Mittwoch, 8. Dezember 2010

27th Amendment

"No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
The last amendment to the constitution- up to this date. It seems important in connection with the lame duck legislation. People are greedy, that is clear. And why not raise your own compensation, when possible? All those bankers still get bonuses despite what happened just a couple of years ago. So this amendment at least makes it easier for the governing body to not be to money.oriented in their own sense.

"May 20, 2010

The 27th amendment’s long road to ratification

HUNTSVILLE — This week marks the 18th anniversary of the passage of the 27th amendment.  This amendment, which prohibits any law “varying the compensation” of congressmen from taking effect until a congressional election has “intervened,” is a modest one.

It lacks the lofty language and broad familiarity of the first amendment which protects, among other things, the freedom of speech, press, and religious practice. The 27th amendment does not shield citizens from harassment as does the 4th amendment’s prohibition of “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It does not enjoy the pithy usage of “pleading the fifth,” nor does it possess the history-altering gravitas of the 13th amendment, which abolished slavery in the United States.  But the 27th amendment merits discussion because its path to ratification highlights the impact that one person can have in a democracy.

Following the ratification of the United States Constitution, members of Congress immediately began considering amendments that would guarantee the preservation of essential rights. From more than 200 proposals, the House approved seventeen, a dozen of which ended up being passed by the Senate.

Of these 12, 10 were ratified by the states within a few years, becoming the Bill of Rights. One, involving congressional apportionment, was delayed and was eventually superseded by statutory law.  The other was introduced by none other than James Madison, beginning a strange 203-year odyssey that culminated in the ratification of the 27th amendment.

The Constitution requires that, for a proposed amendment to “take effect,” 3/4ths of the states must ratify it.  The proposed amendment regarding congressional pay increases, however, failed to gain traction and was ratified by only seven of the states by 1792 – four fewer than needed at that time. 

Years passed.  Ohio ratified the amendment in 1873, in response to a sketchy effort by Congress to increase congressional salaries by fifty percent – applied retroactively, no less.

More years passed.  Wyoming approved the proposed amendment in 1978 in response to another congressional pay increase.  By this time, however, passage of the amendment required ratification by thirty-eight (3/4ths) of the states. 

Enter Gregory Watson, who was then an undergraduate at the University of Texas.  Writing a term paper for his political science class in 1982, he took up the cause. His paper consisted of two parts. One argued that the proposed amendment was – despite the elapsed 193 years – still viable.  The second part was a call to action, exhorting the remaining 41 states to ratify.

In an interview for this article, Watson pointed out that the push for the amendment was about more than just preventing members of Congress from voting to give themselves raises. His efforts, he hoped, would also demonstrate “just how out of date the constitutional amendment process is.”  Not only is it “wildly antiquated,” but it “also needlessly excludes the most important player in the American political system of democracy, i.e., the people themselves.” 

In short, Watson was not only advocating for the amendment, he was giving voice to his view of democracy.

He sent letters to the 41 states that had yet to ratify the amendment. Outside academia his voice fell on eager ears. 

Maine passed it in 1983.  Colorado passed it in 1984. 

Time passed.  Watson became a legislative assistant for the Texas State Legislature. Ralph Nader joined the cause. By 1989 a majority of the states had ratified the proposed amendment, and The Washington Post covered the story, giving Watson’s progress additional momentum. In the next three years, ten more states ratified, leaving Watson only one state shy.  In 1992, Alabama edged out Michigan and New Jersey, becoming the 38th state to ratify the amendment. 

Constitutional scholars argued, Senator Robert Byrd rumbled, and a disengaged nation yawned.  Meanwhile, on May 18, 1992, U.S. Archivist Don Wilson ratified the amendment. It was officially the 27th amendment to the U. S. Constitution.  Gregory Watson, who started this process as a 20-year-old undergraduate at the University of Texas, had passed a constitutional amendment.

Watson is a modern-day Mr. Smith, taking his cause not only to Washington, but also across the nation.  In so doing, he finished something that James Madison – the Father of the Constitution – did not.  Think about that for a second.

When asked what it was like to build a partnership across the ages with James Madison on a constitutional amendment, Watson said, “I feel honored.”

But what about the 1982 term paper that revivified Madison’s proposed amendment?  Watson made a C, because the “subject matter was not a hot enough topic.” Those damned political science professors."
 Source: http://itemonline.com/opinion/x334298972/The-27th-amendment-s-long-road-to-ratification 

A very entertaining article about the long journey of an amendment. It is good to know, that already the framers knew their own selves and therefore wanted to bar the raise of congressman's salaries approved by themsleves. And it is incredible to see that still today one single person can have such an impact on this nation if he/she has an important issue to address.



I did not know about this automatic raise of the salaries in congress. Still, to me this Fox video might just hit right there whre they want it to- the people who struggle in the crisis and who just look for scapegoats- which is undestandable. Still, look at those bankers that do not only get $5000, but multiples of those numbers. This is to me a more important issue. How can you be such a good manager that you still get a compensation when you loused it up.
Congressmen could just have stopped themselves from getting more money, that would have been better. But then they would have been attacked for only doing this to gain political points. So, there is a thin line to walk on.

26th Amendment

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
And yet, another amendment that deals with the right to vote- now for young adults. I understand that people should be able to vote when they are able to set their life at stake for their country. Nevertheless, I do not undestand why they are then not considered as adults under the law, but as minors. I am not talking about alcohol here, but also about other things like for example trials or legal competencies.
But I do think it is very important that younf people educate themselves about the politics nin their country as they are the future and should be able to make educated decisions early on.
"Ann Coulter

Repeal the 26th Amendment!


