"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
In my opinion, the twenty seventh amendment is a way of deterring Congressional members from passing legislation solely to benefit their own pocketbooks. This is done by having any legislation that changes the compensation of Senators and Representatives not go into effect until the next term. I think this is good in theory but in practice it does not work so well. This is due to the fact that many of the Senators and Representatives that are voting on the raise increases will be back in office the next term. If this is not the case then they probably have friends that will be there next term.
My Opinion: I chose this video because I think it is very bold for a Congressman to speak out so boldly about this issue. I completely agree with Senator Buchanan's stance that Congress should only get a raise when the nations budget is no longer a deficit. This just makes sense. Almost everyone who has a job gets a raise based on performance. Even those who get yearly pay increases are unlikely to keep them if their performance does not stay equal or even improve. The performance of Congress is almost entirely based on how the nation is fairing. Right now the nation is not fairing well on many levels and by increasing the salaries of our leaders during a time like this we are not holding them accountable.
Congress Getting a Pay Raise- How About You?
By: Robert Longley
January 3, 2009
Some say they work hard for the money, and unless they pass a bill rejecting it, members of the U.S. Congress will get $4,700 cost-of-living (COLA) raise beginning in January 2009. The average member of Congress will realize a 2.8 percent raise, bringing his or her annual salary to $174,000. The raises for congress will cost taxpayers $2.5 million during 2009.
With passage of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, lawmakers authorized themselves the automatic – no debate, no vote – annual cost-of-living raise unless they specifically pass legislation rejecting or reducing it. Congress has voted to reject the automatic raise six times since then, most recently in 2007. In 2008, lawmakers accepted a $4,100 raise. So far, no legislation rejecting the 2009 COLA increase has been introduced.
Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution requires Congress to set its own pay. From 1789 through 1968, Congress set its pay by passing stand-alone legislation, voting itself raises 22 times. By 1968, the first congressional salary of $1,500 (1815-1817) had increased to $30,000. While Congress can still pass stand-alone legislation to increase its own pay, and did so in 1982, 1983, 1989, and 1991, members have since depended on the automatic cost-of-living adjustment for their raises.
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States." -- U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 6
From 1789 to 1855, members of Congress received only a per diem (daily payment) of $6.00 to $7.00 while in session, except for a period from December 1815 to March 1817, when they received $1,500 a year. Members began receiving a regular annual salary in 1855, when they were paid $3,000 per year.
During the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin proposed that elected government officials not be paid for their service. Franklin’s proposal won little support. As you might guess, this year’s automatic raise for Congress coming as millions of American workers are giving up their cost-of-living raises in an effort to save their jobs -- if they still have them – has similarly won little support.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it points out a few of the ways that Congress can give themselves a pay raise. I find it very interesting that Congress answers to no one when it comes to their salaries. Most people get a pay raise from their boss. The American people are the boss of Congress and so I believe that we should be the ones deciding if and when their salaries are increased. The problem is not in the amount it is in who decides.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Twenty Sixth Amendment- Voting Age
Section 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In my opinion, the voting age of eighteen was well thought out. Up until the age of eighteen children are minors and under their parents control. Legally their parents make decisions for them. If they were allowed to vote that would violate this. If the age were above eighteen then people would be responsible for themselves but not have representation. By being able to vote at the age of eighteen they receive the right to express their opinion, by voting, and become responsible for themselves at the same time.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it shows that there are minors out there that do not agree with the voting age of eighteen. I understand their concern and considered it more after hearing the argument that they can work and pay taxes but cannot vote and have representation. This makes sense because they are being forced to pay money to the government without being able to vote for the people who propose and vote on the legislation. However, I think that the solution in this will be very complicated because of the fact that the legal age to vote and the age when you become an adult are different. I doubt that the voting age will change again any time soon.
Take Back the 26th Amendment: Or Why We Need A Reverse Suffrage Movement
By: Kacy McArthur
October 9, 2008
Quite frankly, I don't believe most people my age are qualified to vote, nor should they be allowed to vote. Originally only white land-owning men could vote in the United States, but I'm not proposing that we should completely go back to this model. I think the 15th amendment is great, as it extended voting privileges to all men regardless of race or station in life.
However even as a woman, I have a few slight qualms about the 19th amendment passed in 1920 extending the right to vote for women. The idea of allowing men to vote was not necessarily sexist per se. Rather, it was intended that men vote in order to represent a family unit. The man would vote as the head of the household. Though extending suffrage to women was probably not intended to promote a form of individualism and divided families, these consequences resulted to some extent due to the suffrage movement. Nevertheless, I believe women's suffrage was overall a good thing, and I in no way wish to overturn women's right to vote.
The type of suffrage I am speaking out against is AGE SUFFRAGE, or the 26th amendment of 1971 which extended voting rights to those 18 years of age and over. Previously, the national voting age was 21, but even 21 year olds seem too young to vote, at least those who are 21 in 2008. In 1870 and 1920, a 21 year old could easily be considered an adult. Most were married or seriously thinking about marriage and were at least living on their own. In other words, a 21 year old man most likely functioned as a head of the household, and a 21 year old woman would likely be concerned about politics in order to vote in such a way as to help influence the world for the sake of her children.
Today even most 21 year olds are still living with their parents or at least on some kind of parental support. They are not heads of households or concerned about children. Most are not even considering marriage, as childhood is extending well into the late 20s and early 30s. Children should not be allowed to vote. And with extended childhoods and extended lifespans, it makes sense to increase the voting age to 30. At the same time, I believe exceptions should be made. Those who are married should be allowed to vote, as being married generally marks one's entrance into adulthood. At least married twenty-somethings are running a household separate from their parents. At least they have given up the "why get married when I can get wasted on the weekends and make-out with random strangers" mentality. (A peer of mine actually made this statement not too long ago.) I also think exceptions should be made for those with a child or children. This means allowing single parents a vote even if they are not yet 30. Single parents have more responsibility than perpetual children since they are concerned with the livelihoods of their little-ones. I also think an exception should be made for those in the military, since they are choosing to give up the childhood lifestyle in order to serve their country.
Basically children should not be allowed to vote, and most people my age hardly qualify as adults.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it is the opposite of the other opinion. The author argues that the voting age should be raised to thirty and that there should be a whole slue of exceptions. These include people who are married, have children, or are in the armed forces. I do not agree with this argument because I feel as though the author is generalizing an entire group of people. To me this is a form of voter discrimination by picking and choosing voters based on how much responsibility you think a voter should have.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In my opinion, the voting age of eighteen was well thought out. Up until the age of eighteen children are minors and under their parents control. Legally their parents make decisions for them. If they were allowed to vote that would violate this. If the age were above eighteen then people would be responsible for themselves but not have representation. By being able to vote at the age of eighteen they receive the right to express their opinion, by voting, and become responsible for themselves at the same time.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it shows that there are minors out there that do not agree with the voting age of eighteen. I understand their concern and considered it more after hearing the argument that they can work and pay taxes but cannot vote and have representation. This makes sense because they are being forced to pay money to the government without being able to vote for the people who propose and vote on the legislation. However, I think that the solution in this will be very complicated because of the fact that the legal age to vote and the age when you become an adult are different. I doubt that the voting age will change again any time soon.
Take Back the 26th Amendment: Or Why We Need A Reverse Suffrage Movement
By: Kacy McArthur
October 9, 2008
Quite frankly, I don't believe most people my age are qualified to vote, nor should they be allowed to vote. Originally only white land-owning men could vote in the United States, but I'm not proposing that we should completely go back to this model. I think the 15th amendment is great, as it extended voting privileges to all men regardless of race or station in life.
However even as a woman, I have a few slight qualms about the 19th amendment passed in 1920 extending the right to vote for women. The idea of allowing men to vote was not necessarily sexist per se. Rather, it was intended that men vote in order to represent a family unit. The man would vote as the head of the household. Though extending suffrage to women was probably not intended to promote a form of individualism and divided families, these consequences resulted to some extent due to the suffrage movement. Nevertheless, I believe women's suffrage was overall a good thing, and I in no way wish to overturn women's right to vote.
The type of suffrage I am speaking out against is AGE SUFFRAGE, or the 26th amendment of 1971 which extended voting rights to those 18 years of age and over. Previously, the national voting age was 21, but even 21 year olds seem too young to vote, at least those who are 21 in 2008. In 1870 and 1920, a 21 year old could easily be considered an adult. Most were married or seriously thinking about marriage and were at least living on their own. In other words, a 21 year old man most likely functioned as a head of the household, and a 21 year old woman would likely be concerned about politics in order to vote in such a way as to help influence the world for the sake of her children.
Today even most 21 year olds are still living with their parents or at least on some kind of parental support. They are not heads of households or concerned about children. Most are not even considering marriage, as childhood is extending well into the late 20s and early 30s. Children should not be allowed to vote. And with extended childhoods and extended lifespans, it makes sense to increase the voting age to 30. At the same time, I believe exceptions should be made. Those who are married should be allowed to vote, as being married generally marks one's entrance into adulthood. At least married twenty-somethings are running a household separate from their parents. At least they have given up the "why get married when I can get wasted on the weekends and make-out with random strangers" mentality. (A peer of mine actually made this statement not too long ago.) I also think exceptions should be made for those with a child or children. This means allowing single parents a vote even if they are not yet 30. Single parents have more responsibility than perpetual children since they are concerned with the livelihoods of their little-ones. I also think an exception should be made for those in the military, since they are choosing to give up the childhood lifestyle in order to serve their country.
Basically children should not be allowed to vote, and most people my age hardly qualify as adults.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it is the opposite of the other opinion. The author argues that the voting age should be raised to thirty and that there should be a whole slue of exceptions. These include people who are married, have children, or are in the armed forces. I do not agree with this argument because I feel as though the author is generalizing an entire group of people. To me this is a form of voter discrimination by picking and choosing voters based on how much responsibility you think a voter should have.
Twenty Fifth Amendment- Succession to the President and Vice President
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
In my opinion, the twenty fifth amendment clarifies what was mentioned in the twelfth amendment. The twelfth amendment only stated that if the President died or was constitutionally disabled that the Vice President would act as the President. It did not say the process for this however. The twenty fifth amendment states the process for the President to submit to a written statement to president pro-tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives declaring he is incapable of fulfilling his duties. Also, if there is a vacancy in the office of Vice President the President nominates his or her replacement and it must be confirmed by Congress. All in all the twenty fifth amendment gives the specific details on the processes by which the president and vice president are replaced.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it brings up the issue of parties having to work together when either the President or Vice President leaves office and is replaced. This is a very real possibility if the speaker of the house is of the opposite party. In this situation both sides would have to work very hard to come together and not create a stale mate in office. I do not believe this has ever happened and we don't have the chance of it happening during Barack Obama's presidency because the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a democrat. However, it is something to think about for future presidencies.
Praising the 25th Amendment
By: Albert B. Southwick
November 19, 2009
The point has been made several times in recent months that Nancy Pelosi is third in line to become president. If something should happen to both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Mrs. Pelosi would become president, a prospect some find dismaying, not to mention the end of civilization as we know it.
The worriers need not head for the hills. The 25th Amendment almost guarantees that Mrs. Pelosi will never make it to the White House as chief tenant.
The Constitution states that if the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, “the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law, provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Disability, both of the President and Vice President …” But, despite several close calls down the years, including two protracted cases of severe presidential disability, Congress was laggard in filling in the details.
James Madison, fourth president, was the first to have a vice president die in office. In fact, Mr. Madison had two vice presidents die on his watch. George Clinton died during the first Madison term, and Elbridge Gerry during the second. That has happened to no other president. Mr. Madison served almost half his eight years in office without a vice president. Had he died in office, Congress would have had to fill the vacancy. It might have been a contentious business.
The first president to die in office was old William Henry Harrison in 1841, only a few weeks after his inauguration. He was succeeded by John Tyler, who immediately got into a controversy about whether he was actually president or merely an acting president. The Constitution is not clear on the point, but Mr. Tyler insisted that he was president, no ifs, ands or buts, and so things have stood ever since. He finished out the term without a vice president.
In fact the country has sometimes functioned for years without a vice president. James Madison, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson all had to serve without vice presidents after they succeeded men who had died in office. So, briefly, did Ulysses Grant, after Henry Wilson died at his desk toward the end of Mr. Grant’s second term.
Congress at various times specified who should succeed to the presidential office should both president and vice president be unable to serve. But the problem of an incapacitated president was never addressed head-on, despite two scary episodes. On July 2, 1881, President James Garfield was shot and lingered on, incapacitated, for more than two months. He finally died on Sept. 18, and was succeeded by Vice President Chester Arthur. But during those two months, the nation was essentially without a president. Although he may have signed a few documents, Mr. Garfield was obviously unable to function properly as the chief executive of the nation. When Attorney General James G. Blaine suggested that the Cabinet declare Mr. Arthur president, everyone, including Mr. Arthur, opposed the idea.
Even worse was what happened on Oct. 2, 1919. President Woodrow Wilson, just back from Europe and the peace negotiations at Versailles, was barnstorming across America trying to win support for his League of Nations. Exhausted, he had just returned to Washington when, according to one account: “On the morning of Oct. 2, Mrs. Wilson found her husband unconscious on the bathroom floor of their private White House quarters bleeding from a cut on his head. Wilson had suffered a stroke — a massive attack that left his left side paralyzed and impaired his vision. … For seventeen months the enfeebled President lay on his bed on the brink of death, barely able to write his own name.”
For the next year and a half, Mrs. Wilson controlled access to the ailing president. The press and the Congress could find out almost nothing beyond the occasional reassurance that the president was improving. He did improve slightly, but he never fully recovered. People began to call Mrs. Wilson the first woman president.
Still, nothing was done. Twenty-five years later, Congress listened to President Franklin Roosevelt on his return from the Yalta conference. He was wan and gaunt, obviously near the end. A few weeks later he suffered the stroke that killed him. He died within hours, but he might have lingered on, comatose, for weeks or months. He was succeeded by Harry Truman, who finished out the term without a vice president.
Finally, 22 years after the death of FDR, the 25th Amendment became part of the Constitution. It covers several contingencies, notably that if the vice president dies in office, the president shall nominate someone to fill the vacancy, that person to take the office after being confirmed by a majority vote in both houses of Congress.
That provision has been used only twice, under somewhat bizarre circumstances. In October 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew, under indictment for corruption, resigned his office. President Richard Nixon replaced him with Gerald Ford. The following year, Mr. Nixon, under the threat of impeachment, resigned the presidency. Mr. Ford succeeded him and selected Nelson Rockefeller to be vice president. It is hard to imagine how that messy series of events would have been dealt with had the 25th Amendment not been in place.
