The Twenty-Seventh Amendment

A simple, yet important amendment.  Most people didn't give much thought about congressional pay raises...until they started to get raised quite often.  This amendment put a stop to that, for the most part.

Video:



Again, simple, yet effective.  Put in the form of a children's book (minus the title, I suppose).

Article:

06 January 2010

Story of 27th Amendment Shows Individual’s Power in a Democracy

Change to Constitution achieved through one citizen’s campaign for reform

By Jianan Wang
Staff Writer

Jianan Wang blogs about life in the United States on the Chinese-language blog “Wild Geese from Foggy Bottom.” The following article has been adapted from one of his entries.

Washington — Even in a country as large as the United States, one determined citizen can bring about change, even with a proposal that collected dust for nearly two centuries.

In the early days of the United States, the 1st Congress passed 12 proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution but only 10 — later known as the Bill of Rights — were ratified by the states and became law, in 1791. One of the two amendments that failed in the 18th century to be ratified by the necessary three-fourths of the states eventually became the 27th Amendment through the efforts of an ordinary citizen 202 years later.

The amendment, which states “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened,” is intended to serve as a restraint on the power of Congress to set its own salary — a power that has obvious potential for conflict of interest.

Early congresses showed almost no signs of acting as corrupt interest groups, so there was little incentive to revive the failed amendment. But in 1873, the 47th Congress passed an amendment to the general appropriations bill to double the annual salary of the president from $25,000 to $50,000 and increase its members’ salary by 50 percent, from $5,000 to $7,500 per year. The amendment made the increase retroactive to 1871 for congressional members, giving them two years of back pay. The great “Salary Grab,” as it was known, produced widespread public outrage and prompted Ohio to ratify the sleeping constitutional amendment on congressional compensation. Months later, Congress repealed the provision in an 1873 law that increased its members’ pay.

During the next 100 years, as the United States rose to become one of the world’s superpowers, congressional salaries kept pace with inflation and average wages in the country. But in the 1970s, the oil embargo of 1973 quadrupled oil prices and the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) dropped 4.5 percent. Then, the 1979 Iran hostage crisis trigged another round of energy shortages, and four subsequent recessions (1970, 1973–75, 1980 and 1981–82) led to widespread unemployment and frozen wages in many occupations. Yet, during roughly the same period, annual salaries for those serving in Congress tripled, from $44,600 to $125,100, compared to a 7 percent increase in the median U.S. wage during the same period.

That sharp contrast led some U.S. citizens to begin a movement to revive the dormant congressional-compensation amendment. In 1978, the Wyoming Legislature ratified it.

ONE CONCERNED CITIZEN

In 1982, Gregory D. Watson, a college sophomore at the University of Texas, Austin, while researching the passed — but not ratified — Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) of the 1970s for his term paper, found the unratified 1789 congressional-compensation amendment and decided to change his paper’s topic. He argued that because the 1789 amendment had no time limit, states could still ratify it and the amendment could become law. Watson’s government professor was unimpressed and gave the paper a “C” grade, but Watson remained intrigued by his discovery.

At that time seven states had ratified the amendment, so Watson needed 31 more to achieve 38, or three-quarters of the 50 states. He began his advocacy efforts in states where both of the bodies of the state legislature were controlled by one political party. In 1983, he convinced the state of Maine to ratify the amendment, and he won ratification in Colorado the following year.

Watson’s campaign soon attracted a few famous names, including Paul Gann, a California-based conservative political activist; Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential candidate; and a few members of Congress. Their support had little effect, but Watson persevered, working several jobs to fund his efforts and using his limited spare time to call and write to state legislators.

From 1985 to 1988, Watson helped win ratification by 18 more states, and came close to meeting his goal of completing the ratification process by the 200th anniversary of the amendment’s original passage by Congress.

Seven states ratified the amendment in 1989, two more in 1990, and one more in 1991. By the spring of 1992 several states were racing to become the 38th state and make it the law of the land. On May 5, 1992, Missouri and Alabama both ratified the amendment, followed by Michigan and New Jersey on May 7 and Illinois on May 12.