Jimmy Carter was such an abominable president we got Ronald Reagan, tax cuts, a booming economy and the destruction of the Soviet Union.
Two years of Bill Clinton and a Democratic Congress got us the first Republican Congress in half a century, followed by tax cuts, welfare reform and a booming economy –- all of which Clinton now claims credit for.
Obama's disastrous presidency has already produced Republican senators from Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Illinois; New Jersey's wonder-governor Chris Christie; and the largest House majority for Republicans since 1946.
We deserve more. Clinton only threatened to wreck the health care system; Obama actually did it. We must repeal the 26th Amendment.
Adopted in 1971 at the tail end of the Worst Generation's anti-war protests, the argument for allowing children to vote was that 18-year-olds could drink and be conscripted into the military, so they ought to be allowed to vote.
But 18-year-olds aren't allowed to drink anymore. We no longer have a draft. In fact, while repealing the 26th Amendment, we ought to add a separate right to vote for members of the military, irrespective of age.
As we have learned from ObamaCare, young people are not considered adults until age 26, at which point they are finally forced to get off their parents' health care plans. The old motto was "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." The new motto is: "Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote."
Eighteen- to 26-year-olds don't have property, spouses, children or massive tax bills. Most of them don't even have jobs because the president they felt so good about themselves for supporting wrecked the economy.
The meager tax young people paid for vehicle licensing fees on their cars threw them into such a blind rage that in 2003 they uncharacteristically voted to recall the Democratic governor of California, Gray Davis. Wait until they start making real money and realize they share a joint-checking account arrangement with the government! Literally wait. Then we'll let them vote.
Having absolutely no idea what makes their precious cars run, by the way, young voters are the most likely to oppose offshore drilling.
How about 10-year-olds? Why not give them the vote?
Then we'd have politicians wooing voters with offers of free Justin Bieber tickets instead of offers of a "sustainable planet" or whatever hokum the youth have swallowed hook, line and sinker from their teachers, pop culture idols and other authority figures. (Along with their approved-by-the-authorities "Question Authority" bumper stickers.)
Like 18-year-olds, the 10-year-olds would be sublimely unaware that they're the ones who will be footing the bill for all these "free" goodies, paying and paying until they die of old age.
Brain research in the last five years at Dartmouth and elsewhere has shown that human brains are not fully developed until age 25 and are particularly deficient in their frontal lobes, which control decision-making, rational thinking, judgment, the ability to plan ahead and to resist impulses.
Unfortunately, we didn't know that in 1971. Those of you who have made it to age 26 without dying in a stupid drinking game -- and I think congratulations are in order, by the way -- understand how insane it is to allow young people to vote.
It would almost be tolerable if everyone under the age of 30 just admitted they voted for Obama because someone said to them, "C'mon, it's really cool! Everyone's doing it!"
We trusted them, and now we know it was a mistake.
True, Reagan tied with Carter for the youth vote in 1980 and stole younger voters from Mondale in 1984, but other than that, young voters have consistently embarrassed themselves. Of course, back when Reagan was running for president, young voters consisted of the one slice of the population completely uninfected by the Worst Generation. Today's youth are the infantilized, pampered, bicycle-helmeted children of the Worst Generation.
They foisted this jug-eared, European socialist on us and now they must be punished. Voters aged 18 to 29 years old comprised nearly a fifth of the voting population in 2008 and they voted overwhelmingly for Obama, 66 percent to 31 percent.
And it only took 12 to 14 years of North Korean-style brainwashing to make them do it! At least their teachers haven't brainwashed them into burning books or ratting out their parents to the Stasi yet. (Of course, before teaching them book-burning, at least their professors would be forced to teach them what a book is.)
It would make more sense to give public school teachers and college professors 20 votes apiece than to allow their impressionable students to vote.
The Re-Education Camp Effect can be seen in how these slackers living at home on their parents' health insurance voted in the middle of the Republican tidal wave this year. Youths aged 18-29 voted for the Democrats by 16 points. But the kids aged 18-24 -- having just received an A in Professor Ward Churchill's college class on American Oppression -- voted for the Democrats by a whopping 19 points.
Young people voted for Obama as a fashion statement. One daughter of a friend of a friend of mine spent her whole college summer in 2008 working at a restaurant and then, with teary eyes, sent everything she made to the Obama campaign.
Luckily, she doesn't have to worry about paying for tuition, rent or food. Or property taxes, electric bills, plumbers and electricians. After being exploited by the left, she'll end up paying for it for the rest of her life, with interest.
Liberals fight tooth-and-nail to create an electorate disposed to vote Democratic by, for example, demanding that felons and illegal aliens be given the vote. But it's at least possible that illegal aliens and criminals pay taxes or have fully functioning frontal lobes.
Republicans ought to fight for their own electorate, which at a minimum ought to mean voters with fully functioning brains and the possibility of a tax bill. Not old enough to buy your own health insurance, not old enough to vote."
Source: http://townhall.com/columnists/AnnCoulter/2010/11/10/repeal_the_26th_amendment!/page/full/

A very interesting article to me, but I cannot follow the srguments of the author. She says, that "children" (are people with 18 years of ages still children?) do not have the experience to vote. Well, do they when they are 21? If we take this argument, why not set the age to vote up to 60, since you gain more life experience the older you get.
The author point out that 18-26 years olds do not have for example spouses or kids. Well, I have seen many more students in College here who have children and might be married that ever in Germany. So they really start earlier here and I would guess the majority in this country is married and does have kids before they hit 26.
To me, the author just denies any intellectual capacities to young people. They can still think about consequences of their behavior or votes- even if they do not have as much experience as others. And they might be good for a country as their thought might be more flexible and going in different directions, not as many older people who are deadlocked in their position [irony!].



The video shows it all- young people need to get interested in politics and take action! That is what I think as they are the future of any country and therefore have to help shape their own future. It is their life and they can impact what happens from their 18th birthday on.

