The Twentieth Amendment

Okay, another long one here, so I'll keep the picture spam to a minimum.  This amendment essentially sets the days that the president, vice president, and congress begin their terms.  Originally, there had been a four-month lapse to allow for travel time to the capital, but as technology evolved (like cars/planes) this lapse was no longer necessary, and did more harm than good when there were pressing issues that needed immediate attention (i.e.-the great depression).  You can find the full text here: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Article:

XX Amendment to the Constitution

The 20th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is also called the Lame Duck Amendment, because it put a stop to "lame duck" sessions of Congress by advancing the dates for the President's inauguration to January 20 from March 4th, and the date for Congress to convene to January 3rd from march 4th. This avoided the time in office with diminished power.

Purpose of the Amendment

The Senate Committee on the Judiciary said in part: 

''[W]hen our Constitution was adopted there was some reason for such a long intervention of time between the election and the actual commencement of work by the new Congress. . . . Under present conditions [of communication and transportation] the result of elections is known all over the country within a few hours after the polls close, and the Capital City is within a few days' travel of the remotest portions of the country. . . . 

''Another effect of the amendment would be to abolish the so- called short session of Congress. . . . Every other year, under our Constitution, the terms of Members of the House and one-third of the Members of the Senate expire on the 4th day of March. . . . Experience has shown that this brings about a very undesirable legislative condition. It is a physical impossibility during such a short session for Congress to give attention to much general legislation for the reason that it requires practically all of the time to dispose of the regular appropriation bills. . . . The result is a congested condition that brings about either no legislation or illy considered legislation. . . . 

''If it should happen that in the general election in November in presidential years no candidate for President had received a majority of all the electoral votes, the election of a President would then be thrown into the House of Representatives and the memberships of the House of Representatives called upon to elect a President would be the old Congress and not the new one just elected by the people. It might easily happen that the Members of the House of Representative, upon whom devolved the solemn duty of electing a Chief Magistrate for 4 years, had themselves been repudiated at the election that had just occurred, and the country would be confronted with the fact that a repudiated House, defeated by the people themselves at the general election, would still have the power to elect a President who would be in control of the country for the next 4 years. It is quite apparent that such a power ought not to exist, and that the people having expressed themselves at the ballot box should through the Representatives then selected, be able to select the President for the ensuing term. . . . 

''The question is sometimes asked, Why is an amendment to the Constitution necessary to bring about this desirable change? The Constitution [before this amendment] does not provide the date when the terms of Senators and Representatives shall begin. It does fix the term of Senators at 6 years and of Members of the House of Representatives at 2 years. The commencement of the terms of the first President and Vice President and of Senators and Representatives composing the First Congress was fixed by an act of [the Continental] Congress adopted September 13, 1788, and that act provided 'that the first Wednesday in March next to be the time for commencing proceedings under the Constitution.' It happened that the first Wednesday in March was the 4th day of March, and hence the terms of the President and Vice President and Members of Congress began on the 4th day of March. Since the Constitution provides that the term of Senators shall be 6 years and the term of Members of the House of Representatives 2 years, it follows that this change cannot be made without changing the terms of office of Senators and Representatives, which would in effect be a change of the Constitution. By another act (the act of March 1, 1792) Congress provided that the terms of President and Vice President should commence on the 4th day of March after their election. It seems clear, therefore, that an amendment to the Constitution is necessary to give relief from existing conditions.'' 

As thus stated, the exact term of the President and Vice President was fixed by the Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 1, at 4 years, and became actually effective, by resolution of the Continental Congress, on the 4th of March 1789. Since this amendment was declared adopted on February 6, 1933, Sec. 1 in effect shortened, by the interval between January 20 and March 4, 1937, the terms of the President and Vice President elected in 1932. 

Similarly, it shortened, by the intervals between January 3 and March 4, the terms of Senators elected for terms ending March 4, 1935, 1937, and 1939; and thus temporarily modified the Seventeenth Amendment, fixing the terms of Senators at 6 years. It also shortened the terms of Representatives elected to the Seventy-third Congress, by the interval between January 3 and March 4, 1935, and temporarily modified Article I, Sec. 2, clause 1, fixing the terms of Representatives at 2 years. 

Section 1 further modifies the Twelfth Amendment in its reference to March 4 as the date by which the House must exercise its choice of a President. 