One hundred and eighty years after the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, a weakness in the Constitution was rectified. We should be thankful.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the fact that before the twenty fifth amendment it was an extremely difficult situation when a President or Vice President had to leave office due to death or some other reason. It was unclear before the twenty fifth amendment whether the Vice President would become the acting President or the actual President. The twenty fifth amendment clarifies this. Also, I find it interesting that before this amendment when this situation arose the Vice President stood up and became President but did not nominate a new Vice President. In many cases we just had a President for a few years. The twenty fifth amendment solved all of this and made it much easier to deal with these situations when they occur.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
In my opinion, the twenty fifth amendment clarifies what was mentioned in the twelfth amendment. The twelfth amendment only stated that if the President died or was constitutionally disabled that the Vice President would act as the President. It did not say the process for this however. The twenty fifth amendment states the process for the President to submit to a written statement to president pro-tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives declaring he is incapable of fulfilling his duties. Also, if there is a vacancy in the office of Vice President the President nominates his or her replacement and it must be confirmed by Congress. All in all the twenty fifth amendment gives the specific details on the processes by which the president and vice president are replaced.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it brings up the issue of parties having to work together when either the President or Vice President leaves office and is replaced. This is a very real possibility if the speaker of the house is of the opposite party. In this situation both sides would have to work very hard to come together and not create a stale mate in office. I do not believe this has ever happened and we don't have the chance of it happening during Barack Obama's presidency because the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a democrat. However, it is something to think about for future presidencies.
Praising the 25th Amendment
By: Albert B. Southwick
November 19, 2009
The point has been made several times in recent months that Nancy Pelosi is third in line to become president. If something should happen to both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, Mrs. Pelosi would become president, a prospect some find dismaying, not to mention the end of civilization as we know it.
The worriers need not head for the hills. The 25th Amendment almost guarantees that Mrs. Pelosi will never make it to the White House as chief tenant.
The Constitution states that if the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, “the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law, provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Disability, both of the President and Vice President …” But, despite several close calls down the years, including two protracted cases of severe presidential disability, Congress was laggard in filling in the details.
James Madison, fourth president, was the first to have a vice president die in office. In fact, Mr. Madison had two vice presidents die on his watch. George Clinton died during the first Madison term, and Elbridge Gerry during the second. That has happened to no other president. Mr. Madison served almost half his eight years in office without a vice president. Had he died in office, Congress would have had to fill the vacancy. It might have been a contentious business.
The first president to die in office was old William Henry Harrison in 1841, only a few weeks after his inauguration. He was succeeded by John Tyler, who immediately got into a controversy about whether he was actually president or merely an acting president. The Constitution is not clear on the point, but Mr. Tyler insisted that he was president, no ifs, ands or buts, and so things have stood ever since. He finished out the term without a vice president.
In fact the country has sometimes functioned for years without a vice president. James Madison, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson all had to serve without vice presidents after they succeeded men who had died in office. So, briefly, did Ulysses Grant, after Henry Wilson died at his desk toward the end of Mr. Grant’s second term.
Congress at various times specified who should succeed to the presidential office should both president and vice president be unable to serve. But the problem of an incapacitated president was never addressed head-on, despite two scary episodes. On July 2, 1881, President James Garfield was shot and lingered on, incapacitated, for more than two months. He finally died on Sept. 18, and was succeeded by Vice President Chester Arthur. But during those two months, the nation was essentially without a president. Although he may have signed a few documents, Mr. Garfield was obviously unable to function properly as the chief executive of the nation. When Attorney General James G. Blaine suggested that the Cabinet declare Mr. Arthur president, everyone, including Mr. Arthur, opposed the idea.
Even worse was what happened on Oct. 2, 1919. President Woodrow Wilson, just back from Europe and the peace negotiations at Versailles, was barnstorming across America trying to win support for his League of Nations. Exhausted, he had just returned to Washington when, according to one account: “On the morning of Oct. 2, Mrs. Wilson found her husband unconscious on the bathroom floor of their private White House quarters bleeding from a cut on his head. Wilson had suffered a stroke — a massive attack that left his left side paralyzed and impaired his vision. … For seventeen months the enfeebled President lay on his bed on the brink of death, barely able to write his own name.”
For the next year and a half, Mrs. Wilson controlled access to the ailing president. The press and the Congress could find out almost nothing beyond the occasional reassurance that the president was improving. He did improve slightly, but he never fully recovered. People began to call Mrs. Wilson the first woman president.
Still, nothing was done. Twenty-five years later, Congress listened to President Franklin Roosevelt on his return from the Yalta conference. He was wan and gaunt, obviously near the end. A few weeks later he suffered the stroke that killed him. He died within hours, but he might have lingered on, comatose, for weeks or months. He was succeeded by Harry Truman, who finished out the term without a vice president.
Finally, 22 years after the death of FDR, the 25th Amendment became part of the Constitution. It covers several contingencies, notably that if the vice president dies in office, the president shall nominate someone to fill the vacancy, that person to take the office after being confirmed by a majority vote in both houses of Congress.
That provision has been used only twice, under somewhat bizarre circumstances. In October 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew, under indictment for corruption, resigned his office. President Richard Nixon replaced him with Gerald Ford. The following year, Mr. Nixon, under the threat of impeachment, resigned the presidency. Mr. Ford succeeded him and selected Nelson Rockefeller to be vice president. It is hard to imagine how that messy series of events would have been dealt with had the 25th Amendment not been in place.
One hundred and eighty years after the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, a weakness in the Constitution was rectified. We should be thankful.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the fact that before the twenty fifth amendment it was an extremely difficult situation when a President or Vice President had to leave office due to death or some other reason. It was unclear before the twenty fifth amendment whether the Vice President would become the acting President or the actual President. The twenty fifth amendment clarifies this. Also, I find it interesting that before this amendment when this situation arose the Vice President stood up and became President but did not nominate a new Vice President. In many cases we just had a President for a few years. The twenty fifth amendment solved all of this and made it much easier to deal with these situations when they occur.
Twenty Fourth Amendment- Protection From Poll Taxes
Section 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In my opinion, the twenty fourth amendment continues what was started in the fifteenth amendment. After the passage of the fifteenth amendment people were still reluctant to give everyone equal rights. It seems as though its passage was premature to the thinking of the people and therefore they fought to get around the rule. To this day we are still fighting for equality. The twenty fourth amendment continues the fight that is still going on today. By eliminating poll and other taxes for voting, our Constitution took one more step towards eliminating voter discrimination.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it introduces a new kind of poll tax. I agree with Rachel in that a tax to vote does not have to be the actual payment of money but it can be a forfeiture of time as well. We live in a society where time is money. I don't think that this is something that can be fix by an amendment to the Constitution or a new law passed. I believe that it can only be stopped by better planning. There is no reason why someone should not get to vote because they cannot afford to stand in a line for six hours. When I voted in 2008 I did not have to wait at all. I walked in, filled out my ballot and left. But there were many election workers standing around doing nothing. It seems as though the distribution of workers should be spread out enough that there are not too many in slow areas and there are plenty in the more populated areas. There is no doubt in my mind that long voting lines are a form of poll tax and need to be addressed.
Texas Senate Sharply Debates Voter ID Bill
By: Terrence Stutz
The Dallas Morning News
March 11, 2009
Democratic and Republican senators skirmished Tuesday over legislation that would require Texans to show a photo ID before voting – but the debate was mainly for show, as the measure was expected to win approval.
From the moment the Senate convened Tuesday morning to consider the GOP-backed voter ID bill, it was obvious that any important votes would wind up 19-12, the exact partisan split in the chamber.
That was the tally on the first vote as senators decided to begin a public hearing on the issue over objections from Democrats.
Republicans – reaching back to Tammany Hall, the Pendergast machine and Lyndon Johnson's 1948 U.S. Senate race – said the threat of voter fraud is present everywhere, including Texas. The only way to prevent it, they insisted, is to require voters to prove their identity.
Democrats, on the other hand, contended there is no evidence of voter fraud in Texas and warned that requiring voters to produce a photo ID will discourage voting by senior citizens, the disabled and lower-income residents.
Democratic Caucus Chairwoman Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio cited a study indicating that about 1 million of the state's 13.5 million registered voters lack a photo ID and would be harmed by the proposal.
"This is a recipe for disaster," she told other senators. "It threatens the voting rights of seniors and lower-income Texans."
Van de Putte said the move to pass a voter ID bill "is not about voter fraud. There is no voter fraud. This is about voter suppression."
But Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, author of the bill, said there are numerous instances of voter fraud in the U.S. and Texas – dating to the Tammany Hall and Pendergast political machines in New York and Kansas City, Mo., as well as LBJ's questionable win in the 1948 U.S. Senate race in Texas.
"Voter fraud not only is alive and well in the U.S., but also alive and well in Texas," he said, arguing the "danger of voter fraud threatens the integrity of the entire electoral process."
Fraser pointed to voter ID laws in Indiana and Georgia that he said helped boost voter turnout in those states. "It actually increased voter turnout because it increased voter confidence," he said.
His legislation would require Texans to show, with their voting card, either one photo ID, such as a driver's license, or two non-photo IDs, such as a birth certificate and a bank statement. A voter could request a state photo ID free of charge.
Senators from both parties spent hours buttressing their arguments on Tuesday, sharply quizzing witnesses whom they disagreed with and helping friendly witnesses with questions supporting their testimony.
Before the hearing began, Democrats raised several parliamentary objections in an effort to postpone the proceedings. But they were overruled on every challenge by Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock.
Senate passage of the measure was assured during the first week of the legislative session in January, when Republican senators pushed through a change in rules that exempted the bill from the so-called two-thirds requirement. Under that rule, no bill can come up for debate unless two-thirds of Senate members agree – a provision that allowed Democrats to kill the proposal two years ago.
Senate Democrats sought to question Attorney General Greg Abbott on the $1.4 million his office spent investigating voter fraud – without finding a single case where someone tried to impersonate an eligible voter at a polling place.
Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, said he wanted to know why all 13 voter fraud indictments returned by the Republican attorney general involved Democrats and most involved minorities.
But the attorney general declined to appear at the hearing, and his decision was supported by Duncan, who said the attorney general may be called on to defend the legislation in court.
The first expert witness for the Republicans was Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation, a former federal election commissioner, who pointed to increased turnout after voter ID laws were adopted in Indiana and Georgia.
But Democrats contended that voter turnout jumped in those states because of Barack Obama's campaign for president last year.
Currently, seven states require voters to show a photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the ongoing debate about whether requiring voters to have a photo id is a poll tax or not. I think that if the state provides a way for voters to obtain an id for free then it is not a poll tax. Otherwise voters are essentially paying for the right to vote. I find it amazing that there are currently seven states who already require voters to present an id. I understand the debate that it helps to prevent voter fraud but there has to be a way that it achieves this without making it harder to vote.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In my opinion, the twenty fourth amendment continues what was started in the fifteenth amendment. After the passage of the fifteenth amendment people were still reluctant to give everyone equal rights. It seems as though its passage was premature to the thinking of the people and therefore they fought to get around the rule. To this day we are still fighting for equality. The twenty fourth amendment continues the fight that is still going on today. By eliminating poll and other taxes for voting, our Constitution took one more step towards eliminating voter discrimination.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it introduces a new kind of poll tax. I agree with Rachel in that a tax to vote does not have to be the actual payment of money but it can be a forfeiture of time as well. We live in a society where time is money. I don't think that this is something that can be fix by an amendment to the Constitution or a new law passed. I believe that it can only be stopped by better planning. There is no reason why someone should not get to vote because they cannot afford to stand in a line for six hours. When I voted in 2008 I did not have to wait at all. I walked in, filled out my ballot and left. But there were many election workers standing around doing nothing. It seems as though the distribution of workers should be spread out enough that there are not too many in slow areas and there are plenty in the more populated areas. There is no doubt in my mind that long voting lines are a form of poll tax and need to be addressed.
Texas Senate Sharply Debates Voter ID Bill
By: Terrence Stutz
The Dallas Morning News
March 11, 2009
Democratic and Republican senators skirmished Tuesday over legislation that would require Texans to show a photo ID before voting – but the debate was mainly for show, as the measure was expected to win approval.
From the moment the Senate convened Tuesday morning to consider the GOP-backed voter ID bill, it was obvious that any important votes would wind up 19-12, the exact partisan split in the chamber.
That was the tally on the first vote as senators decided to begin a public hearing on the issue over objections from Democrats.
Republicans – reaching back to Tammany Hall, the Pendergast machine and Lyndon Johnson's 1948 U.S. Senate race – said the threat of voter fraud is present everywhere, including Texas. The only way to prevent it, they insisted, is to require voters to prove their identity.
Democrats, on the other hand, contended there is no evidence of voter fraud in Texas and warned that requiring voters to produce a photo ID will discourage voting by senior citizens, the disabled and lower-income residents.
Democratic Caucus Chairwoman Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio cited a study indicating that about 1 million of the state's 13.5 million registered voters lack a photo ID and would be harmed by the proposal.
"This is a recipe for disaster," she told other senators. "It threatens the voting rights of seniors and lower-income Texans."
Van de Putte said the move to pass a voter ID bill "is not about voter fraud. There is no voter fraud. This is about voter suppression."
But Sen. Troy Fraser, R-Horseshoe Bay, author of the bill, said there are numerous instances of voter fraud in the U.S. and Texas – dating to the Tammany Hall and Pendergast political machines in New York and Kansas City, Mo., as well as LBJ's questionable win in the 1948 U.S. Senate race in Texas.
"Voter fraud not only is alive and well in the U.S., but also alive and well in Texas," he said, arguing the "danger of voter fraud threatens the integrity of the entire electoral process."
Fraser pointed to voter ID laws in Indiana and Georgia that he said helped boost voter turnout in those states. "It actually increased voter turnout because it increased voter confidence," he said.
His legislation would require Texans to show, with their voting card, either one photo ID, such as a driver's license, or two non-photo IDs, such as a birth certificate and a bank statement. A voter could request a state photo ID free of charge.
Senators from both parties spent hours buttressing their arguments on Tuesday, sharply quizzing witnesses whom they disagreed with and helping friendly witnesses with questions supporting their testimony.
Before the hearing began, Democrats raised several parliamentary objections in an effort to postpone the proceedings. But they were overruled on every challenge by Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock.
Senate passage of the measure was assured during the first week of the legislative session in January, when Republican senators pushed through a change in rules that exempted the bill from the so-called two-thirds requirement. Under that rule, no bill can come up for debate unless two-thirds of Senate members agree – a provision that allowed Democrats to kill the proposal two years ago.
Senate Democrats sought to question Attorney General Greg Abbott on the $1.4 million his office spent investigating voter fraud – without finding a single case where someone tried to impersonate an eligible voter at a polling place.
Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso, said he wanted to know why all 13 voter fraud indictments returned by the Republican attorney general involved Democrats and most involved minorities.
But the attorney general declined to appear at the hearing, and his decision was supported by Duncan, who said the attorney general may be called on to defend the legislation in court.
The first expert witness for the Republicans was Hans von Spakovsky of the conservative Heritage Foundation, a former federal election commissioner, who pointed to increased turnout after voter ID laws were adopted in Indiana and Georgia.
