"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."
Ratified in 1919, the eighteenth amendment instated alcoholic prohibition in the United States in the early twentieth century.
Section 1: This section states that exactly one year after the ratification of this amendment, the "manufacture, sale, or transportation" of "intoxicating liquors," including imports, and exports from and to the United States and all territories under its jurisdiction for "beverage purposes" is illegal. The amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919, and thus, on January 16, 1920, it was officially illegal to possess, manufacture, or sell alcoholic beverages in the United States. As I'm sure the authorities would never go for this, technically, if you were selling alcoholic beverages for a purpose other than that for beverage purposes, then one could sell it. Medicinally, I'm sure it was legal, but I doubt the authorities would accept alternative excuses to selling alcohol other than for beverage purposes.
Section 2: Section 2 gives Congress and the States the concurrent power to enforce this amendment by appropriate legislation.
Section 3: This section creates and automatic nullification of this amendment should it not be ratified within seven years of the date of submission to the states.
___________________________________________________
The Appeal of Repeal Day
Lift a stein to a celebratory, and historic, event.
Probably not too many of us were sitting in taverns, clutching plain seltzers, back in 1933, waiting to hear if the 18th Amendment -- that would be Prohibition, for short -- had been repealed.
But taverns circa 2009 celebrate December 5th, the end-of-Prohibition day, with specials and old-fashioned sips and, sometimes, flapper-esque dress-up get-downs.
Repeal Day is marked in Los Angeles at a series of bars, restaurants, and niteries. The Edison, that flicker-bulb-laden, back-in-time spot, always does a little whooping-up; this time the power-plant-y bar is taking it on the road, to Pershing Square, for ice skating and some imbibing of a special bourbon Christmas blend. Everything starts at Pershing Square at 6PM on Saturday, December 5th.
CommeÇa is shaking up, in honor of the day, Mary Pickfords (mmm, grenadine), Barbary Coasts and other festive libations. And there's a deal. First drink is $11, but the second is 76 cents, in honor of Repeal Day's 76th anniversary (but you have to whisper "Roosevelt" to snag the second, cheap-cheap sip). The deal's on December 4th through 6th.
Eat This: The Best Meals in LA
Drink This: The Best Cocktails in LA
And it isn't exactly about Repeal Day, but we wanted to mention that vintage-sweet Cole's, a bar that was certainly around in 1933, is celebrating its 101st birthday on Sunday, December 6th. There will be DJing, a book drive, more.
I chose this article because it was one of the few that actually mention the 18th 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."
The Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified in 1913, and overruled Article 1, Section 3, clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, which granted the power of Senatorial selection to state legislators. The 17th amendment transferred that power from the state legislators to the people through regular elections. This amendment also provided the "executive authority of each state" (the governators) to issue "writs of election" to fill sudden and unexpected vacancies in the middle of a Senator's term, as long as the legislature of the respective state empowers the governor to make such temporary appointments in the sudden absence of a Senator during his/her term. This appointment is temporary and ends upon the peoples' election of a new Senator as directed by the legislature. The amendment concludes by noting that in no way may this amendment be "construed" to manipulate, alter, or affect in any way the election or term of any Senator chosen before such manipulation is appropriately ratified as an amendment to the Constitution.
_________________________________________________
EDITORIAL: Filling Senate vacancies should be left to the voters
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 1:17 PM EST
When Jon Corzine was elected governor four years ago, vacating his U.S. Senate seat, it seemed pretty clear that he would replace himself with a member of his own party.
But what would happen if one of New Jersey’s two U.S. Senators — Democrats Frank Lautenberg or Robert Menendez — were to leave office after Christopher Christie is sworn in as governor in January? Who would the Republican choose to fill the vacancy and for how long?
Under current law, the governor either can call a special election or appoint a replacement who will serve until the next general election. The winner of the election would then serve out the remainder of the unexpired term.
The process is similar to what occurs at the local level — with one basic difference. Local governing bodies are required to respect the will of the electorate and fill council and committee vacancies, on a temporary basis, with someone from the same party. The governor, however, is not.
And that has Democrats concerned. Sen. Lautenberg will be 86 in January and will turn 90 before his term expires in 2014. While the senator sought to downplay apprehensions about his age during his 2008 re-election campaign, only Robert Byrd of West Virginia is older and only a few sitting senators have served into their 90s.
This is the backdrop of the legislation being proposed by Assemblyman John F. McKeon, D-Essex. His bill, A4271, would require vacancies to be filled within 30 days by someone of the same political party as the senator who left office, who would then serve until the next general election, and eliminate the potential for a special election.
Republicans are crying foul. State Senate Majority Leader Tom Kean Jr., who was defeated by Sen. Menendez for the U.S. Senate seat in 2006, called it a “partisan game,” according to The Star-Ledger.