25th Amendment

"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."
This is an important amendment as it lines out the order of succession if something happens to the president. There can always be an incident, an attack, an accident or an illness even. Therefore it is important to know who will take over and to ensure the citizens that the country still is in good hands so no panic or anarchical circumstances can develop.

"Should the 25th amendment be invoked to remove Obama from office?
November 14th, 2010 3:23 pm ET
A Democratic candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives in Texas this year created a stir in the political world by insisting during the campaign that the 25 Amendment to the U.S. Constitution should be invoked to remove Obama from office.
Yes, the candidate was a Democrat.  And yes, the candidate was a female African-American by the name of Kesha Rogers.  Yet she made it a centerpiece of her campaign to call for the removal of Obama from office, not by impeachment, which would involve a lengthy process in Congress, but by invoking the 25th, which specifies how a sitting President can be removed immediately based upon the opinion of the Vice-President and Cabinet that he is unable to fulfill the duties of office.
A person may become unfit to serve even if that person is not aware of it.  Emotional illness or emotional breakdown sometimes involves the complete lack of insight into one's own illness.  Thus, there are times when it is entirely possible--and legal--for the VP and a majority of Cabinet members to write the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House stating that the President is unfit to serve and that the Vice-President will become Acting President until such time as the President becomes able to serve once again, or until the next election. 
Rogers is convinced that Obama is unfit to serve and must be removed.  And a growing chorus of top-level Democrats appears to be in agreement.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough stated on a recent 'Morning Joe' segment on the network that he had personally spoken to SEVEN (7) top Democrats in the Senate who are now convinced that 'Obama doesn't know what he's doing.'
In addition, if the information being fed to the journalist known as 'Ulsterman' by a White House insider turns out to be true, then it is clear Obama is exhibiting at the very least signs of gross incompetence at best and at worst a marked detachment from reality and a total disinterest in fulfilling the day-to-day duties of President--all signs of severe emotional distress. 
So severe is the crisis at the White House, according to the insider, that top level Democrats are now scrambling to try to save the Party when the walls come crashing down on Obama.  Unless such a strategy is in place, says the insider, then Obama will take the entire Democratic Party down with him.
But that's not all.
A top Democratic strategist who has the respect of a broad spectum of Democrats is now publicly calling for Obama to announce, immediately, that he will not seek a second term in 2012.  A consensus is building among Democratic operatives that Obama has become such a liability to the Party that in order to prevent a knock-out blow by Republicans in 2012, which would complete the Party's demise that was started on Nov. 2 of this year, Obama must announce very soon that he will not seek reelection.  This would give the Democrats enough time to choose a candidate who could potentially minimize the further damage that is sure to come unless there is a miraculous economic boom.
In short, none of this is good news for Obama and his inner circle of Leftwing extremists.  But it would be good news for the Democrats if they wish to roll back another Republican tsunami in 2012 to a much smaller rip current of losses.
Even that, however, may not be enough to prevent another major shellacking in 2012.  Many of the major players in the Senate who contributed to the current mess in which the country finds itself were not up for reelection this year.  They will most certainly face the music from the voters in 2012."

Ok, this article is just too absurd. Remove the president because he is insane? Sorry, but this idea is insane. This man just tries to save this country whether one likes the methods or not. He has been elected legally by the people of this country.
Of course, Mister Obama is probably in a lot of emotional distress. The country is still in the crisis, the two wars still go on, Guantanamo Bay is not closed yet and the last elections were a mere smack in the face. Still, this does not make a person incapable of exercise his office. Maybe he will come back stronger than before?



A very funny video which makes some funny digs at some politicians. I remember that hunting accident of Mr. Cheney, which happened I think in Minnesota. So in this video he would have accidently shot his successor, pretty black humor here, as well as with Governors of California which points to Mr. Schwarzenegger.

24th Amendment

"Section 1. 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.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
This is another amendment about voting. It seems to be a critical issues in this country as there are 3 amendments that are connected to the right to vote. This one protects the poor people as they might not be able to pay poll taxes and therefore are held back from voting. This is to me a kind of patronage politics as to keep people who would vote differently away from the ballots.

"Speaking of the Constitution
The 24th Amendment was ratified on this date in 1964, making poll taxes illegal in federal elections.
Poll taxes were one way that the states of the former Confederacy circumvented the 15th Amendment. These taxes became common at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. Many states included grandfather clauses in their version of the poll tax, allowing people whose parents or grandparents had voted to do so as well. In this way, the taxes disfranchised African-Americans while allowing whites, with some exceptions, to vote.
The House of Representatives passed five bills banning the poll tax in the 1940s. But each time the measure failed to get through the Senate, where Southerners blocked the legislation. Finally, in 1962, the Senate approved the 24th Amendment. It took two more years for ratification. And when the 24th Amendment went into effect, five Southern states — Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia — still had poll taxes on the books. Only in 1966, in the case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, did the Supreme Court rule that all poll taxes were unconstitutional."
 Source: http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/speaking-of-the-constitution/

The article shows how it still was able to keep poor black citizens away from voting even after the 15th amendment. In the former slave states this seemed to be a common practice and I hope that it will cease from existence sooner or later to allow everybody not depending on their money to vote.

 

  The New Poll Tax

Ok, there is something in Economics that is called "opportunity costs". This means the costs (not only evaluated in money) that emerge while doing something else. So this report has some kind of thuth in it. Still, it is exagerated.
Nevertheless, it points out that there has to be organizational changes to be made to make voting go faster. Maybe making sunday the voting day- it is in Germany. Many people do not have to work on sundays so there could this pressure be taken away. And maybe one can set up more voting stations, so the rush can be divided up and so kept down to a lower level.