But Democrats contended that voter turnout jumped in those states because of Barack Obama's campaign for president last year.
Currently, seven states require voters to show a photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the ongoing debate about whether requiring voters to have a photo id is a poll tax or not. I think that if the state provides a way for voters to obtain an id for free then it is not a poll tax. Otherwise voters are essentially paying for the right to vote. I find it amazing that there are currently seven states who already require voters to present an id. I understand the debate that it helps to prevent voter fraud but there has to be a way that it achieves this without making it harder to vote.
Twenty Third Amendment- District of Columbia Voting Rights in National Elections
Section 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article using appropriate legislation.
In my opinion, the twenty third amendment gave the citizens of D.C. the voting rights they deserved from the beginning. It seems odd to me that the people in D.C. did not have these rights from the start. They are American citizens just like everyone else and there is no reason why it should take an amendment to make them equal. Up until this point elections had not included a large part of the citizens. Many of the people residing in D.C. are government workers who may have a particular interest in politics. It seems as though these people would be prime voter candidates. As the trend goes, the twenty third amendment rightfully gave rights to those who had been denied them previously.
My Opinion: I chose this video because I have never realized how odd it is that there are people living in the United States that do no have any Congressional Representation. The most awkward part is that they are living in our nations capitol surrounded by the representatives from every state. I think that the only way that D.C. will gain the right of Congressional representation will be if they are first made a state instead of a district. It will be an interesting thing to see if Obama actually addresses this issue due to its complexity and controversy.
The Capital: 23rd Amendment
Time Magazine
March 31, 1961
Thanks to a succession of oversights by the Founding Fathers and early Congresses, the residents of the District of Columbia have never enjoyed one particular constitutional right cherished by all other Americans: the privilege of voting. There was no reasoning attending the oversights; it was just plain neglect.† Last week Rhode Island cast the 36th affirmative vote for the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, giving 746,000 Washingtonians the right to vote in presidential elections — and three electoral votes. Ohio and Kansas are expected to ratify the amendment this week, making the necessary two-thirds majority for official adoption (only one legislature—Arkansas—rejected the amendment outright, on the ground that 54% of the District's citizens are Negroes).
But after 161 years, Washingtonians will be limited to voting for the President and Vice President. They will continue to have no representative in Congress, no voice in their municipal government.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the issue of Washington D.C. not having any congressional representation. With the passage of the twenty third amendment the citizens of Washington D.C. were given the right to vote in national elections but not congressional ones. It has been said that D.C. should not be given this right because the President resides in D.C. and is the representative for its people. The only problem with this is that the president can only make suggestions about legislation. He does not have the ultimate authority on its passage unlike congress. This means that D.C. has the right to vote for the face of America but not for the people who decide the policies that are enforced.
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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article using appropriate legislation.
In my opinion, the twenty third amendment gave the citizens of D.C. the voting rights they deserved from the beginning. It seems odd to me that the people in D.C. did not have these rights from the start. They are American citizens just like everyone else and there is no reason why it should take an amendment to make them equal. Up until this point elections had not included a large part of the citizens. Many of the people residing in D.C. are government workers who may have a particular interest in politics. It seems as though these people would be prime voter candidates. As the trend goes, the twenty third amendment rightfully gave rights to those who had been denied them previously.
My Opinion: I chose this video because I have never realized how odd it is that there are people living in the United States that do no have any Congressional Representation. The most awkward part is that they are living in our nations capitol surrounded by the representatives from every state. I think that the only way that D.C. will gain the right of Congressional representation will be if they are first made a state instead of a district. It will be an interesting thing to see if Obama actually addresses this issue due to its complexity and controversy.
The Capital: 23rd Amendment
Time Magazine
March 31, 1961
Thanks to a succession of oversights by the Founding Fathers and early Congresses, the residents of the District of Columbia have never enjoyed one particular constitutional right cherished by all other Americans: the privilege of voting. There was no reasoning attending the oversights; it was just plain neglect.† Last week Rhode Island cast the 36th affirmative vote for the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution, giving 746,000 Washingtonians the right to vote in presidential elections — and three electoral votes. Ohio and Kansas are expected to ratify the amendment this week, making the necessary two-thirds majority for official adoption (only one legislature—Arkansas—rejected the amendment outright, on the ground that 54% of the District's citizens are Negroes).
But after 161 years, Washingtonians will be limited to voting for the President and Vice President. They will continue to have no representative in Congress, no voice in their municipal government.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the issue of Washington D.C. not having any congressional representation. With the passage of the twenty third amendment the citizens of Washington D.C. were given the right to vote in national elections but not congressional ones. It has been said that D.C. should not be given this right because the President resides in D.C. and is the representative for its people. The only problem with this is that the president can only make suggestions about legislation. He does not have the ultimate authority on its passage unlike congress. This means that D.C. has the right to vote for the face of America but not for the people who decide the policies that are enforced.
Twenty Second Amendment- Presidential Term Limits
Section 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.
Section 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.
In my opinion, the writers of the twenty second amendment did a good job of meeting in the middle. I agree with them that the President and Vice President should not be allowed open ended terms. I think the term limits of two, four year terms is the perfect amount of time. If it were reduced to two years or increased to six they would not be as effective. I feel as though the limit set into effect by the twenty second amendment allows enough time for change and not too much as to abuse the power given to them.
My Opinion: I chose this video because I believe that the twenty second amendment is one of the amendments that some would like to repeal the most. I think it is on the top of the list for most politicians. It is somewhat scary to me to think that this could happen though. I do not believe that the term limits should be increased at all. Eight years, and not ten or more, like Obama suggests, is a reasonable amount of time in office. It is enough time to mess things up and it is enough time to make things better. If a candidate really cares about improving America they will address the issues and not spend their time trying to extend their time.
King Obama: House Considers Repealing the 22nd Amendment
By: Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
January 19,2009
Earlier this month, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. introduced H. J. Res. 5, a bill that would repeal the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office, thus potentially paving the way to make Barack Obama president for life. Not surprisingly, the corporate media — currently caught up in Obama mania — has not covered this story. As the election campaign of Obama revealed, it is relatively easy to whip up irrational frenzy over a candidate, thus ensuring his re-election indefinitely. See the exact wording of the bill on the Library of Congress website.
“Will George W. Bush end up being the last true US President?” asked Sher Zieve, writing for the Canadian Free Press on January 14. “As I warned you on multiple times prior to the 2008 General Election, ‘once Obama is elected, we won’t be able to get rid of him.’ Tragically, this warning is now being realized. Not only has Obama established his election-fraud organization — ACORN — nationwide, his adherents have now begun the process to repeal the US Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.”
In addition to the ACORN election-fraud organization, Obama’s behind the scenes handlers have reinvigorated his “grass roots” election organization, calling it “Obama 2.0,” essentially a classical fascist mass movement designed to keep Obama mania alive and as well go up against those opposed to the bankster policies Obama and the elite plan to shove down the throat of the American people.
“The Amendment limits presidents to a maximum of eight years in office – or, under unusual circumstances, such as succession following the death of a president, a maximum of ten years in office. Should Rep. Serrano succeed in repealing the Amendment, Obama would be cleared to run for an unlimited number of terms, restricted only by the vote of the electorate,” writes Drew Zahn for WorldNetDaily.
As the election campaign of Obama revealed, it is relatively easy to whip up irrational frenzy over a candidate, thus ensuring his re-election indefinitely if the 22nd Amendment is indeed repealed.
The United States is no longer the country it once was. “Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, presidents honored the precedent established by George Washington, who – though widely popular – refused to run for a third term of office,” notes Zahn.
Thomas Jefferson followed Washington’s example and foresaw the eventual passage of the 22nd Amendment. “General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years,” Jefferson wrote in an 1805 letter to John Taylor. “I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”
Jefferson’s immediate successors, James Madison and James Monroe, also adhered to the two-term principle.
During Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second term, supporters cited the bankster engineered war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, Roosevelt won a fourth term, but died in office the following year. The 22nd Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 26, 1951.
Following the potential repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Obama’s handlers will exploit the bankster engineered economic crisis to push for a third term. As Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, and others have predicted, by 2012 America will be wracked by civil strife, “marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches,” writes Paul Joseph Watson.
“In order to achieve repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Serrano’s proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states’ legislatures,” notes Zahn.
If Celente’s prediction occurs, this approval will not prove to be much of a hurdle. In fact, as Rockefeller minion Henry Kissinger noted well over a decade ago, under such conditions the American people will beg for a dictator to led them out of the wilderness.
Of course, King Obama will not lead the American people out of the wilderness. He will usher in a New World Order with its high-tech control grid and a horrific race to the bottom.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the question of unlimited terms. I think this is a terrible idea. Major supporters of this idea think that with the new threat of terrorism and the wars that are last longer than before, the President needs to stay in office to finish them out. I disagree with this. I think that if a war lasts longer than eight years and it is not over then a new perspective is needed. The two year term limit provides enough time to enact new legislation and not too much as to abuse the power given.
Section 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.
In my opinion, the writers of the twenty second amendment did a good job of meeting in the middle. I agree with them that the President and Vice President should not be allowed open ended terms. I think the term limits of two, four year terms is the perfect amount of time. If it were reduced to two years or increased to six they would not be as effective. I feel as though the limit set into effect by the twenty second amendment allows enough time for change and not too much as to abuse the power given to them.
My Opinion: I chose this video because I believe that the twenty second amendment is one of the amendments that some would like to repeal the most. I think it is on the top of the list for most politicians. It is somewhat scary to me to think that this could happen though. I do not believe that the term limits should be increased at all. Eight years, and not ten or more, like Obama suggests, is a reasonable amount of time in office. It is enough time to mess things up and it is enough time to make things better. If a candidate really cares about improving America they will address the issues and not spend their time trying to extend their time.
King Obama: House Considers Repealing the 22nd Amendment
By: Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
January 19,2009
Earlier this month, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. introduced H. J. Res. 5, a bill that would repeal the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office, thus potentially paving the way to make Barack Obama president for life. Not surprisingly, the corporate media — currently caught up in Obama mania — has not covered this story. As the election campaign of Obama revealed, it is relatively easy to whip up irrational frenzy over a candidate, thus ensuring his re-election indefinitely. See the exact wording of the bill on the Library of Congress website.
“Will George W. Bush end up being the last true US President?” asked Sher Zieve, writing for the Canadian Free Press on January 14. “As I warned you on multiple times prior to the 2008 General Election, ‘once Obama is elected, we won’t be able to get rid of him.’ Tragically, this warning is now being realized. Not only has Obama established his election-fraud organization — ACORN — nationwide, his adherents have now begun the process to repeal the US Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.”
In addition to the ACORN election-fraud organization, Obama’s behind the scenes handlers have reinvigorated his “grass roots” election organization, calling it “Obama 2.0,” essentially a classical fascist mass movement designed to keep Obama mania alive and as well go up against those opposed to the bankster policies Obama and the elite plan to shove down the throat of the American people.
“The Amendment limits presidents to a maximum of eight years in office – or, under unusual circumstances, such as succession following the death of a president, a maximum of ten years in office. Should Rep. Serrano succeed in repealing the Amendment, Obama would be cleared to run for an unlimited number of terms, restricted only by the vote of the electorate,” writes Drew Zahn for WorldNetDaily.
As the election campaign of Obama revealed, it is relatively easy to whip up irrational frenzy over a candidate, thus ensuring his re-election indefinitely if the 22nd Amendment is indeed repealed.
The United States is no longer the country it once was. “Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, presidents honored the precedent established by George Washington, who – though widely popular – refused to run for a third term of office,” notes Zahn.
Thomas Jefferson followed Washington’s example and foresaw the eventual passage of the 22nd Amendment. “General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years,” Jefferson wrote in an 1805 letter to John Taylor. “I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”
Jefferson’s immediate successors, James Madison and James Monroe, also adhered to the two-term principle.
During Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second term, supporters cited the bankster engineered war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, Roosevelt won a fourth term, but died in office the following year. The 22nd Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 26, 1951.
Following the potential repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Obama’s handlers will exploit the bankster engineered economic crisis to push for a third term. As Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, and others have predicted, by 2012 America will be wracked by civil strife, “marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches,” writes Paul Joseph Watson.
“In order to achieve repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Serrano’s proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states’ legislatures,” notes Zahn.
If Celente’s prediction occurs, this approval will not prove to be much of a hurdle. In fact, as Rockefeller minion Henry Kissinger noted well over a decade ago, under such conditions the American people will beg for a dictator to led them out of the wilderness.
Of course, King Obama will not lead the American people out of the wilderness. He will usher in a New World Order with its high-tech control grid and a horrific race to the bottom.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the question of unlimited terms. I think this is a terrible idea. Major supporters of this idea think that with the new threat of terrorism and the wars that are last longer than before, the President needs to stay in office to finish them out. I disagree with this. I think that if a war lasts longer than eight years and it is not over then a new perspective is needed. The two year term limit provides enough time to enact new legislation and not too much as to abuse the power given.
Twenty First Amendment- Repeal of Prohibition
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 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.
Section 3. 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.
In my opinion, the twenty first amendment was bound to happen. People realized shortly after prohibition was enacted that it was not going to work. Prohibition was more of a drain on society than it was a help. By repealing the eighteenth amendment there was huge burden taken off of law enforcement. Tax revenues were now collectible on alcohol sales and people were free to drink as they please. It was not a free for all however. There were and are rules for its consumption, sales, and use. This situation is much more beneficial to the American people than Prohibition.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it shows just how far reaching the alcohol industry was and is in society. I find it amazing how Budweiser adapted to prohibition and continued to remain a company during this extremely hard time. In a time when companies are going bankrupt and CEOs are being indited for scandals it is surprising to see a respectable one who is still around. In addition, the video gave a glimpse at just how many people Budweiser employs. This is another reason why the repeal of prohibition was a great change for society. The industry gave a much needed boost to a nation on the mend.
Tax Revenue Up But Not Alcohol-Related Problems
By: Evan Carden
The South Alabamian
February 23, 2006
The city of Jackson in Alabama recently voted to become “wet.” A lawsuit has been filed in an effort to overturn the results of that election, although early evidence is that only good has resulted from permitting legal sales of alcoholic beverages in the city.
In the first seven months after legalizing alcohol, tax revenues from its sale have been nearly $200,000. Much of that money has gone to benefit programs within the community including a van for the nutrition center and a new building at the high school stadium. It’s anticipated that higher revenues in the summer months will bring the annual revenues to at least $500,000.
In spite of predictions that legal sales would lead to more DUIs and other alcohol-related arrests and problems, the Police Department has found that no evidence in support of those predictions. In fact, arrests for DUI actually dropped , compared to the same period before legalizing alcohol.
This is not surprising. Systematic research has found DUI/DWI to be higher in dry than in wet counties. This may be because people must drive longer distances to obtain alcohol and are on the roads longer. People in Jackson are now presumably buying their beverages locally (increasing tax revenues) and are less likely to drive while impaired.