”The majority party is simply looking to change the rules when they start losing, “the Union County Republican said.
Assemblyman McKeon says the legislation would save an estimated $10 million and “ensure that New Jersey continues to have full representation in Washington” and that the appointment would “honor the will of the electorate by requiring that the appointee be from the same political party as the U.S. Senator elected by voters.”
And, just as importantly, he says, it would put in place the same process used to fill vacancies that occur at other levels of government in New Jersey — which is not exactly accurate.
Vacancies in the House of Representatives can be filled only by special election, as per the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution, however, leaves it to the states to determine how best to fill Senate vacancies — a remnant of its original requirement that senators be appointed by state legislatures. That changed in 1913, when the 17th amendment was ratified and voters were empowered to directly elect senators. The amendment, however, did not address the question of a Senate vacancy, leaving it to each state to decide how best to proceed.
That was a mistake. Vacancies in the Senate should be filled by special election, as they are in the House, and we would endorse a constitutional amendment to put this in place.
In the meantime, the McKeon bill should be killed and legislation mandating special elections in New Jersey should be proposed in its place.
After all, the only way to respect the will of the voters is to let the voters have their say.
I chose this article because it is someone's opinion about how vacancies should be filled.
"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 was ratified in 1913 and overruled the court case Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895) which limited Congress's power to levy an income tax. The Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution granted Congress (the people) the power to impose a uniform income tax, as long as it was consistent, equal, and fair among all states, and such a tax shall not take into consideration any information gathered from the census or enumeration. This would ensure that Congress is not prejudice on certain districts based on average income. ____________________________________________
John Dennis is a possible option for ousting Pelosi
For those who are considering the potential candidates for filling the positions of those in congress to whom they will unhesitatingly pass along a pink slip via the voting booth in 2010, John Dennis could be a replacement for Nancy Pelosi, according to a http://www.wnd.com article. Dennis is an entrepreneur and businessman who, about two years ago, became fed up with congresses’ fiscal irresponsibility, intrusive big government, the lack of candidates worth his support and vote, and even his own party. He has decided it’s time to stop complaining and start campaigning.
Dennis refers to himself as a liberty Republican, and believes that the Constitution should be carried out exactly as it reads. He is also the founder of the San Francisco chapter of the Republican Liberty Caucus, as well as the current head of the Campaign for Liberty San Francisco. In addition, he’s a board member of the Republican Liberty Caucus California, and has served as an alternate on the San Francisco Central Republican Committee.
Sympathizing with those who are more concerned about jobs than global warming, he is against the cap and trade bill, and has said, “The Cap and Trade scheme is a tax increase masquerading as an environmental program.”
On the hot issue of healthcare, he has stated that he is for tort reform, making out-of-pocket medical expenses and insurance premiums paid by individuals tax deductible, working to grant insurance companies the right to compete across state lines, as well as “repealing government imposed requirements on what insurance companies must cover.”
His thoughts on the income tax are that, “The premise of an income tax, that government has a right to the fruits of your labor, is antithetical to a free society. An income tax implies that a government owns you and allows you to keep a portion of what you make.” As a result, he is for a repeal of the 16th Amendment.
I chose this article because it expresses the opinion of John Dennis on the 16th amendment.
______________________________________
I chose this video because it talks about the cons of an income tax.
"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."
Ratified in 1870, and one of the Reconstruction amendments, the 15th amendment was targeted at providing African Americans with the right to vote.
Section 1: This section says that any legal citizen of the United States shall never have his/her right to vote denied by the United States or any State based on race, color, or if they had previously been in servitude.
Section 2: Once again, the authors of this amendment felt it appropriate to give the executive power of enforcement of this amendment to the people, indirectly through Congress, which they could exercise with appropriate legislation.
____________________________________________
But Mr. Allen, it seems, held beliefs about race that are now embarrassing.
“He wasn’t pro-slavery, but he was not pro-civil rights,” said Tom Reider, research archivist for the Ohio Historical Society. “He did not favor extending suffrage to African-American males through the 15th Amendment.”
So the state has begun looking for an Ohioan to replace him, and there is no shortage of nominees. They include three presidents, Ulysses S. Grant, William McKinley andWilliam Howard Taft; the Olympic athlete Jesse Owens; and William Ellsworth Hoy, a deaf baseball player at the turn of the 20th century and a member of the Cincinnati Reds Hall of Fame who was known as Dummy.
Wilbur and Orville Wright have been ruled out, because the rules do not allow for two people to share a statue.
“We have a very tough decision in front of us,” said Mark Wagoner, a Republican state senator from Toledo and chairman of the State General Assembly committee charged with making the selection.