23rd Amendment

"Section 1. 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 twelth article of amendment.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
It is good that Washington DC has now some representation in the Congress. Still, since they do not have the status of a state they are not really represented, only in the election of the president. Therefore, they still have no say in any political issue addressed in the congress.
I personally do not understand why one sets up a city as the capitol of a country (which became it therefore not historically) and not have it part of a state or a state itself?

"The 23rd Amendment
Posted: Aug 04, 2010 5:04 PM Updated: Aug 06, 2010 9:57 AM

By Tim Guidera
SAVANNAH, GA (WTOC) – Washington D.C. is the site and seat of most American governmental activity.
But the nation's capitol did not even have a say in who occupied the White House until the 23rd Amendment was passed.
Unlike the 50 states, the District of Columbia does not have members of the House of Representatives or the Senate. And before 1961, its residents were not able to participate in presidential elections. But the 23rd Amendment provided that vote, while including Washington D.C. in the electoral college but only as the equivalent of the country's smallest actual state.
"It's interesting that its population is actually larger than at least one state,'' said Georgia Southern University Political Science professor Patrick Novotny. "And one of the studies done not too long ago said that Washington D.C. Residents are 19th or 20th in the nation in terms of taxes that they pay. So, they certainly pay a good share as so many Americans do. So at least for presidential elections, the Distric of Columbia can weigh in with their three electoral votes.''
It was simply an oversight by the founding fathers that deprived Washington D.C. residents the right to participate in presidential elections. They voted for the first time in 1964, the 45th presidential election in America's history."
Source: http://www.wtoc.com/global/story.asp?s=12927299

This article shows, that Washington DC does not have equal representation even in the presidential elections. Why can't it be determined how many electors DC has with the same method as with the other states- population. If I would be an American citizen working in Washington DC, I would, if it is possible, live in a surrounding state to actually have the chance to vote for the federal representation.



Katie Couric id right in poiting out that DC people pay taxes and do not receive the right to vote. To me, the most important part of thsi video is the citation about defending democrcy elsewhere in the world, whereas it is not fully developped in the own country. This, to me, shows that this issue has to be addressed to actually be authentic in those so-called wars for freedom.

Dienstag, 7. Dezember 2010

22nd Amendment

"Section 1. 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 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.

Section 2. This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress."
Term limits on the presidents term are to me a very good improvement. In this country as you have a bipartisan system there are not many choices and one candidate might receive the majority of votes several times consecutively. In Germany this happened with Helmut Kohl who has been the chancelor for 16 years. Nevertheless, two of those elections have been in times of a big change in the 1990s. So to me, to advance and to improve competition amongst parties it is very good to have term limits.


"King Obama: House Considers Repealing 22nd Amendment
Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
January 19, 2009


Earlier this month, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y. introduced H. J. Res. 5, a bill that would repeal the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment prohibiting a president from being elected to more than two terms in office, thus potentially paving the way to make Barack Obama president for life. Not surprisingly, the corporate media — currently caught up in Obama mania — has not covered this story.

“Will George W. Bush end up being the last true US President?” asked Sher Zieve, writing for the Canadian Free Press on January 14. “As I warned you on multiple times prior to the 2008 General Election, ‘once Obama is elected, we won’t be able to get rid of him.’ Tragically, this warning is now being realized. Not only has Obama established his election-fraud organization — ACORN — nationwide, his adherents have now begun the process to repeal the US Constitution’s 22nd Amendment.” In addition to the ACORN election-fraud organization, Obama’s behind the scenes handlers have reinvigorated his “grass roots” election organization, calling it “Obama 2.0,” essentially a classical fascist mass movement designed to keep Obama mania alive and as well go up against those opposed to the bankster policies Obama and the elite plan to shove down the throat of the American people.
“The Amendment limits presidents to a maximum of eight years in office – or, under unusual circumstances, such as succession following the death of a president, a maximum of ten years in office. Should Rep. Serrano succeed in repealing the Amendment, Obama would be cleared to run for an unlimited number of terms, restricted only by the vote of the electorate,” writes Drew Zahn for WorldNetDaily.
As the election campaign of Obama revealed, it is relatively easy to whip up irrational frenzy over a candidate, thus ensuring his re-election indefinitely if the 22nd Amendment is indeed repealed.
The United States is no longer the country it once was. “Prior to Franklin Roosevelt, presidents honored the precedent established by George Washington, who – though widely popular – refused to run for a third term of office,” notes Zahn.
Thomas Jefferson followed Washington’s example and foresaw the eventual passage of the 22nd Amendment. “General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years,” Jefferson wrote in an 1805 letter to John Taylor. “I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution.”
Jefferson’s immediate successors, James Madison and James Monroe, also adhered to the two-term principle.
During Franklin D. Roosevelt’s second term, supporters cited the bankster engineered war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, Roosevelt won a fourth term, but died in office the following year. The 22nd Amendment was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 26, 1951.
Following the potential repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Obama’s handlers will exploit the bankster engineered economic crisis to push for a third term. As Gerald Celente, the CEO of Trends Research Institute, and others have predicted, by 2012 America will be wracked by civil strife, “marked by food riots, squatter rebellions, tax revolts and job marches,” writes Paul Joseph Watson.
“In order to achieve repeal of the 22nd Amendment, Serrano’s proposal must be approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states’ legislatures,” notes Zahn.
If Celente’s prediction occurs, this approval will not prove to be much of a hurdle. In fact, as Rockefeller minion Henry Kissinger noted well over a decade ago, under such conditions the American people will beg for a dictator to led them out of the wilderness.
Of course, King Obama will not lead the American people out of the wilderness. He will usher in a New World Order with its high-tech control grid and a horrific race to the bottom."
Source: http://www.infowars.com/king-obama-house-considers-repealing-22nd-amendment/

This article is just a mess to me. It compares Obama's followers to facists that want to keep him as their leader. This kind of does not go in line with calling Obama a communist as those two are in two ends of the political spectrum.
If something like the repeal of the 22nd amendment would be considered by Mr. Obama I think there would be a great disapproval in the society and there would be measurements to not let this happen.
To me there is no clear evidence that Obama wants this and therefore it is just wrong to imply something like this.