My Opinion: I chose this article to show that a better way of handling alcohol would have been placing a tax on it. This would generate revenue for service programs while making it a little less attractive for consumers. This would have been a good idea for everyone. I think an interesting fact that the article points out is that wet counties, ones where alcohol is allowed, have a lower rate of DUIs than those that ban alcohol all together. This fact in itself seems like motivation for dry counties to reconsider their ordinances. When managed correctly by the government and the people, alcohol can coexist in society.
Section 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.
Section 3. 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.
In my opinion, the twenty first amendment was bound to happen. People realized shortly after prohibition was enacted that it was not going to work. Prohibition was more of a drain on society than it was a help. By repealing the eighteenth amendment there was huge burden taken off of law enforcement. Tax revenues were now collectible on alcohol sales and people were free to drink as they please. It was not a free for all however. There were and are rules for its consumption, sales, and use. This situation is much more beneficial to the American people than Prohibition.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it shows just how far reaching the alcohol industry was and is in society. I find it amazing how Budweiser adapted to prohibition and continued to remain a company during this extremely hard time. In a time when companies are going bankrupt and CEOs are being indited for scandals it is surprising to see a respectable one who is still around. In addition, the video gave a glimpse at just how many people Budweiser employs. This is another reason why the repeal of prohibition was a great change for society. The industry gave a much needed boost to a nation on the mend.
Tax Revenue Up But Not Alcohol-Related Problems
By: Evan Carden
The South Alabamian
February 23, 2006
The city of Jackson in Alabama recently voted to become “wet.” A lawsuit has been filed in an effort to overturn the results of that election, although early evidence is that only good has resulted from permitting legal sales of alcoholic beverages in the city.
In the first seven months after legalizing alcohol, tax revenues from its sale have been nearly $200,000. Much of that money has gone to benefit programs within the community including a van for the nutrition center and a new building at the high school stadium. It’s anticipated that higher revenues in the summer months will bring the annual revenues to at least $500,000.
In spite of predictions that legal sales would lead to more DUIs and other alcohol-related arrests and problems, the Police Department has found that no evidence in support of those predictions. In fact, arrests for DUI actually dropped , compared to the same period before legalizing alcohol.
This is not surprising. Systematic research has found DUI/DWI to be higher in dry than in wet counties. This may be because people must drive longer distances to obtain alcohol and are on the roads longer. People in Jackson are now presumably buying their beverages locally (increasing tax revenues) and are less likely to drive while impaired.
My Opinion: I chose this article to show that a better way of handling alcohol would have been placing a tax on it. This would generate revenue for service programs while making it a little less attractive for consumers. This would have been a good idea for everyone. I think an interesting fact that the article points out is that wet counties, ones where alcohol is allowed, have a lower rate of DUIs than those that ban alcohol all together. This fact in itself seems like motivation for dry counties to reconsider their ordinances. When managed correctly by the government and the people, alcohol can coexist in society.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Twentieth Amendment- Begining and Ending Terms of Elected Officials
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 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
In my opinion this was a necessary change to the Constitution. Before the amendment was added there was a considerable amount of time between when the official was elected and when they actually took office. Many years ago this was to account for travel time which was considerably longer than today. Rather than jumping on a private jet and being in Washington D.C. in a couple hours tops, you spent months on a caravan across many states. As things evolved over time this amendment just made sense. In addition, the mandate that Congress meet at least once a year is now unnecessary due to the fact that it has become a full time job instead of a secondary commitment. Section three is somewhat ambiguous in its appointment for President in the case that the elect dies or is unqualified. It states that the Vice President shall act as President but doesn't give a clear meaning of if this is for the entire term or for a period of time.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it shows the importance of the 20th day of January. At this point in time George Bush was no longer our President and Barack Obama was now being sworn in. The country was experiencing what was thought to be a major change for the nation. That fact is still being debated. The interesting part of the video is that Obama does not recited the oath exactly as Justice Roberts reads it to him. The question was, "Is he really the President?". At the time I don't think so. It is somewhat of a specific formality and he did not execute it exactly. Just to make sure that Obama was legally sworn in, they repeated the process later. Does this mean that we were without a President for a while? Some may argue this on a technicality but I doubt would get very far.
The Plight of the Lame-Duck
By: David Greenburg
August 17, 2008
It's a regular occurrence in American politics. Sometime toward the end of a president's run, the most powerful political leader on Earth suddenly seems to slip from view. His term of office isn't over yet, but this figure who normally invades our thoughts every day turns into a ghost of his former omnipresent self.
Why do we call outgoing presidents "lame ducks"? The term is London stock-market slang, circa 18th century, for a broker who weaseled on his debts -- someone who was powerless to pay up.
Applied soon thereafter to American politics, it now refers to a president who limps but cannot fly. He counts down his last days roaming the White House in his bathrobe, waxing stoical about his legacy and furiously issuing controversial pardons. Bill Clinton presented a hilarious video of his lame-duck period at the April 2000 White House Correspondents' Assn. Dinner, in which he chased after Hillary's limo to deliver her forgotten brown-bag lunch.
Traditionally, an outgoing president is a lame duck between election day in November and his successor's inauguration on Jan. 20 the next year. But in reality, the lame-duck phenomenon can kick in whenever it becomes clear that a president no longer truly drives the agenda.
For Lyndon Johnson, it happened in March 1968, when setbacks in the Vietnam War and an unexpectedly strong primary showing by Democratic challenger Eugene McCarthy persuaded him not to seek reelection. Harry Truman was saddled with the moniker after the Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1946 elections -- critics urged him to resign! -- but he recovered to win the 1948 election and four more years. The passage of the 22nd Amendment in 1951, which limits presidents to two terms, has ensured that, to some extent, as soon as a president is reelected, he will be outfitted with the lame-duck bill.
President Bush, it's fair to say, started limping fairly early. Since last November, when the election coverage kicked into high gear, he's been disappearing from public consciousness. His State of the Union address, which fell in the middle of two hard-fought primary campaigns, barely registered a blip. Barack Obama and John McCain are more likely to lead news broadcasts.
Even during an international crisis -- the Russian invasion of Georgia -- the news media at first paid as much attention to the candidates' responses as to Bush's. The president's jabs at Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin came off as more perfunctory than powerful, and on the world stage, it was French President Nicolas Sarkozy who stepped up to lead, however ineffective his cease-fire proved to be. Indeed, the brief time span between now and the next president's ascension may be one reason Putin chose to send in the tanks when he did.
All in all, Bush's lame-duck status seems particularly acute. Several reasons explain why. His party lacks a congressional majority, and his popular standing, which has been dismal for almost three years, keeps him from drawing strength from public opinion -- as Clinton and Ronald Reagan did -- to notch notable late-term achievements.
Moreover, unlike every retiring president since Truman, Bush isn't handing the baton of party leadership to his vice president. Indeed, for the first time in more than a century, the president's party has picked a nominee whose allure lies primarily in his sharp differences with the incumbent. As a result, not only Bush but the conservative movement that he led and embodied seems to have run its course.
Although a sunset-bound president usually doesn't pass any major laws, he remains the most powerful person in the land, with a vast executive branch at his disposal. A lame-duck president, even without a congressional majority, can be powerful, if he chooses.
Probably the first president to use his waning days to significant ends was John Adams, who, after losing his bid for a second term to Thomas Jefferson in 1800, promptly created 16 federal judgeships and proceeded to fill them with what came to be called "midnight judges." Besides attempting to reshape the judiciary for political ends, his actions led to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Marbury vs. Madison, which codified the exercise of judicial review. (Marbury was one of Adams' appointees.)
Closer to our day, after John Kennedy beat Richard Nixon in 1960, Dwight Eisenhower's administration finalized plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion, well out of public view; it was JFK, though, who, four months into his presidency, carried out the fiasco.
Lame ducks don't always operate in the shadows of a fading spotlight. In December 1980, Jimmy Carter -- having lost his bid for a second term and taken the Democratic Senate down with him -- knew that the incoming Reagan Republicans would have little regard for new environmental regulations. Carter and congressional Democrats quickly passed the "Superfund" environmental law, which allowed for the cleanup of toxic waste, and the Alaska Lands Act, which safeguarded millions of acres of terrain. (Clinton also got the conservation bug toward his presidency's end, signing executive orders that protected federal lands.)
Bush, too, is less passive than he seems. His political staff in the bureaucracy is quietly advancing a conservative agenda. The White House recently proposed a radical change to the Endangered Species Act that would allow government agencies to bypass a heretofore mandatory scientific review process that evaluates the impact of their actions. The Department of Health and Human Services drafted a new rule that could redefine abortion to include some forms of contraception and allow doctors and pharmacists to deny them to women as they see fit. And the Education Department has been plunging ahead with a plan to force colleges and universities to submit to standardized assessments that could do for higher education what the No Child Left Behind Act has done for secondary schooling.
On foreign policy, another realm where even a weak president wields significant power, Bush has also made important, if under-reported, moves -- less to promote an ideological worldview, in this case, than to try to salvage his foreign policy legacy. He has retooled his stands on North Korea, Iran and even Iraq. The administration endorsed "time horizons" for withdrawal from Iraq, had a high-level aide sit down in nuclear talks with Iran and agreed to have Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice join six-way talks with North Korea.
To some extent, these steps are a function of Bush's clipped wings. The turn toward workaday diplomacy in foreign affairs results from the failure of his grandiose ambitions; the resort to sly changes in federal regulations comes after the demise of big-ticket legislation. But the 24/7 media focus on the campaign, Bush's shambling style and the feeling of a page turning on the conservative movement shouldn't deceive us into thinking that this administration's work is done. Bush may well be a lame duck, but he isn't a dead one.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it describes and gives examples of the lame duck amendment, or the twentieth amendment. It seems as though even with the shortening of the time between the election of the new President and the time he is inaugurated and takes office there is still a period where the standing President is somewhat useless, or lame.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 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.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 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
In my opinion this was a necessary change to the Constitution. Before the amendment was added there was a considerable amount of time between when the official was elected and when they actually took office. Many years ago this was to account for travel time which was considerably longer than today. Rather than jumping on a private jet and being in Washington D.C. in a couple hours tops, you spent months on a caravan across many states. As things evolved over time this amendment just made sense. In addition, the mandate that Congress meet at least once a year is now unnecessary due to the fact that it has become a full time job instead of a secondary commitment. Section three is somewhat ambiguous in its appointment for President in the case that the elect dies or is unqualified. It states that the Vice President shall act as President but doesn't give a clear meaning of if this is for the entire term or for a period of time.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it shows the importance of the 20th day of January. At this point in time George Bush was no longer our President and Barack Obama was now being sworn in. The country was experiencing what was thought to be a major change for the nation. That fact is still being debated. The interesting part of the video is that Obama does not recited the oath exactly as Justice Roberts reads it to him. The question was, "Is he really the President?". At the time I don't think so. It is somewhat of a specific formality and he did not execute it exactly. Just to make sure that Obama was legally sworn in, they repeated the process later. Does this mean that we were without a President for a while? Some may argue this on a technicality but I doubt would get very far.
The Plight of the Lame-Duck
By: David Greenburg
August 17, 2008
It's a regular occurrence in American politics. Sometime toward the end of a president's run, the most powerful political leader on Earth suddenly seems to slip from view. His term of office isn't over yet, but this figure who normally invades our thoughts every day turns into a ghost of his former omnipresent self.
Why do we call outgoing presidents "lame ducks"? The term is London stock-market slang, circa 18th century, for a broker who weaseled on his debts -- someone who was powerless to pay up.
Applied soon thereafter to American politics, it now refers to a president who limps but cannot fly. He counts down his last days roaming the White House in his bathrobe, waxing stoical about his legacy and furiously issuing controversial pardons. Bill Clinton presented a hilarious video of his lame-duck period at the April 2000 White House Correspondents' Assn. Dinner, in which he chased after Hillary's limo to deliver her forgotten brown-bag lunch.
Traditionally, an outgoing president is a lame duck between election day in November and his successor's inauguration on Jan. 20 the next year. But in reality, the lame-duck phenomenon can kick in whenever it becomes clear that a president no longer truly drives the agenda.
For Lyndon Johnson, it happened in March 1968, when setbacks in the Vietnam War and an unexpectedly strong primary showing by Democratic challenger Eugene McCarthy persuaded him not to seek reelection. Harry Truman was saddled with the moniker after the Democrats lost control of Congress in the 1946 elections -- critics urged him to resign! -- but he recovered to win the 1948 election and four more years. The passage of the 22nd Amendment in 1951, which limits presidents to two terms, has ensured that, to some extent, as soon as a president is reelected, he will be outfitted with the lame-duck bill.
President Bush, it's fair to say, started limping fairly early. Since last November, when the election coverage kicked into high gear, he's been disappearing from public consciousness. His State of the Union address, which fell in the middle of two hard-fought primary campaigns, barely registered a blip. Barack Obama and John McCain are more likely to lead news broadcasts.
Even during an international crisis -- the Russian invasion of Georgia -- the news media at first paid as much attention to the candidates' responses as to Bush's. The president's jabs at Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin came off as more perfunctory than powerful, and on the world stage, it was French President Nicolas Sarkozy who stepped up to lead, however ineffective his cease-fire proved to be. Indeed, the brief time span between now and the next president's ascension may be one reason Putin chose to send in the tanks when he did.
All in all, Bush's lame-duck status seems particularly acute. Several reasons explain why. His party lacks a congressional majority, and his popular standing, which has been dismal for almost three years, keeps him from drawing strength from public opinion -- as Clinton and Ronald Reagan did -- to notch notable late-term achievements.
Moreover, unlike every retiring president since Truman, Bush isn't handing the baton of party leadership to his vice president. Indeed, for the first time in more than a century, the president's party has picked a nominee whose allure lies primarily in his sharp differences with the incumbent. As a result, not only Bush but the conservative movement that he led and embodied seems to have run its course.
Although a sunset-bound president usually doesn't pass any major laws, he remains the most powerful person in the land, with a vast executive branch at his disposal. A lame-duck president, even without a congressional majority, can be powerful, if he chooses.
Probably the first president to use his waning days to significant ends was John Adams, who, after losing his bid for a second term to Thomas Jefferson in 1800, promptly created 16 federal judgeships and proceeded to fill them with what came to be called "midnight judges." Besides attempting to reshape the judiciary for political ends, his actions led to the landmark Supreme Court decision in Marbury vs. Madison, which codified the exercise of judicial review. (Marbury was one of Adams' appointees.)
Closer to our day, after John Kennedy beat Richard Nixon in 1960, Dwight Eisenhower's administration finalized plans for the Bay of Pigs invasion, well out of public view; it was JFK, though, who, four months into his presidency, carried out the fiasco.
