The 23rd Amendment

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

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Proposed by the Congress in June 1960, it was ratified as an amendment on March 29, 1961.  In its ratification, it acknowledged the permanent residents of the District of Columbia should have a voice in electing the President.

What had been created as a monument city to house the government was now a major metropolitan area with a permanent population the size of which the founding fathers could not have imagined.  It came to this point with the expansion of the Federal government and the many agencies the executive branch had created, as well as the migration of the blacks from the rural south to the metropolitan areas where better work and pay might be found.

The interesting thing about this city is the pure partisan nature of its population.  In all the presidential elections since 1964, its first year of participation, the city has voted exclusively Democrat.   

By the way, if you are curious they get three electoral votes -- the same number as Wyoming. 

On the bright side, unlike the states where the electors have to travel to DC to do their thing, the district’s three electors can stay home, hop the metro on the appointed day, and probably be home for dinner.

The 22nd Amendment

This amendment is near and dear to me.  You see, my hometown hero is singularly responsible for it.  Before him no one thought a President would serve more than the two terms, a tradition set by George Washington himself.

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

But then came Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D-NY), to save the nation at the time of the Great Depression.  He saw his duty and hung on for four terms to lead the nation through the depression, into the World War and died just prior to the creation of the Nuclear Age. 

He gave us fire side chats, and the imprisonment of the Japanese-Americans living along the west coast.  He attempted to pack the Supreme Court of the United States with extra judges, and created the social security program we have today and American’s loved him for all he did.  Of course, back then the press didn’t see the need to tell the average American he was an invalid and couldn’t get himself dressed without the help of his black butler.  I point out his butler’s color only because Franklin made little effort to end the discrimination that existed in the South, including Washington DC during his term. 

If the blacks had a voice in the White House it was Eleanor’s, and not Franklin.

But he did love himself some power and the prestige that came with being the savior of the nation.  At the end of his term he allowed the Russians to gain control of Eastern Europe and never confided in his VP the potential of the atomic weapon he had authorized.  His death in Warm Springs Georgia left the nation in morning and his VP trying to figure out what were the most important issues to face right now.

The Congress authorized this Amendment in 1947 and it was ratified by the 36^th state in 1951.  I think JFK was the first subject to its restriction.

The 21st Amendment

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

     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.

     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.

And with this simple amendment the nation-wide prohibition of alcohol ends, and the rights for a state to regulate its sale or use is returned.  Only in place for about 14 years from ratification to repeal the 18^th Amendment, as noted earlier, sparked a whole new industry in the US that did not simply disappear with its repeal.

Since  approval there have been a number of significant court cases challenging the second section statement about the rights of the state.  These have met with mixed results as the court has moved first in one direction, and more recently in another.  For example, soon after its ratification the court found a state could write legislation that would favor domestic production over the importation of other products without running afoul of the Constitution's commerce clause in Article 1. (e.g. State Board of Equalization v. Young’s Market Company,1936).  More recent judgements have seen the court move to undercut the broad interpretation of the 1936 decision with positions favoring federal jurisdiction with the commerce clause holding sway.

Finally, if you’ve been paying attention you will have noticed the last several amendments carry an interesting last section or clause.  This, to me, seems to be the mark of a professional law staff now engaged in the writing of the amendments.  Starting with the 18^th, then the 20^th, and now the 21^st the Congress gave the states a drop- dead date to get the amendment passed.  In each case, they said  “you’ve got seven-years or else this proposed amendment dies.”   If our founding fathers had used that provision I wonder if the 27^th amendment would have ever seen the light of day, but that’s for another posting, isn’t it?

The 20th Amendment

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Ratified on January 23, 1933, this amendment dealt with several organizational changes to the government.  As I noted in the post on the 18^th Amendment, organizational change was one of the driving factors for an amendment, and the need to change government organization, or authorities, and the use of amendments to do so was set with the adoption of the 11^th and 12^th amendments early in our history.

It seems to me, the most significant changes brought with this amendment was the elimination of about 6 weeks of time when the past President would still be office as a “lame duck.”  The original confederation had set March 4^th as the date of inauguration, and our framers carried that over.  At the time, there was good reason for this, allowing for the votes to be counted, the electoral college assembled and vote, and the President and Vice President elect to travel to the Capital.  With the improvements in transportation this was no longer necessary.

It also clarified the transition of power, and we saw its use during the Nixon administration when Gerald Ford first replaced Spiro Agnew and then Richard Nixon, and Nelson Rockefeller assumed the role of VP.

