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.

The Thirteenth Amendment

This one is simple, but clear:  NO MORE SLAVERY.  Although, as we all know, many states still found ways to deny the rights of those once considered slaves.  Some people just can't let things go, can they?

Video:




You might find the placement of a Roe v. Wade video somewhat odd here.  I found it odd that it popped up in the search bar, to be honest.  However, what I didn't know was that part of the argument used in Roe v. Wade used the Thirteenth Amendment's involuntary servitude clause.  It's always interesting how some amendments get applied to things that you wouldn't think they would.

Article:


A different Thirteenth Amendment

Interesting.  Apparently, what we now know as the thirteenth amendment to the constitution wasn't the only one up for the spot.

The Twelfth Amendment

Now here's a chunk of words for you.  This amendment made the electoral college simpler in order to help keep ties from happening when choosing the president.  It lowered the number of electoral votes per elector to one each, and also made them vote for both a president and vice president at the same time.  Prior to this, the vice president was the one who received the second most votes.

Video:



Reaction:


Wow is all I have to say.  I didn't realize that Cheney had come from the same state as George W. Bush, which the twelfth amendment prohibits, nor did I realize he had registered to vote in wyoming as an attempt to get around the constitution.  Of course, I'd have to look into this a little further myself, as sources must be confirmed as legitimate, etc, but if this is true it shows how much the people of america have forgotten when it comes to the constitution.  I certainly didn't pay any attention at the time.

Article:
Text found here:
Michael Bloomberg vs. The Twelfth Amendment

This was a long article, so forgive me for not posting the whole thing.  Basically, the article talks about how Michael Bloomberg would have trouble getting a majority of votes in the electoral college (which it points out would be his best case scenario, hoping to have the vote go to the house).  It also points out that if he did get considered, he probably would not be one of the top two vote getters, and therefore his vice presidential candidate would not be considered.  Man, politics is confusing sometimes.

The Eleventh Amendment

This amendment to our constitution clarified the states' sovereign immunity.  Although the scope here is limited (the amendment doesn't say anything about a state's own citizens), it does provide some degree of protection.  The states also have the right to waive this immunity to allow cases to be heard, as well.


Video:





Reaction:
This video is one of a chain of videos I found that show how a state was committing actions that violated basic human rights of the mentally ill at this institution.  This video and investigation sparked a Supreme Court case against Pennsylvania and eventually resulted in the protection of the rights of the mentally ill.


Article:

State's voluntary removal of case to federal court waives 11th Amendment immunity

Law Reporter, Oct 2002

Lapides v. Board of Regents, 122 S. Ct. 1640 (2002).

The U.S. Supreme Court held that a state's voluntary removal of a case to federal court acts as a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Here, Lapides, a professor, sued a university, alleging its officials placed allegations of sexual harassment in his personnel file. Defendant had the case removed to federal court, then moved to dismiss, arguing it was immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, finding that defendant had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by removing the case to federal court. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed.

Reversing the appeals court, the Supreme Court noted that it would be inconsistent for a state to invoke federal jurisdiction, thereby agreeing that the judicial power of the United States extends to a case, while at the same time claiming Eleventh Amendment immunity, which would deny that it extends to the same case. Citing its own case law, the Court found that a state's voluntary appearance in federal court amounted to a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity. In addition, the Court explained, a state that voluntarily becomes a party to a case cannot avoid the results of its voluntary act by invoking the Eleventh Amendment.

Applying this reasoning here, the Court found that defendant was brought into the case involuntarily in the original state court proceeding. However, defendant then voluntarily agreed to remove the case to federal court, thereby invoking federal court jurisdiction. The Court explained that adopting defendant's Eleventh Amendment argument would allow states to gain unfair tactical advantages. Thus, the reason for applying a general voluntary invocation rule is strong, the Court concluded.

Plaintiffs Counsel

David J. Bederman, Atlanta, Ga.

Amicus Curiae Counsel

Irving L. Gornstein, Washington, D.C.

"State's voluntary removal of case to federal court waives 11th Amendment immunity". Law Reporter. FindArticles.com. 19 Dec, 2010. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_200210/ai_n9115393/

Copyright Association of Trial Lawyers of America Oct 2002

Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved

Reaction:

I found this article particularly interesting concerning state sovereign immunity.  Here, the state attempted to circumvent having to hear a case by removing it to federal court, then claiming protection of the eleventh amendment to say it had immunity, which the court promptly denied.  Nice try, Connecticut. Nice try.