-Proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789; Declared ratified on May 8, 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."
This amendment ensures that members of Congress cannot raise their own pay. The only way their pay can be raised is after their term is up in which case a raise can be voted upon.
The 200 years it took for this amendment to get ratified just seems to be a sign of how corrupt our government just might be. In my opinion, this is just proof of our government working for themselves rather than for the good of our society. I think the only reason this amendment was passed was because congressmen were starting to realize how annoyed their constituents were and that they would not be able to get reelected unless they appeased the public.
This cartoon seems to be a very accurate depiction of our society. Although, especially during the current recession, the majority of America's citizens are getting poorer, our congressmen and other big-time politicians are just getting richer.
Although congressmen cannot raise their own pay, they are allowed a "Cost of Living," which continues to make them richer while the rest of our society could use that money so much more. If that money were used say for our school system, then programs would stop being cut and teachers would be able to keep their jobs...the list could go on.
This picture just proves my earlier point. Members of Congress just continue to make money while even our employed Americans are getting poorer.
How is it that these people keep getting elected to office?
Do they even care about benefiting America?
...or are they just going to continue working for themselves and their own personal gains?
-Proposed by Congress on March 23, 1971; Declared ratified on July 1, 1971
Section 1 [Eighteen-Year Old Vote] "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 an state on account of age." Section 2 [Power to Enforce this Article] "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
This amendment allows eighteen year old citizens to vote. It only makes sense that if you can go to war to fight and run the risk of dying for your country, you should be able to have a say in the voting process.
It seems that many eligible voters simply take that privilege for granted. How many 18 year olds (and up) to this day, still have yet to even register for voting?
"Don't blame us, we didn't vote"....really?
All the eligible non-voters are in fact just as responsible as the voters for election outcomes. How can our democracy accurately be portraying the views of our society when so many people don't even cast their vote? Furthermore, those people who do not vote, should not have any right to criticize our government. If they don't take the time to vote, they shouldn't be allowed to waste other people's time with their wasted opinions.
-Proposed by Congress on July 6, 1965; Declared ratified on February 10, 1967
Section 1 [Vice President to Become President] "In case of the removal of the President from office or his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President." Section 2 [Choice of a New Vice President] "Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, then the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress." Section 3 [President May Declare Own Disability] "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." Section 4 [Alternate Procedures to Declare and to End Presidential Disability] "Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principle 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 declarationi 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 principle 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 no in session. If the 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."
The 25th Amendment is pretty much just for housekeeping. It was passed to clean up some uncertainties in Article II for the presidential succession. If the president dies, resigns or is removed from office, the vice president takes over. If the vice president dies, resigns or is removed from office, the president can choose a new VP, subject to confirmation by Congress. If the president submits written notice that he is no longer able to carry out the duties of his office, for whatever reason, the VP takes over. And last but not least, if the VP and a majority of the cabinet all agree that the president is no longer capable of carrying out the duties of his office, the VP can temporarily take over as Acting President. If the president disputes his removal from office, the Congress must decide whether the president should regain the powers of his office or whether the VP should remain in charge.
If Obama was not born in America, does that mean he must be impeached? Does that mean that Joe Biden must become the next president?
Although many people are calling for his impeachment, mainly from the Republican party, would his successor, the VP according to this amendment, actually appease them? He's Obama's VP for a reason, therefore he would have the same views as President Obama, which really should not bode too well for anyone calling for the president's impeachment.
...Besides the language used in this video which is probably inappropriate for a class project, I think this is a good video to support this amendment. This man clearly has many reasons for why President Obama is unfit for office. Like I mentioned above, if the VP were to take over office, how much more content are those against Obama going to be?