Section 2 supersedes clause 2 of Sec. 4 of Article I. The setting of an exact hour for meeting constitutes a recognition of the long practice of Congress, which in 1867 was for the first time enacted into permanent law, 2 only to be repealed in 1871. 

When the 3d of January fell on Sunday (in 1937), Congress did by law appoint a different day for its assemblage. 

Pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by Sec. 3 of this amendment, Congress shaped the Presidential Succession Act of 1948 5 to meet the situation which would arise from the failure of both President elect and Vice President elect to qualify on or before the time fixed for the beginning of the new Presidential term. 

Source: Senate

Response:

This article gives a little more depth as to why exactly the 20th amendment was necessary in the first place.  It also points out a few of the problems that lame duck sessions brought about.  The one that caught my eye the most was the illy considered legislation.  I don't like the idea of legislation being rushed at all-especially when it could have to do with laws that affect me directly.  

Article:

The Washington Post on Lame Duck Sessions

Response:

This article was a bit of an eye opener to me.  It would seem that lame duck sessions of congress are still an issue, despite the fact that the 20th amendment was supposed to put an end to them.  Yet, our sessions of congress continue to have them and make some of their most important decisions during these rushed sessions.  It would seem that the problem still exists and is getting quite a bit of attention.  Personally, I think they should be done away with for good.

The Nineteenth Amendment

Remember all those amendments to clarify the rights of people to vote?  Apparently they forgot women in that mix.  You know, since being a citizen and race being no bar to vote weren't enough.  You'd think by this time someone would have figured out that if you don't EXPLICITLY say everything in an amendment, it doesn't cover everything.  Weird, I know.

Video:



Iron Jawed Angels, eh?  Never caught the movie, but this small rendition does show some of the things women had to go through to gain the right to vote.  I guess they kind of had to be Iron Jawed.

Article:

History of 19th amendment

Overview of the women's movement to gain the right to vote in the United States from the mid-1800's to the early 1900's.

The 19th Amendment - Voting Equality For Women

What Was the 19th Amendment?

The 19th Amendment is a simply worded Article to the U.S. Constitution. As Article XIX it reads that voting rights of citizens of the United States shall not be denied on the basis of sex. The House of Representatives passed the 19th amendment in 1919 by a vote of 304 to 90. The Senate passed the amendment 56 to 25. The required thirty-six states finally ratified the article on August 18, 1920.Women had lobbied for their voting rights, or suffrage, for many years before this amendment came into being. Many historians place the beginning of the women's suffrage movement in July of 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York. It was there that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott organized the first convention regarding women's rights and the woman's right to vote. Many of the backers of suffrage movement were also abolitionist sympathizers. Many abolitionists promoted universal voting rights for blacks and whites. Abolitionists saw success as the 15th amendment of 1870 granted voting rights to black men was passed. It was a natural connection then, for anti-slavery persons to be involved in women's voting rights. Frederick Douglass, the great black abolitionist leader, attended the Seneca Falls convention. In an editorial in the North Star, Douglass wrote that he saw absolutely "no reason" to withhold the right to vote from women. Later, in 1877, Douglass also signed a petition to the U.S. Congress in regards to women's suffrage.

In 1869, well-known suffragists, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton formed the National Woman Suffrage Association, or NWSA. In 1871, a petition signed by Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cody and many other suffragists was sent to Congress asking that voting rights be given to women. The petition also asked that women be given the right to speak in Congress. It was obviously not granted at that time.

Following the Civil War, the suffragist movement was divided due to differences in ideology. Two separate organizations pursued voting rights for women. The NWSA was more aggressive in their attempts to win suffrage. Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe and ThomasWentworth Higginson did not agree with this more militant attitude. They formed a separate organization, the American Woman Suffrage Association, or AWSA in November 1869. These two groups pursued the woman's right to vote separately until 1890, when the two groups joined together and formed the NAWSA or National American Woman Suffrage Association. Elizabeth Stanton was the new organization's president. In 1919, this group later changed and became the still existing League of Women Voters.

Opposition to women's suffrage came from women, as well. Some women believed the political process was demeaning to their roles as wives and mothers. In the state of New York, for example, there was a Women Voters Anti-Suffrage Party that circulated a petition against women's suffrage in 1918.