Finally, it actually specified when the Congressional term should begin.  The constitution never set a date for the meetings, only the term of office, so technically they could have met in December and called it a day.  Hmmmm, I wonder if we would be better served if that were actually the case?

The 19th Amendment

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

The struggle for women’s rights was, and is, a long one here in the United States, but that is true for most of the world as well.  The history behind the 19^th Amendment, ratified in 1920, traces back to the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, widely recognized as the first woman’s rights convention in the country.  Organized by the Quakers and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, it featured Lucretia Mott as speaker.[i]  The purpose of the convention, spanning two days, was to provide attendees with a forum to discuss the issues of equality and woman’s rights, as well as provide the initial opportunity to meet like-minded others.

The product of this convention was a “Declaration of Sentiments” signed by about 1/3 of the convention attendees (88 women/12 men).[ii]  Following the lead of our founders it begins with lines similar to our nation’s Declaration of Independence.  “When in the course of human events…” and goes on, as in the original declaration, to list about 14 grievances against men.  These became the cornerstone of the suffragette movement, and the feminist movement that followed.

Many of these women, especially those of the Quaker society, also were deeply involved in the abolitionist movement fighting to end slavery as an institution, and saw in that movement the similarity to their own enslavement.  In fact, Fredrick Douglas was a central figure in this convention.

     Providing women with a voice in government was a step in allowing them to achieve parity, but does it achieve equality?  That seems to be the question before us, as a nation, today.  I am not sure with so many opinions that a clear and universally accepted understanding of what equality means is possible, but as we continue to wrestle with this issue, perhaps that will change.

---

[i] Wikipedia, Seneca Falls Convention

[ii] Wikipedia, Delcaration of Sentiments

The 18th Amendment

-->

Prohibition!!

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.

With its ratification on January 19, 1919, the United States entered into the alcohol-free era where booze was outlawed and we would become a much better society.  This was the culmination of a long-term effort by the temperance movement and a progressive highlight of that time.  Who could have possibly understood the second and third order effects of telling the average citizen they could possess alcohol, but could not legally buy it?

What I find so amusing about this, is we men decided to outlaw booze before we were willing to give women an equal voice in voting.  Was there a cause and effect relationship?  Actually, there probably was.  Both came up in the Congress about the same time in the later-half of the 19^th century and both were ratified the same year Congress didn't pass the 19th Amendment until the 18th was approved, so the idea that suffrage and temperance go hand-in-hand does not seem to be that much of a stretch.  This idea is reinforced, at least for me, in the movies of the time where we see groups of women banding together to shut down the saloons in their western towns.  Now, how accurately movies depicted real life is always subject to opinion.

This Amendment illustrates one of the dangers in social engineering through the creation of laws, and the Constitution.  Up to this point amendments had been approved to clarify how government was to work (e.g. 11^th & 12^th, or 16 & 17^th amendments), or to protect and expand individual liberties (i.e. Bill of Rights, 14^th and 15^th amendments), with ratification of the 18^th its framers and the politicians who approved it were entering into the role of overseers of our personal welfare.  The fundamental question, at least for me, is:  Is it possible for an amoral entity like government to actually define what is best for me as an individual?

Although not quite the same, we see a similar approach in the modern “war on drugs” campaign the United States has been waging since the end of World War II.  How successful has that campaign been at reducing the populations desire for the various drugs.  Proponents will certainly argue it has been money well spent, but has it?  Why then do we still see some 70 years since the beginning so many who advocate for Marijuana legalization?  I wonder how much government disinformation has been put out there in an effort to win the hearts and minds of the average citizen?

At the end of the day this amendment lasted about 14 years until repealed.  Its by-product was the dramatic expansion of organized crime and bootleggers who, unencumbered by a need to follow the laws, rushed in to fill the void left as legitimate businesses were forced to close.

 

The 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.

With this amendment, ALL the members of the Congress were chosen by direct election rather than through some intermediate body.  The Representatives had always been so chosen, but it was not until after April 8, 1913 with the ratification of the 17^th Amendment that the people could vote directly for their Senators.  Why was that?

