This is sort of an interesting article from a sidebar point of view:

Did you know that there were now six Roman Catholics on the Supreme Court, two Jewish justices and only one Protestant who is 89. Not that religion should play a role in their decisions; it of course should not; there should always be a clear distinction between church and state. But I was wondering thinking about this very curious article and fact that maybe those distinctions might be blurred sometimes...I certainly hope not. But you have to wonder about some cases dealing with delicate issues like Roe versus Wade whether religious affiliation would have anything to do with their thought processes or even what their collective discussion process might be. What do you think?

Source - New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/10/us/10s...

Yes Rachel, it is going to be difficult to come up with a ruling here. What about documentaries showing war footage and inhumanities against man (shown on every news channel); do we outlaw those too? Do not get me wrong..I think there are things that should not be shown because of sensitivities and I am an animal lover. I totally agree with the Supreme Court when it comes to the treatment of child pornography and do not think that the free speech amendment should be used as a shield for things that violate human decency. Child pornography clearly falls into the category of those acts which should not be protected.

Here is a fairly concise writeup found on netsafe kids.

http://www.nap.edu/netsafekids/pp_li_pfa...

The "Congress shall make no law" part is the stumbling block...no question about it.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds...but I do think at the community level there are some loopholes. We shall see; not sure if they have the power to do much on this; I do not think that animal cruelty should be tolerated; but stock footage might be another thing when used for a documentary. This is going to be one tough case to call. Interesting though that they decided to take this case in the first place if they did not feel that they could do something.

We are glad to meet you and best of luck in your new endeavor. Please introduce yourself when you get a chance in the introduction thread; it always helps group members get to know who you are when you post and the intros are very brief and unobtrusive.

All best,

Bentley

Bentley this is a great question. This case is really interesting because the documentary's makers didn't actually film the dog fights--they used stock footage. The statute here makes it a crime to depict animal cruelty -- does this mean they violated it? That question may prevent the court from getting to the issue of whether animal cruelty counts as obscenity, which is how it explains Congress's more stringent treatment of child pornography videos not offending the First Amendment. I am curious to see how it turns out.

I'm inclined to think they'll get rid of the case without getting to the first amendment issue. The language of the amendment begins "Congress shall make no law..." and there are other cases before the Court right now that are encouraging a literal approach from the conservative arm of the court. I think they'll be wary of too liberal an interpretation on this issue, excusing this law in this situation.


I never introduced myself. This is right up my alley, as I just finished law school and will begin working as an attorney in January, assuming I passed the bar.

This is a very interesting case that the Supreme Court is hearing regarding dog videos but at the deeper end of the discussion spectrum is free speech. What constitutes a violation of free speech and what does not. The Supreme Court has ruled that child pornography does not receive the protection of the free speech amendment yet should dog videos depicting cruelty to animals be also not protected?

High court debates dog fighting videos

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/06/scot...

What do you think about this dilemma and does the court have any power on the issue and/or should they be involved?

This was a great video presentation that I watched (2007 video):

The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court

Jeffrey Toobin

About the Program

In "The Nine," author Jeffrey Toobin takes a look at the Supreme Court from the Reagan Administration to the present, commenting on the personalities and contributions of the various justices who have served in that time. He was quite the fortune teller in this presentation. Very enjoyable.

http://www.booktv.org/Program/8615/The+N...



Jeffrey Toobin

A Previous Look inside the Supreme Court:

CSPAN POLITICS:

http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Politics.as...

CSPAN CAPITOL SPOTLIGHT:

http://www.c-span.org/Capitolspotlight/

CSPAN CAPITOL HEARINGS:

http://www.capitolhearings.org/

THE CAPITOL HISTORY - CSPAN:

http://www.c-span.org/capitolhistory/ind...

AMERICA AND THE COURTS:

http://www.c-span.org/Series/America-and...

THE SUPREME COURT - CSPAN:

http://supremecourt.c-span.org/

111TH CONGRESS:

http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Congress-Le...

SUPREME COURT PREVIEW: WILLIAM AND MARY (VIDEO - CSPAN)

Media/2009/10/02/HP/A/23834/Supreme+Court+Preview+Hosted+by+William+Mary+Law+School.aspx

SUPREME COURT:

http://www.c-span.org/Topics/Supreme-Cou...

well i probably should've seen that coming.

