<Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> You don't seem to have understood anything at all . First, I didn't propose any new changes, I was discussing two official versions of the same text - the one passed by Congress and the one ratified by the states . If you're saying that the second one has a different meaning that the first one, you're accusing the Founding Fathers of having rewritten the Constitution, not me . Second, the point was that the article text first presented the version passed by Congress and then introduced the version ratified by the states as "another grammatically correct version". Thus, it claimed that the first version had been grammatically correct . I argued that this claim was incorrect and this should be obvious to any person literate in English . In the meantime, I see that the words "grammatically correct" has been removed, so I have no issue with this anymore . (Though perhaps you people are going to edit war about this - count me out, in that case).--91.148. 159.4 (talk) 13: 40, 13 September 2010 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> I looked back weeks and the terms "grammatically correct" has not been in that section (with the two versions). Confusion probably came from that . North8000 (talk) 16: 33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> You don't seem to have understood anything at all . First, I didn't propose any new changes, I was discussing two official versions of the same text - the one passed by Congress and the one ratified by the states . If you're saying that the second one has a different meaning that the first one, you're accusing the Founding Fathers of having rewritten the Constitution, not me . Second, the point was that the article text first presented the version passed by Congress and then introduced the version ratified by the states as "another grammatically correct version". Thus, it claimed that the first version had been grammatically correct . I argued that this claim was incorrect and this should be obvious to any person literate in English . In the meantime, I see that the words "grammatically correct" has been removed, so I have no issue with this anymore . (Though perhaps you people are going to edit war about this - count me out, in that case).--91.148. 159.4 (talk) 13: 40, 13 September 2010 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> I looked back weeks and the terms "grammatically correct" has not been in that section (with the two versions). Confusion probably came from that . North8000 (talk) 16: 33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> You don't seem to have understood anything at all . First, I didn't propose any new changes, I was discussing two official versions of the same text - the one passed by Congress and the one ratified by the states . If you're saying that the second one has a different meaning that the first one, you're accusing the Founding Fathers of having rewritten the Constitution, not me . Second, the point was that the article text first presented the version passed by Congress and then introduced the version ratified by the states as "another grammatically correct version". Thus, it claimed that the first version had been grammatically correct . I argued that this claim was incorrect and this should be obvious to any person literate in English . In the meantime, I see that the words "grammatically correct" has been removed, so I have no issue with this anymore . (Though perhaps you people are going to edit war about this - count me out, in that case).--91.148. 159.4 (talk) 13: 40, 13 September 2010 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> I looked back weeks and the terms "grammatically correct" has not been in that section (with the two versions). Confusion probably came from that . North8000 (talk) 16: 33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> <Dl> <Dd> <Dl> <Dd> You don't seem to have understood anything at all . First, I didn't propose any new changes, I was discussing two official versions of the same text - the one passed by Congress and the one ratified by the states . If you're saying that the second one has a different meaning that the first one, you're accusing the Founding Fathers of having rewritten the Constitution, not me . Second, the point was that the article text first presented the version passed by Congress and then introduced the version ratified by the states as "another grammatically correct version". Thus, it claimed that the first version had been grammatically correct . I argued that this claim was incorrect and this should be obvious to any person literate in English . In the meantime, I see that the words "grammatically correct" has been removed, so I have no issue with this anymore . (Though perhaps you people are going to edit war about this - count me out, in that case).--91.148. 159.4 (talk) 13: 40, 13 September 2010 (UTC) <Dl> <Dd> I looked back weeks and the terms "grammatically correct" has not been in that section (with the two versions). Confusion probably came from that . North8000 (talk) 16: 33, 13 September 2010 (UTC) </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl> </Dd> </Dl>

What provision does the nineteenth amendment allow for answers.com