On May 18, 1992, the archivist of the United States, Don W. Wilson, announced the 27th Amendment had been ratified. On May 20, 1992, the Senate voted 99 to 0 to accept the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the House of Representatives voted its acceptance 414 to 3.

In some ways, it is fair to say that Watson himself amended the Constitution. He was a concerned citizen who sincerely believed this amendment would improve the Constitution in just the manner that the 1st Congress had sought.

“The American people want a Congress that is honest, that has integrity. This amendment is one vehicle by which some degree of decorum can be restored,” Watson was quoted as saying in a New York Times article on May 8, 1992.

After the amendment was ratified, a reporter tracked down the professor who graded Watson’s paper and told her what Watson had achieved. The teacher apologized for giving him a “C,” but told him the grade could not be amended.

Reaction:

This is the true power in a democracy.  The fact that one person with enough determination for a cause can literally be a catalyst for an amendment to our constitution is incredible.  My hat is off to that guy

The Twenty Sixth Amendment

This amendment set the voting age to 18, down from 21 years of age and kept the federal government or states from intervening.

Video:



Here is a video of the actual certification ceremony and signing of the 26th amendment.  18 year olds throughout the country were surely quite happy.

Article:

1971: 18-Year-olds get the vote: with the Vietnam war as a backdrop, the 26th Amendment to the Constitution towered the voting age from 21

New York Times Upfront, Sept 4, 2006 by Adam Liptak

The explosive youth movement of the 1960s was born in the civil rights era and blossomed into a full-blown counterculture on college campuses and at music festivals like Woodstock in 1969. Young people believed they had a lot to say in the 1960s, but the voting age in those days was 21, and so one place they could not speak out was in the voting booth.

That changed 35 years ago this summer with the ratification of the 26th Amendment, which lowered the voting age to 18. There were many forces behind the change, but it's clear that the unpopular war in Vietnam helped make the case.

Between 1965 and 1973, millions of American soldiers--many of them under 21--were drafted or volunteered to fight in Vietnam. More than 50,000 died in what would turn out to be a failed effort to prevent a Communist takeover of the Southeast Asian country and its neighbors.

While "old enough to fight, old enough to vote" was one of the catch-phrases of the 1960s, the sentiment behind it had been expressed decades earlier during both World War II and the Korean War. But for many years there was opposition to lowering the voting age, including from The New York Times, which repeatedly argued against it. "The requirements for a good soldier and for a good voter are not the same," said a 1967 Times editorial. "For the soldier, youthful enthusiasm and physical endurance are of primary importance; for the voter, maturity of judgment far outweighs other qualifications."

But a growing youth movement started to chip away at that view. Young people had begun to assert themselves politically during the civil rights movement in the early 1960s, taking part in demonstrations against racial segregation and poverty. By mid-decade, America's continued involvement in Vietnam proved increasingly unpopular on college campuses, where students marched, held sit-ins, and occupied school buildings to protest the war and challenge authority.

 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BUE/is_1_139/ai_n17215342/

Reaction:

This is a good article explaining the forces behind why the 21st amendment was ratified in the first place.  Most of it had to do with the growing youth movement during the vietnam war.  It was a time of much change, that's for sure.

Twenty-Fifth Amendment

Again, only a partial picture here for the long amendment.  This amendment is important though, because it defines clearly the chain of the presidency when the president cannot fulfill his duties due to disability or death.  It also defines filling the vice president's vacancy if this happens.

Video:



Had to go with a little humor here.  Simple, yet effectively explains how the president gets replaced in the case of a zombie apocalypse, among other things.  And I laughed some, which is always nice.

Article:

'Expert' Claims: 25th Amendment to be Used to Remove Obama

By Terrence Check

The Cauldron Contributing Writer

Published: Monday, November 1, 2010

Updated: Monday, November 1, 2010 20:11

In election years, it seems as if the collective conscious of America is increasingly cluttered with the detritus of political campaigning. Now more than ever, technology has given the average voter not only a wealth of information, but also the ability to research candidates and issues independently of the media.

Problems arise however, and since everyone can research, everyone can become an "expert". One such case has recently come to worldwide attention; another attempt to unseat President Barack Obama, this time using the 25th Amendment.