At the same time, pro-suffragists were pushing that President Woodrow Wilson support the proposed amendment. The suffragists held vigils outside the White House. They carried banners attacking Woodrow Wilson and compared him to the leader of World War I Germany, Kaiser Wilhem II. These vitriolic demonstrations often ended in arrests and public violence. Some women would suffer arrest in promoting the suffragist cause. In 1872, Susan B. Anthony registered and voted in Rochester, New York. She was arrested, convicted and fined $100. Susan B. Anthony never paid the fine and in 1874 petitioned the United States Congress to release from the fine. She argued that the conviction was unjust.

Several states promoted suffrage for women. New York state passed a women's voting law in 1917. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson began to support the need for a constitutional amendment to which he had previously been opposed. When ratification by the states was begun on June 4, 1919 it only took six days for Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin to all ratify the amendment. Kansas, New York and Ohio followed on June 16, 1919. The last required 36th state to ratify was Tennessee, who barely ratified the amendment on August 18, 1920. The Tennessee vote to ratify hinged on one vote, the vote of a 24-year-old state legislator by the name of Harry Burn. He had originally voted against ratification. He changed his vote after his mother urged him to do so. Even after his vote, anti-suffrage rallies were held and anti-suffrage state legislators left the state so that a legislative quorum could not achieved. The Tennessee ratification was achieved and the required 36 states met the constitutional requirement.

The remaining twelve states of the Union took over sixty years to add their ratifications of the 19th amendment. Ten of these states originally had rejected ratifying the amendment. Mississippi was the last state of the 48 states to ratify the amendment when it did so on March 22, 1984.

Written by Robert Wheadon - © 2002 Pagewise

Reaction:

I like history articles, as many people don't actually know the histories of how our amendments came to be or the forces that were behind them.  It's always important for our younger generations to not forget about the past, as it tends to repeat itself.

The Eighteenth Amendment

And we have arrived at one of the most revolted against amendments in the history of this country: prohibition.  The amendment that brought a new wave of criminal activity and mobs to the homefront and made millionaires out of them.  Oh, and let's not forget Nascar.

Video:



Sometimes I have to go with short and sweet.  Despite the obvious feelings of whoever made this at the end (the war on drugs part), the whole bit about prohibition is pretty much dead on.  It was a complete disaster.  Never really worked, and just brought crime here.  The war on drugs is another issue altogether, but there are some similarities you can see.

Article:

Prohibition in the 1920s

The 18th Amendment Made Alcohol Illegal

Jan 14, 2009 Kim Kenney

The roots of Prohibition began with the Anti Saloon League, founded in 1893 in Oberlin, Ohio.

The organization began life as a state organization. After 1895, however, the League became a powerful national organization. The League was a non-partisan organization focused on the single issue of prohibition. It had branches across the United States to work with churches in marshalling resources for the prohibition fight.

In 1913, in a 20th anniversary convention held in Columbus, Ohio the League announced its campaign to achieve national prohibition through a constitutional amendment.

Allied with other temperance forces, especially the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, the League in 1916 oversaw the election of the two-thirds majorities necessary in both houses of Congress to initiate what became the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

How Did Prohibition Happen?

Those working for the passage of the amendment were highly organized, but those who were against it were hardly organized at all.

The horrific world war took precedence in many people’s minds, and alcohol seemed a “trifling matter.” The Prohibitionists seized the opportunity to mobilize. They made it seem patriotic to conserve grain for the war effort and therefore not drink alcohol. They further extended the cause by arguing if a sober soldier was a better soldier, and a sober factory worker a better factory worker, then Prohibition made perfect sense.

Influence of World War I

In wartime, people become accustomed to the government having wide powers and control. Within this context, it did not seem that far-fetched for the government to control alcohol consumption.

In addition, the war turned public opinion against anything German, and many breweries were run by people of German decent.

The 18th Amendment

With sympathetic politicians in place, the Eighteenth Amendment easily passed on December 18, 1917 and was ratified two years later.

At the time, no one seemed to comprehend that the law would be difficult to enforce. And certainly no one understood how Prohibition would lead to so much organized crime.

The Amendment read, in part, “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.

The Volstead Act

The Eighteenth Amendment went into effect on January 16, 1920. Temperance enthusiasts held a mock funeral for "King Alcohol." Opponents said a sad eulogy for their dearly departed friend, "John Barleycorn."