Ohio is not alone in deciding to swap out one of its two statues that each state contributes to the hall’s collection. Three states have done so since Congress authorized such changes in 2000.
Kansas and California have selected former presidents — Dwight D. Eisenhower andRonald Reagan, respectively — and Alabama recently placed Helen Keller’s statue in the collection. Three more have notified the Architect of the Capitol, who maintains the collection, of their intent: Michigan and Missouri want to include their respective native-son presidents, Gerald R. Ford and Harry S. Truman, while Arizona wants Senator Barry Goldwater.
But Ohio is different in having no specific replacement in mind.
“We’re trying to have fun with it, and really make it a celebration of Ohio history,” Mr. Wagoner said. “We’re trying to raise Ohioans’ interest in our rich history and make this a positive experience for people.”
One issue being raised is whether Ohio should select a political figure.
“It was President Kennedy who said there’s high honor in the political class, and public servants ought to have their own hall of fame,” said State Representative Tyrone K. Yates,Democrat of Cincinnati and a committee member. “That should be Statuary Hall. Otherwise it would be full of inventors, businessmen and others.”
While the names of many famous Ohioans have been mentioned, the obscure have also gotten attention. Last month, in Washington Court House, a city in the southeast part of the state, students in Paul LaRue’s high school history classes tried to persuade the committee to back James M. Ashley. Little known today, he was a Civil War-era congressman from Toledo and a Lincoln ally who championed and helped write the 13th Amendment, outlawing slavery.
“We have no claim on him as favorite son,” Mr. LaRue said. “We call him an architect of freedom because he did a lot, and we feel he would be a good replacement for Governor Allen.”
Mr. Wagoner said his committee would make a recommendation in the spring, followed by a vote by the General Assembly.
The selection requires the approval of the governor and the Joint Committee on theLibrary of Congress in Washington. It is then up to Ohio to make the arrangements; a nonprofit foundation has been established to raise the estimated $250,000 to $500,000 needed for a new statue.
This article was chosen because it discusses a Capitol Delegate's opinion about the 15th amendment and whether or not African-Americans should have the right to vote. _______________________________________
I chose this article simply because it is a recent event in which the 15th amendment is addressed.
"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."
Let's take this section by section:
Section 1: This section grants automatic U.S. citizenship to those born or naturalized within one of the United States or within a territory of its jurisdiction, and also grants automatic State citizenship to those born or naturalized in a United State. This section also prohibits the states from creating any laws that would infringe on the rights guaranteed at the federal level, the rights of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law," and requires all States to grant all citizens of the United States "equal protection of the laws."
Section 2: This section describes that the number of representatives shall be proportional to the whole number of citizens of the state, but Indians who do not pay taxes are excluded from that count. And in any event that the right to vote is denied to a number of male inhabitants of that state, then the number of representatives shall be reduced by that number.
Section 3: This section states that any Senator, Representative, or government official guilty of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or of giving aid to the enemies of the United States, shall no longer hold office. However, Congress can vote to repeal this disability by a two-thirds vote.
Section 4: This section says that the validity of the national debt of the United States, which must be authorized by law to be recognized as a deficit, that includes debts for payment for aid of insurrection of rebellion against the United States, shall not be questioned. As such, no state shall be obligated to pay a debt to another state for aid against rebellion against the United States.
Section 5: This section authorizes Congress with the executive power of enforcement of this amendment with appropriate legislation.
________________________________________________
The Fourteenth Amendment created two citizens under the Constitution of the United States (of America).
Before the Fourteenth Amendment, citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States were considered one in the same. [Footnote 1] However, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court decided that because of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizenship of a State was to be separate and distinct from citizenship of the United States.
This was done so Dred Scott would not apply. In that case, citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States were considered to be one in the same.
The Fourteenth Amendment created citizenship of the United States. As stated above, this citizenship was separate and distinct from citizenship of a State. If, one, being a citizen of the United States, wanted to become a citizen of a State, then according to the Fourteenth Amendment, all one had to do was reside in a State. In this case, one would be a citizen of the United States AND a citizen of a State. [Footnote 2] He or she, would then have privileges and immunities of a citizen of the United States plus privileges and immunities of a citizen of a State.
Before the Fourteenth Amendment, citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States were considered one in the same. One who was a citizen of a State (as well as a citizen of the United States [Footnote 3]), was entitled; under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States (of America), to “all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.”
The Fourteenth Amendment; however, according to the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases, changed citizenship under the Constitution. Citizenship of a State was now to be considered as separate and distinct from citizenship of the United States. A citizen of a State was to be considered as separate and distinct from a citizen of the United States. [Footnote 4]
Because of this a citizen of a State, and not a citizen of the United States, was entitled; under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States (of America), to “all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.” [Footnote 5]
Before the Fourteenth Amendment, citizenship of a State and citizenship of the United States were considered one in the same. A citizen of a State was recognized at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution. However, after the Fourteenth Amendment, there were now two state citizens, one under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and one under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Footnote 6]
In the Slaughterhouse Cases, the Supreme Court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment created a second citizenship, citizenship of the several States.” [Footnote 7] This was later reaffirmed in Cole v. Cunningham:
“The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens of the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, at 113 thru114 (1890).
