The History Book Club discussion
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
>
THE AMENDMENTS
Mod
Twenty-seven amendments have been added to the Constitution since 1789. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were adopted as a unit in 1791.
Mod
We will discuss one a week.
Here is the syllabus:
Amendment 11, 12, 13, 14 - April 12th - April 18th (2009)
Amendment 15 - April 19th - April 25th
Amendment 16 - April 26th - May 2nd
Amendment 17 - May 3rd - May 9th
Amendment 18 - May 10th - May 16th
Amendment 19 - May 17th - May 23rd
Amendment 20 - May 24th - May 30th
Amendment 21 - May 31st - June 6th
Amendment 22 - June 7th - June 13th
Amendment 23 - June 14th - June 20th
Amendment 24 - June 21st - June 27th
Amendment 25 - June 28th - July 4th
Amendment 26 - July 5th - July 11th
Amendment 27 - July 12th - July 18th
Mod
The Road to Lincoln to Obama: The Constitution and the New Birth of Freedom
In this video some questions are posed; what is equality and what rights does our constitution protect and for whom? This video reviews the text, the history, the structure and the purpose of the 13, 14, 15 amendments which were called The New Birth Amendments.
http://www.acslaw.org/node/7876
Picking the President: Parties, Primaries, and the Democratic Process - 2008 ACS National Convention
http://www.acslaw.org/node/6722
Mod
The Constitution: Amendments 11-27
AMENDMENT XI [Suits Against a State (1795):]
Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.
Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
AMENDMENT XII [Election of President and Vice-President (1804):]
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --:]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.
AMENDMENT XIII [Abolition of Slavery (1865):]
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XIV [Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection, Apportionment of Representatives, Civil War Disqualification and Debt (1868)
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.:]
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
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 the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.
Mod
Amendment 11 - Suits Against States:
http://townhall.com/columnists/Willia...!
http://www.courierpostonline.com/apps...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_03PZ...
Mod
Some additional videos which may be on interest in advance of the discussion.
Amendment 12:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library...
Background of the Twelfth Amendment;
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h468...
The Corrupt Bargain:
http://mefeedia.com/entry/the-corrupt...
Regarding the Fourteenth Amendment:
http://sunnylandsclassroom.org/Asset....
The Constitution Project: One Person, One Vote:
http://sunnylandsclassroom.org/Asset....
Mod
Our founding fathers professed that we were. Yet at the very time of the drafting and ratification of all of our charter documents; we still had slaves in all of the states; many of the ratifiers had slaves working on their farms, plantations or in helping to cook and clean for their families. We see also the issue of how the Native Americans were treated. I wonder in the minds of the founding fathers what their meaning of the word equality was and for whom?
Was it simply for settlers from England who came to the new world or do you think they had a broader interpretation?
Some have called the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, the New Birth amendments. Do you feel that these amendments gave this country a new beginning?
Bentley
Mod
In March, I posted the following:
For those of you who like to get ahead and prepare for our discussion beginning April 12th on Amendments 11, 12, 13 and 14, here is a video titled:
The Road to Lincoln to Obama: The Constitution and the New Birth of Freedom
In this video some questions are posed; what is equality and what rights does our constitution protect and for whom? This video reviews the text, the history, the structure and the purpose of the 13, 14, 15 amendments which were called The New Birth Amendments.
http://www.acslaw.org/node/7876
I would suggest strongly that those of you interested in the constitution and the amendments take an opportunity to view this panel presentation. It is excellent. I think you will get a lot out of it as I did.
This discussion is presented by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.
Who are they?
About the American Constitution Society
The American Constitution Society for Law and Policy (ACS) is one of the nation's leading progressive legal organizations. Founded in 2001, ACS is a rapidly growing network of lawyers, law students, scholars, judges, policymakers and other concerned individuals.
Our mission is to ensure that fundamental principles of human dignity, individual rights and liberties, genuine equality, and access to justice enjoy their rightful, central place in American law.
ACS is a non-partisan, non-profit educational organization. We do not, as an organization, lobby, litigate or take positions on specific issues, cases, legislation or nominations. We do encourage our members to express their views and make their voices heard.
