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

By RonPaul.com on April 15, 2009

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.

13th Amendment

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation"

To me, there is not much to be said about this amendment. It has been the first step of a long journey to equality. Something like slavery should not happen, but humankind are not impeccable as many incidents in history show. Bur this amendment has been very important in the process of equality between people.

"Use the 13th Amendment to Prosecute Modern-Day Slavery
The Thirteenth Amendment is a powerful and broadly-worded piece of legislation with tremendous potential in the fight against human trafficking. Unfortunately, however, the amendment has largely been relegated to the dustbin of history--an "antebellum grave marker," as one author has gone so far as to call it.
If the sweeping and broad language of the amendment could be harnessed to form a 21st-century jurisprudence against modern-day slavery, there could be profound progress in the prosecution of slaveholders today.
Indeed, a judicial precedent dating back to the nineteenth century seems to indicate that the 13th Amendment is to be interpreted not only to abolish domestic slavery, but even complicity in a purely foreign slave trade. Consider the so-called Slave Trade Cases of the mid-1800's. In one of these cases, defendants were charged with designing and outfitting ships to be used in the slave trade in foreign countries. Although it was never insinuated that the ships would be used to transport slaves to the United States, nor that the shipwrights were themselves slave traders, the Court ruled that the fact that “U.S. intermediaries had taken steps to facilitate a foreign trade in slaves by providing some of the implements best suited to that practice” was enough to render them guilty (Wolff 2002). The underlying premise of these Supreme Court rulings must not be ignored: “The indirect facilitation of a purely foreign slave trade by a U.S. citizen through the provision of ships and other equipment is inherently objectionable because it locates a component of that foreign slave trade within domestic borders" (ibid.). No aspect of the institution of slavery is to exist anywhere on American soil—not slaves themselves, not slave-like relationships, not items to be used in facilitating slavery abroad, and, presumably, not even items made with slave labor on foreign soil. This realization has tremendous implications for modern Thirteenth Amendment jurisprudence, in an economic world increasingly marred by modern-day slavery in manufacturing, agriculture, fishing, mining, and other industries.
The call to action, then, is for a respected and legal-savvy NGO to find a way to work a trafficking case up to the Supreme Court. International Justice Mission (www.ijm.org) seems the obvious choice, given its legal focus, professionalism, and expertise. Prosecute a trafficker on Thirteenth Amendment grounds in such as way as to win a Supreme Court hearing. Justices don't have to worry about re-election, so making controversial but ethically imperative decisions is their specialty. They are a superior avenue to Congress because they are less subject to lobbyist and special interest pressure, which would come heavily from the untold thousands of US corporations that knowingly or unknowingly use slave labor today.Thankfully, slavery is not a partisan issue. Real change is possible, and a rediscovery of the judicial power of the 13th Amendment in the context of 21st-century slavery would represent a tremendous leap forward in the anti-trafficking movement. Vote for this petition to encourage International Justice Mission to devote their legal expertise to this specific prospect, which represents a major step toward a slavery-free world."
- Andrew Hall Jan 25 @ 07:16PM PST

Source: http://www.change.org/ideas/view/use_the_13th_amendment_to_prosecute_modern-day_slavery

This arcticle seems to connect hisrory with the world today. The scars of slavery in this country have not faded yet and still even the descendents if former slaves support hidden slavery by buying cheap stuff amde in China or buying exotic fruits from farmers in South America. This is a problem of all the industry nations today as they cannot produce anything as cheap as other countries that do not have any labor laws protecting the people. Nevertheless, is is also about having not enough money to buy the products produced in the own country. Poor people have to rely on cheaply manufactured products and there has to be a solution to help both sides out.

Obama&Congres Ignore 13th Amendment! This Is A Form Of Slavery!

Linda | Myspace Video

This video is ridiculous to me. Communtity service is NOT comparable to slavery. It is an important aspect of society. Community service if it has to be done because of a criminal act might be involutary, but going into prison is also involuntary. In the end the delinquent has to suffer for what he/she has done.
And to a German this is a very funny thought. In Germany the military service is still not voluntary for male inhabitants. If they do not want to serve in military for whatever reasons, they have to serve for the community. To me this is a very important service as the young people can serve their community already when they are young. This law shoul just also apply to women who were excluded because of their household duties.

12th Amendment

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

This amendment to me seems also to be quite important as the president and vice president have to be voted on seperately. It might be hard to be a vice president if the president is of a different political party. In addition, it seems important to me that the vice president has to have the same qualifications as the president. In the case of his/her death, the VP has to take over and therefore has to have the qualification and ability to govern this country.

