Untersuchte Arbeit: Seite(n): 239, Zeilen: 1-14 |
Original: Seite(n): 902f., Zeilen: 25-29, 1-19 |
|
---|---|---|
[Auch deute der Umstand, dass ein Amendment das Resultat] eines Konsenses sein sollte, nirgends auf eine Zeitgleichheit der Übereinstimmung hin.[Fn 683] Schließlich wurde in besagtem Memorandum der Hinweis gewagt, die einzig angebrachte Form der Auslegung von Art. V sei "to provide a clear rule that is capable of mechanical application, without any need to inquire into the timeliness or substantive validity of the consensus achieved by means of the ratification process. Accordingly, any interpretation that would introduce confusion must be disfavored."[Fn 684] Dieser Ansicht ist unter Berufung auf eine enge Wortlautauslegung der Verfassung grundsätzlich zuzustimmen. Artikel V enthält keinerlei Hinweis auf etwaige Fristen, wohingegen die Verfassung an anderen Stellen sehr wohl Fristsetzungen aufweist.[Fn 685] Die Verabschiedung des 27. Amendments wirft indessen die Frage auf, ob einem Amendmentvorschlag eine "Ewigkeitsgarantie" innewohne.[Fn 686] Dies kann jedoch höchstens für „proposals“ gelten, die selbst nach vielen Jahren noch eine tatsächliche Aktualität beinhalten. |
[...] and the fact that an amendment must reflect consensus does not so much as intimate contemporaneous consensus.[Fn 36] Third, the OLC memorandum argued that the proper mode of interpretation of Article V was to "provide a clear rule that is capable of mechanical application, without any need to inquire into the timeliness or substantive validity of the consensus achieved by means of the ratification process. Accordingly, any interpretation that would introduce confusion must be disfavored."[Fn 37] The rule ought to be, echoing Professor Tribe, that an amendment is ratified when three-fourths of the States have approved it.[Fn 38] The memorandum vigorously pursues a "plain-meaning" rule of constitutional construction. Article V says nothing about time limits, and elsewhere in the Constitution when the Framers wanted to include time limits they did so. The absence of any time language means there is no requirement of contemporaneity or of a "reasonable" period.[Fn 39] Now that the Amendment has been proclaimed and has been accepted by Congress, where does this development leave the argument over the validity of proposals long distant in time? One may assume that this precedent stands for the proposition that proposals remain viable for ever. It may, on the one hand, stand for the proposition that certain proposals, because they reflect concerns that are as relevant today, or perhaps in some future time, as at the time of transmission to the States, remain open to ratification. |
Fragmentsichter: Schuju (Sichtungsergebnis: Neutral) |
4.229
Seiten