Sam you are making me smile...he happens to be Barack Obama's current Chief of Staff.

Bentley wrote: "Sam..I suspect that you are a Ralm Emanuel fan.

Here is a write-up on Ralm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanue...
http://www.nndb.com/people/484/000037373...

White House biography:

http://w..."

Bentley wrote: "Yes, Ford was a complex case.

But let us not confuse succession of the president versus choosing a vice president by a sitting president. There is a difference.

The Chief of Staff of a Presi..."
Who's Ralm Emanuel?

You have got to love Franken!

Franken reads 4th Amendment to Justice Department official

http://minnesotaindependent.com/45495/fr...

The US 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Sam..I suspect that you are a Ralm Emanuel fan.

Here is a write-up on Ralm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanue...
http://www.nndb.com/people/484/000037373...

White House biography:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration...

New York Times:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration...

The Gatekeeper:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/...

Time:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl...

This is the listing of the Chiefs of Staff (White House):

http://www.nndb.com/gov/238/000043109/

Yes, Ford was a complex case.

But let us not confuse succession of the president versus choosing a vice president by a sitting president. There is a difference.

The Chief of Staff of a President could not become President even if the President he was serving died of natural causes, was assassinated, resigned or was impeached.

However, a former chief of staff could I imagine be chosen to be a potential running mate in a presidential election and could potentially be selected to be the vice president if the VP died in office (I guess also a possibility); but never a potential successor to the Presidency unless he somehow had become VP subsequently and/or in the meantime had been elected a Senator or a member of the House and had risen to either the leadership position of either the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House (both highly unlikely)

Regarding Nixon, he was a complex individual having been vice president twice and President twice and was then also impeached and forced to resign.

I doubt that the above scenario would have been an option; considering that Haldeman was found guilty of conspiracy and obstruction of justice and was imprisoned for 18 months for his crimes; he would have been occupied elsewhere behind bars.

Ford actually was the first person appointed to the vice-presidency under the terms of the 25th Amendment and when he became President upon Richard Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974, he also became the only President of the United States who was elected neither President nor Vice-President (appointed)

Before ascending to the vice-presidency, Ford served nearly 25 years as Representative from Michigan's 5th congressional district, eight of them as the Republican Minority Leader. That was not a great period in US History and Ford actually did a lot to heal the nation during these times.

Chiefs of Staff, though they have become powerful in their positions; usually are pretty much the gatekeepers and/or the President's logistical schedulers.

Usually, most presidents have felt that chiefs of staff are not elected, are not really in any complex executive role and do not have the familiarity with the American people to ever be considered seriously as presidential candidates; so they are often not considered potential future running mates, etc. Usually a running mate is someone who can gain a state's electoral college votes for the prospective presidential candidate in the upcoming election.

Secretary of States, however, used to once be the stepping stone to the Presidency in days gone by.

As far as Haldeman, Nixon and/or Ehrlichman - all of them were scary thoughts in any capacity by the end of Watergate. And Nixon had been considered a brilliant man, which he was.

Nothing is easy here in the US; the laws and rules change sometimes multiple times as in the case of the Succession Acts.

Well my point with Ford was that he only became VP on Agnew's resignation through Section 2 of the 25th Amendment. He was never elected as either VP or President. Provided he could have got it through Congress, Nixon could have chosen anyone as VP and, ultimately, when he was forced to resign, as his successor as President - even including his Chief of Staff!

President Haldeman - there's a scary thought!

Hello Simon,

Yes, Sam's question was excellent. The main reason for the VP to be next is obvious; but maybe it is not as obvious with the legislative representatives. Previous executive experience is key and being elected by the people is also a consideration. With the top three succession candidates, they cover both bases.

When you get to the Cabinet Posts, it is obvious that the government was looking for strong executive experience and a leader who has run large government agencies and organizations. They may also have been looking for folks who held cabinet positions which had the greatest exposure to foreign policy as well as clout.

Since the Succession plan was based upon a balanced approach, it is true that potentially the House and/or the Senate may not be led by the same party of the President. And it is also true that this could lead to a change in political power for the Executive branch.

It is also true that Senator Byrd could potentially become President in a time of crisis; but the chances are a bit more remote these days being that he would come after the Speaker of the House (in this case Pelosi). Of course, if the Vice President dies, then the succession chain would have been broken and therefore the need for the 25th amendment and the ability to appoint a new vice president.

