united-states constitutional-law
What authority (or authorities) have established the status of State ratifications of U.S. Constitutional amendments?
<h1>Background</h1>
<p>In the United States, the <a href="https://www.archives.gov/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">NARA</a> is the authority that receives all final documents related to the State ratification of a United States Constitutional amendment as implied <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/united-states-code.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">on the NARA website</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>TITLE 1 -- GENERAL PROVISIONS</strong></p>
<p><strong>CHAPTER 2 -- ACTS AND RESOLUTIONS; FORMALITIES OF ENACTMENT; REPEALS;
SEALING OF INSTRUMENTS</strong></p>
<p>Sec. 106b. Amendments to Constitution</p>
<p>Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and
Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution
of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of
the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith
cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying
the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same
has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the
Constitution of the United States.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In addition, the NARA has also received recession or rejections of certain Constitutional amendments from the states, the validity of which is not pronounced by the head archivist, but is seen as conclusive by another (unnamed) authority as stated <a href="https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Since the most credible source I found on the matter does not state who &quot;established&quot; that the legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive, I wanted to ask the following question:</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>What authority (or authorities) has established that the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive?</p>

<p>From what I read, it appears that the final quoted statement is not saying another authority does this so much as the Archivist does not do it.   Which would mean that the when the state notifies the Archivist and says "We ratified the amendment" the Archivist accepts that the state did all required steps to ratify the amendment and doesn't need to tick a check box list of steps.</p>

<p>Or to put anotherway, the lawful Ratification of a Constitutional Amendment in a State is determined by the state's own institutions and not the Federal Government's.  Once the state says it's ratified, the Feds assume it was done so following the states own processes and was not done in an underhanded fashion.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/106b" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1 USC 106b</a> is the wedge for involving the archivist. That law says:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Whenever official notice is received at the National Archives and
  Records Administration that any amendment proposed to the Constitution
  of the United States has been adopted, according to the provisions of
  the Constitution, the Archivist of the United States shall forthwith
  cause the amendment to be published, with his certificate, specifying
  the States by which the same may have been adopted, and that the same
  has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the
  Constitution of the United States.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In a related situation of a "bill, order, resolution, or vote of the Senate and House of Representatives, having been approved by the President" becoming law, <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1/106a" rel="nofollow noreferrer">§106a</a> says of the document that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>it shall forthwith be received by the Archivist of the United States
  from the President; and whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote is
  returned by the President with his objections, and, on being
  reconsidered, is agreed to be passed, and is approved by two-thirds of
  both Houses of Congress, and thereby becomes a law or takes effect, it
  shall be received by the Archivist of the United States from the
  President of the Senate, or Speaker of the House of Representatives in
  whichsoever House it shall last have been so approved, and he shall
  carefully preserve the originals.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>But a constitutional amendment is different. The problem is that §106b does not say from whom official notice is to come. 
Historically speaking, the Secretary of State was the person who performed those duties until 1950, then the Administrator of General Services until 1985, since when the National Archives and Records Administration assumed those duties.</p>

<p>An example of a <a href="http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/fedreg/fr057/fr057097/fr057097.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">certification by the archivist</a> (the 27th Amendment) in Federal Register, vol. 567, no. 97, (May 19, 1992), pp. 21187-21188. Subsequent House and Senate resolutions affirmed that conclusion. The wording of the archivist's declaration gives little hint as to what counts as "official notice". In this case, the certification seems to be based on the fact that
"it appears from official documents on file in the National Archives of the United States" that a specific list of states ratified the amendment. In this instance, the amendment was passed by the requisite number of legislatures and each official notice from a state was duly authenticated and presented by competent state authorities. There was no controversy, the archivist did the math, and certified that the amendment passed.</p>

<p>In the event that an archivist were to certify an amendment but was in legal error (something that might only be determined after the fact), the Supreme Court could hear a case to the effect that the archivist exceeded his authority. </p>
