Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
174679288
label
Letter from Clarence Berdahl to Daniel F. Clancy
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
174679288
contentType
document
title
Letter from Clarence Berdahl to Daniel F. Clancy
citationUrl
collections
Records of the National Committee Against Limiting the Presidency
Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
174679288
levelOfDescription
item
productionDates
day
23
logicalDate
1951-11-23
month
11
year
1951
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
photo
mediaId
8409fcef721ba662
ocrText
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
319 Lincoln Hall, Urbana, Illinois,
November 23, 1951.
Mr. Deniel Francis Clancy,
P.C. Box 322,
Springfield, Ohio.
Dear Mr, Clency:
I em very much humiliated to discover your letter of October 22 among a
mess of papers on my de sk. The explanation is that we have hed some change S of
department screteries, and this letter evidently came during my ebence from
the campus and was not put with my other mail and got completely misplaced and
overlooked. I hope you will accept my epologies.
It ie true that I am much interested in the Anti-Third Term Amendm nt,
end Wallace McClure and I discussed together on several occasions certain of the
probleme My theory 8 8 to the constitut ione itv of that Amendment ie very
simple -- nemely, thet, since on fin? pessage in the House the recorded vote was
81-29 ( see Congressional Record, Mar. 21, 1947), the Ameridment did not receive the
two-thirds required by the Constitution. That vote of 81 nas more than 2/3 of the
vote cast, but the Constitution also requires 8 quorum to be present, and 81 is far
lass than 2/3 of a quorum, ig actually 65 votes less, therefore, than the very minimum
required; further, the total vote ce et in the House on that occasion (110) is 108
less than a guorum. The only possible ground on which this can be susteined is to
essume that a quorum may have been present, elthough only 110 voted on the resolution,
end that seems to me a gomewhat strained apposition, particularly on a constitutional
amendment.
I felt al ao that the ca ge wag 80 clear that, hed the matter been brought
into the courts, they would very likelv have held the Amendment invelid and of no
effect; it is diffdcult to believe that the courts would pass over such 8 blatant
disregard of the constitutional provisions. Now that the Amendment has, however,
been ratified by the sufficient number of state legislotures, I em not 80 sure that
the court S would feel like throwing it out; the court ection should have been taken
before ratification to get the most certein results. I very much wish, however, that
en organization euch a yours would still raise the nuestion and fight it threugh
the
courts; I em, in fect, somewhat surnrised that go few people have noticed the House
action.
I have also . theory 9 8 to why the party leadere on both sides let the matter
go through that way, but that is entirely a side from the question of conetitutionality.
As for your proposa with re spect to the emending procedure, I do believe
that somcthing cuoht, to be done, and I could pereonally support your proposal
perhap
S.
I would want to oive the matter some thought, and the problem is whether it ie
sensible
to tighten the process that much; we need to remember that good propobals are also
mede, and there may be need for more time to congider the amendment te thet are submitted.
I feel at on thet, even if this of yours ie sound on its merite, it will
próbably be conoidered too drastic 8 chenue. I believe it was Tennessee that had
gome such re ruirement of its onn, which came into cuestion in c innection with the
Prohibition or Suffrace mendment, and which wes found then to be unconstitu-
tionel on the ground that, no state could chance the procedure : for rétifying 9
national Amendment.
pry sincerelv
Profacen vours Sinence
(Clarence A. Berdahl)