Gerald Ford (the vice president) actually became President upon the resignation of Richard Nixon.

It was a very good question. Bentley's answer was very complete but the order of succession as it is currently stands raises some interesting points

a) It could be argued that by including the two heads of Congress in the list, the checks and balances between the judicial, legislative and executive branches of government is broken

b) There is no guarantee that the Speaker of the House would be of the same party as the President so the succession could lead to a change in political power

c) The inclusion of the Cabinet in the list breaks the link that a potential President should be directly elected anyway, although I would concede they are more likely to have executive experience than the Chief of Staff

d) By having the most senior member of the Senate so high in the list, there could be a possibility of having a very old person as VP (I think Sen Byrd is about 92) at a time of national turmoil

An interesting question and as the succession of President Ford showed not entirely academic in nature.

Thank you Joe; it was an excellent question from Sam.

I commend you, Bentley, for your thorough analysis of this subject. It was a pleasure to read.

Hello Sam,

There are quite a few segments to your question:

First, when did the order of Succession become what it is today?

The Presidential Succession Act of 1947, signed by President Harry Truman, changed the order to what it is today. Before that date it was quite different.

Second, what is the impact of the 25th amendment in terms of succession and other aspects of the Presidency?

Prior to the 25th amendment there was no procedure for filling the vice president spot (if in fact) the President died in office and the Vice President assumed the Presidency. This amendment was ratified in 1967. As you recall, the country was still trying to recover from the assassination of John F. Kennedy (a very young President). This amendment had much more to say about the office of vice presidency than anything else.

Third, what was the history of succession in the US prior to 1947 and the Presidential Succession Act of 1947?

Prior to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, there were other orders of Succession.

The following should explain the current order of succession in today's world:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.h...

Fourth, why is the Chief of Staff not considered for the Office of Presidency?

a) The Vice President who is first in line was part of the political ticket that ran for office and was elected to office during the Presidential election; they are a "heart beat away from the Presidency". They should have all of the qualifications of a person who might assume the presidency some day.

b) Regarding the Speaker of the House being third in line; I assume that it was felt that the House was closer to the people and to more recent elections.

c) There were other Succession Acts prior to 1947 (Truman) and there are procedures that should be followed that are actually part of the US constitution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidentia...

d) If the President was succeeded by his VP and let us say his VP passed away as well; if the President's cabinet was next in line; in essence the President while he was alive would in affect be choosing his potential successor; thus it was changed to the House Speaker and to the President of the Senate. They are elected officials by the people. Some people say that Truman liked the Speaker of the House better at that point in time over the Senate leader and that was the reason for the wording and order change from previous Succession Acts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Stat...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidentia...
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31761....
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32969....

Fools, Drunkards, and Presidential Succession:
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubI...

d) OK now the main reasons.. "It wasn't until 1961, under Republican President Eisenhower, that the president's pre-eminent assistant was designated the White House Chief of Staff." President Eisenhower being a military general prior to being President and in the military most of his adult life really wanted an assistant who would serve him much as he had been served as a general and Supreme Commander...he came up with the title. Prior to that point in time, the person who held this position was the gatekeeper or the secretary to the President who also managed his schedule. Prior to FDR, the White House Staff actually reported to a variety of other agencies and FDR changed that. Some Presidents did not want to have a chief of staff and it wasn't until Nixon that the title actually took hold. The chief of staffs today are gatekeepers, manage the President's schedule and the White House staff, keep the White House operating smoothly almost as an Operations and Logistics manager in many ways. They also protect the interests of the President and sometimes negotiate the President's agenda with other members of Congress. He is the point person.

However, the Chief of Staff does not have authority over legislation directly or laws and is not serving in the capacity of the American people nor are they an elected official; therefore they are not and have never been considered to be in the line of succession for the Presidency though it still is a powerful position.

Here is a write-up on the Chief of Staff position in the United States:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House...

I hope the above helps.

Bentley

Here's something i don't get. In Amendment 25, Why is the the speaker of the house the third in line? wouldn't it make more sense to make the Chief of Staff the third, in fact the the Chief of Staff isn't even on the list.

