:850E (talk) 07:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ain't no lawyer, but as I recall, the deadline was stated within the amendment proposal itself. That was the case with a few other amendments also, but they were ratified within the time limit, so there was no issue. It's possible someone will take this issue to court, and ultimately the Supreme Court would have to decide if that type of clause is valid. On the flip side, there is the most recent amendment, which prohibits Congress from giving itself a raise without an intervening election of Representatives. That one was in the wind for like 200 years, lacking a deadline. When it was finally ratified, it stood. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply, much appreciated! I didn't know the deadline was in the proposal itself. I'm not sure I'm convinced that this should make a difference, since for as long as the proposed Amendment is no part of the Constitution, it really is not part of the Constitution and should not be able to inform or affect other provisions of the Constitution. That said I of course agree that it would take the Supreme Court to decide the issue for good. Thanks again! 2003:D5:AF0E:DE00:C4C7:395C:56A3:A782 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SCOTUS may be quite busy with executive orders for a while. Quite possible, that the President has to appoint another 6 or 12 judges to cope with all that work load. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The courts in general views these things as political questions. Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The deadline for the ERA was mentioned in a resolving clause before the text of the amendment itself. In other cases, such as the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the deadline was contained in the amendment itself. Whether this makes any practical difference is a question for the courts. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it is the National Archives rather than a legal/constitutional authority such as the Supreme Court that gets to decide whether a proposed amendment has become ratified or not, ie. become law or not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is the Executive, in this case the National Archives, doing what the Chief Executive ordered them to do. And there is Congress, which set the rules. This sounds like a political question. Abductive (reasoning) 21:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By a statute that took effect in 1984, the task of certifying ratifications of amendments to the US Constitution has been given to the Archivist of the United States, which is why the interpretation of the National Archives (that is, the Archivist) matters. One might argue that this statute is unconstitutional, as the Constitution does not include a provision requiring certification for ratification to take effect, unlike for other federal processes that depend on the outcomes from the several states. AFAIK the constitutionality of the statute, or any of its predecessors (like this one) has never been challenged in court. --Lambiam 10:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you, Lambiam. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But of course there must always be some form of official certification. That would be the case for any law passed to a state governor or the president for signing, just as it must be for a constitutional change. Otherwise, anyone could claim that a proposed constitutional amendment has been ratified by a sufficient number of states and must now become part of the law of the USA. Surely the system depends on not just anyone claiming this, but a properly constituted authority with the legal power/responsibility to make such a certification. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there was no certification procedure for the original ratification of the United States Constitution; actually, the amendment provision of the Articles of Confederation, which required unanimous approval of the states, was bypassed. I don't think there was already one in place for the Bill of Rights either – when Congress met on on January 18, 1792, the President simply informed them that he had "a copy of an exemplified copy of an Act of the Legislature of Vermont, ratifying" the amendements,^[4] which implied a sufficient number of instruments of ratification had been received. The procedure for the ratification of the electoral votes in presidential elections was only specified in the Twelfth Amendment; the 1796 United States presidential election managed to do without. I agree, though, that there ought to be an official procedure for the ratification of constitutional amendments, but is the ability of Congress to inspect . The question is, is Congress passing (by simple majorities) a bill that such and such procedure shall be it, which is then signed into law by the President, enough to make it official and binding?

The US Constitution does not define who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. At the moment this is a hot issue. If Congress passes a bill, next signed into law, declaring that the definition is made by executive order, is the issue thereby settled? --Lambiam 16:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not settled until the Supreme Court says it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the text:

"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to CH. J. Res. 208] equal rights for men and women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled {two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:" DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]