We use the words democracy and democratic with great abandon here in the United States, but our founding fathers feared the potential of utter chaos if they attempted to establish a pure democracy were everyone had an equal voice and every decision had to have majority approval.  Therefore, they took steps in the framing of the constitution to limit the potential for pure democracy.  We see that in the appointment of Judges, in the Electoral College, and in the selection of Senators, where article 1, section 3, clause 1 said, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”

At the Constitutional Convention, there was only one delegate, James Wilson[i] - a Pennsylvanian, who favored the direct election of the Senators.  During the next 100 years or so the process worked, but with some difficulty.  The principle problems are the same thing we see today where political party affiliation became the dominate concern, and if a State’s Legislature was divided they might not reach consensus on a nominee, leaving that state without a Senator, or perhaps having one too many and forcing the U.S. Senate to decide who was the best qualified.

As in all things political, there were also allegations of graft and other corruptions that led to investigations into a number of Senator nominations and the odd removal for being found guilty of bribing their way into office.  These events flashed across the social media of the day; cutesy of the muckraking journalists who made their living through the exposure of political corruption.

Following this last Presidential election, we heard much caterwauling, condemnation, intimidation and attempted corruption of the Electoral College as it assembled to do its constitutional duty, by those who were upset their beloved candidate was not victorious. To those who were so emotionally distraught as to believe that life as we know it was ending, I suggest you contact your elected officials and demand they follow the same process our great grandfathers had followed when they wrote the 17^th Amendment.

---

[i] Wikipedia - The Seventeenth Amendment

The Sixteenth 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.

The 16^th amendment was proposed on July 12, 1909, and ratified on February 3, 1913, but why was it necessary, didn’t the Constitution already give the Congress the right to tax the people?

 Article 1, section 8 begins with “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” wasn’t that enough?

The short answer was no, but let’s look at why.

To begin with, Article 1, section 8, clause 1 is not the only reference to taxation in the Constitution.  Article 1, section 2, clause 2 limits the types of taxes and how they are apportioned when it says, “…direct taxes will be apportioned among the several states…”  Section 9 clause 4, “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” And clause 5 continues, “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”  It was the section 9, clause 4 that became problematic as the government grew and the cost of government increased.

There had been time in the past when to fund the cost of war income taxes had been levied (i.e. war of 1812 and the Civil War), but they were both finite in their duration.  In 1895, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), heard the case of Charles Pollock versus Farmers’ Loan and Trust Company which seems to be the actual event leading to the decision to amend the constitution.

In this case, Mr. Pollock, of Massachusetts, “argued that while state-regulated income taxes were considered to be direct taxes, they were not subject to apportionment; as a result, Pollock argued that unapportioned, state-regulated direct taxes were in the direct violation of the Constitution.”[i]  In its opinion - SCOTUS upheld Mr. Pollock’s claim.

The idea of an income tax and the amendment itself was supported by the southern and many of the northeastern states, but was opposed by the western half of the country.  It was also opposed by many Republican politicians based on the concerns of their wealthy supporters.

With the passage of the 16^th Amendment we opened up a new revenue source for the government, and enabled a growth in government bureaucracy to what we have today.   

---

[i] http://constitution.laws.com/16th-amendment

The 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.

In passing the 14^th Amendment without clear guidance on the right of the African-Americans to vote, the determination on voting rights was left to the states.  At the time neither the Northern or Southern states were all that keen in allowing the Blacks an equal voice in the government, and the courts sided with the popular position of the day.  Nonetheless, supporters recognized the need to clearly provide the former slaves and freeman with equality at the ballot box.  The Amendment was proposed on February 26, 1869 and ratified 342 days later on February 3, 1870.  The following states rejected the amendment, Kentucky (March 12, 1869), Delaware (March 18, 1869), Ohio (Apr 30, 1869), Tennessee (Nov 16, 1869), California (January 28, 1870), New Jersey (February 7, 1870), and Maryland (February 26, 1870).  New York initially approved, then rescinded its ratification on January 5, 1870, but finally rescinded its rescission on March 30, 1970.[i]

Unfortunately for minorities the passage of an amendment did little to change the realities of the discrimination they faced, even when taken to the highest court in the land.  Initially, the SCOTUS was inclined to emphasize only the negative aspects of the amendment. “‘The Fifteenth Amendment,’ it announced, did ‘not confer the right . . . [to vote] upon any one,’ but merely ‘invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right which is . . . exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.’” [ii]  Fortunately, later courts have amended this early interpretation, and the courts have been actively involved in settling the various tactics our politicians have used to subvert the suffrage of African-Americans.  Unfortunately, these have historically been done retroactively, after the damage of discrimination has occurred.