-Proposed by Congress on August 27, 1962; Declared ratified on January 23, 1964
Section 1 [ANTI-POLL TAX] "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 of 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." Section 2 [Power to Enforce this Article] "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
The 24th Amendment makes poll taxes illegal for federal elections. Poll taxes are taxes that some states began charging during Reconstruction as a way to keep African Americans from voting. Later, the Supreme Court extended protection against poll taxes to include state elections, citing the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
"In January 1964, the 24th Amendment to the Constitution abolished the poll tax. A poll tax was a fee you had to pay at the time of voting. No money, no vote. So, rich people voted, poor people didn't. 44 years later, we have a sort of poll tax: long lines. LONG LINES. How many hours did it "cost" you to vote? 2? 4? 6? HOW MUCH INCOME DID YOU LOSE? So, you need the money, or IF YOU CAN'T TAKE THE LONG WAIT, GUESS WHAT? YOU DON'T VOTE. You want to vote, but you can't afford to. Nonvoters in Ohio, 2004, cost John Kerry the Presidency...Obama voters, no matter what, no matter how long, please, please don't go home. Wait as long as you have to. But do NOT go home without casting your vote...Vote, then go home. VOTE. VOTE... It is time for CHANGE. We, the People have the POWER to make that CHANGE..." (excerpt from video description on YouTube)
Although long lines do cost people their time, and could get in the way of them working and earning money, is it really fair to call it a poll tax?
In my opinion, its not. A poll tax was established by the government. These long lines are not being set by government officials. They aren't trying to keep people who cannot miss work from voting. It's simply bad luck....and maybe just a sign that its time for a new voting method to come about? But, no, long lines are not a poll tax, just an inconvenience.
Even though taking a test to vote doesn't require paying a tax, as is outlawed in this amendment, couldn't it be argued to be unconstitutional? If the poll tax originated to keep African Americans from voting, wouldn't taking a test to keep ignorant people away from voting be basically the same thing?
-Proposed by Congress on June 16, 1960; Declared ratified on March 29, 1961
Section 1 [Electoral College Votes for the District of Columbia] "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 it 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." Section 2 [Power to Enforce this Article] "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
This amendment is basically recognizing Washington DC's right to vote. It allows for the citizens of the District of Columbia to vote for electors for president and vice president of the United sttes.
The Electoral College was designed to only grant votes to states. Because Washington DC is not a state, until 1961 people who lived in the District of Columbia were unable to vote for president. This amendment gives DC residents a number of presidential electors. They are still unable to send voting representatives or senators to Congress.
The amendment restricts the district to the number of Electors of the least populous state, irrespective of its own population. As of 2010, that state is Wyoming, which has three Electors. However, even without this clause, the district's present population would only entitle it to three Electors. Since the passage of this amendment, the District's electoral votes have gone towards the Democratic candidates in every presidential election.
It just doesn't really make sense to me that prior to this amendment, the people in the very epicenter of our political system, were unable to vote, regardless if they met the 26th Amendment's qualification that 18 year old citizens are eligible to vote.
-Proposed by Congress on March 21, 1947; Declared ratified on February 27, 1951
Section 1 [Tenure of President Limited] "No person shall be elected to the office of 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 fro holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term." Section 2 [Ratification Within Seven Years] "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."
The 22nd Amendment limited the number of terms anyone could serve as president to two. However, to account for individuals who might have taken over as president in the middle of a term, a person could serve as president for ten years, or another 2 terms after taking over.
This is a Constitutional amendment to remove the limit on the number of terms one may serve as President. It effectively would repeal the 22nd Amendment.
I find it very unlikely that Obama will somehow manage to repeal this amendment. But it is good food for thought. What if this amendment were to ever be repealed? What if the future President was in office for multiple back to back to back terms? If we have someone in power for a good 12-16+ years wouldn't that be opening up the doors for a type of dictatorship, despite the democracy America was founded for?
This amendment was passed after Franklin Roosevelt was elected to a record four terms as president. He broke the two-term precedent set by George Washington.
-Proposed by Congress on February 20, 1933; Declared ratified on December 5, 1933
Section 1 [NATIONAL LIQUOR PROHIBITION REPEALED] "The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States hereby repealed." Section 2 [Transportation of Liquor into "Dry" States] "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." Section 3 [Ratification Within Seven Years] "This 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."
