Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Why did the 27th Amendment take over 200 years to ratify?
Executive Summary
The 27th Amendment took over two centuries to be ratified because it was proposed in 1789, lapsed into dormancy with only a handful of early state ratifications, and was later revived by a concerted late-20th-century campaign; the Constitution’s Article V contains no deadline for amendment ratification, which legally allowed the multi-century gap. A mix of historical neglect, episodic political reactions, and the persistent advocacy of individuals like Gregory Watson produced the sudden cascade of state ratifications that culminated in certification in 1992 [1] [2] [3].
1. How a Bill of Rights Draft Became a Two-Century Puzzle
The core factual claim is that the amendment originated with the first Congress in 1789 as one of twelve proposed amendments and then failed to secure immediate, broad support among the states, leaving it dormant for over a century. Early ratification activity was minimal: only a few states acted in the 1790s, and the proposal did not reach the three‑quarters threshold required by Article V. This lapse into obscurity is central to understanding why the proposal survived on paper without becoming binding law for generations; the proposal’s survival reflects an 18th‑century drafting practice in which Congress transmitted multiple amendments and left ratification timing effectively open-ended [4] [2].
2. No Constitutional Countdown: Article V’s Open-Ended Process
A decisive legal factor is that Article V of the Constitution did not impose a time limit on ratification in 1789, and Congress did not attach one when it transmitted the amendment. That absence of a deadline means the amendment remained pending lawfully until the necessary number of states ratified. Modern practice—starting in the 20th century—often includes explicit deadlines for proposed amendments, but that practice did not apply retroactively to the 27th Amendment. The legal permissibility of delayed ratifications is therefore the hinge that turned historical neglect into a possible path to eventual adoption [3] [5].
3. The Long Dormancy: From Forgetting to Tactical Ratifications
During the 19th and much of the 20th century the amendment was essentially forgotten, though periodic, politically motivated ratifications occurred. States occasionally ratified the text in response to contemporary disputes over congressional pay, such as Ohio’s 1873 action, but these isolated acts did not produce the required supermajority. That episodic interest underscores that interstate ratification behavior was often reactive, tied to local politics rather than a coordinated national campaign; the amendment’s slow progress thus resulted from both inattention and piecemeal, sometimes symbolic ratifications [6] [7].
4. One Student’s Campaign Changes the Trajectory
The striking immediate cause of the final ratification was a grassroots revival initiated by Gregory Watson, a University of Texas student whose 1982 essay argued the amendment remained valid and urged state legislatures to act. Watson’s subsequent lobbying and advocacy created a modern campaign infrastructure that persuaded enough state legislatures to ratify over the 1980s and early 1990s, culminating with Michigan’s ratification on May 7, 1992, which supplied the thirty‑eighth state necessary for adoption. This sequence demonstrates how individual activism can exploit dormant constitutional mechanisms when a legal pathway exists [1] [2].
5. Conflicting Narratives and Institutional Reactions
Contemporary accounts differ in emphasis: archival and legal summaries stress the constitutional permissibility and procedural continuity from 1789 to 1992, while popular histories highlight the eccentricity of a student-led revival. Some institutional sources framed the event as a vindication of Article V’s open process; others used it to argue for formal ratification deadlines going forward. These differing framings reveal potential agendas: legalists defend the textual continuity of constitutional procedure, whereas critics advocate reforms to prevent similar long-delayed adoptions in the future [5] [2].
6. What the Facts Leave Out and Why It Matters Today
The analyses agree on the mechanics—initial proposal in 1789, dormancy, no deadline, Watson’s 1982 campaign, and final certification in 1992—but leave open questions about political intent in early ratifications and the policy consequences of retroactive modern ratification practices. The episode matters because it illustrates that the Constitution’s amendment process can be activated centuries later if procedural prerequisites are met; that reality fuels contemporary debates over whether Congress should standardize time limits for amendments to avoid ad hoc, campaign-driven outcomes. The 27th Amendment’s path is therefore both a historical curiosity and a live precedent for constitutional policymakers [3] [8].