Lame ducks don't always operate in the shadows of a fading spotlight. In December 1980, Jimmy Carter -- having lost his bid for a second term and taken the Democratic Senate down with him -- knew that the incoming Reagan Republicans would have little regard for new environmental regulations. Carter and congressional Democrats quickly passed the "Superfund" environmental law, which allowed for the cleanup of toxic waste, and the Alaska Lands Act, which safeguarded millions of acres of terrain. (Clinton also got the conservation bug toward his presidency's end, signing executive orders that protected federal lands.)
Bush, too, is less passive than he seems. His political staff in the bureaucracy is quietly advancing a conservative agenda. The White House recently proposed a radical change to the Endangered Species Act that would allow government agencies to bypass a heretofore mandatory scientific review process that evaluates the impact of their actions. The Department of Health and Human Services drafted a new rule that could redefine abortion to include some forms of contraception and allow doctors and pharmacists to deny them to women as they see fit. And the Education Department has been plunging ahead with a plan to force colleges and universities to submit to standardized assessments that could do for higher education what the No Child Left Behind Act has done for secondary schooling.
On foreign policy, another realm where even a weak president wields significant power, Bush has also made important, if under-reported, moves -- less to promote an ideological worldview, in this case, than to try to salvage his foreign policy legacy. He has retooled his stands on North Korea, Iran and even Iraq. The administration endorsed "time horizons" for withdrawal from Iraq, had a high-level aide sit down in nuclear talks with Iran and agreed to have Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice join six-way talks with North Korea.
To some extent, these steps are a function of Bush's clipped wings. The turn toward workaday diplomacy in foreign affairs results from the failure of his grandiose ambitions; the resort to sly changes in federal regulations comes after the demise of big-ticket legislation. But the 24/7 media focus on the campaign, Bush's shambling style and the feeling of a page turning on the conservative movement shouldn't deceive us into thinking that this administration's work is done. Bush may well be a lame duck, but he isn't a dead one.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it describes and gives examples of the lame duck amendment, or the twentieth amendment. It seems as though even with the shortening of the time between the election of the new President and the time he is inaugurated and takes office there is still a period where the standing President is somewhat useless, or lame.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Nineteenth Amendment- Voting rights based on sex
"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."
In my opinion, the nineteenth amendment was an amendment that should have never been passed. Voting rights based on sex should have been included in the fifteenth amendment. If the nation was trying to create equality among it's citizens then there was no reason to leave out women. I am however very grateful that Congress got it right eventually. Without this amendment my life would be significantly different. Without being able to vote I probably wouldn't have pursued my education because I think the point of being educated is to better yourself and the people around you. One of the main ways I can do that is by expressing my opinion through voting.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it gives you a glimpse of some of the important women throughout history. These are the women who fought for the rights of all women. It started before the suffrage movement and is still going on today. For some reason women in American (as well as other places around the world) have been viewed as inferior to men. Without strong, brave women, such as the ones in the video, women today would not have many of the rights they now enjoy. I think it is important to remember them and also to follow in their footsteps always improving things for the next generation.
Millions of Afghan Women Denied the Right to Vote
By: Jerome Starkey and Kim Sengupta
The Independent
September 17, 2009
Millions of Afghan women will be denied their chance to vote in presidential elections this week because there aren't enough female officials to staff the women-only polling stations.
A desperate shortage of female staff is threatening to undermine the legitimacy of the elections, which are the pinnacle of western-led efforts to build a peaceful democracy. Strict cultural norms mean women can't vote in male-run stations.
Women's activists said the Independent Election Commission (IEC), which is organising the polls, still needs to recruit 13,000 women before Thursday's elections.
The IEC refused to comment on recruitment figures, but papers leaked to The Independent suggest the shortfall is much worse, at more than 42,000.
Without female staff to operate the strictly segregated stations, and more importantly, without female searchers to frisk women voters as they arrive at those stations, conservative men across the country will ban their wives and daughters from taking part.
"If half of the population can't participate, the election is illegitimate," said Orzala Ashref, a director of the Afghan Women's Network. "Without women's votes, without women's participation, of course the election is not going to be valid."
Under the Taliban women were banned from working, beaten for laughing, and only allowed outside their homes with a male relative to escort them. Improving women's rights has been a central pillar of the US-led mission, but in many parts of the country medieval customs still prevail and women are treated like property.
Story continues below
"You need female staff," said leading women's rights activist Wazhma Frogh. "Otherwise women won't dare go out. Their families won't let them."
The problem is most acute in the south east, where there are just 2,564 women on the IEC books, less than 20 percent of the 13,400 target. In the south, they have less than half the 10,428 women required.
At Nad-e-Ali in Helmand, an area recently under Taliban control, a lack of policewomen had meant that required searches of female voters cannot be carried out. Local elders have rejected suggestions that female British troops should carry out the task.
Many men in this deeply conservative area are adamant that they will not let women from their families vote in mixed stations. Following a shura - community meeting - at Char-e-Anjir, a nearby town recaptured from the insurgents, a number of heads of families said they may consider letting female relations vote as long as strict controls were applied.
Niamtullah Khan, a 57 year old farmer, said: "We are very concerned about this. Most of my neighbours are against letting women go to these places where anything can happen. I, and a few others, think we should look ahead and have change, but I would not approve of my wife, sister, or daughter going into buildings with a lot of unknown men."
Wali Mohammed, 71, said: " Women voted in the past, so they should vote again. But the government must create the right conditions."
The IEC launched an emergency appeal through women's rights organisations last week to try and fill the staffing gap. But in a sign of growing desperation, officials have suggested hiring old men and boys in their place.
"We are totally against this," Ms Ashref said. "The men will tell women, 'If you go and vote it will be men who search you'. Would women from the UK feel comfortable being searched by a man? It's even more sensitive here. They won't let them go."
The lack of female staff has fuelled fears of proxy voting, where men vote for their entire families. Concerns were first raised in December when The Independent revealed "phantom" women voters were outnumbering men in the registration process. Election officials in Gardez were encouraging men to register wives, mothers and daughters in absentia.
"They said I could just give them a list of the women in my family, and they would give me the registration cards," said one. "I could see lists and lists of women's names on the table. They said they were under pressure from Kabul to register lots of women."
New figures seen by The Independent show women registrants outnumbered men in five provinces, including Logar, Paktia and Khowst. In Paktika women accounted for 49% of new registrants.
What's most alarming is that those places where the female recruitment has been most difficult are the same places where there was over-registration of women," said a senior western diplomat.
Women's registration cards are especially prone to fraud because unlike the men's, they don't include a passport picture of the owner. Photographs of bare faced women are deemed culturally unacceptable.
In Helmand, Hamid Karzai's agents have faced claims they are buying up registration cards in places where people are unlikely to vote. "Ballot stuffing is going to be pretty outrageous," said a Western official involved with the elections.
Britain's Ambassador to Afghanistan, Mark Sedwill, said election officials were making "strenuous" efforts to encourage female participation but he admitted: "There will be difficulties in some areas of the country in women casting their vote".
Women's votes are also more susceptible to fraud because even in the places where there are female staff, it's usually impossible for them to stay after dark, when the counting starts.
There are fewer than 500 international observers - nowhere near enough to monitor more than 6,500 polling centres, and up to 30,000 individual voting stations. Supporters of Mr Karzai's main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, have warned of Iran-style protests, "with Kalashnikovs," if Mr Karzai wins in the first round, insisting he could only do it by fraud.
The total cost of the elections is more than $220 million, but most of the money and foreign mentors arrived earlier this year. The IEC was only told it had to hire 28,000 searchers, including 14,000 women, in the middle of last month.
IEC officials refused to give exact figures on female recruitment, but papers seen by The Independent show eight provinces across the south and east, including Helmand and Kandahar, are still critical.
"In total we need 14,000 female searchers," said an IEC official who asked not to be named. "Recruitment is going on, but in some provinces there are problems because there are no women applying for the positions."
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the point of if women aren't allowed to vote then the election will do nothing. Without a nations female population expressing their opinion the result is completely biased. There is no way to gauge what the people really want if you are basing your decisions on a completely male dominated vote. There are many women who do not agree with the political views of their husbands. This is most likely due to the fact that they care about different issues. All religious issues aside the point of a vote is to obtain the opinion of a population. By excluding certain groups the election does not serve its purpose.
In my opinion, the nineteenth amendment was an amendment that should have never been passed. Voting rights based on sex should have been included in the fifteenth amendment. If the nation was trying to create equality among it's citizens then there was no reason to leave out women. I am however very grateful that Congress got it right eventually. Without this amendment my life would be significantly different. Without being able to vote I probably wouldn't have pursued my education because I think the point of being educated is to better yourself and the people around you. One of the main ways I can do that is by expressing my opinion through voting.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it gives you a glimpse of some of the important women throughout history. These are the women who fought for the rights of all women. It started before the suffrage movement and is still going on today. For some reason women in American (as well as other places around the world) have been viewed as inferior to men. Without strong, brave women, such as the ones in the video, women today would not have many of the rights they now enjoy. I think it is important to remember them and also to follow in their footsteps always improving things for the next generation.
Millions of Afghan Women Denied the Right to Vote
By: Jerome Starkey and Kim Sengupta
The Independent
September 17, 2009
Millions of Afghan women will be denied their chance to vote in presidential elections this week because there aren't enough female officials to staff the women-only polling stations.
A desperate shortage of female staff is threatening to undermine the legitimacy of the elections, which are the pinnacle of western-led efforts to build a peaceful democracy. Strict cultural norms mean women can't vote in male-run stations.
Women's activists said the Independent Election Commission (IEC), which is organising the polls, still needs to recruit 13,000 women before Thursday's elections.
The IEC refused to comment on recruitment figures, but papers leaked to The Independent suggest the shortfall is much worse, at more than 42,000.
Without female staff to operate the strictly segregated stations, and more importantly, without female searchers to frisk women voters as they arrive at those stations, conservative men across the country will ban their wives and daughters from taking part.
"If half of the population can't participate, the election is illegitimate," said Orzala Ashref, a director of the Afghan Women's Network. "Without women's votes, without women's participation, of course the election is not going to be valid."
Under the Taliban women were banned from working, beaten for laughing, and only allowed outside their homes with a male relative to escort them. Improving women's rights has been a central pillar of the US-led mission, but in many parts of the country medieval customs still prevail and women are treated like property.
Story continues below
"You need female staff," said leading women's rights activist Wazhma Frogh. "Otherwise women won't dare go out. Their families won't let them."
The problem is most acute in the south east, where there are just 2,564 women on the IEC books, less than 20 percent of the 13,400 target. In the south, they have less than half the 10,428 women required.
At Nad-e-Ali in Helmand, an area recently under Taliban control, a lack of policewomen had meant that required searches of female voters cannot be carried out. Local elders have rejected suggestions that female British troops should carry out the task.
Many men in this deeply conservative area are adamant that they will not let women from their families vote in mixed stations. Following a shura - community meeting - at Char-e-Anjir, a nearby town recaptured from the insurgents, a number of heads of families said they may consider letting female relations vote as long as strict controls were applied.
Niamtullah Khan, a 57 year old farmer, said: "We are very concerned about this. Most of my neighbours are against letting women go to these places where anything can happen. I, and a few others, think we should look ahead and have change, but I would not approve of my wife, sister, or daughter going into buildings with a lot of unknown men."
Wali Mohammed, 71, said: " Women voted in the past, so they should vote again. But the government must create the right conditions."
The IEC launched an emergency appeal through women's rights organisations last week to try and fill the staffing gap. But in a sign of growing desperation, officials have suggested hiring old men and boys in their place.
"We are totally against this," Ms Ashref said. "The men will tell women, 'If you go and vote it will be men who search you'. Would women from the UK feel comfortable being searched by a man? It's even more sensitive here. They won't let them go."
The lack of female staff has fuelled fears of proxy voting, where men vote for their entire families. Concerns were first raised in December when The Independent revealed "phantom" women voters were outnumbering men in the registration process. Election officials in Gardez were encouraging men to register wives, mothers and daughters in absentia.
"They said I could just give them a list of the women in my family, and they would give me the registration cards," said one. "I could see lists and lists of women's names on the table. They said they were under pressure from Kabul to register lots of women."
New figures seen by The Independent show women registrants outnumbered men in five provinces, including Logar, Paktia and Khowst. In Paktika women accounted for 49% of new registrants.
What's most alarming is that those places where the female recruitment has been most difficult are the same places where there was over-registration of women," said a senior western diplomat.
Women's registration cards are especially prone to fraud because unlike the men's, they don't include a passport picture of the owner. Photographs of bare faced women are deemed culturally unacceptable.
In Helmand, Hamid Karzai's agents have faced claims they are buying up registration cards in places where people are unlikely to vote. "Ballot stuffing is going to be pretty outrageous," said a Western official involved with the elections.
Britain's Ambassador to Afghanistan, Mark Sedwill, said election officials were making "strenuous" efforts to encourage female participation but he admitted: "There will be difficulties in some areas of the country in women casting their vote".
Women's votes are also more susceptible to fraud because even in the places where there are female staff, it's usually impossible for them to stay after dark, when the counting starts.
There are fewer than 500 international observers - nowhere near enough to monitor more than 6,500 polling centres, and up to 30,000 individual voting stations. Supporters of Mr Karzai's main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, have warned of Iran-style protests, "with Kalashnikovs," if Mr Karzai wins in the first round, insisting he could only do it by fraud.
The total cost of the elections is more than $220 million, but most of the money and foreign mentors arrived earlier this year. The IEC was only told it had to hire 28,000 searchers, including 14,000 women, in the middle of last month.
IEC officials refused to give exact figures on female recruitment, but papers seen by The Independent show eight provinces across the south and east, including Helmand and Kandahar, are still critical.
"In total we need 14,000 female searchers," said an IEC official who asked not to be named. "Recruitment is going on, but in some provinces there are problems because there are no women applying for the positions."
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the point of if women aren't allowed to vote then the election will do nothing. Without a nations female population expressing their opinion the result is completely biased. There is no way to gauge what the people really want if you are basing your decisions on a completely male dominated vote. There are many women who do not agree with the political views of their husbands. This is most likely due to the fact that they care about different issues. All religious issues aside the point of a vote is to obtain the opinion of a population. By excluding certain groups the election does not serve its purpose.
Eighteenth Amendment-Prohibition
Section 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.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 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.
In my opinion, the seventeenth amendment was religious and misguided citizens trying to control the masses. By outlawing intoxicating liquors some thought that the nation would become more family oriented again. This however was not the case. The creation, sale, distribution and consumption of alcoholic beverages did not slow but increased during this time. It was already a time of hardship for the people and many had nothing. By taking away a favorite pass time this only made things worse. Prohibition was thought to solve many problems but in fact it created many more. The United States lost a huge amount of tax profits because of prohibition that it could have used to provide services to those who actually had a problem with alcohol. I think the lesson to take from prohibition is that to solve a problem it takes education and cooperation not a pounding fist.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it mentions the economic gain of legalizing marijuana. This gain is similar to the tax revenue generated by alcohol. I feel as though in these situations you have to look past whether you feel it's right or wrong to use the substance and to the benefits it can have on society. I personally do not agree with the use of marijuana but think that if it is regulated like alcohol is it will be more helpful to use than harmful.