Now there are two state citizens, a citizen of the United States and a citizen of the several States. One is under the Fourteenth Amendment the other under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution.
So, the Fourteenth Amendment created two citizens under the Constitution of the United States (of America):
"Consequently, one who is created a citizen of the United States, is certainly not made a citizen of any particular State. It follows, that as it is only the citizens of the State who are entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, . . . , then a distinction both in name and privileges is made to exist between citizens of the United States, ex vi termini, and citizens of the respective (several) States." Ex parte Frank Knowles: 5 Cal. 300, at page 304 (1855). [Before the Fourteenth Amendment]
I chose this article because it deals directly with the Fourteenth Amendment, and its author asserts that this amendment has created two different categories of citizens in the U.S.
______________________________________________
I chose this video because it explores the Fourteenth Amendment on the similar subject that the previous article discusses.
"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."
The thirteenth amendment abolished slavery in the United States. The amendment dictates that, unless legally convicted guilty of a crime and sentenced, no person would be subject to "slavery [or] involuntary servitude" in the United States and any territory under its jurisdiction.
Then, Section 2 of the amendment gave Congress the executive power to enforce this law by "appropriate legislation." The way I see this is that the authors of this amendment saw that slavery was still carved into the minds of many Americans, and only hate would come of this. Thus, since Congress is the representation of "We the People" the authors were giving the power to enforce a law to us, the people. However, this amendment does not restrict the power of the executive branch; it still has the power to enforce the law. So perhaps the authors of the 13th amendment simply wanted to widen the means by which this potentially dangerous situation could be enforced. It was probably a good thing it turned out that way anyway, since in reality, it was extremely dangerous to be African American.
____________________________________________
Rare Lincoln documents on display at Cornell
(AP) – Oct 16, 2009
ITHACA, N.Y. — Three historic documents that distinguished Abraham Lincoln's presidency will be on rare display at Cornell University.
An original handwritten copy of the Gettysburg Address and signed copies of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will be part of the exhibit at Cornell's Carl A. Kroch Library.
"Together, these documents determined the direction of the country and shaped its most sacred values," said Katherine Reagan, curator of Rare Books and Manuscripts. "It is special to see them in one place."
The Gettysburg Address will be on display only during the first week of the exhibition, which begins Tuesday and runs through April 16, 2010. Cornell last put all three documents on display in 2002 during an exhibit on slavery. Before that, it had been decades since they were shown together.
"Institutions that own original copies often need to limit the amount of total light exposure that these types of national treasures receive. Ink does fade over time. We want these documents to last as long as possible," Reagan said.
The three documents were gifts to the university from Nicholas and Marguerite Lilly Noyes. Noyes, a 1906 graduate, was a former director of the pharmaceutical giant, Eli Lilly Co.
Lincoln delivered his famous speech at the dedication of the Gettysburg Civil War Cemetery on November 19, 1863. Cornell's is one of five known copies written by Lincoln, and the only one owned by a private institution, Reagan said.
The four other copies are owned by public institutions: two at the Library of Congress, one at the Illinois State Historical Library, and one in the Lincoln Room at the White House.
All five are slightly different. Only Cornell's is accompanied by a letter of transmittal signed by Lincoln. The library also possesses the envelope in which the letter was sent.
Cornell's copy is known as the Bancroft copy, after George Bancroft, the most famous historian of his day.
Bancroft was attending a White House reception and asked Lincoln for a copy on behalf of his stepson, a Union colonel who was collecting manuscripts to include in a lithographed volume that was being sold to raise money for sick and wounded soldiers. Noyes purchased it in 1935 for $50,000, Reagan said.
Cornell's copy of the Emancipation Proclamation is the first formal copy made from the manuscript draft that was sent to the State Department, and signed by Lincoln.
The school's copy of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery is a manuscript copy, handwritten by a secretary and signed by Lincoln and members of Congress.
The exhibition also includes scarce and important photographs of Lincoln; memorabilia from his 1860 and 1864 campaigns; engravings, photographs and programs commemorating his assassination and funeral. There are also rare materials from the Lincoln and Civil War collections of Cornell's first president, Andrew Dickson White.
I chose this article because, frankly, it was the only recent news article with regards to the 13the amendment. However, it does briefly discuss the importance of the amendment, along with the Emancipation Proclamation and the Gettysburg Address.