This amendment is just repealing the 18th Amendment and making alcohol legal again.
They pretty much nailed it. This amendment is really quite simple. No more 18th. Bring on the booze.
I'm sure many people can think of benefits of outlawing alcohol. However, alcohol is so firmly implanted in our society, its hard to imagine a time when it wasn't legal. Although I am inclined to argue it seems unconstitutional to ever have outlawed it in the first place, I guess people could just as easily argue it's the same as those who want to keep marijuana illegal and those who are fighting for it not to be.
-Proposed by Congress on March 2, 1932; Declared ratified on February 6, 1933
Section 1 [Terms of Office] "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 3rd 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." Section 2 [Time of Convening Congress] "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every yer, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3rd day of January , unless they shall by law appoint a different day." Section 3 [Death of President-Elect] "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." Section 4 [Election of the President] "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." Section 5 [Amendment Takes Effect] "Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article." Section 6 [Ratification Within Seven Years] "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."
This amendment moved the date on which new presidential and vice presidential terms began as well as the date for beginning new congressional terms, and it ended the abbreviated congressional session that had formerly convened in even-numbered years. It also fixed procedures for presidential succession if the president-elect died before inauguration day. Also, this amendment called for the presidential and vice presidential terms to begin on January 20, and congressional terms begin on January 3. Another section of the amendment deals with presidential succession should the president-elect die before taking office. The amendment provides that the vice president elect shall become the president-elect and take office on January 20. The amendment also authorizes Congress to legislate on other matters of presidential succession.
This amendment was supposed to ensure that no more "lame duck" sessions would occur. But does our Congress actually abide by that?
Again, going back to the previous question, but do our congressmen actually listen to this amendment? Or are they more concerned with their own agendas?
[Woman Suffrage] -Proposed by Congress on June 4, 1919; Declared ratified on August 26, 1920
"The right of the 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 the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
This is another very straight-forward amendment. It finally grants women the right to vote.
What really blows my mind, is thinking about how much America hated any other ethnicity than the average white American...yet different races were granted the right to vote even before women? Something just doesn't connect there. Granted, I'm as happy as the next person that different races were finally granted equality, but its shocking to think that despite how hated other people were because of their ethnicity, women were even lower then them on certain scales.
Nobody explains it better than School House Rock. This video just does a really good job of breaking down many of the issues women were facing and the way they were treated.
-Proposed by Congress December 18, 1917; Declared ratified on January 29, 1919)
Section 1
[National Liquor Prohibition]
"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."
Section 2
[Power to Enforce This Article]
"The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Section 3
[Ratification Within Seven Years]
"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."
This amendment was one of the most notorious failures of attempted social engineering in American history. Many Progressive reformers believed that alcohol was the root of much, if not all, evil in American society, and sought to end that evil by simply banning the production and sale of liquor. Prohibition against alcohol led, instead, to a huge black market in bootleg liquor, with the profits of illegal booze-selling flowing to infamous gangsters like Al Capone.
This amendment is crazy! I cannot believe that it actually passed...even if it was eventually repealed. I definitely understand where people were coming from when they wanted alcohol to be illegal, but it just blows my mind that there was a time when the people would actually be calling for the government to take it away.
Speakeasies and gangs appear to be the only result of prohibition. Even though alcohol is legal again, I think that there can some parallels drawn between the 1920's and today's war on drugs. Maybe one day the laws prohibiting drugs will become a think of the past, and a new amendment will be passed, allowing them?
-Proposed by Congress on May 13, 1912; Declared ratified on May 31, 1913
"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 construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution."
This amendment is really quite simple--just stating that the election of senators is based upon the people's vote. I did a little bit of research into the background of this amendment, and this is what I found:
Under the original terms of the Constitution, US Senators were not elected by the people but were, instead, selected by the various state legislatures. By the turn of the 20th century, many of the reform-minded citizens of the Progressive Era believed that this system of "indirect election" led to corruption, as political machines manipulated Senate elections and some ambitious individuals sought to literally buy a seat in the Senate by bribing state legislators. This amendment ended this system, allowing direct election of US Senators by popular vote.