OATH OF SOTOMAYOR:

http://www.oyez.org/media/sotomayor_oath

GREAT RECORDING OF OYEZ:

http://www.oyez.org/media/oyezoyezoyez

A recording of the Marshal of the SUPREME COURT calling out, "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez!" There are many examples to be found, but the one ABOVE is one of the best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyez

DIFFERENT PRONUNCIATIONS:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...

REGARDING THE WEB SITE OYEZ MULTIMEDIA:

http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acrl/p...

REGARDING THE SUPREME COURT

For those of you who would like to understand a bit more about the Supreme Court and how it works; there is an excellent three part video on the Supreme Court and these details. It is hard to believe that over 7000 cases come into the Supreme Court as cases for petition to be heard. Only 100 are selected and that number seems to be reduced. All 7000 cases are reviewed however in the process. A remarkable undertaking when you see the physical amount of paper involved.

This set of three videos is excellent and I would recommend viewing them. It also gives a bit more insight into the personalities of some of the justices themselves and how they interact. They even show Sandra Day O'Connor and Rehnquist speaking. These videos even show a bit of the contentious nature of Justice Scalia when he is speaking though he is very polite and it also shows when the Justices are speaking how they differ in their interpretation of the constitution itself. In view of the fact, that this group will be discussing the constitution in an upcoming discussion, it might be a good idea to review these three videos looking for the differences in interpretation among these justices.

The videos were found on the Oyez Project. When you watch one, there is a place on the lower left to click on the next video of the set of three. However, I have also included the links below for access to all three.

http://www.oyez.org/media/scotus_video1
http://www.oyez.org/media/scotus_video2
http://www.oyez.org/media/scotus_video3

This is a fairly interesting article and listing of 8 nominees to the Supreme Court who did not make it and why: (CNN)

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayoflife...

Well this is interesting; the Supreme Court overturned Sotomayor's ruling.

This was a Fouteenth Amendment case involving reverse discrimination:

June 29, 2009

Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Promotions Case

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_cove...

Here is the news article:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-j...

This is the Supreme Court opinion:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/0...

As you recall, the fourteenth amendment is the following:

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection

Amendment Text | Annotations
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Due to the fact, that the 4th of July holiday vacation period is coming up and I will be out of pocket for various time periods, I am posting the next three amendments which are coming up. These are the amendments for discussion period June 28th through July 18th (Amendments 25, 26, 27); please feel free to post questions, comments, opinions at any time. My vacation period is from July 2nd through July 12th so I will be in transit many times without computer access; but will be on when I get a chance.


Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession. Ratified 2/10/1967.

1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years. Ratified 7/1/1971.

1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Ratified 5/7/1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

For those of you following the Supreme Court, just this week an important ruling was made which did not please the American Civil Liberties Union totally.

In essence, the Supreme Court Preserved the Voting Rights Act Oversight Provision (6/22/2009); but the Court Refrained From Deciding Constitutionality Of Section 5, Issuing Decision On Narrow Grounds

The American Civil Liberties was still upset about part of the ruling because it allows what they call "political subdivisions" a potential loophole if they have had no minority voting violations in the previous 10 year period.

The case dealt with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments of the constitution as well as the Voting Rights Act passed and modified by Congress.

The case documentation is very well laid out and included a wonderful segment explaining the Voting Rights Act, its history and rationale, etc.

Here is the url to the case brief itself:

http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/votingrights/na...

Here is the Opinion of the Supreme Court:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/...

Here is the write-up done by the American Civil Liberties group on its site:

http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/minorit...

http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/minorit...

Does anybody have any opinion on the case or the Supreme Court's decision?

Amendment 24 deals with protecting the right to vote.

One of the last legal vestiges of segregation was the effort to keep the black population from participating in the vote. With most methods for keeping the black vote to a minimum declared unconstitutional, several Southern states found an answer — the poll tax.

Poll taxes had been enacted in 11 Southern states after Reconstruction as a measure to prevent African Americans from voting, and had been held to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court.

At the time of this amendment's passage, only five states still retained a poll tax: Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi. However, it wasn't until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966) that all state poll taxes (for both state and federal elections) were officially declared unconstitutional, because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Virginia still tried to get around it.

In Harman v. Forssenius,6 the Court struck down a Virginia statute which eliminated the poll tax as an absolute qualification for voting in federal elections and gave federal voters the choice either of paying the tax or of filing a certificate of residence six months before the election.

