"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
