Sunday, December 6, 2009
Amendment XXVII
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
Thoughts on the twenty seventh amendment:
This amendment has a unique story. It was originally introduced in 1789 as one of the original amendments, but failed to get the necessary number of state votes to ratify it. It wasn't until the early 1980's, when a University of Texas student discovered it, that a movement to get it ratified was started. It was final ratified in 1992, currently the last amendment to the United States Constitution.
This amendment prohibits congress from giving themselves raise in the current session. Any approved raise will not be applied until the next congressional session. This does not however hinder congress from receiving monies to compensate for cost of living in Washington D.C.
I think this is a great way to keep congress from lining their pockets, any more then they already due, courtesy of lobbyist.
Twenty-Seventh Amendment - Further Readings
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
The long history of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is curious and unprecedented. The amendment was first drafted by JAMES MADISON in 1789 and proposed by the First Congress in 1789 as part of the original BILL OF RIGHTS. The proposed amendment did not fare well, as only six states ratified it during the period in which the first ten amendments were ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states. The amendment was largely neglected for the next two centuries; Ohio was the only state to approve the amendment in that period, ratifying it in 1873.
In 1982 Gregory Watson, a twenty-year-old student at the University of Texas, wrote a term paper arguing for ratification of the amendment. Watson received a 'C' grade for the paper and then embarked on a one-man campaign for the amendment's ratification. From his home in Austin, Texas, Watson wrote letters to state legislators across the country on an electric typewriter. During the 1980s, as state legislatures passed pay raises, public debate over the raises reached a fever pitch and state legislatures began to pass the measure, mostly as a symbolic gesture to appease voters. Few observers believed that the amendment would ever be ratified by the required thirty-eight states, but the tally of ratifying states began to mount. On May 7, 1992, Michigan became the thirty-eighth state to ratify the amendment, causing it to become part of the U.S. Constitution.
The effect of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is to prevent salary increases for federal legislators from taking effect until after an intervening election of members of the House of Representatives. The amendment is an expression of the concern that members of Congress, if left to their own devices, may choose to act in their own interests rather than the public interest. Because the amendment postpones salary increases until after an election, members of Congress may not immediately raise their own salaries. All Representatives must endure an election before a pay raise takes effect because Representatives are elected once every two years; Senators need not necessarily succeed in an election before a pay raise takes effect unless the pay raise is approved within two years of the Senator's next re-election effort.
The ratification process of the Twenty-seventh Amendment was by far the longest-running amendment effort in the history of the United States. Before the Twenty-seventh Amendment was ratified, the longest it had taken to ratify an amendment was four years. That measure, the TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT limiting the president to two terms in office, was ratified in 1951. The proposed EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, which would have become the Twenty-seventh Amendment had it passed, failed to win ratification by the required thirty-eight states during the ten-year period Congress had allowed for its consideration by the states.
The gradual manner in which the Twenty-seventh Amendment was passed has raised questions about its validity, with concerns centering on the wisdom of allowing changes to the Constitution without reference to the passage of time. In Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 41 S. Ct. 510, 65 L. Ed. 994 (1921), the U.S. Supreme Court stated a requirement that ratification of amendments be contemporaneous with their proposal, but in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S. Ct. 972, 83 L. Ed. 1385 (1939), the High Court left it for Congress to decide whether a ratification was contemporaneous with its proposal. In Boehner v. Anderson, 809 F.Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd, 30 F.3d 156, 308 U.S.App.D.C. 94 (1994), the District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of pay raises in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-194, 103 Stat 1716 (1989). The court observed that the pay raises complied with the Twenty-seventh Amendment because they took effect after an election had intervened.
Read more: Twenty-Seventh Amendment - Further Readings http://law.jrank.org/pages/10955/Twenty-Seventh-Amendment.html#ixzz0YylUNUQZ
Thoughts on the twenty seventh amendment:
This amendment has a unique story. It was originally introduced in 1789 as one of the original amendments, but failed to get the necessary number of state votes to ratify it. It wasn't until the early 1980's, when a University of Texas student discovered it, that a movement to get it ratified was started. It was final ratified in 1992, currently the last amendment to the United States Constitution.
This amendment prohibits congress from giving themselves raise in the current session. Any approved raise will not be applied until the next congressional session. This does not however hinder congress from receiving monies to compensate for cost of living in Washington D.C.
I think this is a great way to keep congress from lining their pockets, any more then they already due, courtesy of lobbyist.