Although the video below shows the view of someone who disagrees with this amendment, I think that most people would not find any problem with this amendment. How can they? This is the government allowing the people to vote for them! Giving the people a direct vote is a huge part of our democracy and I don't think that there is anything wrong about this amendment or anything that needs to be changed.
I find myself disagreeing with his view. I feel that allowing the people to directly vote for their senators is the type of freedom the Founding Fathers wished for for America's citizens. Even though voting for local government leaders could maybe more accurately represent peoples' views, this is just as valid of a way to give them what they want.
-Proposed by Congress on July 2, 1909; Declared ratified on February 25, 1913
"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."
This amendment gives the federal government the power to tax individuals' incomes. The taxes are not based on a flat rate but can change according to the amount of income earned. Basically, the richer you are, the more taxes you are going to pay.
I don't think that Republicans and Democrats will ever really agree on anything...let alone an issue as big as taxes.
Whether or not people believe this amendment was legally ratified, it is still an important part to the Constitution. And even though people are always complaining about paying taxes, there would be a whole lot more complaints without them. Where else would the government get the money to pay for anything for the public good?
-Proposed by Congress on February 26, 1869; Declared ratified on March 30, 1870
Section 1
[Negro Suffrage]
"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."
Section 2
[Power to Enforce This Article]
"The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
It really surprises me that this amendment and the 19th aren't in different places. With the way that blacks were discriminated against in the past, it seems that women would have been allowed to vote first.
I really liked the way this site explained the fifteenth amendment. On first impression, I think that someone would think that different races were basically on even footing with the whites. But that was definitely not the case. Even though different races were given the right to vote, they were still being discriminated against and still, in essence, being prohibited from voting. An excerpt from the site:
"The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1870, just a few years after the end of the Civil War. This Amendment prohibits both federal and state governments from infringing on a citizen's right to vote "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The Fifteenth Amendment is the third of three "Reconstruction Amendments" ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War. The other two are the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery, and the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to all persons, "born or naturalized in the United States."
Prior to the Fifteenth Amendment, the states were empowered to set the qualifications for the right to vote. The Fifteenth Amendment essentially transferred this power to the federal government. Its ratification, however, had little effect for nearly a century. It had practically no effect in southern states, which devised numerous ways such as poll taxes and grandfather clauses to keep blacks from voting. Over time, federal laws and Supreme Court judicial opinions eventually struck down voting restrictions for blacks. Eventually, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 which established a commission to investigate voting discrimination. And in 1965 the Voting Rights Act was passed to increase black voter registration by empowering the Justice Department to closely monitor voting qualifications."
I really liked this video for further insight into this amendment because it shows how far our country has come since the amendment was put into effect. All the restrictions, such as poll taxes, that restricted different races from voting are officially gone. Furthermore, according to this video, in efforts to further expand different races' influence in politics, they are getting help in having their voices heard...even if its constitutional correctness is questionable.
-Proposed by Congress on June 13, 1866; Declared ratified on July 28, 1868
Section 1
[Citizenship Rights Not to be Abridged by States]
"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
[Apportionment of Representatives in Congress]
"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
[Persons Disqualified from Holding Office]
"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 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
[What Public Debts are Valid]
"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
[Power to Enforce this Article]
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
This amendment provides a definition of a citizen of this country. This amendment provides that all states will provide equal protection to everyone within their jurisdiction. It provides due process under the law and equally provides all constitutional rights to all citizens of this country, regardless of race, sex, religious beliefs and creed.
Many republicans want a major change in the Constitution targeting the 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to babies born in the U.S. even if their parents are illegal immigrants. I completely agree with that--because their parents are illegal immigrants, why should they be granted the right to be a citizen when they have not put in any of the effort that countless other immigrants have?