 It would be nice if I could write that today the 15^th Amendment stands as only a reminder of what was once a wide-spread problem in the United States, but I cannot.  Racial discrimination remains alive and well, in fact it has grown significantly in this century as various groups come into power and attempt to maintain that power through the creation of racial division and strife.  The hopes of those who crafted the 15^th Amendment remains an unrealized dream, but the safe-guard stands for those whose rights are taken through the subterfuge of the political establishment. 

---

[i] https://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am15

[ii] http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment15/annotation01.html#4

The 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.

As noted in the discussion of the 13^th Amendment it took our politicians 60 years to find reason to amend the US Constitution between the 12^th and 13^th Amendment.  The purpose of the 13^th was to remove or limit the rights of the several states to manage the society within their territory and therein increase the role of the central government.  The 14^th Amendment carries this notion further.

Flush with the “thrill of victory” and the survival of the US following a long and costly Civil War the Congress set out to make sure the conditions that set us at each other’s throats were addressed in this amendment, and while they were at it, make sure those who had waged the insurrection, or loaned them money, didn’t come looking for the North to pay the bills.

The ratification took about three years once it went to the states but by 1868 it was approved by 28 of the 37 states and became the law of the land.  So, what does it do? 

Frankly, it does a whole lot and is the basis for much litigation including such milestone cases as Dred Scott v Sanford (1857) that said slaves were not citizens and therefore did not have the rights of a free person, Plessy v Ferguson (1896) that allowed “separate, but equal,” Brown v Board of Education, (1954), that overturned “separate but equal,” Roe v Wade, (1973) limiting a state’s right to prevent abortion, and United States v Windsor (2013) overturning the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with regards to same-sex marriage.

Let’s start with the next to last clause, since it should be the easiest to understand. 

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.

We had just ended the war, the soldiers who survived and the families of those who hadn’t wanted assurances they would be paid for their sacrifices.  The framers of the amendment made sure there would be no back peddling on this issue.  At the same time, they were not about to assume the debts of the southern states who succeeded and began the war with the firing on Fort Sumter.  Today, we see little about this clause, but in the 18oo’s, following the war, this was a big deal.

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.

Clearly, politicians being politicians didn’t want to see the same folks who started the ruckus returned by their constituents to the same seats they held prior to the war.  This clause prevented that, and made room for the northern carpet baggers to gain control of southern politics for a time.  But as in all things political, they gave themselves some wiggle room in allowing themselves to say by a 2/3 vote of both houses that some of the rebellious politicians might be okay, and could be welcome back into the fold.

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.

This clause rescinded the compromise reached in the original Constitutional Convention where the delegates assigned a 3/5 value to slaves held by the slave owners (primarily in the South, but at the time there were some Northern owners as well).  This compromise was reached to address the concerns of states like South Carolina who had a significantly smaller free population than many of the other states like Virginia and Massachusetts.  

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.

Finally, we come to the most important clause in the Amendment.  The clause that is at the heart of almost all the litigation that reaches the Supreme Court regarding the equal protection and due process protections of the Constitution and how the states and federal government attempt to subvert those basic safeguards.

For example, in Roe v Wade (1973), Texas argued it was exercising its duty to protect the life of the fetus when it established the laws dealing with abortion.  Those on the other side said the fetus was not a living being and the life of the mother took precedent.  The court sided with the plaintiffs, saying there was no universal standard as to when life began but at the time the first trimester was chosen as the point before which the mother and her physician could make a determination as to what was best for the mother.  Those favoring abortion have greatly extended the point of determination, up to the third trimester when a fetus is clearly viable outside the womb.  We seemed to have lost sight of this original court decision.

More recently, the case of United States v Windsor (2013) saw a sympathetic Solicitor General choose not to defend the DOMA, and the Congress hire a lawyer to fill the role of the Solicitor General.  In its decision, the Supreme Court of the United States found DOMA (which defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman) did not provide equal protection and afford the affected same-sex couples with the appropriate   due process safeguards.  It over turned the DOMA in its entirety.  

Then, of course we have a whole spate of civil rights cases dealing with the protections of the African-American population and the systemic discrimination they have been subject to.  Depending on the court make up, and the social pressures of the day we have seen the court take contrary positions on several of the cases.

The 14^th Amendment is probably one of the most important changes this nation made in how it would treat ALL its citizens, but it has also shown that writing nice words on a paper is a far cry from achieving equality, for it can’t change the nature of its citizens, that only comes through a change in the moral values of the larger community.

Isn't it Racism?

