Does the Constitution Have 27 or 28 Amendments Now?

It’s more complicated than you think.

By
46

As President Joe Biden prepares to announce his pick to put the first black woman on the Supreme Court, one question is sure to arise in her confirmation hearings: How many amendments are there to the Constitution? 

It may seem like a question better suited for a high school government class, but the answer isn’t as obvious as it seems. 

Last week, Biden urged Congress “to pass a resolution recognizing ratification of the ERA” as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution. The Equal Rights Amendment, he argued, would “definitively enshrine the principle of gender equality in the Constitution.” 

The ERA was drafted by women’s rights activist Alice Paul in 1943:

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
46
By
Comments (46)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “ A constitutional gallbladder of sorts—it’s still in the body but it doesn’t serve any meaningful purpose.”

    That was my first thought.

    I don’t buy the “states can’t rescind it” argument.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Dpatricola

    A thorough and informative explanation. This is why I love you guys/girls.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    The Stray Goose

    I recommend that anytime a Dispatch writer posts an article about the Constitution like this, you put a brief synopsis of the Amendments in the notes below.
    "What did the 23rd do again???"

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      The Stray Goose

      Good article. I learned a lot.

      Collapse
  4. Safety Cone

    Gall bladder? Vestigial? C'mon Sarah?!

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    BWG

    The gallbladder doesn’t serve any purpose? I think you mean appendix.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      No I meant gallbladder. The amendment has a purpose in being there....but if you removed it, it wouldnt change any of the core functions. People who have their gallbaldders removed might increase their fiber intake or cut down on fat, but its considered a minor surgery with minimal long term side effects.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        BWG

        News flash! This from Jonah's post on the culture wars:
        "The upshot of this is that Paul Gosar, Madison Cawthorn, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, and the other gargoyles of the right can spew their bile and be considered Republicans in good standing and receive help from the party. "
        How ya gonna spew bile without a gall bladder????
        Which actually makes a case for subjecting those 4 (and maybe Boebert also) to mandatory gallbladder removal, for the long term health of the Republican party!

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
          Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

          An excellent point.

          Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        BWG

        Maybe we'll just have to disagree on what "meaningful purpose" means.
        "In vertebrates, the gallbladder, also known as the cholecyst, is a small hollow organ where bile is stored and concentrated before it is released into the small intestine."
        "About 30 percent of patients may experience some degree of indigestion following the procedure (*removal*), although severe complications are much rarer. About 10 percent of surgeries lead to a chronic condition of postcholecystectomy syndrome."
        My gallbladder is pretty meaningful to me, but I've lived without my appendix for 33+ years. Although based on JS's comment even the appendix may have a "meaningful purpose"!

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Jared S

      Worse than that! Even the appendix is now believed to play a minor role in maintaining gut microbiota:

      You can find a review article (The immunology of the vermiform appendix: a review of the literature. Kooij et al.) here if you are interested in reading more: doi:10.1111/cei.12821

      Excerpt:

      "Until recently, the human appendix has been regarded as a rudimentary part of the intestine. During the past few years, however, several studies have suggested its immunological importance for the development and preservation of the intestinal immune system [1].

      The appendix has been shown to have an important interaction with the
      intestinal flora [2–4]. Considering the appendix as a ‘safe house’ for the commensal gut flora, these studies hypothesize that commensal bacteria can be reintroduced from the appendix in case of disease, and therefore the appendix can be considered as an important part of intestinal health."

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Paul Hoover

    This article is “classic” Sarah Isgur … on the one hand, on the other hand, on the third hand, etc. … and then maybe none of the foregoing is actually pertinent! I really like these sorts of discursive analyses because they help you see the complexities below the superficially simple surface. Thank you!

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    David M

    Thanks Sarah, well thought out analysis.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    George.Skinner

    The ratification argument has been focusing on technical legal arguments, but seems to have neglected a more practical question: is it wise to try to incorporate a new constitutional amendment decades after it failed in its initial ratification? Surely the point of a constitution is to establish a common, accepted basis for how the nation functions. It's been 50 years since the ERA was originally proposed, and over 60% of Americans weren't even born when the ERA was being debated. Instead of trying to complete ratification through "This one weird legal trick!", it would make far more sense to revisit the entire ERA.

    Collapse
  9. Kyle C

    I mean, this is no chicken sandwich review, but good information nonetheless. We need more pieces from Sarah outside of The Sweep.

    Collapse
  10. R. James

    The arguement that the ERA will help men in the future is nonsense. Just look at the contempt given to the issue of the constitutionality of the male only draft to show future prospects of that line of argument.

    Collapse
Load More