"CBS 2 School: Dancing With The 12th Amendment

November 22, 2010 8:30 AM

From Adam Harrington

Bristol Palin, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr might share something in common after this season’s “Dancing with the Stars.”
While her dancing skills have improved during the course of the show, Palin has never been considered a top celebrity dancer at any point during this DWTS season. But the show’s online voting system has helped Palin land in the final round despite consistently poor scores from the judges.
According to Sun-Times columnist Bill Zwecker, Dancing with the Stars sources have been stunned by the degree of public support for Palin. Some online speculators even indicate that this season’s results have made ABC consider significant changes to its DWTS voting system.
The fate of DWTS contestants is based on a merger of scores from the judges plus votes from the public. If ABC overhauls this selection method, it could be the biggest electoral system overhaul since the 12th amendment in 1804.
The Constitution was written in 1787, well before the invention of reality TV. But when determining how the President of our new republic would be selected, the Framers preferred the Survivor method over the American Idol method.
Many of the Framers did not trust the masses and feared that the direct popular vote would lead to uneducated choices by uneducated citizens. American Idol has employed this direct voting method from the beginning, but its system of winnowing down candidates each week guarantees the winner can secure a majority of support when it comes down to the final two contestants.
Originally, our Electoral College was supposed to resemble Survivor’s tribal council. In Survivor, the final 10 contestants get to determine the winner of the $1 million prize. This tribal council constitutes a panel of experts who have spent the most time with the final two contestants and can theoretically make the most educated vote for the most deserving candidate.
This is how the Electoral College worked the first two times it selected George Washington unanimously. But in our third and fourth presidential elections, Electors started voting based on partisan backing rather than selecting the most qualified candidate. In 1796, this system created chaos with the election of President John Adams with his archrival, Thomas Jefferson, as vice president. Then in 1800, Aaron Burr nearly stole the presidential election when the House of Representatives had to select the winner between him and Thomas Jefferson.
By 1804, the Constitution was changed to address this partisan nature of Electoral voting. The 12th Amendment created the Electoral College system that we use today allowing for electoral votes to be cast for a slate of Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates. The 12th Amendment still stands as the only change that has had to be made to the Constitution due to the development of political parties.
If Bristol Palin’s success brings changes to Dancing with the Stars, we can place her name along with Jefferson and Burr as Americans who caused some of this country’s most significant changes to its electoral systems."

Source: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2010/11/22/cbs-2-school-dancing-with-the-12th-amendment/

This article, even if it exagerates a little bit the importance of the show "Dancing with the stars" shows how alive the Constitution is till today. With finding these parallels between Jefferson, Burr and Palin the author shows the importance of changes in voting systems if something goes wrong.

In my opinion, this video shoes how one can manipulate people very easily. It is like cheating if Dick Cheyney moved into a different state just three days before proclaiming to become the Vice President. It is true that the 12th amendment states that the President and VP should not be citizens of the same state. Nevertheless there has not been a big turmoil about this. To me this seems kind of hypocritical. People like to point out the importance of some Amendments like the 1st, 5th or even the 2nd to some. No offense, they are important. Nevertheless, one should do something 100% or one should leave it.
And by the way: if the VP is not part of the executive, what is he then?

11th Amendment

"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."

This amendment to me points out again, how important it was for the Framers that there is not a too powerful central government. Citizens or the federal government should not be able to sue any state in any case in a federal court. Nevertheless, they can waive this right if it seems to be important to them.

"Obama Adminstration Violates 11th Amendment of Bill of Rights. Treason?

Phoenix : AZ : USA | Jul 07, 2010

By Rustyn Rose 

This week the Obama administration followed through on threats to sue the State of Arizona to block the enactment of the Senate Bill 1070 which is scheduled to take effect on July 29th. A bill which will allow Arizona law enforcement to enforce current Federal laws that the government has failed to do. Arizona is under attack from the south, and from Washington D.C.
Arizona Governor Jan BrewerJan Brewer is not backing down. “As a direct result of failed and inconsistent federal enforcement, Arizona is under attack from violent Mexican drug and immigrant smuggling cartels,” she said. “Now, Arizona is under attack in federal court from President Obama and his Department of Justice… These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.”
Peter Spiro, a Temple Law Professor, and international law expert does not believe Obama and the government have much of a case. In a recent He Wall Street Journal article Spiro said: “The lawsuit is not a slam dunk for the federal government, by a long shot, nothing in the Constitution says anything about immigration. But it goes back to the late 19th century, in which the power became vested in the general foreign affairs power.”

This is a violation of the 11th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It's a violation of the Constitution.
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
In Short, the U.S. Government may not sue any State Government.
The Mexican/U.S. border is turning into a bloody siege, with bullets flying into American buildings and citizens. U.S. citizens are being kidnapped, threatened, and killed. U.S. officials are being threatened and killed, including threats against Arizona law enforcement members.
A few weeks ago, Arizona senator John Kyl met with President Obama in the Oval Office and discussed securing the borders, and according to Kyl was told that if the borders were secured the GOP would have no impetus to reform immigration policy.
"The problem is...if we secure the border then you all won't have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform." Kyl said, quoting the President.
"In other words, they're holding it hostage," the Arizona senator continued amidst gasps from the audience. "They don't want to secure the border unless or until it is combined with comprehensive immigration reform."
Obama is not only holding security on our borders hostage, but the lives and well-being of the citizens he's sworn to serve.
Obama supporters and liberals can curse GeorgeGeorge BushBush (as they should) and the conservatives all they wish, but Obama's behavior borders on treason. He is now no better than Bush and Cheney, and arguably worse."

Source: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6255612-obama-adminstration-violates-11th-amendment-of-bill-of-rights-treason

This article to me is a little over the top. The governing body might act against the Constitutions and there could be some other way to stop this Arizona law. But, to me this law is ridiculous and as well unconstitutional as it is racist. Racist against Hispanic people to soley assume they might be illegal because of their appearance. So, in the end, both approaches are not right, but do two wrongs make a right?




This video shows in my opinion that there is a lot of grey area in the case of sueing a state and if this is constitutional. in the case of the Family Medical Leave Act it had to be looked at if in history there had been obviously a discrimination on a certain basis. This seemed to me a fair treatment as women are more assumed to care for family members than men (still) and therefore there had been the right to sue a state. Nevertheless, this is still to be decided on a case to case basis in front of the Surpreme Court as each case is different and might not aplly to any unconstitutionality.