Claims of cultural appropriation and racism are all the rage these days.  I read a few weeks ago where some Latina and Black women at Pitzer College were outraged at the white women in their college having the nerve to wear hoop earrings!  They chose to make their concerns known, and as in normal these days, painted their objection on their “free speech wall.”  When one blonde white girl was confused, the resident assistant at the center of this cultural debate sent out a campus wide e-mail to explain how white women wearing hoop earrings was appropriating all her core values as a WOC (woman of color), and they should stick to tiny little clip-on earrings so beloved by the WOW (white older women).  This got me to thinking about how we need to clean up all this cultural appropriation. 

How can major cities, all led by culturally sensitive progressive Democratic mayors and City Councils, allow the vestiges of racism and segregation to continue in their communities.  How many cities like New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco exist where we have a “China Town, Little Italy, Little Havana, or Little Switzerland” communities?  Places where they allow anyone, including the culturally insensitive, to come in and culturally appropriate away? 

While I'm at it, what about the obviously racist approach where we “expect” the people of appropriate ethnic heritage to live in the same place.  We need to stop this right now.  I expect by the next election cycle all these offending places will be destroyed and all the self-driving Uber cars reprogrammed.

As a disclaimer, I admit these ideas didn’t occur until after I had a couple of beers, and had been sitting for a few hours watching baseball in the hot Florida sun.  I have found these are the times best suited for deep political thought.   

It is a shame I don’t have my own “free speech wall” to paint these ideas on.  This blog will have to suffice.

Spring Training and Other Stuff

For the past week, my wife and I have been to Northport, Fort Myers and Poinciana, FL on our now annual pilgrimage to see the Red Sox during their Spring Training season.  It was nice to get away from the daily routine and the daily news.  Since the sun continues to rise in the east, and set in the west I assume very little has changed since we left eight days ago.  So here is what I’ve learned this past week.

a. Pablo “the Panda” Sandavol is not really as heavy as he looks on TV, it must be true the camera adds 25 pounds.  He still is not very good moving to his right and guarding the line, but he’s not as bad as he was last year when he lost his job prior to injury.

b. Hanley Ramirez is no David Ortiz, and he still can’t find a helmet to stay on when he swings for the fences and whiffs.

c. Everyone talks about the depth of Red Sox pitching, but as far as I can tell everyone not named Porcello, sucks.

d.  I don’t think the Red Sox will win as many games this year as they did in 2016, because unless they have a 10-run lead when they turn it over to the relief the opponents will come back.

e. The 55+ community of Solivita still has nice homes, without enough closets.

f.  If you love Allen Wrenches then you will love IKEA…you can assemble an entire home with a single Allen Wrench.

g.  Some of the more idiotic Democratic politicians are still talking about Impeachment, and some of their fans are foolish enough to believe they can pull it off.  I would suggest if the Republicans couldn’t impeach Clinton for lying it seems unlikely that Trump will fall for tweeting, but keep that kabuki theater going.

h.  Some of the more idiotic Republican politicians are still talking about how implement Obamacare with a new name, while the average lower middle class citizen struggles to find affordable healthcare.  Here is my suggestion.  Treat health insurance exactly like auto insurance, mandate all companies must cover everyone, those with preexisting conditions go into a high-risk pool if appropriate and make the young pay a slight penalty for being healthy.  Then control hospital profits by treating non-profit hospitals exactly like for profit hospitals.

Finally, from a friend.  The judge that just put a hold on Trumps latest immigration EO must be really good at writing.  A 43-page decision within 120-minutes of hearing the case.  No political agenda there, no siree bob.

The Thirteenth Amendment

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.

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

The 12^th Amendment was passed in 1804 to solve a problem created by the advent of political parties.  It took another 60-years before the politicians found it necessary to update the protections of the constitution, and then it was only because we were in the midst of a civil war.

The issue of slavery was, from our very beginnings, a political hot potato the founding fathers passed to future generations to address.  The 13^th Amendment when it passed ended the right of a state to determine its legality.  In reading the debate in Congress, at the beginning, it was not the slam-dunk amendment we think it should have been with only the Northern States in session.

Beginning on the 31^st of March, 1864 the Senate took up debate on what was known as SJ Res-16[i], a proposed joint resolution to amend the Constitution and abolish slavery.  If you care to read the Senate debates you will see they wrestled with the same issues we have with us today, and in the course of those debates invoked the rights of a State to best determine the role of slavery, as well as the idea we as humans, where presuming to do better than our God in determining the roles of man.

Taken from the March 31^st record the opposition of Senator Willard Saulsbury (D-DE) pretty much sums up the southern position.

