Tag: history

Constitutional Amendment 20

Post author By David
Post date August 14, 2009
No Comments on Constitutional Amendment 20

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

The 20th Amendment is essentially a technical correction to the Constitution specifying a new ending time for terms of office and also a standard procedure for filling the presidency in case of unforeseen circumstances (such as the death of a president-elect).

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

A similar technical amendment was adopted in the state constitution of Utah just last year (which came in handy just this week).

Tags amendments, connections, documents, history, Utah

General

Constitutional Amendment 19

Post author By David
Post date August 12, 2009
6 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 19

Some amendments are so obvious now that they need no comment.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on account of sex.

Some states had allowed women to vote long before 1920 and been stopped by the federal government. Now, in a day where I have seen calls to lower the voting age to 16, the only question on this subject that we have to ask ourselves is where to draw the line.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, voting

General

Constitutional Amendment 18

Post author By David
Post date August 7, 2009
18 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 18

The Eighteenth Amendment is a great example of constitutional law.

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.

I know that many people will argue that it is a bad amendment (generally citing the fact that it was later repealed as evidence of their claim) but I would like to explain why I argue that it is such a good example.

Congress (and the majority of states at the time) wanted to restrict the use of alcohol for recreational purposes. They had no constitutional authority to do anything like that. The proper fix for this is to pass a Constitutional amendment rather than trying to ignore or get around the Constitution and use some easier means of doing what Congress wants to do. In this case, Congress followed the correct path – perhaps they had too many senators and representatives still in Congress since the 17th amendment was passed who remembered how the government was supposed to be limited according to the Constitution.

The question of whether this was a good law is a separate matter. Should Congress decide whether people should ever be allowed to consume alcohol? No. But at least in making this bad law they followed the proper procedure to give themselves the authority to take the action they wanted to take – and to successfully pass a Constitutional amendment requires a very broad base of support. If the people choose to prohibit consumption of alcohol that’s much better than having Congress prohibit its consumption because of the influence of a vocal lobbying group.

Tags amendments, change congress, documents, history, liberty

General

The American’s Creed

I believe in the United States of America as a government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed, a democracy in a republic, a sovereign Nation of many sovereign States; a perfect union, one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes.

I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it, to support its Constitution, to obey its laws, to respect its flag, and to defend it against all enemies.

I should be able to support The American’s Creed wholeheartedly, but I am finding it difficult on some levels because while this creed supports the ideal vision of what the Constitutional Government of the United States should look like I fear that the creed needs an asterisk next to it explaining that our current government does not live up to anything like that ideal and must be brought back into line with the ideal through the diligent efforts of those who truly love their country.

Here is a summary of where I think the ideal of the American’s Creed and the Constitution differ from the realities of our government today:

This government has become more of a government over the people rather than a government of the people.
While the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed, the governed have allowed the government to derive unjust powers from themselves and through judicial rulings, international law, and executive orders.
The states of which the nation is comprised are no longer sovereign in any meaningful way. (Often they are not even sovereign from each other.)
While the government was established upon principles of freedom, equality, justice, and humanity it has not been perpetuated upon those same principles – especially in the last few decades.

As a result of these deficiencies my duty is not only to love my country, support its Constitution, and obey its laws, but also to correct its deficiencies in a way that does not violate the very principles upon which the nation was founded.

Unlike the Pledge of Allegiance, I thought it important to say something about the author of the American’s Creed, William Tyler Page. His story of public service is a textbook example of the American’s Creed in action. The day after he died it was said of him that:

He believed that the Constitution of the United States was next to the word of God: the most spiritually illuminated and divinely inspiring political document of modern times. So he sat here, a philosopher, a friend, a Christian gentleman, and we sat at his feet and received from him new strength, new courage, new understanding.

Like Page, I believe that the Constitution is “the most spiritually illuminated and divinely inspiring political document of modern times” and it does stand adjacent to the canon of Holy Scripture in the library of my heart. Unlike scripture I am free with the Constitution to disagree with parts of it (like the 16th and 17th amendments) and to seek to have those parts altered or abolished by following the procedures outlined in the Constitution. There is no such procedure in the scriptures nor do I consider myself an equal to the Author of scripture – unlike the authors of the Constitution. (I consider myself the equal of the founding fathers in that they were men who loved their country and wanted to secure her liberty for their peers and their posterity, as do I.)

Tags Constitution, documents, history, ideal

National

Bad Year for Liberty

photo credit: Leo Reynolds

I consider 1913 to be a very bad year for liberty because in that year the 16th and 17th amendments were both passed. Each of these amendments is a lever that loosened the moorings that had limited the power of the federal government for 126 years to that point. It’s true that before either of those amendments were passed the actions they authorized were already in use but by codifying the legality of an unlimited income tax and the direct election of senators removing even the appearance of states as sovereign political entities it became nearly impossible to lend any credence to the notion of limited national government held in check by the interests of state and local governments as well as the prevailing interests of the body of voters.

There are many conservative pundits calling for a scaling back of government. From what I have observed most of them seem to want to go back 30 or 50 years. Some may even be bold enough to suggest going back 80 years before the New Deal and the great depression. Very few understand that to truly have a limited government again we must go back at least 96 years to rest the two levers that were thrown in 1913.