Prohibition in the United States
www.1920-1930.com
During Prohibition, the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages were restricted or illegal. Prohibition was supposed to lower crime and corruption, reduce social problems, lower taxes needed to support prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. Instead, Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; organized crime blossomed; courts and prisons systems became overloaded; and endemic corruption of police and public officials occurred.
In 1919, the requisite number of legislatures of the States ratified The 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, enabling national Prohibition within one year of ratification. Many women, notably the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, had been pivotal in bringing about national Prohibition in the United States of America, believing it would protect families, women and children from the effects of abuse of alcohol.
Prohibition began on January 16, 1920, when the Eighteenth Amendment went into effect. Federal Prohibition agents (police) were given the task of enforcing the law.
Even though the sale of alcohol was illegal, alcoholic drinks were still widely available at "speakeasies" and other underground drinking establishments. Many people also kept private bars to serve their guests. Large quantities of alcohol were smuggled in from Canada, overland and via the Great Lakes.
While the government cracked down on alcohol consumption on land it was a different story on the water where they argued that ships outside the 3 mile limit were exempt. Needless to say, this technicality was exploited by everyone including the State owned shipping line.
Legal and illegal home brewing was popular during Prohibition. Limited amounts of wine and hard cider were permitted to be made at home. Some commercial wine was still produced in the U.S., but was only available through government warehouses for use in religious ceremonies, mainly for communion. "Malt and hop" stores popped up across the country and some former breweries turned to selling malt extract syrup, ostensibly for baking and "beverage" purposes.
Whiskey could be obtained by prescription from medical doctors. The labels clearly warned that it was strictly for medicinal purposes and any other uses were illegal, but even so doctors freely wrote prescriptions and drug-stores filled them without question, so the number of "patients" increased dramatically. No attempt was made to stop this practice, so many people got their booze this way. Over a million gallons were consumed per year through freely given prescriptions.
Because Prohibition banned only the manufacturing, sale, and transport - but not possession or consuming of alcohol, some people and institutions who had bought or made liquor prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment were able to continue to serve it throughout the prohibition period legally.
Even prominent citizens and politicians later admitted to having used alcohol during Prohibition. President Harding kept the White House well stocked with bootleg liquor, though, as a Senator, he had voted for Prohibition. This discrepancy between legality and actual practice led to widespread comtempt for authority. Over time, more people drank illegally and so money ended up in gangsters' pockets.
Prohibition also presented lucrative opportunities for organized crime to take over the importing ("bootlegging"), manufacturing, and distributing of alcoholic drinks. Al Capone, one of the most infamous bootleggers of them all, was able to build his criminal empire largely on profits from illegal alcohol.
The American grape growing industry was largely situated in California where there were about 700 bonded wineries producing table wines. Initially, prohibition forced the closure of most of the wineries when growers pulled up their vines thinking their market had evaporated. This created an enormous shortage of grapes forcing the the price per ton to rise 1000% and more from $20 to over $200. Growers realizing their mistake replanted vineyards but in their greed planted much greater acreages than previously. The increased supply forced the price per ton down to $15 by the end of prohibition.
Every passing year the number of repeal organizations and demand for repeal increased. In 1932, the Democratic Party's platform included a promise to repeal Prohibition, and Franklin Roosevelt ran for President promising to repeal of federal Prohibition laws. By then, an estimated three quarters of American voters, and an estimated forty-six states, favored repeal.
In 1933, the legislatures of the states ratified the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed Amendment XVIII and prohibited only the violations of laws that individual states had in regard to "intoxicating liquors". Federal Prohibitionary laws were then repealed. Some States, however, continued Prohibition within their own jurisdictions. Almost two-thirds of the states adopted some form of local option which enabled residents to vote for or against local Prohibition; therefore, for a time, 38% of Americans still lived in areas with Prohibition. By 1966, however, all states had fully repealed their state-level Prohibition laws.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it describes some of the ways that violations of prohibition were ignored. Some of these included physicians freely writing prescriptions for whiskey, being able to drink on vessels three miles of the coast, and the consumption of alcohol by elected officials that voted for prohibition. By not enforcing prohibition it was a useless piece of legislation. Not even the people who voted for the amendment took it seriously so why would the citizens. If a law is unenforceable then it is no law at all.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 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.
In my opinion, the seventeenth amendment was religious and misguided citizens trying to control the masses. By outlawing intoxicating liquors some thought that the nation would become more family oriented again. This however was not the case. The creation, sale, distribution and consumption of alcoholic beverages did not slow but increased during this time. It was already a time of hardship for the people and many had nothing. By taking away a favorite pass time this only made things worse. Prohibition was thought to solve many problems but in fact it created many more. The United States lost a huge amount of tax profits because of prohibition that it could have used to provide services to those who actually had a problem with alcohol. I think the lesson to take from prohibition is that to solve a problem it takes education and cooperation not a pounding fist.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it mentions the economic gain of legalizing marijuana. This gain is similar to the tax revenue generated by alcohol. I feel as though in these situations you have to look past whether you feel it's right or wrong to use the substance and to the benefits it can have on society. I personally do not agree with the use of marijuana but think that if it is regulated like alcohol is it will be more helpful to use than harmful.
Prohibition in the United States
www.1920-1930.com
During Prohibition, the manufacture, transportation, import, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages were restricted or illegal. Prohibition was supposed to lower crime and corruption, reduce social problems, lower taxes needed to support prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. Instead, Alcohol became more dangerous to consume; organized crime blossomed; courts and prisons systems became overloaded; and endemic corruption of police and public officials occurred.
In 1919, the requisite number of legislatures of the States ratified The 18th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, enabling national Prohibition within one year of ratification. Many women, notably the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, had been pivotal in bringing about national Prohibition in the United States of America, believing it would protect families, women and children from the effects of abuse of alcohol.
Prohibition began on January 16, 1920, when the Eighteenth Amendment went into effect. Federal Prohibition agents (police) were given the task of enforcing the law.
Even though the sale of alcohol was illegal, alcoholic drinks were still widely available at "speakeasies" and other underground drinking establishments. Many people also kept private bars to serve their guests. Large quantities of alcohol were smuggled in from Canada, overland and via the Great Lakes.
While the government cracked down on alcohol consumption on land it was a different story on the water where they argued that ships outside the 3 mile limit were exempt. Needless to say, this technicality was exploited by everyone including the State owned shipping line.
Legal and illegal home brewing was popular during Prohibition. Limited amounts of wine and hard cider were permitted to be made at home. Some commercial wine was still produced in the U.S., but was only available through government warehouses for use in religious ceremonies, mainly for communion. "Malt and hop" stores popped up across the country and some former breweries turned to selling malt extract syrup, ostensibly for baking and "beverage" purposes.
Whiskey could be obtained by prescription from medical doctors. The labels clearly warned that it was strictly for medicinal purposes and any other uses were illegal, but even so doctors freely wrote prescriptions and drug-stores filled them without question, so the number of "patients" increased dramatically. No attempt was made to stop this practice, so many people got their booze this way. Over a million gallons were consumed per year through freely given prescriptions.
Because Prohibition banned only the manufacturing, sale, and transport - but not possession or consuming of alcohol, some people and institutions who had bought or made liquor prior to the passage of the 18th Amendment were able to continue to serve it throughout the prohibition period legally.
Even prominent citizens and politicians later admitted to having used alcohol during Prohibition. President Harding kept the White House well stocked with bootleg liquor, though, as a Senator, he had voted for Prohibition. This discrepancy between legality and actual practice led to widespread comtempt for authority. Over time, more people drank illegally and so money ended up in gangsters' pockets.
Prohibition also presented lucrative opportunities for organized crime to take over the importing ("bootlegging"), manufacturing, and distributing of alcoholic drinks. Al Capone, one of the most infamous bootleggers of them all, was able to build his criminal empire largely on profits from illegal alcohol.
The American grape growing industry was largely situated in California where there were about 700 bonded wineries producing table wines. Initially, prohibition forced the closure of most of the wineries when growers pulled up their vines thinking their market had evaporated. This created an enormous shortage of grapes forcing the the price per ton to rise 1000% and more from $20 to over $200. Growers realizing their mistake replanted vineyards but in their greed planted much greater acreages than previously. The increased supply forced the price per ton down to $15 by the end of prohibition.
Every passing year the number of repeal organizations and demand for repeal increased. In 1932, the Democratic Party's platform included a promise to repeal Prohibition, and Franklin Roosevelt ran for President promising to repeal of federal Prohibition laws. By then, an estimated three quarters of American voters, and an estimated forty-six states, favored repeal.
In 1933, the legislatures of the states ratified the Twenty-first Amendment, which repealed Amendment XVIII and prohibited only the violations of laws that individual states had in regard to "intoxicating liquors". Federal Prohibitionary laws were then repealed. Some States, however, continued Prohibition within their own jurisdictions. Almost two-thirds of the states adopted some form of local option which enabled residents to vote for or against local Prohibition; therefore, for a time, 38% of Americans still lived in areas with Prohibition. By 1966, however, all states had fully repealed their state-level Prohibition laws.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it describes some of the ways that violations of prohibition were ignored. Some of these included physicians freely writing prescriptions for whiskey, being able to drink on vessels three miles of the coast, and the consumption of alcohol by elected officials that voted for prohibition. By not enforcing prohibition it was a useless piece of legislation. Not even the people who voted for the amendment took it seriously so why would the citizens. If a law is unenforceable then it is no law at all.
Seventeenth Amendment-Senate Selection
"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."
In my opinion, the composition of the Senate was well constructed. It provided equal representation to all the states and did so in a fair manner. The problem arises when a Senator either resigns or dies during his or her term. People see this as an opportunity. The misfortune of others is seen to be a point of capitalization from others. By having a majority or a minority of parties this creates an unbalance. I am not a political scientist and my opinions are not tested but maybe a means to solving this is to elect one Senator from each party. This would mean that one Democrat and one Republican would be chosen from each state. When a Senator leaves or dies then one of the same party would replace him or her. The problem with this lies in the minority parties such as the Green party and the Libertarians. Which may be the reason why this situation has never been proposed. I will leave the rest to the experts.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it is a perfect example of the power that the seventeenth amendment gives to the states. I think this is justified because Senators are ultimately responsible to the people that reside in the state they represent and not to the federal government. On the subject of Massachusetts and filling Senator Kennedy's seat I feel as though he was not motivated by what was best for the people of his state but rather what was going to further his goals. However, the way the law works allows for this so there is not much to be done. The people of Massachusetts just need to realize that who they vote for in one election could lead to another official being put in office even without their vote.
Paterson's Secretive Senate Selection May Violate State Law
Michael Gormley
January 12, 2009
The Huffington Post
ALBANY, N.Y. — Gov. David Paterson's secretive process to select Hillary Rodham Clinton's successor in the U.S. Senate conflicts with his campaign promises to open up government, and New York's top regulator of open government laws says it appears to violate state law.
Just days from announcing his choice, Paterson won't identify "about 10" people who he said are in the running to follow Clinton, President-elect Barack Obama's designated secretary of state. The governor won't release the blank questionnaire he sent to each candidate looking for background information. He won't turn over their completed forms.
"The process is confidential," is the stock answer from his office.
Keeping the questions posed to Senate hopefuls secret appears to violate the state's post-Watergate freedom of information laws, according to Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, the state agency that regulates enforcement of the good-government laws.
"How could it not be public? It's a blank form," said Freeman, a lawyer who since 1976 has been the top state employee advising government and the public on interpretation of the public officers' law.
The names of those under consideration also should be disclosed, Freeman said.
"In my mind, the identities of those seeking one of the highest offices in the land would not rise to the level of unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," Freeman told The Associated Press in an interview.
Freeman, who issues opinions and make recommendations but does not have the authority to sue for the release of public records, said at least some of the answers by candidates in their background checks probably should be public as well.
Story continues below
State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo didn't respond to a question of whether he supported the secretive process.
Cuomo has refused to say if he is seeking the Senate seat but is widely considered to be high on the list. The perceived front-runner is Caroline Kennedy, who has sought the job much more publicly than the members of Congress and other elected officials said to be interested in it.
Some case law also would appear to go against Paterson. A court found that not even a village board could legally go into a closed-door executive session to discuss filling a vacant seat. Freeman said state law in some ways recognizes less privacy protection for those in public office or seeking public office compared to private citizens.
"Their personal privacy does not trump the public's right to know who their next senator will be," said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group.
Horner said the need is particularly acute in light of accusations that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich tried to sell to the highest bidder his appointment for Obama's vacant Senate seat.
"So why doesn't Governor Paterson get the candidates to pledge they won't raise campaign funds for him, so his appointment is not seen as just in the best of interest of his own political position?" Horner said.
Paterson's spokesmen wouldn't respond to that question Monday.
Paterson said Monday that he hasn't publicly disclosed the information he has received from potential candidates because the request wasn't "a government action. That was a personal request I made of the candidates. Some of the information was rather private."
The job of appointing a senator to serve until 2010 is Paterson's alone. At a news conference, he said he wouldn't release the background information he requested of candidates, which he said is "personal."
"The law is on his side as far as whether he has to do any this with transparency," said Barbara Bartoletti, legislative director of the League of Women Voters. "But good government is not on his side here."
A copy of the questionnaire to applicants, obtained by The New York Times after Paterson's office refused to release it, asks about finances and job history, but not about policy positions.
"I don't think I've heard any public positions," Bartoletti said. She noted that most of the hopefuls are in office and so have a record for the public to judge. The exception is Kennedy, who has never held public office and had long guarded her political opinions and privacy.
In 2005, then-Sen. Paterson relied on sarcasm when some of Albany's notorious secrecy was peeled back after some outrage by himself, voters and good-government groups.
"I'm astounded that I'm here," said Paterson at his first public budget negotiation that included minority party leaders.
Then, as a candidate for lieutenant governor in 2006, reform was central to his platform shared by Eliot Spitzer, whom Paterson succeeded as governor last year following a prostitution scandal.
"Reform is the biggest joke that the Legislature tries to perpetrate on the public, and the public is not laughing," Paterson said in 2006.
"This governor ran on a ticket whose major thrust was government reform and that's what people thought they would get when they elected that team," Bartoletti said. "I think everybody is watching."
My Opinion: I chose this article because it addresses this issue that the states have the power to change the laws regarding Senate selection. The sixteenth amendment outlines the procedure for ordinary election but gives the states the power to create their own legislation regarding special elections and appointments. This creates issues when the state government is secretive about the process as in the case of New York. Senators are just like any other elected official that are supposed to represent the people they serve and be their voice in government. If the people don't even know who their Senator is going to be then how are their opinions taken into account? I believe that even in special elections that the people should be involved in some way. Leaving the decision up to the governor and him keeping the entire thing private doesn't do the people any good.