Speakers at ACS events have included:
Supreme Court Justices:
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia;
Federal judges:
Ann Aiken, Lynn Adelman, Marsha Berzon, Rosemary Barkett, William Bryant, Guido Calabresi, Ruben Castillo, Robin J. Cauthron, David Coar, Andre Davis, Michael J. Davis, Raymond Fisher, William Fletcher, Marvin Garbis, Merrick Garland, Nancy Gertner, John Gleeson, Joan Gottschall, David Hamilton, Michael Daly Hawkins, Thelton Henderson, Ellen Segal Huvelle, William Wayne Justice, Alex Kozinski, Kermit Lipez, Gerard Lynch, Boyce Martin, Paul Magnuson, Michael McConnell, Michael McCuskey, Theodore McKee, Diana Gribbon Motz, Louis Oberdorfer, Richard Paez, Virginia Phillips, Robert Pratt, Jed S. Rakoff, Stephen Reinhardt, James Rosenbaum, Edmund Sargus, Shira Scheindlin, Mary Schroeder, Dolores Sloviter, Sonia Sotomayor, Jeffrey Sutton, David Tatel, Kim McLane Wardlaw and Diane Wood;
Former Vice President: Al Gore;
Senators:
Joe Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Russ Feingold, Tom Harkin, Edward Kennedy, Carl Levin, Charles Schumer and the late Paul Wellstone;
Representatives:
Tammy Baldwin, Bob Barr, Artur Davis, Michael Doyle, Barney Frank, Rush Holt, Jesse Jackson, Jr., John Lewis and Jan Schakowsky;
Former Senators: John Edwards and Gary Hart;
Former Attorney: General Janet Reno;
Former Deputy Attorney General: Eric Holder (now Attorney General under President Obama); and
Former Solicitors General: Drew Days, Walter Dellinger, and Seth Waxman.
The url that I provided is an excellent discussion of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution.
Here is a synopsis of the discussion and the panel participants:
The congressionally-declared theme of the inaugural ceremony of President-elect Obama, "A New Birth of Freedom," commemorates President Lincoln's vision in the Gettysburg Address.
Developing this theme, ACS, together with NAACP LDF, MALDEF and Constitutional Accountability Center, co-sponsored a program on Wednesday, January 14, 2009 entitled The Road from Lincoln to Obama: The Constitution and the New Birth of Freedom.
Leading historians, constitutional law experts and civil rights leaders discussed how the "new birth of freedom" that Lincoln spoke of at Gettysburg took form in the Civil War Amendments, which protected liberty and equality, how those Amendments have been interpreted (and in some cases misinterpreted) since their ratification, and how their promise can be fulfilled today.
The panel featured:
Moderator, Mary Frances Berry, Geraldine R. Segal Professor of American
Social Thought and Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania
Eric Foner, DeWitt Clinton Professor of History, Columbia University
John Payton, President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense Fund
John Trasviña, President and General Counsel, MALDEF
Doug Kendall, Founder and President, Constitutional Accountability Center
Mod
Amendment 15 - [Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race - Ratified 2/3/1870:]:
1. 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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Mod
"Ninth Circuit: Second Amendment also protects gun owners from state law
POSTED AT 4:12 PM ON APRIL 20, 2009
Big news for constitutional law junkies, not so big for gun owners. We’re dealing here with the doctrine of “incorporation,” the notion that some — but not all — of the rights in the Bill of Rights protect people not only from the federal government but from their state governments, too. That wasn’t the case until the Fourteenth Amendment was passed, thereby “incorporating” certain federal constitutional rights to the state level; ever since, courts have agonized over deciding which rights are sufficiently “fundamental” as to qualify for incorporation. Why not just say that the entire Bill of Rights was incorporated instead of picking and choosing from it? Don’t ask. The whole subject’s a major clusterfark.
Per the Ninth Circuit, as of today, the Second Amendment is officially “fundamental” on the west coast. No surprise there, even with two Democratic appointees on the three-judge panel: On the very day that the Supreme Court decided the Heller case, I told you it was a fait accompli that the Second Amendment would end up being incorporated. The whole logic of the Heller opinion was that gun ownership is an important safeguard of liberty and deeply rooted in American history; if that’s not “fundamental,” nothing is. The real question is how much this matters in practical terms. Answer: Not much, as TNR predicted more than a year ago when the Court was hearing oral arguments in the Heller case.