I do not know if this is a fake video, but it has a good point at the end. Nevertheless, the author misses that George W. Bush couldn't have run for presidency for another term anyway as hid/her title implies.

21st Amendment

"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.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress. Effect of Repeal."
The repeal of prohibition has just been a case of time. It has not brought any good to the citizens and to take it back after just a few years has shown, that people understood they have made a mistake to make alcohol illegal.
  
"The 21st Amendment Repeals the 18th

Happy Days are Here Again, Rare Amendment Ends Prohibition

Nov 13, 2009 David J. Shestokas

The Eighteenth Amendment had been the product of 178 years of efforts to ban alcohol in the United States that started with a ban in Georgia in 1742. The ban of the Eighteenth Amendment went into effect Jan, 16, 1920. It lasted a mere thirteen years.

21st Amendment Passed in 288 Days, Ending Prohibition

The stories of Prohibition, including the likes of Al Capone and the Untouchables are well known. In light of the atmosphere created by Prohibition, a political movement to elect “wet” legislators grew and on Feb. 20, 1933 Congress sent the following proposal to the States:
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.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
With the ratifications of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah on Dec. 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment became effective and Prohibition was ended.

Four Rare Elements of the 21st Amendment

The 21st Amendment, although only in three sections, contained four elements unusual to the Constitution. Three are unique and the fourth is rare:
  1. first and only amendment to repeal another amendment
  2. only Amendment Ratified by State Conventions
  3. only Amendment to Grant Specific Authority to the States.
  4. one of only two Amendments to prohibit private conduct.

21st Amendment Repeals the 18th

By 1933, the Constitution had been amended 20 times. Never before had any amendment been repealed. Some amendments had modified prior amendments or extended their reach. The Fourteenth Amendment for example, extended elements of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth to the States. In repealing the Eighteenth Amendment, the Twenty-First became the only Amendment to repeal another.

21st Only Amendment Ratified by State Conventions

The Constitution provides for two methods for ratifying amendments submitted to the States by Congress. One is by the votes of the state legislatures. For all of the other 26 amendments this has been the method of ratification. The other method is by conventions held in each state with convention members chosen for the single purpose of considering the proposed amendment.
The 21st Amendment’s Section 3 required that state conventions consider the proposed amendment. There was congressional concern that the normally elected legislators were either beholden to the temperance lobby or sympathetic to it. Electing special conventions was the solution to this potential political problem.

21st Only Amendment to Grant Specific Authority to the States

While the Tenth Amendment provides for the undefined reservation of authority to the States, there is no amendment but the 21st that specifically grants the States a power. Section 2 gives the States broad authority to regulate the delivery or use of intoxicating liquors. In many instances this has been found to override the authority granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause.
The extent of that authority regarding many aspects of the Constitution remains a matter of contention to the present day as demonstrated by the mail order wine case of Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005).

21st One of Only Two to Regulate Private Conduct

The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits an individual from enslaving another. The Twenty-First prohibits someone from bringing alcohol into a State while disobeying its liquor laws. These are the only two constitutional provisions to regulate private conduct.
As constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe has put it: "there are two ways, and only two ways, in which an ordinary private citizen ... can violate the United States Constitution. One is to enslave someone, a suitably hellish act. The other is to bring a bottle of beer, wine, or bourbon into a State in violation of its beverage control laws—an act that might have been thought juvenile, and perhaps even lawless, but unconstitutional?""
Source: http://www.suite101.com/content/the-21st-amendment-repeals-the-18th-a169425

This amendment repealed another one to straigthen out a mistake that has been made. But it is also the only one up to now that has been ratified in State Conventions. This shows how close to the heart this matter has been to the American people. They have seen the bad and the ugly that has come out of the 18th amendment and wanted apparently desperatly a change.




This obviously fake video of the 30s still gives an insight into opinions of the people back then and how they felt about prohibition with a lot of stereotypes incorporated. Still, most of them wanted it to be gone anyway.

20th Amendment

"Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on 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.

Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission."
This is anotehr example how a change in times makes it necessary to also change the laws. Why should one wait until May to let the President start when there is obviously no need to anymore? To me it seems already weird to have two months between elections and the start of the term since the old president will therefore not sign any important bills in those two months if he/she knows that a political change will come.