Twenty-Seventh Amendment - Further Readings
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
No law, varying the compensation for the services of Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
The long history of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is curious and unprecedented. The amendment was first drafted by JAMES MADISON in 1789 and proposed by the First Congress in 1789 as part of the original BILL OF RIGHTS. The proposed amendment did not fare well, as only six states ratified it during the period in which the first ten amendments were ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states. The amendment was largely neglected for the next two centuries; Ohio was the only state to approve the amendment in that period, ratifying it in 1873.
In 1982 Gregory Watson, a twenty-year-old student at the University of Texas, wrote a term paper arguing for ratification of the amendment. Watson received a 'C' grade for the paper and then embarked on a one-man campaign for the amendment's ratification. From his home in Austin, Texas, Watson wrote letters to state legislators across the country on an electric typewriter. During the 1980s, as state legislatures passed pay raises, public debate over the raises reached a fever pitch and state legislatures began to pass the measure, mostly as a symbolic gesture to appease voters. Few observers believed that the amendment would ever be ratified by the required thirty-eight states, but the tally of ratifying states began to mount. On May 7, 1992, Michigan became the thirty-eighth state to ratify the amendment, causing it to become part of the U.S. Constitution.
The effect of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is to prevent salary increases for federal legislators from taking effect until after an intervening election of members of the House of Representatives. The amendment is an expression of the concern that members of Congress, if left to their own devices, may choose to act in their own interests rather than the public interest. Because the amendment postpones salary increases until after an election, members of Congress may not immediately raise their own salaries. All Representatives must endure an election before a pay raise takes effect because Representatives are elected once every two years; Senators need not necessarily succeed in an election before a pay raise takes effect unless the pay raise is approved within two years of the Senator's next re-election effort.
The ratification process of the Twenty-seventh Amendment was by far the longest-running amendment effort in the history of the United States. Before the Twenty-seventh Amendment was ratified, the longest it had taken to ratify an amendment was four years. That measure, the TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT limiting the president to two terms in office, was ratified in 1951. The proposed EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, which would have become the Twenty-seventh Amendment had it passed, failed to win ratification by the required thirty-eight states during the ten-year period Congress had allowed for its consideration by the states.
The gradual manner in which the Twenty-seventh Amendment was passed has raised questions about its validity, with concerns centering on the wisdom of allowing changes to the Constitution without reference to the passage of time. In Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 41 S. Ct. 510, 65 L. Ed. 994 (1921), the U.S. Supreme Court stated a requirement that ratification of amendments be contemporaneous with their proposal, but in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S. Ct. 972, 83 L. Ed. 1385 (1939), the High Court left it for Congress to decide whether a ratification was contemporaneous with its proposal. In Boehner v. Anderson, 809 F.Supp. 138 (D.D.C. 1992), aff'd, 30 F.3d 156, 308 U.S.App.D.C. 94 (1994), the District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of pay raises in the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, Pub. L. 101-194, 103 Stat 1716 (1989). The court observed that the pay raises complied with the Twenty-seventh Amendment because they took effect after an election had intervened.
Read more: Twenty-Seventh Amendment - Further Readings http://law.jrank.org/pages/10955/Twenty-Seventh-Amendment.html#ixzz0YylUNUQZ
Amendment XXVI
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Thoughts on the twenty sixth amendment:
This amendment gives American citizens eighteen years and older the right to vote. This amendment got its momentum from the Vietnam War because people eighteen years old could be drafted and sent into war without having the right to vote. Since the right to vote is our strongest and most effect way to express our opinions it seemed only fair that this young Americans should have a right to express their opinion on the war as well as other important political decisions.
There is also a strong opinion by people eighteen years old that since they can go to war that they should have the right to be able to consume alcohol. I completely agree with this but I don't think that it has the same magnitude as the right to vote. So don't hold your breath.
Really?... Can you image if people sixteen years old could vote?
Could Lowering The Drinking Age To 18 Improve College Health?
August 20, 2008
Washington (dbTechno) - Colleges and universities across the U.S. have come out and showcased their support to try and lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. This brings up the immediate question, what impact would this change have to the health of college students?
Thus far, leaders from more than 100 colleges and universities across the United States have voiced their support of lowering the drinking age to 18.
In terms of the health of college students, those in support of this move believe that it could lead to a reduction in binge drinking among college kids.
This would obviously be a positive to their health, as binge drinking can often lead to many health problems, and accidents from driving, among other things.
With the current drinking age at 21, supporters feel that binge drinking is almost promoted, as kids will have to load themselves up before they go out for a night on the town.
This could prove to be a slippery slope though, as cutting the drinking age to 18 could make it easier for high school kids to take part in the practice.
For health reasons though, supporters seem to be confident that it would increase casual drinking, and lower over-the-top binge drinking.