For all but the hardest-core gun lovers, prudence and public safety ultimately limit libertarianism–and the justices don’t seem inclined to dive off a cliff and read the amendment so as to permit individual ownership of upper-end military hardware. That seemed almost as clear at arguments as the court’s direction on the question of whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right. A lawyer for those challenging the ban acknowledged, for example, that “of course” background checks for firearms purchases would be constitutional. Justice Antonin Scalia told Solicitor General Paul Clement, “I don’t see why” the federal government would “have a problem” sustaining its ban on machine guns if D.C.’s handgun ban fell. All sides appeared comfortable with the idea that criminals would not receive protection from the amendment. Outside of Washington D.C., in other words, a revitalized Second Amendment would largely forbid what nobody was seriously contemplating anyway: bans on common weapons for the recreational and self-protective uses of law-abiding people.
Even Scalia didn’t imagine a Second Amendment right to bear machine guns. Which brings us to today’s ruling, the most amazing detail of which isn’t the incorporation finding but the fact that, as Ace notes, the Ninth Circuit ended up upholding the gun regulation. The money bit, from page 4497 of the opinion:
Heller tells us that the Second Amendment’s guarantee revolves around armed self-defense. If laws make such self-defense impossible in the most crucial place — the home — by rendering firearms useless, then they violate the Constitution.
But the Ordinance before us is not of that ilk. It does not directly impede the efficacy of self-defense or limit self-defense in the home. Rather, it regulates gun possession in public places that are County property…
The Nordykes argue that the Ordinance is overbroad because it covers more than such sensitive places. They list the areas covered: “open space venues, such as County-owned parks, recreational areas, historic sites, parking lots of public buildings . . . and the County fairgrounds.” The only one of these that seems odd as a “sensitive place” is parking lots. The rest are gathering places where high numbers of people might congregate. That is presumably why they are called “open space venues.” Indeed, the fairgrounds itself hosts numerous public and private events throughout the year, which a large number of people presumably attend; again, the Nordykes’ gun shows routinely attracted about 4,000 people. Although Heller does not provide much guidance, the open, public spaces the County’s Ordinance covers fit comfortably within the same category as schools and government buildings.
Translation: You may have a Second Amendment right to defend your home but you have no Second Amendment right to concealed carry, especially in densely populated “sensitive places.” In fact, one of the Democratic judges wrote a separate opinion today specifically to emphasize that “important governmental interests will justify reasonable regulation of rifles and handguns, and the problem for our courts will be to define, in the context of particular regulation by the states and municipalities, what is reasonable and permissible and what is unreasonable and offensive to the Second Amendment.” The legal question going forward is how broadly courts will interpret the “sensitive places” exception; given the number of lefty judges we’re in store for from The One, I’m guessing darned broadly. All of which means that we’re trending towards a narrow understanding of the Second Amendment that limits gun rights to handguns inside the home (and conceivably a limit on how many you can own?) That’s better than nothing, but not much better."
Source - Hot Air
Note: The part of the 14th amendment being cited here is Section One (Privileges and Immunities, Due Process, Equal Protection) - interesting incorporation nonetheless...although many would feel this is very far reaching.
Mod
Oldesq"
"Judge, I'm appealing a ruling from the 9th Circuit, but I have other reasons as well." (lol)
Amendment 15 - [Rights Not to Be Denied on Account of Race - Ratified 2/3/1870:]: 1. 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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
As we all know, no one really paid this amendment any attention until the Civil Rights Act went through in the 60's. Prejudice was rampant, and there are still pockets of it today, though nothing compared to the past before the Act went into effect. The slaves were released via the Civil War, but really not free. We all have seen pics of Colored Only signs at water fountains, and the story of Rosa Parks, and of course Martin Luther King, Jr. The KKK is still around, along with other hate groups, and Blacks still lead their hate list.
Prejudice was also dealt to the Indians (red skin) as well.
The Civil Rights Act enabled citizens to fight back against sheriffs and police who attacked Blacks in the name of "crime" back then (like drinking at the wrong fountain, for example), and prevent voter registration. But no law totally rids the citizenry of prejudice.
Mod
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or b..."
Very true Virginia, I think that is why so many Blacks were so deeply moved and affected by Barack Obama becoming President; it was a great moment for them; I think in many ways it was a step in the right direction for the country. However, things are still not perfect as you aptly pointed out.
Mod
This is a pretty good video on unalienable rights and incorporation (explains much of the terminology very, very well):
http://www.ucopenaccess.org/courses/A...
MORE ON THE INCORPORATION DEBATE:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proje...