Illegal immigrants are not citizens. Why should they then be granted in-state tuition when many of America's own, naturally born citizens can barely even afford tuition themselves?
I think that this amendment clearly outlines the requirements of being a citizen. And even though being born in the US allows that title of citizen to be bestowed upon that person, that should not apply to anyone that is not legally a citizen. If an immigrant is living in the country after having gone through all the necessary steps to becoming a citizen, then by all means their children have the same right as every other child born to American parents to be an American citizen. But children of illegal immigrants are just as "illegal" as their parents. Therefore they should not be granted the right to be a citizen without taking the necessary steps as everyone else. They should not be allowed privileges such as in-state tuition or any right granted to American citizens by the Constitution.
-Proposed by Congress on January 31, 1865; Declared ratified on December 18, 1865
Section 1
[Abolition of Slavery]
"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
[Power to Enforce This Article]
"Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
Most people no longer think of slavery as being an issue in the United States. The days of plantations and blacks working for white southerners are long gone. But a new piece of legislation passed by the Obama Administration has made many people, me included, wonder whether or not it is violating this amendment. The Give Act, as explained below, seems to be very close to going against the Constitution and taking away peoples' 13th Amendment rights.
Although the word "mandatory" has been taken out of this piece of legislation, it is still implied. The Give Act is, in my opinion, almost an oxymoron. The whole point of volunteerism is that it is selfless; individuals and organizations acting out of their own kindness and by their freewill to help those who are in need. Requiring people to volunteer just doesn't make any sense.
However, I do think that this article gives good insight into both sides of the situation--giving equal representation to both those in support of this act and those against it. It did help to influence my opinion on the issue, helping me to realize that this definitely has good intentions, and could definitely have a positive impact on the economy. But that being said, I feel that "mandatory volunteerism" is not the best way to go about the issue.
I think that her opinion in this video is a little over exaggerated, but it does help to really convey the concerns of those who believe that the Give Act is in violation to our anti-slavery laws. I think by her extreme take on the matter, she is able to express more concerns than have otherwise been conveyed by others who are against the Give Act as well.
-Proposed by Congress on December 9, 1803; Declared ratified on September 25, 1804
"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 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, 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 the 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."
I do not agree with the electoral college system of voting. Even though I understand the reasons for it, I do not think that it always the most fair system because it is not guaranteed to bring the popular candidate into office. Although there have only been three instances where the popular vote and electoral vote were not the same, I still think that that is too many times for the popular vote of a democracy to not be represented.
Electoral college process explained
In 2000, Al Gore received 540,000 more popular votes nationwide than George W. Bush. But because he was short four votes from the electoral college, he was not able to become the next president.
In 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes was the winner in the electoral college although he received fewer votes than his opponent Samuel Tilden.
And in 1888, Grover Cleveland received more popular votes than Benjamin Harrison, but was again short of electoral votes.
In the 2008 election, between President Barrack Obama and Senator John McCain, Obama received 365 electoral votes, and McCain 173. The popular vote was 69,456,897 to 59,934,814, respectively.
-Proposed by Congress on March 4, 1794; Declared ratified on January 8, 1798
"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."
The Eleventh Amendment limits the power of the federal courts to hear cases against state governments by the citizens of another state or country. This has also been interpreted by the Supreme Court to bar federal courts from hearing lawsuits by citizens of the sate who are being sued and lawsuits initiated by the governments of different countries. An example of this could be a state using this amendment to protect itself from being sued in a federal court by it's residents or residents of different states or countries. Furthermore, by limiting the power of national courts to hear lawsuits against state governments, this amendment ensures that there is a balance between the sovereignty shared by both state and national governments.