A five minute broadcast aired on a network called Press TV, featuring an interview with a staff member of the "Executive Intelligence Review." Taking the interview at face value, it seems as if there is a conspiracy afoot, to replace President Barack Obama, as he is "mentally incapable of holding office".

I feel that this must be prefaced with a few provisos. I have complex political opinions, and suffice it to say that I am largely opposed to the policies of President Obama.For the sake of brevity however, the "Executive Intelligence Review's" record is dubious at best, especially since its owners political amibitions once included a run for the Democratic Nominee for President, now it consists of calling Obama a NAZI. Combine this less-than-legitimate source for news with the fact that Press TV (the network) is an English-language news agency funded by: The Islamic Republic of Iran.

So, just to recap: Edward Spannaus, a representative for a Left-leaning weekly newsmagazine that compares the healthcare insurance overhaul to Nazi euthanasia is calling for Obama's removal under the 25th Amendment, on a news network run by Iran? Does it seem crazy to you? It did to me.

Aside from the obvious problems, I think this example underscores a frightening trend in American politics. It seems to be that the public discourse is consumed by irrational fears of Socialists, Muslims, Jews, Gays, Hillbillies, or Neo-Nazis, all of them secretly plotting to take over America.

Instead of reporting on issues, our national news media is fascinated by whatever crackpot decides to hold a protest or run for office. Instead of being logical and rational, our democratic process is being undermined by vast right or left wing conspiracies. Edward Spannaus, who spouted this idea of a mentally incapable President on Press TV, did not make a whole lot of sense. Watching the interview, it is clear the Iranian anchor had no idea what he was talking about.

The news story was about Obama's poll numbers, and the news anchor had to contend with a man talking about the 25th Amendment. At any rate, further investigation reveals the "Executive Intelligence Review" to be like the "Weekly World News" of political publications.

There is a sharp line being drawn in the American discourse, on one side we have logical and reasoned debate. On the other side, there is an incessant flirtation with conspiracies and anti-intellectualism.

While mudslinging and dirty campaigning are a perennial part of the democratic system, it seems that the recent political climate indicates a dramatic shift in how America elects its leaders. One could ignore it as a side-effect of the midterm elections, but something tells me that there is more craziness to come.

http://www.csucauldron.com/expert-claims-25th-amendment-to-be-used-to-remove-obama-1.1739198

Reaction:

I think this one also falls into the category of "wow."  A conspiracy to remove president Obama aired on an Iranian network?  That screams reliable to me.  

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment

And we're back to voting...again.  This time around, poll taxes had to be abolished.  I really am surprised how long this amendment took to be put in place.  You would think after passing three amendments in a row regarding slavery, citizenship, and voting that this would have followed as soon as poll taxes started to pop up.  They were simply another way to deny rights to black citizens.

Video:



This is an interesting video I found concerning a new "poll tax" in the form of waiting in line.  Basically, the lines were so bad that if you couldn't stand for at least a 2 and 1/2 hour wait in some places (others as much as 6-10) you didn't get to vote.  Definitely an interesting concept, and makes sense to me that there should probably be more places to vote to consider those that can't stand that long (i.e-the elderly).

Video:



Sorry for the double MSNBC post here (I try to hear both sides as much as possible), but this is something that has actually been tried in places.  Even the supreme court had to affirm that college students had the right to vote in 1979.  Unfortunately, those in our party don't always play nice (as you can tell by the slandering ads that run before elections).

The Twenty-Third Amendment

This amendment serves the purpose of allowing the District of Columbia to have a say in presidential elections.

Video:



This is a short video that explains exactly why the district of columbia can't vote for members of congress--in short, without another constitutional amendment, only members of the STATES are represented in our congress.  I'm not sure why they were allowed the right to vote for president/vice president and not congress, though.

Video:



Here's a video that's pro voting rights for DC.  Personally, I'm really not sure why they don't have the right to, and I would think it would be a bigger deal to those that live there.  After all, every single law we pass affects them, yet they have zero say in that process.  I would think that all citizens living in the united states would be allowed representation, not just those that live in states.  Seems to me it was just forgotten

The Twenty-Second Amendment

The famous term limit for the president had been, up to the ratification of this amendment, merely a precedent that was set mostly out of following the first few presidents' footsteps.  And then came the era of FDR, who was elected to four terms (though he died before serving the fourth).  The republicans at the time decided that passing this would be a way to invalidate his reign.