Plainly put, it banned the sale, manufacture, importation, and transportation of liquor. Private citizens could still keep liquor in their homes and serve it to their friends, but they could not make it, sell it, transport it, or import it.

To help enforce the law, Congress passed the Volstead Act, which defined what an intoxicating liquor was and outlined specific punishments for violations. It was deemed that anything with more than of 1% alcohol was now illegal. For the first offense you could be jailed up to 6 months plus a $1000 fine. For a second offense, you could serve up to 5 years in jail with a fine of $10,000 -- an exorbitant sum in the 1920s!

Padlock Laws

In addition, “padlock laws” allowed agents to close an establishment that was serving alcohol for up to one year. The government could also seize any automobile used to transport liquor illegally.

Enforcement was never consistent across the United States. The Prohibition Bureau, which was part of the Department of Justice, was understaffed and underfunded. Some states refused to appropriate any money to hire additional officers to enforce the Volstead Act.

Many communities did go "dry," and liquor violations began to clog the federal court system.

Sources:

Daily Life in the United States, 1920-1940 by David E. Kyvig

The 1920s by Kathleen Drowne and Patrick Huber

Read more at Suite101: Prohibition in the 1920s: The 18th Amendment Made Alcohol Illegal http://www.suite101.com/content/prohibition-in-the-1920s-a90037#ixzz18aYLDsGP

Reaction:

Here is some background info on the actual roots of prohibition and why it came about.  It was still a failure, regardless.  Can you tell how I really feel?

The Seventeenth Amendment

This amendment here isn't all that exciting on paper, however, I do suppose it is important to clarify how elections should be held.  Again with the red tape!

Video:



I'm just going to go ahead and say it:  I don't like Fox News.  I do, however, like opportunites to bash them.  I think Fox News is a sham and a half.  The seventeenth amendment isn't unconstitutional, it simply gives the power back to the people to elect their senators.  These crazy spins they throw on things actually try to convince people that they're not capable of voting for their senators.  The sad thing is they succeed at doing this sometimes.  It's a sad day when people renounce their freedoms because they watch the "news."

Article:

Republican Candidates Call for Repeal of Seventeenth Amendment

Published November 01, 2010

| The Wall Street Journal

One of the clearest measures of anti-Washington feeling this election year is the attack on a little-remembered, century-old amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Republican candidates in more than a half-dozen states have called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which was ratified in 1913 and which provides for the direct election of U.S. senators. Prior to the amendment, senators were designated by state legislatures.

"People would be better off if senators, when they deliver their messages to Washington, remember the sovereignty of the states," Mike Lee, who supports repeal, told reporters recently. Mr. Lee is a Republican running for the U.S. Senate from Utah.

Proponents of repeal say the amendment wrecked the founding fathers' balance between national and state governments, removing one of the last checks to unbridled power in Washington. Opponents counter that direct election of senators, long a goal of the Progressive movement of that era, expanded democracy.

The idea of repealing the 17th Amendment has bounced around conservative and libertarian circles for years, but is enjoying a resurgence this year thanks to the rise of tea-party candidates, who often embrace a strict view of the Constitution. It coincides with a broader attack on Progressive-era changes, notably the 16th Amendment, which created the income tax, and taps into the belief that big government began in the administration of President Woodrow Wilson.

The Idaho Republican Party has adopted the cause. Tea party-backed Senate candidates in Alaska and Utah advocate repeal, as do many candidates running for the House, as well as some sitting politicians.

In Florida, Democratic campaigns have attacked Republican rivals for considering the idea. In Colorado, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee paid for ads criticizing Ken Buck, the Republican Senate candidate, over the issue. Mr. Buck later reversed his support for repeal. Christine O'Donnell, the Republican Senate candidate in Delaware, supports a strict reading of the Constitution, but says she doesn't support repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/01/republican-candidates-repeal-seventeenth-amendment/#ixzz18aV8JEfJ

Reaction:

And again with the repealing stuff.  I'm not sure why, but lately the republicans have been making a big deal out of putting more power back into the federal/state governments.  This is odd, considering the fact that one of the "ideals" of the conservative party is smaller government.  And yet, I'm sure somehow fox news could tell me that the patriot act made government influence smaller.  Fox News, you're the best (<----sarcasm).

The Sixteenth Amendment

Why, hello Income Tax.  How are you today?  Don't let anyone fool you into thinking you don't have to pay taxes.  It's kind of in the constitution now.

