Tag: Constitution

Constitutional Amendment 25

Post author By David
Post date September 2, 2009
5 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 25

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’m curious about what prompted Congress to finally address the issue of presidential succession when they did, but there were actually two proposals for the 25th Amendment. One would have given Congress the power to determine the presidential succession by law. The other stipulated the succession in the Constitution itself.

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

It’s a long amendment because it is meant to cover any contingency but I’d hate to think how political the congressional maneuvering and manipulation could get if the amendment has simply stipulated that Congress could decide. To get an idea just look at the situation in Massachusetts where the (Democratic) legislature made a law that the governor (a Republican at the time) could not appoint a successor if one of their Senate seats (both held by Democrats) became vacant. Now with the death of Senator Kennedy they want to override that law because they have a Democratic governor again.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, Massachusetts

General

Constitutional Amendment 24

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

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

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

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