Article:

No More Second-Term Blues

By JAMES MacGREGOR BURNS and SUSAN DUNN

Published: January 5, 2006

Williamstown, Mass.

AS George W. Bush's leadership flounders a little more than a year after his re-election, we are seeing a return of an old affliction in American politics, "second termitis." The protracted woes of Richard Nixon's Watergate, Ronald Reagan's Iran-contra affair, and Bill Clinton's impeachment were all, in part, manifestations of that malady.

Is there some human failing that affects second-term presidents, like arrogance or sheer fatigue? To some degree, perhaps. But the main problem is not personal but institutional - or rather constitutional, as embodied by the 22nd Amendment limiting presidential tenure.

A second-term president will, in effect, automatically be fired within four years. Inevitably his influence over Congress, and even his authority over the sprawling executive branch, weaken. His party leadership frays as presidential hopefuls carve out their own constituencies for the next election. Whether the president is trying to tamp down scandal or push legislation, he loses his ability to set the agenda.

But whether or not a president has a diminished second term, the amendment barring a third term presents the broader and more serious question of his accountability to the people.

While political commentators analyze every twist in White House politics, while citizens follow dramatic stories of leaks, investigations and indictments, the one person who does not have to care is George W. Bush. In a sense, he has transcended the risks and rewards of American politics. He will not run again for office. The voters will not be able to thank him - or dump him.

And yet accountability to the people is at the heart of a democratic system.

There was nothing in the original Constitution of 1787 that barred a third or fourth term for presidents. That was why Franklin Delano Roosevelt could run again in 1940 and 1944, becoming the only president to serve more than two terms. And that was why, three years later, in 1947, after sporadic public debate, Republicans demanded presidential term limits and changed the Constitution.

With majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans, joined by Southern Democrats opposed to the New Deal, were able to push the 22nd Amendment through the House (after only two hours of debate!) and the Senate (after five days of debate). At the time, an amendment limiting presidents to two terms in office seemed an effective way to invalidate Roosevelt's legacy, to discredit this most progressive of presidents. In the House, one of the few Northern Democrats to vote with the majority was freshman representative John F. Kennedy, whose father had fallen out with Roosevelt. In the spring of 1947, as the historian David Kyvig noted, 18 state legislatures rushed to ratify the amendment, with virtually no public participation in the debate. By 1951, the required three-fourths of the state legislatures had ratified it.

While George Washington limited himself to two terms, it had never been his intention to create a precedent. Washington didn't want to die in office and have the succession appear "monarchical." But his primary reason for retiring was simply that after a lifetime of public service, he was bone-tired, desperate to return to the tranquillity of Mount Vernon.

Washington's close confidant Alexander Hamilton also had firmly opposed presidential term limits. In Federalist No. 72, Hamilton argued that term limits for the chief executive would diminish inducements to good behavior, discourage presidents from undertaking bold new projects, deny the nation the advantage of his experience and threaten political stability. For his part, Washington added that term limits would exclude from the presidency a man whose leadership might be essential in a time of emergency.

Should presidents - whether George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton - be denied the opportunity to serve their country and carry through their programs? Should they be allowed to govern without any accountability to voters? Should voters be denied two supreme powers - the right to give popular presidents more terms in office and to repudiate a failed president at the polls? "We ought to take a serious look and see if we haven't interfered with the democratic rights of the people," Ronald Reagan said in 1986.

Some defenders of the 22nd Amendment might argue that an incumbent second-term president would have an even more formidable and undeserved advantage in recognition, experience and the prestige of his office today than in the 1940's. But the power of incumbency may actually decrease with time. After his landslide victory for a second term in 1936, Roosevelt saw his popular vote drop in 1940 and even more in 1944.

And what about an unfair head start in campaign fund-raising? Presidential incumbents already have a significant advantage, but not necessarily an overwhelming one, especially with campaign finance reform. In a democratic republic, only the Constitution should trump the will of the majority, not the economic vicissitudes of the campaign trail.