In this video, Alex Jones examines the factors leading towards the Obama Administration's intention to sue Arizona over its controversial immigration laws. This is an unconstitutional act according to the 11th Amendment--which bars the suing of states under certain circumstances. (Links to the articles shown in this video are listed below):
An example of a 21st Century court case in violation of the Eleventh Amendment is Board of Trustees of University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), where state employees sued the state of Alabama for failing to comply with Title I of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). Alabama asserted immunity under this amendment--arguing that the Eleventh Amendment protects non-consenting states from being sued by private individuals in federal court.
In this case, the Supreme Court determined that Congress had not acted within its constitutional authority in applying Title I to the states, the Supreme Court held that an individual could not sue a state for money damages under Title I.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The governmental powers not listed in the Constitution for the national government are powers that the states, or the people of the states, can have. States determine the rules for marriages, divorces, driving licenses, education requirements, and the like. Because these areas are not listed in the Constitution, they are therefore under the control of the states.
I have mixed feelings for this amendment. On one hand, I think it is a good idea for different states to have different laws regarding these issues, because if one state doesn't allow, say gay marriage, than another state will, thereby giving that couple the opportunity to marry. On the other hand, it seems wrong that if a couple had to move because of work, or some other issue, or maybe would just rather live in a certain state, than their marriage would run the risk of not being recognized by that state.
As Mike Huckabee said, states' rights are not an outdated concept, they are incredibly important to our Constitution. I think that that is especially important with issues such as medical marijuana, as is presented in this video. Coming from California, I am used to seeing these medical marijuana places on what seems like almost every corner. I feel that this is a much better issue to be decided at the state level rather than federal, because it almost seems as though the majority of people's opinions depend on where they are from. The typical stereotype of the laid-back, liberal Californian, is fitting for promoting the legality of marijuana. But if someone were to take the issue of legalizing the drug into say, a more Southern and conservative state, the people would be much more opposed to it.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparge others retained by the people."
The Bill of Rights mentions certain rights that are to be protected from the government's interference, such as:
freedom of speech
freedom of religion
freedom of the press
freedom of the press
freedom of assembly
right to keep and bear arms
etc.
However, just because a right is not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, it does not mean that the government automatically has the right to interfere with it. That is where the 9th Amendment comes in. It says that any right not enumerated, or listed, in the Constitution is still retained by the people. The Founding Fathers knew that they couldn't put every natural right that human beings need for protection in the Constitution. So they delegated certain powers the government that were specifically spelled out in the Constitution, and said that everything else is left up to individuals and to their state governments.
There are two clauses to this amendment:
The Enumeration of Rights Clause states that there are certain rights of the people, which are specifically listed, in the Constitution
The Rights Retained by the People Clause states that any rights that naturally belong to human beings, that are not specifically listed in the Constitution, are still protected rights. In other words, the government still cannot infringe on these rights, even though the Constitution doesn't say it can't Those rights are still "retained" by the people
Although it all sounds relatively clear...I do wonder who should determine what are those rights that are not listed in the Constitution but deserve the government's protection?
People claim that they have rights to something and the government has no authority to tell them whether they can or not:
right to abortion
right to die
right to same sex marriage
All of these examples have had laws passed banning them. Does the government have the right to do that? Or is that an example of the government violating the natural rights of human beings? In many cases, courts have rules in cases involving these issues and have thrown out the laws made by the people in their legislatures, forbidding these behaviors. The Courts' rationale has been that the legislatures have no authority granted in the Constitution make laws regarding these rights and were therefore unconstitutional--but doesn't this amendment make that action constitutional?
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Since this amendment was put into the Constitution, there has not been a single person who has not been treated according to their eighth amendment rights. Although there are those who argue that the treatment which suspected terrorists receive at Guantanamo Bay, violates this amendment, I think that that is incorrect, as they are not American citizens, so they therefore are not under the protection of the Constitution. But, more on that later.
The eighth amendment is pretty straight-forward. It clearly explains that bail must be set in proportion to the seriousness of the crime. So a judge could not make a $100,000 bail amount for someone who committed a "petty crime." However, something that may not be so clear, is that bail is not a right. There are some instances where a judge is allowed to withhold bail.