“…We have grown, Mr. President, vain enough to imagine that had we been the creators of the universe and of all things that exist therein, we would improve upon the workmanship of the Almighty.  Had such been the case, no Eve would have plucked the forbidden fruit; no Adam would have been doomed to earn his bread in the sweat of his brow; the earth would not have been so cursed as to bring forth briers and thistles; the air would have always been balmy….

Slavery had existed under some form or other from the first period of recorded history.  It dates back even beyond the time of Abraham, for father of the faithful, in whose seek all the nations of the earth are blessed.  …

It continued among all people until the advent of the Christian era.  It was recognized in that new dispensation which was to supersede the old.  It has the sanction of God’s own apostle; for when Paul sent back Onesineus to Philemon who did he send?  A freeman?  No, sir.  He sent his doulog, [doules,] a slave, born as such…”

The Amendment passed in the Senate in April, 1864, but needing a two-thirds majority it was defeated in the House in June by a vote of 95 yeas, 64 nays and 23 not voting.   It sat idle until December of that year when Abraham Lincoln engaged in his forth message to the Congress, where he asked the House to reconsider their opposition. It was finally approved by 2/3 of the House on January 31, 1865.  Signed by President Lincoln the next day, it was approved by the required number of states.  On December 18, 1865 – Secretary of State Seward verified its ratification.

---

[i] https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html

The Latest In Political Literature

Reasons to Vote for Democrats: A Comprehensive Guide

Be sure to read the reviews.

What is Life, Why Should It Matter?

I read a report this morning about the way we are choosing to eliminate Down’s Syndrome through abortion of fetuses diagnosed with the genetic malformation.  In looking for accurate information it seems difficult to find exact numbers, but from what I’ve read somewhere between 85 and 95% of the parents who are informed of the diagnosis are offered and encouraged to take the option of abortion. 

Those who favor this course of action speak to the elimination of Down’s Syndrome children as a benefit to society, a public health issue if you will, but is it, or is the damage to our society greater than the supposed benefit?  When life becomes disposable because there will be a struggle in that life we should ask ourselves why should any life matter?

If we are concerned about discrimination of a group of people, why not just eliminate that group entirely?  Come to think of it as we look at the abortion rates for African-Americans, when compared to European-Americans, it would sure look like that is the goal of those who advocate for abortion on demand.  It would certainly be in keeping with the beliefs of one of their idols, Margaret Sanger who began the “Negro-Project[i]” whose scope and impact has been a subject of much controversy.  Perhaps it is a personal bias, but I am not surprised that New York University would find a slightly alternative role for Ms. Sanger[ii], claiming the genocide we’ve seen was never her intent and the program was pulled away from her once funding was secured.

We have seen a hundred reasons why abortion is a woman’s right, but what about the state?  If we find we can eliminate a genetic issue through the encouragement of abortion, why not some other troublesome issue like blond hair and blue eyes, or homosexuality?  Right now, we don’t encourage abortion based on gender, but why not?

---

[i] http://www.blackgenocide.org/negro.html

[ii] https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/articles/bc_or_race_control.php

The Twelfth 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 past election, as well as the 2000 campaign, saw widespread discussion of the electoral process and specifically the role of the Electoral College.  How we pick someone to be President has been an issue from the beginning of the Republic, and it was recognized as early as the third election the process, as defined in the Constitution was flawed.

When the United States began the role of the political parties was not widely considered, in fact, the parties really didn’t exist, so the framers set up a process where the top candidate was selected as President, and the Vice President was the runner up.  In the 1776 election, John Adams won, while Thomas Jefferson came in second and became the Vice President.  The problem was Adams was a Federalist, while Jefferson was a Social-Democrat.  Their differences in political beliefs caused Adams a number of problems during his term, and the fact the Vice President served as a tie breaker in the Senate meant Adam’s couldn’t count on him to support him on close votes.

It got worse.  In 1800, there was a tie in the Electoral College with Thomas Jefferson and Arron Burr both getting 73 votes and it went to the House of Representatives to decide who would be President.

The method proved so unsatisfactory for the young republic that the Congress approved the new amendment in December, 1803 and the states ratified it by June, 1804 (189 days) so it could be in place for the 1804 election.

For those complaining about the Electoral College, all you have to do is gain control of sufficient state legislators and the Congress to shove through your own amendment, just as they did in 1804.  The problem for you is right now you, and your party, don’t seem to be doing very well at the grass roots level in the majority of the country.