Thesis
From 1810–1819—and still today—no statute, constitutional clause, or Supreme Court holding defines whether “three-fourths of the several States” in Article V refers to (i) the number of States when Congress proposed an amendment, (ii) the number of States when ratification was completed, or (iii) some hybrid (e.g., freezing the denominator unless later-admitted States “definitively act”). What existed in the 1810s was administrative practice and congressional/ executive case-by-case judgment, not binding law. Modern practice likewise treats the question as one for the political branches, not the courts.
I. What Article V Says—and Doesn’t Say
Article V provides that an amendment “shall be valid to all intents and purposes” when ratified by “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States” (or by conventions). The text does not define the denominator—it does not specify whether we count States at proposal, at completion, or only those that have “definitively acted.” No implementing statute fills this gap. There is no federal law—in 1810–1819 or now—that fixes the count.
II. The 1810s: How Congress and the Executive Actually Worked
A. Administrative directions, not positive law
After difficult experiences compiling returns for the Eleventh Amendment, Congress and the Executive adopted ministerial directions for collecting, publishing, and recognizing amendment returns. These directions (including the organizational rules later printed in the 1815 federal compilation of the laws, often summarized under a “seventhly” clause) told the Executive how to gather and publish what had been “thus obtained” from the states. They were procedural—they did not enact a denominator rule.
Key point: These directions were publication/recognition instructions, not an Article V statute. They created no binding rule that “freezes” the denominator or, conversely, that compels a moving denominator.
B. The wartime/early-Republic reality
Between 1810 and 1819 the Union kept changing (admissions of Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama). Returns were slow, correspondence was irregular (War of 1812 disruptions), and state legislative proofs were uneven. In this vacuum:
-
The Executive (Monroe/Adams clerks) tallied returns and circulated requests for state action and confirmations.
-
Congress evaluated the record thus obtained and exercised judgment about the sufficiency of the proof.
That is practice, not law. Nothing in these acts announces a binding denominator rule.
C. Later-admitted States and “definitive action”
Contemporaries often reasoned that later-admitted States should not enter the count unless they definitively acted (adopted or rejected) the older proposal; equally, some officers continued to view the denominator as the then-current Union when deciding whether the three-fourths threshold had been reached. Both ideas appear in correspondence and in how the returns were discussed. Neither was enacted as law.
Your documentary set from state archives (e.g., 1994 letters from Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi) shows no legislative action on the Titles of Nobility proposal in those later-admitted States; that evidence explains how the federal officers could proceed to a determination based on the original returns without waiting on “new” States. But again: this is administrative reasoning, not a codified legal rule.
III. What the Supreme Court Has—and Has Not—Decided
The Court has addressed Article V mechanics several times. In each, it declines to supply the missing denominator rule.
-
Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920)
Holds that “ratification” is a federal function assigned to state legislatures/ conventions; state procedural overrides (e.g., referendum) cannot change that.
No holding on the denominator. -
Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921)
Upholds Congress’s power to set a ratification deadline and discusses contemporaneity.
No holding on which state count controls. -
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922)
Treats the Secretary of State’s proclamation of adoption as conclusive for courts in ordinary cases (i.e., courts do not re-audit state ratifications).
No denominator rule announced. -
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939)
Characterizes many Article V issues as political questions for Congress (e.g., staleness, rescissions). Congress’s determination is controlling.
No denominator rule—indeed, Coleman suggests this is precisely the kind of issue for Congress.
Bottom line from the Court: The denominator question remains unresolved by judicial holding. The Court consistently defers to Congress/Executive on Article V certification issues.
IV. Modern Practice Confirms the Absence of a Binding Rule
A. The Twenty-Seventh Amendment (1992)
Proposed in 1789, recognized in 1992 when it reached 38 ratifications (three-fourths of 50 States). Congress and the Archivist accepted the count from the then-current Union. That is practice, not a statute or constitutional ruling.
B. ERA and other debates
Modern Article V debates (e.g., ERA extension/expiration, rescission arguments) repeatedly assume Congress possesses the decisional authority to determine sufficiency and timeliness. No statute or Supreme Court opinion incidentally fixed a denominator rule in resolving those debates.
V. What Follows for the 1810s (and for Scholarship)
-
No positive law fixed the denominator.
Neither Congress nor the courts enacted a rule in 1810–1819 (or later) declaring the denominator is the States at proposal, completion, or any hybrid. The only “law” remained Article V’s text, which is silent on the denominator. -
Political-branch determination controlled the outcome.
Consistent with what Coleman later described, Congress could (and did) decide on the basis of the record then before it—the returns “thus obtained.” That decision could treat later-admitted States as outside the denominator unless they definitively acted, or could treat the denominator as the then-current Union. Either approach was a policy choice, not a legal mandate. -
Your historical point stands:
Officials in 1813–1819 knew that one more ratification on their chosen counting theory could resolve the matter; they also knew admissions were raising the threshold if one used a current-Union denominator. That tension is practical and political—not resolved by any law.
VI. Formulation You Can Quote
There is—and was—no law that fixes the Article V denominator. Article V itself is silent; Congress never enacted an implementing statute; and the Supreme Court has never adopted a binding denominator rule. In the 1810s, the Executive collected state returns under ministerial directions and Congress determined adoption on the record “thus obtained.” Whether officials reasoned from the States existing at proposal or from the then-current Union, each approach was a matter of practice, not of positive law. The same remains true today: in Article V matters, Congress’s certification governs, and the denominator question has never been converted into a judicially enforceable rule.
Notes & Authorities (for your footnotes)
-
U.S. Const. art. V (text).
-
Hawke v. Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920).
-
Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921).
-
Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922).
-
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939).
-
Political-branch practice: Certification and publication procedures organized in early federal compilations (incl. the 1815 compilation’s publication directions), reflecting ministerial—not statutory—rules for recognizing returns.
-
Modern practice: Certification of the 27th Amendment (1992) upon reaching 38 of 50 States; congressional acceptance without any enacted denominator statute.
-
State-archive evidence (1810s action): 1994 letters from Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi archivists reporting no definitive legislative action on the Titles of Nobility proposal—illustrating why federal officers proceeded on the “record thus obtained.”