"November 22, 2010

Lame-Ducking the 20th Amendment

Lame duck sessions sidestep the 20th Amendment....
Betsy McCaughey, heroic vanquisher of HillaryCare, informs us in a superb op-ed that lame duck sessions are at odds with the manifest intent of the drafters and ratifiers of the 20th Amendment.  She notes that the original March date for swearing in new Congresses was selected because in the 18th century it took weeks for Members to travel from home to the national capital.  Jet travel today makes the trip a matter of hours. Passed in 1932 and ratified early in 1933, the 20th Amendment rectified the situations faced by Abraham Lincoln in 1860 & FDR in 1932: elected but not to take office until March 4 the following year, they were stymied in efforts to act quickly to deal with civil war (Lincoln) and economic crisis (FDR).  The first post-20th Amendment Congress was seated January 3, 1935; the first milestone date for the President & Vice-President under the new calendar was January 20, 1937.  Congress convenes 17 days before the President & VP are inaugurated so that if an Presidential and/or Vice-President contest is not settled by the Electoral College, the new Congress meets to resolve the election.  The House chooses the President, while the Senate chooses the Vice-President.
Ironically, the new Senate is presided over by the still-sitting VP, who could be a candidate in a contested election still unresolved come January.  Thus, had the 2000 election been thrown into January, VP Al Gore would have cast a vote presiding over the new Senate, as to who his successor as VP would have been, while he himself was awaiting a House vote.   (Gore would also have presided had the Senate had to choose between competing slates of electors to be seated from Florida, as nearly happened.  Only the Supreme Court's Bush v. Gore pulling in December 2000 prevented this train wreck.)
Prior to 1935, Congress had been required by Article I section 4, clause 2 of the Constitution to meet at least once a year, on the first Monday in December.  This provision created lame duck sessions, but until the past two decades they were rare; notably, Congress met post-election during the Second World War & the Korean War.
But in the past few decades lame duck sessions have become a commonplace.  Mostly it has been to pass continuing funding bills to keep the government going, because Congress, having reasserted its control over the budget process in the mid-1970s, could not complete its fundamental business.
The current lame duck session has been called for two reasons.  First because this Congress holds the dubious distinction of being the first ever to fail to pass a single one of the 13 appropriations bills provided to fund the federal budget--the despite a Congress wholly controlled by a single party (Democrats).
Second, because the Democrats, having been massively repudiated at the polls three weeks ago, wish to ram through as much of their agenda on tax & spend priorities plus a major strategic arms pact.  McCaughey proposes that the new Congress remove the lame duck sessions save for national emergencies.
Bottom Line.  It is time indeed for Congress to pass, and voters to ratify an amendment ending lame duck session, except for national emergencies.  The amendment should bar legislation from expiring before the next Congress is seated.  Emergencies should specifically be defined to exclude routine budget resolutions funding the government, which are an annual event and thus not emergencies."
 Source: http://www.letterfromthecapitol.com/letterfromthecapitol/2010/11/lame-ducking-the-20th-amendment.html

This article has my full approval. The lame duck period has to end as it does not make any sense. The situation at the moment points it out as there will be a change in the House of Representatives and therefore the Democrats would need to press on to get at least some of their legislatures through.



This flaw in the inauguration ceremony and the upheaval afterwards is really funny as the constitution states that the president starts hid term on Jan. 3rd at noon and does not speak about the oath he has to take. And Barack Obama took his oath again in the White House just to be sure, so there sould not have been any great deal about this.

19th Amendment

"Section 1. The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
A great progress for the emancipation of women. There is no natural evidence of women being inferior to men. Socialization has made these rules beginning with religions and spreading out from there. Nevertheless, this has been the start and there is still some conflicts out there to finally make women and men equal in all the areas of life.

"The 19th amendment turns 90 despite the haters

Women won the right to vote in 1920. No thanks to President Taft or thousands of self-hating ladies

Today we herald the 90th anniversary of our right to vote, ladies, and with that comes a modicum of responsibility. With great power, yadda yadda yadda.
American women tend to take a great deal for granted: We can work, own land, drive our own cars (alone), walk the streets with our arms and legs on display and get pregnant without relying on the presence of a penis (sorry, Bill O'Reilly). All of these inalienable rights have set us apart from present-day women in hundreds of countries. We can cheat on our spouses without being stoned to death. We can express heteroflexibility more readily than men. We can lie, cheat, steal and maim our way to the top of the corporate ladder. Just like boys!
So, a history lesson:
Given the rampant misogyny the suffrage movement was facing, from men and self-hating female anti-suffragists alike, their work cannot be undervalued. President William Howard Taft opposed the idea of women voting because of our tendency to go bat-shit crazy: "It is fair to say the immediate enfranchisement of women will increase the proportion of the hysterical element of the electorate." I'll show him hysterical.
The suffrage and civil rights movements are inexorably linked, too. When the original Susan B. Anthony amendment was being debated in the Senate in September 1918, Sen. John Sharp Williams of Mississippi tried to block a vote by stipulating that suffrage be limited to white women only, which was supported by Sen. Thomas Hardwick of Georgia: "With all due deference to the men of the North, I say you do not quite understand what it means when you vote to give the franchise to the Negro."
Ironically enough, when Hardwick went on to be governor of Georgia, he appointed the first female to serve in the Senate (if only for one day), Rebecca Latimer Felton. Just to show you how back-asswards politics used to be (or has become), Hardwick was a Democrat. A senator from the now-typically blue state of Connecticut was staunchly against women voting, too.
Mara Mayor wrote a book called "Fears and Fantasies of the Anti-Suffragists" in 1974 that included examples of anti-equality hype that are real doozies:
"Allowing women to vote would lead to foreign aggression and war." Like WWII? Vietnam? Tupac vs. Biggie?
"Their [women's] delicate emotional equilibrium could easily be upset by a strain -- like voting."
"Woman suffrage would produce a nation of transvestites."
That last one could technically be called true, since we wear pants, not hoop skirts, but fob watches have yet to catch on.
Leftist women couldn't be counted on to support their sisters' cause, either. The anarchist intellectual Emma Goldman thought the fight for suffrage was beside the point -- women should fight for revolution instead of trying to gain ground in an already screwed-up system. "Woman does not see…that suffrage is an evil, that it has only helped to enslave people, that it has but closed their eyes that they may not see how craftily they were made to submit."
The fight was won, no matter how many men and women thought they were trying to protect the home and hearth and spirit of womanhood by keeping us out of the political process. We need to remember, today of all days, how lucky we are that we get to complain and raise hell and actively participate in our democracy, even if our democracy serves up despicable choices sometimes."
 Source: http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/08/18/19th_amendment_turns_90

It is true that women in the western world are mostly better off than in other countries. And we take it for granted instead of thanking the ladies who have fought for it. But why shouldn't we? To me it seems natural that the genders are equal and it seems to me the superiority of men has come also from them being physically the stronger partner.
Additionaly, how can a women say of herself it would be better if she could not vote? I mean letting women vote would not lead to aggressions as women tend to be less aggressive as men. So where is this argument coming from? I am proud to be a women who is able to educate herself, vote and do all the things men can do.