Video:



Obviously, there are at least a few people (okay, maybe a few million) that don't really like taxes, especially on income that they spent their sweat and blood earning.  Well, that's all well and good, but personally I'm a believer of the social contract:  we give up certain rights to gain protection from a governing body.  I don't really have too much of a problem paying out of my check for that protection.  Where the money goes, however, is another issue.

Article:

The Law That Never Was?

Well, maybe.  This seems to be the kind of thing that convinces people that they don't have to pay those taxes.  You can debate this all you want, but until the amendment gets repealed (and I highly doubt it will) you still have to pay them.  Sorry, naysayers.

The Fifteenth Amendment

And here we are again dealing with issues of those who were former slaves.  First, they're free.  Then, they're citizens.  Now, we have to amend the constitution a third time to ensure that they get the right to vote.  It would seem that when people want to deny something they find every way around the system in order to do so.  It's a shame, if you ask me.

Video:



This video shows some of the means that were used to "get around" the fifteenth amendment.  It really is amazing the extent that some states went to in order to keep african americans from voting.

Article:

Enforcing the 15th

Another long one I couldn't really post here, but the link should do.  This article was written in TIME magazine in 1965, nearly 100 years after the passing of the 15th amendment and goes over the enforcing that had to be done in order to get southern states to comply with the amendment to allow african americans to vote.  Desperate measures, desperate counter-measures.

The Fourteenth Amendment

So first, we had to amend the constitution to free slaves.  But apparently, that's not enough to make them citizens.  So we had to amend the constitution AGAIN in order to make them citizens.  Sheesh...all this red tape.

By the way, there's also a few more sections to this amendment, but because it's so long, I posted the most important piece associated with the amendment.  find the full text here: US constitution and Amendments

Video:

Change the 14th Amendment?

I couldn't embed this video, but it's still an interesting watch.  As with the 13th amendment post, this video is another that shows how the 14th amendment is being used in a situation that is quite different that it was originally intended. I wasn't even aware that people were "exploiting" it to have their children here so they could become citizens.  Not quite sure how I feel on this one, to be honest, but it gets me thinking.

Article:

14th Amendment Doesn't Make Illegal Aliens' Children Citizens

The Constitution doesn't guarantee birthright citizenship

By MATTHEW SPALDING

Posted: August 30, 2010

Matthew Spalding is the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation.

More than any other nation, America beckons those who seek opportunity and a better future for themselves and their families. Immigration strengthens our social capital, deepens our national patriotism, and expands our general economy.

Naturalization—the idea of a foreigner becoming an equal citizen as if by nature—follows directly from America's political principles. Individuals have a natural right to emigrate from their homeland, but they may only immigrate to this country with the consent of the American people as expressed through U.S. laws. With that consent, a person of any ethnic heritage or racial background can become, in every sense, an American citizen.

What about those who are born here?

After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment (overturning, in part, Dred Scott v. Sandford, which said that no black could be a U.S. citizen) clarified the conditions of citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside."

Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.

The broader reading is a constitutional misreading. Not only does it grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, it also gives full due-process rights to the likes of Taliban fighter Yasir Hamdi (born in the United States of visiting Saudi parents and captured fighting U.S. soldiers 20 years later in Afghanistan).

But it is the principle of the matter that is most problematic. The broad claim of automatic birthright citizenship traces its roots more to the feudal concept of perpetual allegiance of subjects to kings, rather than equal rights and the consent of the governed. It violates bedrock American principles and undermines the rule of law.

What is to be done?

While the Constitution defines the basic conditions, the decision whether and how far to offer citizenship beyond that (i.e., who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) is a policy judgment historically left to Congress. It could, for instance, extend birthright citizenship to legal permanent residents (consistent with Wong Kim Ark) but exclude, in the future, the children of illegal or temporary residents.

Nobody is talking about repealing the 14th Amendment, or taking away anyone's citizenship. Nor must we amend the Constitution. But Congress needs to clarify the extent of birthright citizenship. It should do so as part of a clear and meaningful policy concerning immigration, naturalization, and citizenship that is consistent with the core principles and highest ideals of the United States.

Reaction:

Interesting that I found this article after having found the above video.  This article is blatantly contradictory  to the video above, claming that birth in the united states doesn't necessarily automatically mean you are a citizen.  Each side of the coin has its own story, I suppose.