Hollingsworth v. Virginia
Encyclopedia
Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378
(1798), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court
ruled early in America's history that the President of the United States
has no formal role in the process of amending the United States Constitution
. While it is permissible, a Presidential signature is unnecessary. By the same logic, a President is powerless to veto
a constitutional amendment which has been officially proposed to the states to ratify. Further by the same logic, it is reasonable to infer that a state's governor is uninvolved in the state's constitutional amendment
process.
or pocket veto
congressionally proposed amendments. But the Supreme Court nowhere expressed this position in its Hollingsworth opinion. Other rationales for Hollingsworth are also possible. For example, the Court may have taken the position that once ratified by the requisite number of States, an amendment or proposed amendment can no longer be challenged. The logic here is that "ratification
" cures "defects". Alternatively, the rationale for Hollingsworth may have been that a Presidential proclamation of ratification is conclusive upon the courts notwithstanding arguable defects in the ratification process. See Luther v. Borden
(1849). More importantly, in Hollingsworth, the proposed amendment was delivered to the President more than ten days prior to Congress
's end of session adjournment. Under these circumstances, the absence of a presidential signature does not work a veto, but implies assent under the procedures laid out in Article I
, even assuming they apply to the amendment process of Article V
.
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1798), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
ruled early in America's history that the President of the United States
President of the United States
The President of the United States of America is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces....
has no formal role in the process of amending the United States Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
. While it is permissible, a Presidential signature is unnecessary. By the same logic, a President is powerless to veto
Veto
A veto, Latin for "I forbid", is the power of an officer of the state to unilaterally stop an official action, especially enactment of a piece of legislation...
a constitutional amendment which has been officially proposed to the states to ratify. Further by the same logic, it is reasonable to infer that a state's governor is uninvolved in the state's constitutional amendment
Constitutional amendment
A constitutional amendment is a formal change to the text of the written constitution of a nation or state.Most constitutions require that amendments cannot be enacted unless they have passed a special procedure that is more stringent than that required of ordinary legislation...
process.
Possible rationale
In Hollingsworth v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court offered no rationale for its holding. Although the Court held that a presidential signature was not necessary for valid ratification that holding is limited to the precise facts that were actually before the Court. The Court may have taken the position – as is likely – that the President has no constitutional power to sign, vetoVeto
A veto, Latin for "I forbid", is the power of an officer of the state to unilaterally stop an official action, especially enactment of a piece of legislation...
or pocket veto
Pocket veto
A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in United States federal lawmaking that allows the President to veto a bill indirectly.The U.S. Constitution limits the President's period for decision on whether to sign or veto any legislation to ten days while the United States Congress is in session...
congressionally proposed amendments. But the Supreme Court nowhere expressed this position in its Hollingsworth opinion. Other rationales for Hollingsworth are also possible. For example, the Court may have taken the position that once ratified by the requisite number of States, an amendment or proposed amendment can no longer be challenged. The logic here is that "ratification
Ratification
Ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal. The term applies to private contract law, international treaties, and constitutionals in federations such as the United States and Canada.- Private law :In contract law, the...
" cures "defects". Alternatively, the rationale for Hollingsworth may have been that a Presidential proclamation of ratification is conclusive upon the courts notwithstanding arguable defects in the ratification process. See Luther v. Borden
Luther v. Borden
Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the political question doctrine in controversies arising under the Guarantee Clause of Article Four of the United States Constitution Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1 (1849), was a case in which the...
(1849). More importantly, in Hollingsworth, the proposed amendment was delivered to the President more than ten days prior to Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
's end of session adjournment. Under these circumstances, the absence of a presidential signature does not work a veto, but implies assent under the procedures laid out in Article I
Article One of the United States Constitution
Article One of the United States Constitution describes the powers of Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government. The Article establishes the powers of and limitations on the Congress, consisting of a House of Representatives composed of Representatives, with each state gaining or...
, even assuming they apply to the amendment process of Article V
Article Five of the United States Constitution
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment and subsequent ratification....
.
Summary
In short, Hollingsworths holding is limited to its facts: no presidential signature is necessary for valid ratification when the proposed amendment was presented more than ten days prior to congressional adjournment, and the necessary number of States ratified, and the President proclaimed the ratification as effective. Thus, the precise question of whether or not a President could veto a proposed amendment was not addressed by the Hollingsworth holding, although this position was adopted as dicta in INS v. Chadha (1983). Similarly, Hollingsworth did not address the question of the necessity of a presidential signature in situations where the amendment was delivered to the President less than ten days prior to congressional adjournment.See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 3
- Tillman, Seth Barrett. A Textualist Defense of Article I, Section 7, Clause 3: Why Hollingsworth v. Virginia was Rightly Decided, and Why INS v. Chadha was Wrongly Reasoned, Texas Law Review, Vol. 83, pg 1265 (2005).
- Lawson, Gary S. Burning Down the House (and Senate): A Presentment Requirement for Legislative Subpoenas Under the Orders, Resolutions, and Votes Clause, Texas Law Review, Vol. 83, pg 1373 (2005).
- Tillman, Seth Barrett. The Domain of Constitutional Delegations under the Orders, Resolutions and Votes Clause: A Reply to Professor Gary S. Lawson, Texas Law Review, Vol. 83, pg 1389 (2005).