The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Anniversary Pandering
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes2010 ElectionMarch to Keep Fear Alive

Ok, this is a very comdical approach to this topic, I like that. Having Hilary Clinton give a speech on this day might have been the wrong step (even if we do not know about what she was speaking, so it might just be a coincidence), but this video is also pointing out how exagerated it sometimes is to compare anniversaries and speeches.

18th Amendment

"Section 1. 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.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."
Prohibition. is there anything to say about this? I can see what the intention behind all this could have been. Nevertheless, if somethin is forbidden it is even more attractive to people. We all know this from our childhood. Alcohol is not the demon. It is just the abuse of it and therefore it is the human who has to control him-/herself. It cannot be condemned, but there has to be teached a responsible handling of legal drugs in teenager years. Teenagers drink here too, even if it is not legal.

"Prohibition in the 1920s

The 18th Amendment Made Alcohol Illegal

Jan 14, 2009 Kim Kenney
 
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."
Source: http://www.suite101.com/content/prohibition-in-the-1920s-a90037

There is one sentence that made me think about this article. I know, that many breweries are German and therefore brewers might be of German decent. But has this anything to do with prohibition? There have been other predocts Germany has been known for and they have not been banned- so i cannot understand what the hate on Germany and the 1st Wolrd War would have to do with Prohibition.


Ok, prohibition has created a lot of crime and has not been right. But this does not mean, the same happens with Marijuhana. One has to draw a line in my opinion. I am not saying I am for or against the legalization of marijuhana. But it is a gateway drug and can lead to taking more aggressive drugs. I have experienced this myself with people I thought I knew.

17th 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 legislatures.
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 is an important amendment as it allows the people now to vote for their senators. This makes their democracy more direct and helps people to be able tp participate more in the politics of their country.

"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."

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/01/republican-candidates-repeal-seventeenth-amendment/

I personally do not understand why senators might not think about the sovereignty of their state if they have been elected by the people rather by legislators. If one just goes by the words of constitution there could be no such thing as a "living document"- and therefore no advancement.



I do not understand the tea party at all, but this video just made me laugh as it points out some contradicting ideas of them. How does taking the right to vote for Senators away maken the world better? I do not know.

16th Amendment

"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."
This amendment to me does not seem to important to debate about. But apparently it is important to Americans. It is good for a country to be able to collect money from their citizens to spend on projects for the community. Income tax help to finance economy programs as well as repairing streets or other projects that benefit all. I know, Americans like to think of the responsibility of everyone for themselves. But as an European I believe in a social way to help the community out and give to the ones who need it.

"End the Income Tax, Abolish the IRS


Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.
An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.
To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:
“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.
We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”
On May 7, 2001, Ron Paul wrote the following column:
The Case Against the Income Tax
Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.
Yet don’t we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.
The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.
America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced “The Liberty Amendment,” legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don’t believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices."
Source: http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/

Well, this article just seems too far off reality to me that I cannot think people actually believe in this. Aparently there is a grat fear of communism in this country (calling President Obama a communist). It is just interesting to hear those arguments as I grew up in Eastern Germany which has been a communist country until 20 years ago. I do not think communism is the rifght way, but total capitalism does not seem to work either.
To say in 2008 that he wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing since there is enough funding is just cynic to me. It has been the start of this crisis and money is needed to get the economy out of the hole (I am a believer in deficit spending and Keynes).



This is to me again a ridiculous video trying to fool people who just believe what others tell them. The income tax does not just go straightly to the banks. They make money off it of course from the interest.
I personally think that establishing the FED has not been a fraud to anybody in this country. It is good to have a central bank deciding over for example the prime rate. This might help stabilize a country in an economic downturn. A central bank which is independent from the government also helps to control them by not letting them decide freely on issues like how much money to put in circulation or the prime rate.

15th Amendment

"Section. 1. 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.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
This, finally, gave the right to vote to the African American people in the US. After being no slaves anymore, being accepted citizens they now could finally start to contribute politically to this nation. Nevertheless, it would still take some decades until also black (or any) women could vote. And there are still measurements that can hold especially poor and/or black people back from voting with required IDs for registration to gain more votes for ones party.

"140 years after the 15th Amendment, more progress must be made on voting rights

By David A. Love, March 31, 2010 
It has been 140 years since the 15th Amendment was ratified, but we still have a ways to go to ensure the right to vote.
The 15th Amendment became part of the U.S. Constitution on March 30, 1870. It states: “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.” And it adds: “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
With voting rights granted to former slaves, the change to the American political landscape was dramatic. There were more than 1,500 black political officeholders during Reconstruction, all of them Republicans. They included a governor and a lieutenant governor, state legislators and members of Congress and the Senate.
Despite the new voting rights protections guaranteed under the 15th Amendment, there was considerable Southern white resistance to black participation in American civic and political life. Groups such as the Ku Klux Klan were formed to intimidate blacks. And as federal troops left the South and Reconstruction came to a close, the South descended into an era of Jim Crow segregation. States engaged in the wholesale disenfranchisement of blacks, wiping them off the political map.
It was not until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that full citizenship rights would be restored to black people. During the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, dozens of people died securing that right.
And sadly, now, in 2010, remnants of Jim Crow remain.
An estimated 5.3 million Americans are denied the right to vote because of felony convictions, including 4 million who are out of prison. A third of them are black. That means one in eight black men can’t vote.
“As of 2004, more African-American men were disenfranchised (due to felon disenfranchisement laws) than in 1870, the year the 15th Amendment was ratified,” says Michelle Alexander, author of “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.”
Some politicians want to return us to the days of Jim Crow laws. At a Tea Party convention in Nashville, Tenn., in February, former Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo told an audience he lamented that “we do not have a civics, literacy test before people can vote in this country.” He added, “People who could not even spell the word ‘vote’ or say it in English, put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House.”
Tancredo’s objectionable statement was a not-so-subtle reference to literacy tests, a weapon of choice used by Jim Crow states to disenfranchise black voters.
On the 140th anniversary of the 15th Amendment, Tancredo and others would have us turn back the clock, and return to a time when people of color were denied the right to vote.
Let’s expand democracy rather than shrink it."