16th Amendment: ah, taxes: can't avoid them, as a particular group of people try to and never learn that they don't have any law to stand on against paying. I think.
Mod
The Boston Tea Party occurred because the British were taxing, and unreasonably. It was not the Internal Revenue then. So that made that tea tax even more unpopular than the average tax.
Mod
Virginia, I was joking in message 18; "of course there was no IRS then" (believe me I doubt that any individual or group that thought they were going to tax then would have survived a night). lol
There was quite a bit of tea thrown into the harbor that day and the colonists have never liked taxes one bit; I think that feeling is shared by many till this day. I think taxes today are slightly less unpopular than the British taxing; and I do not disagree with you regarding taxes or the fact that as Americans we all have to pay them (unless of course you are trying to be on the cabinet and then you can pay them late - only joking again).
The IRS and taxes are unfortunately a necessary evil that keeps the government running. However, I wish we could choose where we wanted our money to go which we cannot.
Taxes will never be popular.
Bentley
Mod
16th Amendment
In 1895, in the Supreme Court case of Pollock v Farmer's Loan and Trust (157 U.S. 429), the Court disallowed a federal tax on income from real property. The tax was designed to be an indirect tax, which would mean that states need not contribute portions of a whole relative to its census figures. The Court, however, ruled that the tax was a direct tax and subject to apportionment. This was the last in a series of conflicting court decisions dating back to the Civil War. Between 1895 and 1909, when the amendment was passed by Congress, the Court began to back down on its position, as it became clear not only to accountants but to everyone that the solvency of the nation was in jeopardy. In a series of cases, the definition of "direct tax" was modified, bent, twisted, and coaxed to allow more taxation efforts that approached an income tax.
Finally, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, any doubt was removed. The text of the Amendment makes it clear that though the categories of direct and indirect taxation still exist, any determination that income tax is a direct tax will be irrelevant, because taxes on incomes, from salary or from real estate, are explicitly to be treated as indirect. The Congress passed the Amendment on July 12, 1909, and it was ratified on February 3, 1913 (1,302 days).
Each Amendment to the Constitution came about for a reason — to overrule a Supreme Court decision, to force a societal change, or to revise the details of the Constitution.
Mod
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,
Mod
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/htm...
Taxes are a given; for those who think they are not constitutional, think again:
(This site examines all elements of the constitution and the 16th amendment) - Summary: You must pay your taxes.
http://www.quatloos.com/hereisthelaw.htm
And the agent is thinking: "GOTCHA!"
Mod
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/htm...
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.
Mod
Yes, exactly
Mod
Delightful, guess they see a wonderful opportunity.
Mod
http://www.humiliationstudies.org/doc...
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
Mod
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.
Mod
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.
Mod
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.
Mod
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?
Mod
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
Mod
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
Mod
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.
Mod
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.
Mod
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.
Mod
Mod
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)."
Mod
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.
Mod
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.
Mod
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...
Here is the Opinion of the Supreme Court:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ht...
Here is the write-up done by the American Civil Liberties group on its site:
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/mino...
http://www.aclu.org/votingrights/mino...
Does anybody have any opinion on the case or the Supreme Court's decision?
Mod
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.
Mod
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_c...
Here is the news article:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/ja...
This is the Supreme Court opinion:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinion...
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.
Mod
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/wayofl...
Mod
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
Mod
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/dictio...
REGARDING THE WEB SITE OYEZ MULTIMEDIA:
http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/acr...
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.
Mod
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/A010103...
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/Presiden...
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_S...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presiden...
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL317...
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL329...
Fools, Drunkards, and Presidential Succession:
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/p...
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_Ho...
I hope the above helps.
Bentley
I commend you, Bentley, for your thorough analysis of this subject. It was a pleasure to read.
The History Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
Reconstructing the Fourth Amendment: A History of Search and Seizure, 1789-1868 (other topics)The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment (other topics)
The Fourth Amendment: Its History and Interpretation (other topics)
Privacy at Risk: The New Government Surveillance and the Fourth Amendment (other topics)
More Essential than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty First Century (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Andrew E. Taslitz (other topics)Thomas McInnis (other topics)
Thomas K. Clancy (other topics)
Christopher Slobogin (other topics)
Stephen J. Schulhofer (other topics)
More...
http://www.billofrights.com/amendment...
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.h...
(first ten are the Bill of Rights)
The Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence
MAKING OF THE CHARTERS:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/char...