Tag: amendments

Constitutional Amendment 24

Post author By David
Post date September 1, 2009
4 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 24

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

I would guess that poll taxes made more sense before the government adopted income taxes but because poll taxes could be abused (and were being abused) the nation used the 24th Amendment to end the practice of poll taxes and to make failure to pay taxes insufficient reason to deny the right to vote.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Notice that this is the fourth amendment that was at least partially aimed at leveling the field for civic participation of minorities (specifically blacks). Imagine what Congress could have done with “Comprehensive Slavery Reform” rather than the iterative approach we took – we’d probably be even worse off than we are now.

Tags amendments, civic participation, Constitution, documents, history, voting

National

Constitutional Amendment 23

Post author By David
Post date August 26, 2009
5 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 23

Reacting to changes in society that the founders could not have anticipated, the 23rd Amendment provided representation in the electoral college to residents of Washington D.C. in presidential elections.

The District constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

To get an idea of how they might have made this oversight, we should look at what the founders envisioned for the seat of government. They would have anticipated an essentially agrarian society, a federal government with limited power, and therefore a city that would not draw any particularly large number of people. Many of those who would be drawn there would, in their expectations, have been temporary residents – members of Congress and federal employees – who would have the right to cast their votes in their states of residence.

Those who would live their permanently would likely have been farmers. The Constitution stipulates that the capital city not exceed 10 square miles which is 6400 acres. In 1865 freed slaves were initially promised 40 acres and a mule. I think it is safe to assume that, as this was a promise to ex-slaves, 40 acres was not a particularly large amount of land for one family. in other words, if the entire city were populated by farmers it would have a population of no more than 160 families – and representatives in Congress were to represent at least 30,000 people according to the Constitution. It is understandable that they would not think it necessary to give those few people a vote in the electoral college.

In many ways the 23rd Amendment was a half measure. Considering the expanded (and expanding) breadth of congressional authority (especially over Washington D.C.) it is very reasonable for the residents of Washington D.C. to desire a voting representative in the House. In order to achieve that we will need to pass another constitutional amendment.

Perhaps it is because they have been breathing the capital air too long (and because previous attempts to amend the Constitution have been rejected for overreaching by seeking full statehood) the residents of D.C. have spent their energy trying to circumvent the Constitution in their efforts to gain that otherwise well-deserved voting representation.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, fourth seat, history, voting

culture National

Constitutional Amendment 22

Post author By David
Post date August 20, 2009
4 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 22

Off and on in various circles the idea of mandating term limits for various elected officials is discussed with varying degrees of interest. I wonder if many of these discussions would exist in the absence of the 22nd Amendment.

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

The two sides of the debate can be generally summarized as “we need fresh ideas/faces in Congress, incumbents have too much advantage in elections, the office is more important than the person holding it” and “the people should be free to decide when to replace their elected officials without being tied to an artificial limit, these jobs benefit from experience, constant turnover favors special interests.”

In my view each side has some valid concerns. Conveniently the 22nd amendment seems to feel non-restrictive of the peoples ability to choose because only one president ever served more than two terms in 160 years under the Constitution before it was adopted and as far as I know only one president since has made any vocal portion of the voters wish to not be limited to two terms.

I have not yet decided for sure whether an artificial limit placed on a really good elected leader would be less burdensome than the common practice of perpetual incumbency – I suspect that it would. What i know is that I would like to see a lot more turnover among elected officials so that people are reminded that whoever they elect is replaceable – ideally that would happen without having to impose artificial limits as it has for our presidency for the majority of our nations history.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, term limits

General

Constitutional Amendment 21

Post author By David
Post date August 19, 2009
2 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 21

Closely tied to the Eighteenth Amendment (because it repeals it) the Twenty-First Amendment serves to validate the value and proper use of the amendment process.

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Because government justly derives its power from the consent of the governed, and because the will of the majority cannot ultimately be held in check by a rule (no matter how good the rule) unless the majority choose to abide by that rule (thus giving their consent), the 18th and 21st amendments demonstrate that the high barrier of creating a Constitutional Amendment can be used to remove rights and grand government new restrictive powers but that leaving that possibility open is reasonable because it can also be used to undo previous poor decisions when the people change their stance on an issue that should never have been addressed in the Constitution.

The amendment process is powerful and should be used carefully, but it has been established precisely so that we have the possibility of making fundamental changes (when so desired by a large majority of the people at any given time) in a way that is essentially peaceful. There is no way to grant a power while guaranteeing that it can never be abused, but the amendment process does of good job of making it difficult to abuse the power while leaving the people ultimately sovereign over their government (if they will insists upon holding their government in line with their Constitution).

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history

National State

Constitutional Amendment 20

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

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

Securing Liberty

photo credit: Brian Wilson Photography

I got a complaint on facebook over a statement I made that later amendments take legal precedence over earlier ones where both conflictingly address the same point of law. Here was the complaint:

I have a problem with the rationalization . . . that a later amendment takes precedence over an earlier one- That takes away all security in the freedoms that our constitution grants.

I don’t know how it is possible to fight common sense. If the city code states that housing density may not exceed 2 houses per acre and then a later city council passes an ordinance stating that housing density may not exceed 5 houses per acre it would be absurd to try stopping a developer who wanted to build a subdivision filled with 1/4 acre lots (at least it would be absurd to do so using the original density code to back up your complaint). The same principle holds true at every level of legal authority – including at the Constitutional level. The guarantees of freedoms in the Constitution are only binding from one time to the next if they are not challenged at that level of law. If the people of succeeding generations challenge and remove the liberties currently in the Constitution through new amendments there is no way today to prevent them from doing so.

Tags amendments, Constitution, Elevated, liberty, Orrin Hatch, Reagan, thoughts

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

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