8

ratification court will not restrain officers
from certifying same and preventing questions
from coming before political departments. The
court will not decide what constitutes a
reasonable time for ratification when not spec
ified by congress. Congress was authorized to
set reasonable time in Dillon v. Gloss. Congress
in controlling the promulgation of the adoption
of a constitutional amendment has the final
determination of the question whether by lapse
od time its proposal has lost its validity prior
to the required ratifications.
Concurring opinions: Black, Roberts, Frankfurter,
Douglas: Petitioner had no standing to sue as
decision should remain for determination of
political department. Do not agree with courts
implied assumption of power to make judicial
interpretations of the exclusive constitutional
authority of congress over submission and rat—
ification of amendments. No disapproval of
conclusions arrived at in Butler v Gloss. The
undivided control of the amending process has
been given exclusively and completely to congress.
Process is politial in its entirety until
amendment becomes part of constitution and is not
subject to judicial interference at any point.

Dissent: Butler: Question whether reasonable
time had elapsed was justiciable or not was not
raised in argument. As Ct in Dillon v Gloss
decided directly on reasonableness of seven
year ratification period it ou ght to do so
here.