Viewing the latter requirement as imposing upon voters in federal elections an onerous procedural requirement which was not imposed on those who continued to pay the tax, the Court unanimously held the law to conflict with the new Amendment by penalizing those who chose to exercise a right guaranteed them by the Amendment.

The poll tax has a long history, and was often used in Europe to raise funds. With a poll tax, in order to vote, a certain tax must be paid. The tax is the same for all, which allowed the generally more affluent white population access to the polls with a minimum of pain, while the generally poorer black population would have trouble justifying trading food on the table for a vote in the ballot box.

Worse, different kinds of poll taxes were implemented, some accumulating even if no attempt was made to vote, meaning increasingly higher back-taxes to be paid to gain the vote.

In 1939, Congress began to try to get rid of the poll tax, but history was not behind them.

After all, in colonial times and when the Constitution first came into effect, land ownership was often a requirement for suffrage. Though only five states still had a poll tax by the time the amendment passed Congress, Supreme Court rulings made it doubtful that mere legislation would eliminate the tax altogether.

Proposed by Congress on August 27, 1962, the 24th Amendment was ratified within a year and a half, on January 23, 1964.

We can discuss any of the previous amendments at any time. Feel free to open up discussion on any one of them that have already been introduced.

Next week we will be discussing Amendment 24. (June 21st - June 27th)


Amendment 24 - Poll Tax Barred. Ratified 1/23/1964.

1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia. Ratified 3/29/1961.

1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Some history regarding this amendment:

"The District of Columbia has been a unique city since its founding in 1800 as the seat of the new government. When first established, it was a town of 5000, and it was assumed that it would be the center of government, and not a population center. But by 1900, over a quarter of a million people lived within its bounds. Since it is a federal district, however, and not a state, the inhabitants not only had no real local government, they had no vote in the federal government either. By 1960, when 760,000 people lived in Washington, D.C., it seemed odd that people from a dozen states, with lower populations, had more voting rights than residents of the District. As citizens, they were required to pay taxes and to serve in the military, but a vote in the Presidential election was available only to the states.

It is important to note that the 23rd Amendment does not make Washington, D.C., a state; it just confers upon its citizens the number of electors that it would have if it were a state. It also did not provide full representation in Congress for the District. The Congress passed the amendment on June 17, 1960; the amendment was ratified on March 29, 1961 (285 days)."

What do you think about term limits? Would you rather have a president that is doing a good job have the opportunity to have more than two terms? Somehow by the end of eight years; most of the time we seem to be ready to throw them out (lol). I think in some respects the job is so onerous that the incumbents look like they have aged 10 years in four years in office. I am always amazed at how the job has aged the looks of all of the presidents. Even Obama has quite a few more gray hairs than 100 + days ago. You can see it in his face already. How FDR managed is amazing considering his health; I think he was finally worn out by the war. I cannot say that we are an easy country or people to preside over.

Here is some of the history of why the 22nd amendment came into being; first I believe it was a reaction to FDR having served four terms; as well as this being a way for the Republicans to try to level the playing field since a Democrat had been President for four consecutive terms.

This is some of the history:

22nd Amendment
Since the presidency of George Washington, only one thing could be said to be totally consistent — that no President had the job for more than two full terms. Washington had been asked to run for a third term in 1796, but he made it quite clear that he had no intention of doing so; that an orderly transition of power was needed to set the Constitution in stone. And so it was for almost 150 years.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was first elected President in 1932, and re-elected in 1936. When it came time for the Democrats to nominate a candidate for the Presidency in 1940, two things had happened. First, the Republicans had made great gains in Congress in the 1938 elections. And Hitler happened. Europe was in the throes of a great war, with trouble in the Pacific, too. A change away from Roosevelt, who had led the nation through the Great Depression, did not seem wise. He was nominated for an unprecedented third term, and won. It was not a landslide victory, however, and it is debatable that FDR would have had a third term had it not been for the war. When 1944 rolled around, changing leaders in the middle of World War II, which the United States was now fully engaged in, also seemed unwise, and FDR ran for and was elected to, a fourth term.

His life was nearly over, however, and his Vice President, Harry Truman, became President upon FDR's death less than 100 days after his inauguration. Though FDR's leadership was seen by many as a key reason that the U.S. came out of WWII victorious, the Congress was determined, once the war ended, to ensure that Washington's self-imposed two-term limit become the law of the land. Specifically excepting Truman from its provisions, the 22nd Amendment passed Congress on March 21, 1947. After Truman won a second term in 1948, it was ratified on February 27, 1951 (1,439 days). Truman could have run for a third term, but bowed out early before campaigning began.

