ML/NJ (Honest Yankee)
Look up the Constitution & amendments in Your Almanac.
Consider the notations accompanying some of those amendments, including the 14th, 16th, etc.
whereas it is noted, "amendment was 'declared' ratified by secretary of state, etc., etc..
Even the publishers of the world almanac are cognizant of the questionable nature of the ratification of these amendments.
Such notations alongside those amendments go back as far as I can remember, and I am well past the 1/2 century mark.
It is both logical and constitutional for the same provision to apply to any State seeking re-admission to the Union, after having been excluded for its own act of rebellion. In these Acts for State Admission, Congress places conditions on the states. For instance, it rejected Wyoming's request six times, because Wyoming allowed women to vote and hold office per its Territorial Constitution and proposed State Constitution. (On the seventh try, Congress relented, and accepted that State.)
In the same way, whatever conditions Congress placed on the States which rebelled, were constitutional, and were binding on the States. You will note that the official histories of the Confederate States give two dates for admission to the Union (except for those that were among the original 13 States, and became part of the Union by their ratification of the Constitution in the 18th century). The second date is the one on which, by Act of Congress, they again became part of the United States of America.
This comment answers the heart of this argument. There are so many errors of detail in this piece that it's hard to know where to start. I'll pick just one as a blatant example.
The article asserts that proposed Amendmkents must be signed by the President. The Constitution requires no such thing, A few early Presidents did sign such documents. But there is now a Supreme Court decision squarely holding that Presidents have no constitutional role in the amendment process. (Neither do the State Governors. This process is purely legislative.)
In short, the writer of this piece has demonstrated to me that he is dumb as a hoe handle on the Constitution as written and the history of its application and use, I urge anyone who reading this thread to stop at this point and go do something more worthwhile with his/her time, such as sorting one's socks or cleaning out the cat's litter box.
That may not be the "opinion" you were looking for, my friend, but you asked for my opinion as a scholar and practitioner of constitutional law. This is it. As the saying goes, if you don't like my peaches, don't shake my tree.
Congressman Billybob