Since 1956, many bipartisan resolutions to repeal the 22nd Amendment have been submitted to Congress - and gone nowhere. The most recent one to be buried in a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee was proposed last February. Oddly, both the current chairman of that committee, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin, and the former chairman, Henry J. Hyde of Illinois, both Republicans, have in the past co-sponsored resolutions to repeal the amendment.

Hasn't the time come for Congress and the voters to revoke an authoritarian, barely considered amendment? Republicans, who revere "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution and who applaud the rise of the conservative movement, should welcome the possibility of a three- or four-term Republican president, thus avoiding "second termitis."

And Democrats, as they contemplate the century that lies ahead, can hope that in another world crisis, this misbegotten amendment will not be there to bar a future Franklin Roosevelt from offering the kind of leadership that he provided in the 1940's.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/05/opinion/05burns.html?_r=1

Reaction:

This article does a good job of of explaining the reasons behind the passing of the amendment, and also gives a little bit to think about why the amendment might not be a good idea.  I definitely understand the idea that term limits make sure that our country isn't a monarchy...however, I also think that they keep presidents from undergoing long-term projects for fear that they might fail once they're out of office (or simply be stopped).  I also think that because a president is popular with the people and gets re-elected isn't really much of a good reason to pass an amendment barring his re-election.  After all, if the people are happy, isn't that what our government is supposed to be about?  Plus if they're not happy, they would simply not vote the same person back in office.

Article:

Lawmakers aim to repeal 22nd Amendment

LA Daily News | June 28, 2005

President George W. Bush for life? Well, not really.

But Democrat Rep. Howard Berman would be willing to let presidents give it their best shot.

The Van Nuys congressman this week teamed up with a small group of lawmakers trying to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms in office.

"I don't like arbitrary term limits," said Berman, who has represented his Van Nuys district since 1982.

"I think our country was better off because Franklin Delano Roosevelt was able to run for a fourth term," Berman said. "Imposing an arbitrary limit makes no sense."

Berman's concern about the 22nd Amendment comes at a time of renewed talk in Sacramento over the possibility of loosening legislative term limits as part of a redistricting agreement with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

UCLA School of Law professor Daniel Lowenstein said he finds term limits "destructive," but more so in the state Legislature than at the presidential level.

"Simply the quality of the work that they do is harmed tremendously by term limits," he said of state legislators.

Of the 22nd Amendment, Lowenstein said, "I don't think you can say that presidential term limits, since they were adopted, have had a serious negative effect."

Still, he added, "People should have the opportunity to vote for the person they want to."

Meanwhile, bills by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Long Beach, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and others that would allow Schwarzenegger to one day ascend to the presidency by amending the Constitution to allow non-natural-born U.S. citizens to become president have not seen much political traction this year.

The resolution repealing the 22nd Amendment was introduced by Maryland Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer and co-sponsored by Berman. It also earned the support of James Sensenbrenner, the conservative Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The 22nd Amendment repeal, if it passes and is approved by the states, would not go into effect until after the Bush presidency, making him ineligible for multiple consecutive terms.

Berman, a lifelong Democrat, made a point of noting that fact when discussing his support for the amendment's repeal. But he also said even the possibility of another third Bush term would not have caused him to back off the resolution.

"If we can't beat 'em on the third try, then we don't deserve it," he said

Reaction:

Apparently the idea that the amendment should be repealed has been around for awhile.  This article comes from the perspective of someone in the house submitting the idea.  This article touches on the fact that people should be allowed to vote for who they want, and as long as the power stays with the people, what's there to complain about?

The Twenty-First Amendment

Goodbye Prohibition, welcome back alcohol!  That basically sums up this one.  Seeing as how prohibition was a terrible failure in the first place, this one was a good move.

Video:



This is probably exactly what the american public did after prohibition was repealed.  Not going to lie, I probably would have.

Article:

TIME: 21st Amendment

This nostalgic article goes back to the day that the repeal was put on the table of the senate in 1933.  Although I was somewhat impressed by Senator Sheppard's more than 8 hour filibuster attempt, it was all a bunch of hot air based on all the problems that prohibition had caused.  In the end, the amendment was passed and prohibition was repealed.

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?