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

Oldesq,

You are of course correct in that they have a viable suspect who I do not believe has been formally charged; yet his name has been announced to the press. Additionally they are linking this suspect to Operation Rescue; I think all of the above is getting ahead of the legal process. From what I have heard, they had a clear description of the man, his vehicle and a license plate number. One report indicates that two of the churchgoers tried to stop the assailant but were also threatened.

Despite the above and the fact that Tiller was very concerned lately with vandalism at his facility; it still seems the likely motive will be his association with late term abortions (he was only one of three doctors in the US still doing them).

It is very shocking and I might add I was worried about Obama himself when he was speaking at Notre Dame; some of these folks get really carried away. Very sad for Tiller and for his family.

Bentley wrote: "Today we had the killing of Dr. Tiller (not good). I think he is the 7th or 8th doctor killed thus far and there are possibly 17 others who were simply wounded. I am not for abortion but violenc..."

I too am shocked by Dr. Tiller being shot in church but I have seen no evidence -- in fact, the Wichita police have specifically stated that they have no known motive for the killing although they have a viable suspect in custody. If that is the case, I think it extremely irresponsible for the media, much less the White House to ascribe a motive for the killing. Such statements would have been timely if someone had taken responsibility and stated the motive was abortion related.

Today we had the killing of Dr. Tiller (not good). I think he is the 7th or 8th doctor killed thus far and there are possibly 17 others who were simply wounded. I am not for abortion but violence cannot resolve fundamental differences. Somebody called this domestic terrorism in the media; what do you think?

Here is the statement from the White House.

The White House issued a statement Sunday evening from President Obama on the murder of George Tiller. Here's what the president said:

I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Source: White House

So am I Oldesq, but you know these things are possible in this country; I think in some way we are becoming more a land of laws and minutia type regulations which makes us not as free as we claim; but when you consider the alternatives...(lol)

I could see something like that passing again if the people are stirred up to a pitch by some kind of isolated event which sparks fear in them. I never underestimate the power of raw fear or religious zealotry.

Bentley

I was always amazed that the 18th passed in any event. It was a very particular time in history!

Here we have the repeal of prohibition:

Amendment 21 which was simply a repeal of Amendment 18:


Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed. Ratified 12/5/1933.

1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Any thoughts on this?

Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933. History

1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

Please feel free to discuss this amendment for next week's discussion or any of the previous amendments.

Eighteenth and the Nineteenth Amendments:

Prohibition (the Roaring 20's) and finally women are given the right to vote!!!


Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished. Ratified 1/16/1919. Repealed by Amendment 21, 12/5/1933

1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Boy- you think each of the Amendments beside the hotly contested ones are real sleepers- the 17th being among the second group until this year with the appointment of Burris by Blagojevich! What an interesting and thorny problem that created and I am willing to bet we havn't seen the last of the fallout by any means- Burris's story has changed several times and Jesse Jackson Jr.'s story has some holes as well.

Seventeenth Amendment:

Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote. Ratified 4/8/1913. History

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

An interesting take on the 14th Amendment and Affirmative Action:

http://www.humiliationstudies.org/docume...

We are having an interesting discussion on "reverse discrimination" on The Bill of Rights thread.

It is hard sometimes to know where to place discussions (on which thread) regarding Affirmative Action and/or "reverse discrimination" because both The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment are in play.

Bentley

Oldesq wrote: "There has also been a feeble question as to whether the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. The claim is twofold: allegedly, the quoted text of the Amendment differed from that approved by Congr..."

Delightful, guess they see a wonderful opportunity.

Oldesq wrote: "Yes, the scheme goes something like this- I own a piece of land on which I establish a sovereign nation. Because the consitution provides for the respect of sovereign nations and our interaction w..."

Yes, exactly

Bentley wrote: "The nitty gritty of the Sixteenth Amendment:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/a...

Taxes are a given; for those who think they are not constitutional, think again:
(T..."

Virginia, I think one of the urls I posted identifies a great many cases where folks tried to get away with just that.

And the agent is thinking: "GOTCHA!"