Source: http://www.progressive.org/mplovel033110.html

A very brief but totally informing article that depicts the flaws of the 15th amendment and that shows how long a change can take until it becomes reality in the heads of the people. There has always been some scapegoat people needed to blame that bad things that happen on. And to many still which is very sad, that scapegoat is the Black or now the other minorities (legal or illegal) in this country. But this issue is a problem of humankind and exists also in other countries since living together, working with each otehr and accepting each other is hard to do.


I like this video as it shows what others have fought for to show the people today their duty to participate actively in politics. Why should one grouch about the government if one does not even try to change it. There are so many people out there, if they would vote, there might be a different picture and there might be different political decisions right now. In Germany one says that a nonvoter counts automatically as a voter for the brown party as their vote misses to keep them out of perliament. Therefore to me it id a duty to participate in voting, especially if I see what other people have gone through to give this right to their fellow people.

14th Amendment

"Section. 1. 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. 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.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
This amendment showed that black people are citizens of this country now if they have been born here. Therefore their would be counted as a member of the state and not only as a person. Nevertheless, it also denies the right to vote to felons forever which I think is totally wrong. There might not be something like resocialization, but the felons who are out of prison have served their term and therefore redeemed what they have done. To take away any right from them may it be the right to vote and therefore participate in ahaping this country or another right is ethically wrong to me. They are still citizens and should be treted as such.

"14th Amendment: why birthright citizenship change 'can't be done'

A new amendment to address citizenship issues would be tough in today’s polarized environment. Some say that legislation related to the 14th Amendment is the answer, but that would be hard, too.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / August 10, 2010
Washington“Birthright citizenship” – the policy of granting US citizenship to every child born on US soil – may be one of the hottest political issues of the summer. In recent weeks, some congressional Republicans have become increasingly vocal about their desire to deny such recognition to the children of illegal immigrants, saying it is a lure that draws foreigners to sneak into the country.
However, as a practical matter, changing this policy would be extremely difficult. That’s because it is in the Constitution – or, rather, it is based on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment begins this way: “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.”
Passage of a new constitutional amendment would require a two-thirds “aye” vote in the House and Senate, plus the approval of the legislatures of three-quarters of the 50 states. In today’s polarized political environment, it is hard to envision that happening.
Some proponents of changing the citizenship rules argue that their purpose can be accomplished with legislation. That might be a little easier to get through Congress – but it would almost certainly be vetoed by President Obama while he remains in office. Even if a future GOP chief executive signed such a bill, it would face inevitable close federal court review.
“Politically it can’t be done, and it is simply a distraction from seeking true immigration reform,” argued Bill Ong Hing, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law and supporter of birthright citizenship, in a recent conference call with reporters.
The issue itself is not a newcomer to Washington. Bills to deny citizenship to the children of parents in the US illegally have been introduced in Congress with regularity in recent years.
But this year, a number of top GOP lawmakers have said they would support at least exploring limits on the 14th Amendment. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina said recently on Fox News that he was thinking of introducing a proposed constitutional amendment because birthright citizenship is a magnet drawing illegals into the US.
Birthright citizenship “attracts people here for all the wrong reasons,” Senator Graham said.
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky, Sen. Jon Kyl (R) of Arizona, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama, and Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona have said they would be in favor of looking at the issue via hearings. So has House minority leader John Boehner (R) of Ohio.
“In certain parts of our country, clearly, our schools, our hospitals are being overrun by illegal immigrants, a lot of whom came here just so their children could become US citizens,” said Representative Boehner on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.
Proponents of changing US citizenship policies say that “birth tourism,” in which travel firms in China, Turkey, and elsewhere sell travel packages designed to allow pregnant women to give birth in the US, is a troubling new element. Legislation, they say, is all that’s needed to change the situation.
The drafters of the 14th Amendment never intended that it should apply to the children of foreigners present in the US, they say. It was meant to extend citizenship to African-Americans. Legislation could clarify this situation, say some conservatives.
But supporters of birthright citizenship say that that reading of the history of the 14th Amendment is untrue and that to alter the policy would be to alter the nation’s democratic character.
“Those who want to repeal the 14th Amendment threaten core constitutional values,” said Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center, in a conference call."
Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0810/14th-Amendment-why-birthright-citizenship-change-can-t-be-done

This article to me is a little biased and the arguments are a little exagerated to me. It has been an important step in the history to grant citizenship to the black people. Still, the constitution is a living document as we know. It seems ridiculous to change the 14th amendment as it must seem to any black person as an assault towards them personally. On the other hand I understand that it is an issue with immigrants having their children in the US. I do not think there are many countries in the world that give you the citizenship if you were born in that country. In many states it depends on the nationality of the parents and where they are permanently living. So there has to be found a solution that does explicitly not attack the historical birthright of African Americans, but that helps in keeping this new form of tourism down.


This kind of cynic video does bring together the important points of the long path to equality of the black people. And maybe the cynism makes people think about some issues that they would have not thought about in this way before. It still is a journalistic stylistic device.