In my opinion, the composition of the Senate was well constructed. It provided equal representation to all the states and did so in a fair manner. The problem arises when a Senator either resigns or dies during his or her term. People see this as an opportunity. The misfortune of others is seen to be a point of capitalization from others. By having a majority or a minority of parties this creates an unbalance. I am not a political scientist and my opinions are not tested but maybe a means to solving this is to elect one Senator from each party. This would mean that one Democrat and one Republican would be chosen from each state. When a Senator leaves or dies then one of the same party would replace him or her. The problem with this lies in the minority parties such as the Green party and the Libertarians. Which may be the reason why this situation has never been proposed. I will leave the rest to the experts.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it is a perfect example of the power that the seventeenth amendment gives to the states. I think this is justified because Senators are ultimately responsible to the people that reside in the state they represent and not to the federal government. On the subject of Massachusetts and filling Senator Kennedy's seat I feel as though he was not motivated by what was best for the people of his state but rather what was going to further his goals. However, the way the law works allows for this so there is not much to be done. The people of Massachusetts just need to realize that who they vote for in one election could lead to another official being put in office even without their vote.
Paterson's Secretive Senate Selection May Violate State Law
Michael Gormley
January 12, 2009
The Huffington Post
ALBANY, N.Y. — Gov. David Paterson's secretive process to select Hillary Rodham Clinton's successor in the U.S. Senate conflicts with his campaign promises to open up government, and New York's top regulator of open government laws says it appears to violate state law.
Just days from announcing his choice, Paterson won't identify "about 10" people who he said are in the running to follow Clinton, President-elect Barack Obama's designated secretary of state. The governor won't release the blank questionnaire he sent to each candidate looking for background information. He won't turn over their completed forms.
"The process is confidential," is the stock answer from his office.
Keeping the questions posed to Senate hopefuls secret appears to violate the state's post-Watergate freedom of information laws, according to Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, the state agency that regulates enforcement of the good-government laws.
"How could it not be public? It's a blank form," said Freeman, a lawyer who since 1976 has been the top state employee advising government and the public on interpretation of the public officers' law.
The names of those under consideration also should be disclosed, Freeman said.
"In my mind, the identities of those seeking one of the highest offices in the land would not rise to the level of unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," Freeman told The Associated Press in an interview.
Freeman, who issues opinions and make recommendations but does not have the authority to sue for the release of public records, said at least some of the answers by candidates in their background checks probably should be public as well.
Story continues below
State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo didn't respond to a question of whether he supported the secretive process.
Cuomo has refused to say if he is seeking the Senate seat but is widely considered to be high on the list. The perceived front-runner is Caroline Kennedy, who has sought the job much more publicly than the members of Congress and other elected officials said to be interested in it.
Some case law also would appear to go against Paterson. A court found that not even a village board could legally go into a closed-door executive session to discuss filling a vacant seat. Freeman said state law in some ways recognizes less privacy protection for those in public office or seeking public office compared to private citizens.
"Their personal privacy does not trump the public's right to know who their next senator will be," said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group.
Horner said the need is particularly acute in light of accusations that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich tried to sell to the highest bidder his appointment for Obama's vacant Senate seat.
"So why doesn't Governor Paterson get the candidates to pledge they won't raise campaign funds for him, so his appointment is not seen as just in the best of interest of his own political position?" Horner said.
Paterson's spokesmen wouldn't respond to that question Monday.
Paterson said Monday that he hasn't publicly disclosed the information he has received from potential candidates because the request wasn't "a government action. That was a personal request I made of the candidates. Some of the information was rather private."
The job of appointing a senator to serve until 2010 is Paterson's alone. At a news conference, he said he wouldn't release the background information he requested of candidates, which he said is "personal."
"The law is on his side as far as whether he has to do any this with transparency," said Barbara Bartoletti, legislative director of the League of Women Voters. "But good government is not on his side here."
A copy of the questionnaire to applicants, obtained by The New York Times after Paterson's office refused to release it, asks about finances and job history, but not about policy positions.
"I don't think I've heard any public positions," Bartoletti said. She noted that most of the hopefuls are in office and so have a record for the public to judge. The exception is Kennedy, who has never held public office and had long guarded her political opinions and privacy.
In 2005, then-Sen. Paterson relied on sarcasm when some of Albany's notorious secrecy was peeled back after some outrage by himself, voters and good-government groups.
"I'm astounded that I'm here," said Paterson at his first public budget negotiation that included minority party leaders.
Then, as a candidate for lieutenant governor in 2006, reform was central to his platform shared by Eliot Spitzer, whom Paterson succeeded as governor last year following a prostitution scandal.
"Reform is the biggest joke that the Legislature tries to perpetrate on the public, and the public is not laughing," Paterson said in 2006.
"This governor ran on a ticket whose major thrust was government reform and that's what people thought they would get when they elected that team," Bartoletti said. "I think everybody is watching."
My Opinion: I chose this article because it addresses this issue that the states have the power to change the laws regarding Senate selection. The sixteenth amendment outlines the procedure for ordinary election but gives the states the power to create their own legislation regarding special elections and appointments. This creates issues when the state government is secretive about the process as in the case of New York. Senators are just like any other elected official that are supposed to represent the people they serve and be their voice in government. If the people don't even know who their Senator is going to be then how are their opinions taken into account? I believe that even in special elections that the people should be involved in some way. Leaving the decision up to the governor and him keeping the entire thing private doesn't do the people any good.
Sixteenth Amendment-Income Taxes
"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."
In my opinion, the sixteenth amendment was the first sign of a national debt in the United States. After the civil war there was the question of, "Who is going to pay for the damages done?". The government was not yet into the business of making, or in our case today borrowing, money. Therefor it was left to the people to pay for the debt. By using an income tax the government had the ability to tax the people who actually had money rather than making a futile attempt at collecting from the poor. I think this amendment is very broad for a reason. The government had not decided exactly how this would work so they needed the freedom to implement a plan and then change it as issues came up. Today however there is a vast amount of tax code that directly describes how much and when taxes are collected. One small idea turned into one of the most complicated ordeals that Americans have to face every April.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it shows just how little our own government knows about the Constitution. The Commissioner of the IRS is asked a direct question of, "What law requires citizens to pay taxes?", and couldn't even answer. They dodged around the question citing their website and court cases when all they had to do it say, the sixteenth amendment. The sixteenth amendment is not hard to understand. It is very straight forward in its language stating that the federal government has the right to levy taxes on incomes. This means exactly what it says. I could understand if they asked about specific IRS codes or legislation that has to do with the percent you have to pay but this was not the case. To answer the question of the New York Times reporter, who should have known as well, the sixteenth amendment is the law that requires all citizens to pay taxes on their income.
Where Is Freedom in the Income-Tax Debate?
by Jacob G. Hornberger, September 2000
The debate over income-tax cuts between George W. Bush and Al Gore reflects how far Americans have plunged in their understanding of what it means to be free. If elected president, Bush proposes to cut income taxes by $1.3 trillion. Gore is calling the plan "a tax cut for the rich" and has proposed his own $500 million tax cut that purports to target the American middle class. The squabble over the details obscures the real issue that the American people should be reflecting upon-the meaning of human freedom.
When the Constitution called the federal government into existence in 1787, it failed to provide it with the power to levy taxes on income. This was not an oversight. It was commonly understood that freedom entailed the absolute right to keep everything you earned. If government had the power to take the fruits of your earnings, Americans once believed, then your position was no different than that of a slave.
That notion had been implicitly expressed 11 years before in the Declaration of Independence when Thomas Jefferson wrote that people were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Each individual is born with certain talents, qualities, characteristics, and handicaps. In order to sustain his life, he uses his own personal abilities to either produce the necessities of life himself or acquire them by entering into mutually beneficial exchanges with others. The product of these exchanges constitutes income to the people engaging in them. Thus, income rightfully belongs to the person who has earned it because it is a direct result of the value that others place on the abilities that he brings to market.
For example, consider an opera singer who doesn't know anything about growing food. She offers her particular talents in the marketplace-singing in operas-and people pay to listen to her. That money rightfully belongs to her because her voice belongs to her. She takes that money-her income-and enters into exchanges with those whose talents lie in producing and selling food, clothing, and the like.
What's important to note is the revolutionary nature of American society that lived and prospered without income taxation for more than 125 years. Throughout history, governments had claimed the authority to tax or confiscate any and all of a person's income. Historically, people didn't question this power because the common belief among the citizenry was that government was supreme and the citizen was subordinate.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution inverted that historical relationship between government and citizen. For the first time in history, people restrained the power of government to seize any or all of their income. Thus, for more than 125 years, the American people, unlike all other people in history, were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth and there was nothing their government could do about it.
Therefore, it is impossible to overstate the revolutionary significance of the Sixteenth Amendment, which was enacted in 1913 and which granted the federal government the power to levy taxes on income. From that point on, the relationship between government and citizen was inverted back to the age-old model of government as sovereign and citizen as servant. Because what mattered was not whether the particular percentage of the tax was high or low but rather that government had the power to set the percentage.
For example, let's assume that I have the power to force you to work for me and that I exercise that power by requiring you to work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for me. You would acknowledge that our relationship would be one of master and slave.
But suppose I decide to be nice and force you to work only two hours a day for me, four months a year. Has our relationship been changed? Not in the least. You are still my slave because I have the authority to determine the amount of time you are required to serve me.
And this is the situation in which the American people are now mired. By having the power to set the percentage of tax to be levied on income, the federal government is now in the position of master and the American people are in the position of servant. Everyone's income is now effectively owned by the government and, because the government has the power to adjust the percentage of tax to be paid, what people are permitted to retain is actually just an allowance that the master provides the servants.
The tragedy is compounded by misconceptions about the nature of freedom. As the great German thinker Johann Goethe once pointed out, no person is more enslaved than one who falsely believes he is free.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the debate on whether income taxes inhibit the freedom of the American people. I agree with the author on his stance that they do but I also acknowledge the fact that it takes money to run a nation. In the beginning income taxes were used to pay off the debt of the Civil War and then for decades after to provide services to the citizens. With the growth of the national debt it now seems as though they go towards nothing. I don't think the debate is whether we should have income taxes I think the debate is on how they are spent and how the finances of the nation are managed. If the United States was not under a pile of debt and the people were taken care of, I don't think people would complain about giving part of their income to the government. It's when things are in turmoil and the people do not see the fruits of their labor that conflict ensues.
In my opinion, the sixteenth amendment was the first sign of a national debt in the United States. After the civil war there was the question of, "Who is going to pay for the damages done?". The government was not yet into the business of making, or in our case today borrowing, money. Therefor it was left to the people to pay for the debt. By using an income tax the government had the ability to tax the people who actually had money rather than making a futile attempt at collecting from the poor. I think this amendment is very broad for a reason. The government had not decided exactly how this would work so they needed the freedom to implement a plan and then change it as issues came up. Today however there is a vast amount of tax code that directly describes how much and when taxes are collected. One small idea turned into one of the most complicated ordeals that Americans have to face every April.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it shows just how little our own government knows about the Constitution. The Commissioner of the IRS is asked a direct question of, "What law requires citizens to pay taxes?", and couldn't even answer. They dodged around the question citing their website and court cases when all they had to do it say, the sixteenth amendment. The sixteenth amendment is not hard to understand. It is very straight forward in its language stating that the federal government has the right to levy taxes on incomes. This means exactly what it says. I could understand if they asked about specific IRS codes or legislation that has to do with the percent you have to pay but this was not the case. To answer the question of the New York Times reporter, who should have known as well, the sixteenth amendment is the law that requires all citizens to pay taxes on their income.
Where Is Freedom in the Income-Tax Debate?
by Jacob G. Hornberger, September 2000
The debate over income-tax cuts between George W. Bush and Al Gore reflects how far Americans have plunged in their understanding of what it means to be free. If elected president, Bush proposes to cut income taxes by $1.3 trillion. Gore is calling the plan "a tax cut for the rich" and has proposed his own $500 million tax cut that purports to target the American middle class. The squabble over the details obscures the real issue that the American people should be reflecting upon-the meaning of human freedom.
When the Constitution called the federal government into existence in 1787, it failed to provide it with the power to levy taxes on income. This was not an oversight. It was commonly understood that freedom entailed the absolute right to keep everything you earned. If government had the power to take the fruits of your earnings, Americans once believed, then your position was no different than that of a slave.
That notion had been implicitly expressed 11 years before in the Declaration of Independence when Thomas Jefferson wrote that people were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and that among these rights were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Each individual is born with certain talents, qualities, characteristics, and handicaps. In order to sustain his life, he uses his own personal abilities to either produce the necessities of life himself or acquire them by entering into mutually beneficial exchanges with others. The product of these exchanges constitutes income to the people engaging in them. Thus, income rightfully belongs to the person who has earned it because it is a direct result of the value that others place on the abilities that he brings to market.
For example, consider an opera singer who doesn't know anything about growing food. She offers her particular talents in the marketplace-singing in operas-and people pay to listen to her. That money rightfully belongs to her because her voice belongs to her. She takes that money-her income-and enters into exchanges with those whose talents lie in producing and selling food, clothing, and the like.
What's important to note is the revolutionary nature of American society that lived and prospered without income taxation for more than 125 years. Throughout history, governments had claimed the authority to tax or confiscate any and all of a person's income. Historically, people didn't question this power because the common belief among the citizenry was that government was supreme and the citizen was subordinate.
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution inverted that historical relationship between government and citizen. For the first time in history, people restrained the power of government to seize any or all of their income. Thus, for more than 125 years, the American people, unlike all other people in history, were free to accumulate unlimited amounts of wealth and there was nothing their government could do about it.
Therefore, it is impossible to overstate the revolutionary significance of the Sixteenth Amendment, which was enacted in 1913 and which granted the federal government the power to levy taxes on income. From that point on, the relationship between government and citizen was inverted back to the age-old model of government as sovereign and citizen as servant. Because what mattered was not whether the particular percentage of the tax was high or low but rather that government had the power to set the percentage.
For example, let's assume that I have the power to force you to work for me and that I exercise that power by requiring you to work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for me. You would acknowledge that our relationship would be one of master and slave.
But suppose I decide to be nice and force you to work only two hours a day for me, four months a year. Has our relationship been changed? Not in the least. You are still my slave because I have the authority to determine the amount of time you are required to serve me.
And this is the situation in which the American people are now mired. By having the power to set the percentage of tax to be levied on income, the federal government is now in the position of master and the American people are in the position of servant. Everyone's income is now effectively owned by the government and, because the government has the power to adjust the percentage of tax to be paid, what people are permitted to retain is actually just an allowance that the master provides the servants.