Tags amendments, Constitution, Elevated, history, ideal, senate, taxes

National

Constitutional Amendment 17

Post author By David
Post date August 3, 2009
6 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 17

Following close on the heels of the sixteenth amendment (both in terms of time and impact) comes what may well be the second most fundamental alteration to the public perception and operation of our government through the Seventeenth Amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

This amendment might look fairly innocuous on the surface but it fosters a fundamental shift in the way that the people perceive the structure and function of the representation within the federal government.

I have written about this amendment before and I understand from the comments that some real problems had developed with the original setup of having state legislatures choose the senators. We cannot underestimate however the fundamental shift encoded in this amendment. In my state government I need to pay attention to one senator and one representative in the state government representing me. Before this amendment those two individuals were held responsible for how the state was represented in the United States Senate and then I would pay attention to my representative in the House of Representatives (replacing them if I felt poorly represented). Now the common perception (and the true fact sadly) is that the senators from each state are to represent the people of the state (so I have three people to keep my eye on in the federal level legislative branch besides the two I track in the state legislature) rather than representing the interests of the state as a sovereign political entity and being held accountable by the government of the state directly.

It is no wonder, with this amendment, that people today do not recognize that our structure of government was intended to be a representative republic – with the interests of the people balanced against the interests of each of the states – rather than a democracy.

Tags amendments, Constitution, democracy, documents, history, republic, senate

General

Constitutional Amendment 16

Post author By David
Post date July 31, 2009
4 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 16

The longer I live and the more I study, the more convinced I become that the sixteenth amendment is the greatest assault on liberty in our Constitution.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The amendment was passed as a benign revision to the Constitution, amending Article I Section 9 which had specifically prohibited Congress from laying any direct tax. Without this amendment the government could never have sufficient funds to substantially exceed their constitutional authority.

This amendment was passed in order to make it possible to levy income taxes – the most sinister aspect of income taxes being that government now holds first claim on the income of its citizens. If I don’t wish to support what the government is doing my only legal way to not support it is to have no income (or at least, less income than they are interested in taxing). While it will never happen in my lifetime (and probably will never happen period) the fact that the government has first claim on my income means that Congress could claim everything I produce and take it as income tax. So much for the right to property because my property (and yours) is now a gift or loan from the government.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, liberty, taxes

General

The Pledge of Allegiance

The Pledge of Allegiance may well be the most widely memorized bit of prose in the United States. In fact it is so widely known that I wonder how many people have ever stopped to consider where it came from or what it means (few I suspect). It was first written in 1892 but it’s final form did not come until 1954. Those who object to the reference to God are following in the footsteps of the daughter of the man who wrote the original version.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I think it is instructive that we do not pledge allegiance to the United States or its government, but to the flag and the government ideal that it represents. We are pledging allegiance to the republic that the founders established in order to protect the freedoms of all the citizens of the nation. A nation which is meant to be under God and indivisible and which should be devoted without exception to protecting liberty and promoting justice for all.

That is the kind of nation that I can cheerfully and wholeheartedly support. We must ask ourselves how close that image aligns with the realities of our nation today. Those who truly pledge their allegiance to the flag and the national ideal of good government that it represents are pledging themselves to pursue those policies in government and society which will bring us closer to the ideal represented by the flag, the one where there are 50 sovereign states which, together with the sovereign citizens of the nation, work together to promote liberty and justice for all.

Tags documents, history, liberty

General

Constitutional Amendment 15

Post author By David
Post date July 23, 2009
No Comments on Constitutional Amendment 15

The 15th Amendment appears to be the first attempt to curb the efforts of those who were trying to deny blacks the right to vote as explicitly established in the 14th amendment.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

As history has shown, those people who still held their prejudices found more creative ways to deny that right. This is just further proof that there is no way to legislate what people will or should think – regardless of how well the social engineers concoct their plans.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, liberty

National

Constitutional Amendment 14

Post author By David
Post date July 21, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 14

I have written previously about the Fourteenth Amendment as an example of a law that declares a legal principle of equality but does not extend to defining a quantitative measure of the level of equality that is expected. This amendment is applicable to current political debates for two reasons. First, that we are grappling with the proper way to construct laws to protect the liberty and equality of all citizens. Second, this amendment is referenced in some debates about how to deal with the issue of illegal immigration.

Section 1 of the amendment declares the principle – and it is a debate about what it means to be “born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” that is applicable to some proposed legislation related to illegal immigration.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2 specifies the consequences of abridging the equality specified in the first section.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Some people have argued that the non-outcome-based approach to the problem of abridging voting rights is what lead to widespread discrimination against blacks in the south for a century after this amendment was adopted. I think that it would be more accurate to say that failure to impose the declared penalty was more at fault for this practice. People cannot have their inner thoughts and desires regulated by written laws, but they generally will mold their actions to their own best interest. If the penalty of reduced representation were applied to the states that were using intimidation and Jim Crow laws to prevent blacks from exercising their civic rights I have little doubt that those states would rather quickly have found the motivation necessary to end such practices in order to have a full voice in the actions of the federal government without needing the creation of some of the civil rights legislation of the 1960’s that focused on equality of outcomes rather than universal principles of equal protection.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, voting