So one of the arguments against the 8th amendment is whether or not it applies to those suspected terrorist held in Guantanamo Bay. Many believe that they are protected from "cruel and unusual punishment," and that they therefore are being treated unconstitutionally. In my opinion, however, I believe that they are not American citizens, so they are therefore not entitled to the Constitution's protection. Furthermore, they are being detained in the first place for suspected terrorist activity, so why should anyone care if they are being treated unconstitutionally if they are trying to harm America? I know that that probably sounds horrible, but it just seems like cold, hard fact to me. At least by them being locked up, even if they are being treated rather "cruelly," but not, I don't think, in any wrong, inhumane way, they are not able to cause any American any harm.
Another controversial issue dealing with the eighth amendment is whether or not the death penalty is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Although innocent people have been put to death, I think that it if for the most part, a just punishment. It is not as if they are being tortured or anything else. It is supposed to be quick and painless--nothing that would fall under the category of "cruel" or "unusual." It is tragic that people have been innocently put to death, but nothing is ever perfect, and I think that this form of punishment is in fact constitutional.
"In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of a trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
This is basically just reiterating an accused's right to have a trial by jury in most civil cases and also guarantees that facts decided by those juries cannot be reexamined at a later date. The right to trial by jury is one of the most frequently mentioned rights in the Bill of Rights. It was clearly very important to America's Founding Fathers. Additionally, during the 1700s, twenty dollars was a lot more money than it is today. Now, for any dispute involving less than $1,500.00 small claims court will handle the case without a jury. Personally, I feel that this amendment doesn't even need to be a part of the Constitution. It seems that it is just repeating what has already been said.
Court room based, reality TV shows, such as Judge Judy, are set in small claims court. Basically, small claims courts limit claims for damages to a certain amount of money, ranging from $2,500-$5,000. Small claims cases typically involve fender benders, property damage, disputes over security deposits, personal debt, and unsatisfactory consumer goods. Judge Judy can actually be a good example of showing exactly what small claims court is like--minus the drama. For example, by watching, the viewer can clearly see that there are not any lawyers in the court room, because it is typical for many small courts to not allow lawyers in the courtroom.
Again, this is just repeating the right to a jury. The only difference between this amendment and the others is that this one is referring to civil cases. It seems that in the fifth and sixth amendments, where rights of the accused are mentioned, this amendment could be squeezed in. Because it is basically just repeating the same rights but adding civil instead of implying a federal case.
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial juryof the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
I believe that the two most important parts of this amendment are 1) the right to a speedy and public trial, and 2) the right to an impartial jury. First, the right to a quick trial is important so that no one is sitting in jail for six years while having to wait for a trial. Furthermore, if someone were guilty, it would be unfair to them to have to wait for however long, and then have their sentence added on top of that time already served waiting for the trial, just as if they were innocent, it would be unfair to make them wait in jail for a crime they did not committ. Another part that I find to be a very important part of this amendment is the trial by an impartial jury. If a black man was on trial and his jurors were all members of the KKK, that man would not stand a very good chance of winning his case, despite what the evidence proved. Therefore, the right to an impartial jury ensure that everyone is granted a better opportunity for a fair trial.
Even though this amendment sounds fair and definitely has good intentions, I don't think that it is always that way. I feel that there have been many cases since this amendment was passed where people have not had as fair of a trial as this amendment seems to promise. Furthermore, I feel that this amendment is rather vague. For instance, what constitutes the "timely manner" that is promised for a trial or being notified of charges?
In the case of Blakely v. Washington, 2004, Howard Blakely felt that he was not granted some of the rights promised in the 6th amendment. He pleaded guilty to kidnapping his estranged wife. The facts admitted to in his plea, supported a maximum sentence of 53 months, but the judge imposed a 90-month sentence after finding that the petitioner had acted with deliberate cruelty. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the sentencing procedure deprived him of his federal constitutional right to have a jury determine beyond a reasonable doubt all facts that were legally essential to his sentence.