The tragedy is compounded by misconceptions about the nature of freedom. As the great German thinker Johann Goethe once pointed out, no person is more enslaved than one who falsely believes he is free.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it brings up the debate on whether income taxes inhibit the freedom of the American people. I agree with the author on his stance that they do but I also acknowledge the fact that it takes money to run a nation. In the beginning income taxes were used to pay off the debt of the Civil War and then for decades after to provide services to the citizens. With the growth of the national debt it now seems as though they go towards nothing. I don't think the debate is whether we should have income taxes I think the debate is on how they are spent and how the finances of the nation are managed. If the United States was not under a pile of debt and the people were taken care of, I don't think people would complain about giving part of their income to the government. It's when things are in turmoil and the people do not see the fruits of their labor that conflict ensues.
Fifteenth Amendment-Voting rights based on race, color and previous condition of servitude
Section 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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In my opinion, the fifteenth amendment cleared up the loop hole of voter discrimination that the fourteenth amendment left open. In the fourteenth amendment blacks were given the right to vote. But it became clear that there was still animosity towards African Americans and they were being discriminated against at the polls. The fifteenth amendment allowed Congress to use legislation to prevent these acts. Without it some states would have continued pass laws that only allowed whites to vote. The fifteenth amendment put this power in Congress's hands.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it shows that voter intimidation is still going on in the United States today. This is from the most recent presidential election. In the video they mention that legally they can be within ten feet of the entrance to the polling station and this is true. The problem with the Black Panther standing outside of the polling place is that some may feel as though they are being intimated not to vote by his presence. I for one would feel very apprehensive about walking into an establishment that was being watched by a Black Panther who has a night stick and is saying things about ending white supremacy. I think the authorities did the right thing by removing the man holding the night stick but should have removed the other as well. Even if he was not carrying a weapon, his presence is still intimidating. They mention that he is there for security reasons which I find to be a joke. Whoever hired him should have made sure that he was not going to show up wearing a Black Panther uniform. That in itself is intimating.
Amendment Fifteen to the US Constitution
By: William Gillette and Elliot Ward
The framers of the Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, intended that it would enfranchise most black American males. Actually, African‐Americans had voted in several states in the North for almost a century. After the American Revolution, some free blacks met the property and other restrictive suffrage qualifications. As these requirements were gradually abolished, blacks did not share the widening franchise because whites distrusted blacks and Democratic politicians wanted to prevent blacks from voting for their opponents. So in several northern states blacks lost the right to vote as more whites gained it. For example, in 1846 New York under its new constitution retained property qualifications for blacks while eliminating them for whites.
By the end of the Civil War in 1865 slavery was virtually abolished. The right of blacks to vote became a controversial question. In March 1867, under the First Military Reconstruction Act, the Thirty‐Ninth Congress enfranchised black males in ten southern states as a requirement for readmission of those states. But elsewhere in the former slave states, Democratic state governments blocked Negro enfranchisement. The only exception was Tennessee, which Republicans controlled. In most of the North, especially the lower North where most blacks lived, blacks could not vote and whites rejected any change. Blacks, however, voted in New England (except Connecticut) and in four midwestern states.
The stimulus for the Fifteenth Amendment came from the election returns of 1868. Although Republican presidential candidate Ulysses S. Grant won 73 percent of the electoral vote, he won only 52 percent of the popular vote. Without the southern black voter, Grant would have lost the popular, though not the electoral, vote. In state after state Grant and the Republicans won by precarious margins. Democrats also gained seats in Congress. And in the South during 1868, white Democrats resorted to violence and intimidation in order to prevent black Republicans from voting. Such disfranchisement of blacks in the South, defeats in state referenda on suffrage throughout the North, and close calls in many elections convinced Republicans that something had to be done by the Fortieth Congress before Democrats arrived in force in the new Congress and in the statehouses.
Republican congressmen in early 1869 believed it was necessary to enfranchise adult black males as a counterweight against a resurgent Democratic party. Just as political need impelled Congress to mandate black voting for the South by federal law two years earlier, so now Congress found it expedient to inaugurate African‐American voting in the northern and border states by means of a constitutional amendment. Republicans in Congress also wished to advance the cause of equal rights and impartial justice. The idealistic motive reinforced the pragmatic one. In addition, Republicans had an important secondary objective. They sought an unrepealable amendment to the Constitution to safeguard black voting in the South by banning racial discrimination in the exercise of the franchise. Though Republican congressmen agreed on these goals, they were divided over details in framing the Fifteenth Amendment and anxious about its chances for ratification. They abandoned a guarantee of officeholding by blacks as well as abolition of state literacy, property, and nativity tests for suffrage because they deemed such far‐reaching reform politically impossible. Thus the amendment reflected more the limited pragmatic instincts of moderate Republicans and practical radicals than the idealistic views of some radical Republicans.
The struggle for ratification during 1869 and early 1870 followed party lines: Republicans supported the amendment and Democrats opposed it. The fight for ratification was fiercest in the lower North, where party division was closest and where the press and politicians regarded the potential African‐American voter as the balance of power. Despite Republican control of most state legislatures, the struggle for ratification was intense and the outcome remained uncertain until almost the very end. But national party pressure, congressional and presidential intervention, hard work, and good timing paid off. The amendment was formally ratified on 30 March 1870. Since the Military Reconstruction Act had made the franchise a reality in the South, and because some northern states permitted black voting, the practical effect of the amendment was to open the ballot in seventeen northern and border states.
Republicans regarded the Fifteenth Amendment as the crowning achievement of Reconstruction. Northern blacks retained the franchise permanently. But blacks in the border states during the 1870s and later gradually lost the vote by force and fraud. As retreat from Reconstruction gained momentum throughout the nation during the 1870s and the three decades that followed, most southern blacks also lost the vote. Meanwhile, northern whites became apathetic about the fate of the freedmen in the South. The federal government, necessarily the ultimate guarantor of the Fifteenth Amendment, failed to enforce the right to vote at the ballot box and in the courts. With repression in the South, indifference in the North, and inaction in Washington, the Fifteenth Amendment went unenforced.
The Fifteenth Amendment became much less significant than the Fourteenth Amendment in its constitutional meaning and practical importance. Often federal courts interpreted the Fifteenth Amendment narrowly. The United States Supreme Court put state and local elections off limits to federal election enforcement in United States v. Reese (1876); literacy tests and poll taxes, designed to disenfranchise blacks, were upheld in Williams v. Mississippi (1898). The amendment reached its nadir in James v. Bowman (1903) when the Court emasculated the amendment by denying federal authority under it to prosecute a nonofficial who by bribery prevented some Kentucky blacks from voting in a congressional election. Even later, when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Nixon v. Herndon (1927) found authority to invalidate a white primary of the Democratic party, he based his decision not on the Fifteenth Amendment but on the Fourteenth.
The Court, however, poured new meaning into the virtually empty vessel of the Fifteenth Amendment in Smith v. Allwright (1944) by reaching the same result as in Nixon, but on the basis of the Fifteenth, not the Fourteenth, Amendment. Although the Fourteenth Amendment continued to be of supreme importance in laying the constitutional foundation of the Second Reconstruction, the Supreme Court no longer treated the Fifteenth Amendment as a historical curiosity and constitutional irrelevancy. When Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, it revolutionized the politics of the South by spurring enfranchisement of black southerners. Thus, the most durable achievement of the Second Reconstruction owed its constitutional underpinning to the Fifteenth Amendment of the First Reconstruction. After almost a century, the Fifteenth Amendment was once again bearing fruit.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it mentions the political motives for the fifteenth amendment. For some Republican's at the time this was not a way to empower blacks through giving them the right to vote, it was a way to counter act the ever growing Democratic vote. Republicans knew that the Democrats were gaining in numbers and had to come up with a way to put more votes on their own side. By protecting black voters they thought they could gain more votes and would look like they were doing something to benefit someone else rather than themselves. Whatever the motive the fifteenth amendment was one that was needed. I just find it sad to use others to benefit yourself.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
In my opinion, the fifteenth amendment cleared up the loop hole of voter discrimination that the fourteenth amendment left open. In the fourteenth amendment blacks were given the right to vote. But it became clear that there was still animosity towards African Americans and they were being discriminated against at the polls. The fifteenth amendment allowed Congress to use legislation to prevent these acts. Without it some states would have continued pass laws that only allowed whites to vote. The fifteenth amendment put this power in Congress's hands.
My Opinion: I chose this video because it shows that voter intimidation is still going on in the United States today. This is from the most recent presidential election. In the video they mention that legally they can be within ten feet of the entrance to the polling station and this is true. The problem with the Black Panther standing outside of the polling place is that some may feel as though they are being intimated not to vote by his presence. I for one would feel very apprehensive about walking into an establishment that was being watched by a Black Panther who has a night stick and is saying things about ending white supremacy. I think the authorities did the right thing by removing the man holding the night stick but should have removed the other as well. Even if he was not carrying a weapon, his presence is still intimidating. They mention that he is there for security reasons which I find to be a joke. Whoever hired him should have made sure that he was not going to show up wearing a Black Panther uniform. That in itself is intimating.
Amendment Fifteen to the US Constitution
By: William Gillette and Elliot Ward
The framers of the Fifteenth Amendment, ratified in 1870, intended that it would enfranchise most black American males. Actually, African‐Americans had voted in several states in the North for almost a century. After the American Revolution, some free blacks met the property and other restrictive suffrage qualifications. As these requirements were gradually abolished, blacks did not share the widening franchise because whites distrusted blacks and Democratic politicians wanted to prevent blacks from voting for their opponents. So in several northern states blacks lost the right to vote as more whites gained it. For example, in 1846 New York under its new constitution retained property qualifications for blacks while eliminating them for whites.
By the end of the Civil War in 1865 slavery was virtually abolished. The right of blacks to vote became a controversial question. In March 1867, under the First Military Reconstruction Act, the Thirty‐Ninth Congress enfranchised black males in ten southern states as a requirement for readmission of those states. But elsewhere in the former slave states, Democratic state governments blocked Negro enfranchisement. The only exception was Tennessee, which Republicans controlled. In most of the North, especially the lower North where most blacks lived, blacks could not vote and whites rejected any change. Blacks, however, voted in New England (except Connecticut) and in four midwestern states.
The stimulus for the Fifteenth Amendment came from the election returns of 1868. Although Republican presidential candidate Ulysses S. Grant won 73 percent of the electoral vote, he won only 52 percent of the popular vote. Without the southern black voter, Grant would have lost the popular, though not the electoral, vote. In state after state Grant and the Republicans won by precarious margins. Democrats also gained seats in Congress. And in the South during 1868, white Democrats resorted to violence and intimidation in order to prevent black Republicans from voting. Such disfranchisement of blacks in the South, defeats in state referenda on suffrage throughout the North, and close calls in many elections convinced Republicans that something had to be done by the Fortieth Congress before Democrats arrived in force in the new Congress and in the statehouses.
Republican congressmen in early 1869 believed it was necessary to enfranchise adult black males as a counterweight against a resurgent Democratic party. Just as political need impelled Congress to mandate black voting for the South by federal law two years earlier, so now Congress found it expedient to inaugurate African‐American voting in the northern and border states by means of a constitutional amendment. Republicans in Congress also wished to advance the cause of equal rights and impartial justice. The idealistic motive reinforced the pragmatic one. In addition, Republicans had an important secondary objective. They sought an unrepealable amendment to the Constitution to safeguard black voting in the South by banning racial discrimination in the exercise of the franchise. Though Republican congressmen agreed on these goals, they were divided over details in framing the Fifteenth Amendment and anxious about its chances for ratification. They abandoned a guarantee of officeholding by blacks as well as abolition of state literacy, property, and nativity tests for suffrage because they deemed such far‐reaching reform politically impossible. Thus the amendment reflected more the limited pragmatic instincts of moderate Republicans and practical radicals than the idealistic views of some radical Republicans.
The struggle for ratification during 1869 and early 1870 followed party lines: Republicans supported the amendment and Democrats opposed it. The fight for ratification was fiercest in the lower North, where party division was closest and where the press and politicians regarded the potential African‐American voter as the balance of power. Despite Republican control of most state legislatures, the struggle for ratification was intense and the outcome remained uncertain until almost the very end. But national party pressure, congressional and presidential intervention, hard work, and good timing paid off. The amendment was formally ratified on 30 March 1870. Since the Military Reconstruction Act had made the franchise a reality in the South, and because some northern states permitted black voting, the practical effect of the amendment was to open the ballot in seventeen northern and border states.
Republicans regarded the Fifteenth Amendment as the crowning achievement of Reconstruction. Northern blacks retained the franchise permanently. But blacks in the border states during the 1870s and later gradually lost the vote by force and fraud. As retreat from Reconstruction gained momentum throughout the nation during the 1870s and the three decades that followed, most southern blacks also lost the vote. Meanwhile, northern whites became apathetic about the fate of the freedmen in the South. The federal government, necessarily the ultimate guarantor of the Fifteenth Amendment, failed to enforce the right to vote at the ballot box and in the courts. With repression in the South, indifference in the North, and inaction in Washington, the Fifteenth Amendment went unenforced.
The Fifteenth Amendment became much less significant than the Fourteenth Amendment in its constitutional meaning and practical importance. Often federal courts interpreted the Fifteenth Amendment narrowly. The United States Supreme Court put state and local elections off limits to federal election enforcement in United States v. Reese (1876); literacy tests and poll taxes, designed to disenfranchise blacks, were upheld in Williams v. Mississippi (1898). The amendment reached its nadir in James v. Bowman (1903) when the Court emasculated the amendment by denying federal authority under it to prosecute a nonofficial who by bribery prevented some Kentucky blacks from voting in a congressional election. Even later, when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in Nixon v. Herndon (1927) found authority to invalidate a white primary of the Democratic party, he based his decision not on the Fifteenth Amendment but on the Fourteenth.
The Court, however, poured new meaning into the virtually empty vessel of the Fifteenth Amendment in Smith v. Allwright (1944) by reaching the same result as in Nixon, but on the basis of the Fifteenth, not the Fourteenth, Amendment. Although the Fourteenth Amendment continued to be of supreme importance in laying the constitutional foundation of the Second Reconstruction, the Supreme Court no longer treated the Fifteenth Amendment as a historical curiosity and constitutional irrelevancy. When Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965, it revolutionized the politics of the South by spurring enfranchisement of black southerners. Thus, the most durable achievement of the Second Reconstruction owed its constitutional underpinning to the Fifteenth Amendment of the First Reconstruction. After almost a century, the Fifteenth Amendment was once again bearing fruit.
My Opinion: I chose this article because it mentions the political motives for the fifteenth amendment. For some Republican's at the time this was not a way to empower blacks through giving them the right to vote, it was a way to counter act the ever growing Democratic vote. Republicans knew that the Democrats were gaining in numbers and had to come up with a way to put more votes on their own side. By protecting black voters they thought they could gain more votes and would look like they were doing something to benefit someone else rather than themselves. Whatever the motive the fifteenth amendment was one that was needed. I just find it sad to use others to benefit yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