Many are not convinced though, as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) have stated they oppose the push, and that it would lead to more fatal car crashes.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Thoughts on the twenty sixth amendment:
This amendment gives American citizens eighteen years and older the right to vote. This amendment got its momentum from the Vietnam War because people eighteen years old could be drafted and sent into war without having the right to vote. Since the right to vote is our strongest and most effect way to express our opinions it seemed only fair that this young Americans should have a right to express their opinion on the war as well as other important political decisions.
There is also a strong opinion by people eighteen years old that since they can go to war that they should have the right to be able to consume alcohol. I completely agree with this but I don't think that it has the same magnitude as the right to vote. So don't hold your breath.
Really?... Can you image if people sixteen years old could vote?
Could Lowering The Drinking Age To 18 Improve College Health?
August 20, 2008
Washington (dbTechno) - Colleges and universities across the U.S. have come out and showcased their support to try and lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. This brings up the immediate question, what impact would this change have to the health of college students?
Thus far, leaders from more than 100 colleges and universities across the United States have voiced their support of lowering the drinking age to 18.
In terms of the health of college students, those in support of this move believe that it could lead to a reduction in binge drinking among college kids.
This would obviously be a positive to their health, as binge drinking can often lead to many health problems, and accidents from driving, among other things.
With the current drinking age at 21, supporters feel that binge drinking is almost promoted, as kids will have to load themselves up before they go out for a night on the town.
This could prove to be a slippery slope though, as cutting the drinking age to 18 could make it easier for high school kids to take part in the practice.
For health reasons though, supporters seem to be confident that it would increase casual drinking, and lower over-the-top binge drinking.
Many are not convinced though, as MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) have stated they oppose the push, and that it would lead to more fatal car crashes.
Amendment XXV
Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Thoughts on the twenty fifth amendment:
This amendment lays out the succession of the presidency. It deals with many scenario's including death, resignation, and incapacity. It fills in all the gaps in regards to succession in most every conceivable way.
The first president to invoke the disability provision of this amendment was Ronald Regan. When he underwent surgery he gave George H. W. Bush the powers of the office.
The succession of the Vice-President to the President in cases of death had occurred seven times previous to this amendment. In each case it was uncontested, but this amendment confirms this succession.
Ford was appointed as the Vice President after Agnew resigned, and then became President when Nixon did..... never being elected to either office!
REAGAN'S ILLNESS: GOVERNMENTAL QUESTIONS;POWER TRANSFER SEEN AS PRECEDENT
Whether he intended to or not, President Reagan set a political precedent for a President to temporarily transfer power to the Vice President before being anesthetized for surgery, several legal experts said today.
The experts also said that the drafters of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution clearly intended to allow and encourage Presidents to transfer their powers in such temporary periods of incapacity as the one caused by Mr. Reagan's surgery Saturday, notwithstanding Mr. Reagan's suggestion to the contrary.
Mr. Reagan transferred his powers to Vice President Bush before undergoing anesthesia and reclaimed them after the surgery, In both instances Mr. Reagan followed procedures similar to those in section 3 of the 25th Amendment, which specifies that the Vice President becomes Acting President whenever the President advises Congress in writing ''that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary.''
Amendment Not Invoked
But Mr. Reagan avoided invoking the amendment directly and did not state explicitly that he would be unable to discharge his powers.
The precedent set by Mr. Reagan was not a binding one, the experts said. They contended it was more a political precedent than a legal one, because the 25th Amendment is designed to be invoked by Presidents themselves, or in extreme cases by the Vice President, the Cabinet and Congress, not by the courts.
But future Presidents about to undergo surgery will feel some pressure to temporarily transfer power to the Vice President, these experts said.
Those expressing these views included Lloyd N. Cutler, who was White House Counsel under President Carter, Birch Bayh, a former Democratic Senator from Indiana who was the principal author of the 25th Amendment, and John D. Feerick, Dean of Fordham Law School, who has written a book on the 25th Amendment.
In addition, some Government lawyers as well as legal experts outside the Government agreed that Mr. Reagan's transfer of power to Vice President Bush for about eight hours Saturday was in effect an exercise of the 25th Amendment, although Mr. Reagan did not invoke it directly.
''Certainly it's exactly the kind of situation the amendment was designed to take care of,'' Mr. Cutler said in an interview today.
Possible Future Situations
Mr. Cutler said that, as the first President to exercise section 3 of the 25th Amendment, Mr. Reagan ''has set a precedent'' that will have to be considered, although not necessarily followed, by any future President in a similar situation.
''It would have been much better,'' Mr. Cutler said, for Mr. Reagan simply to have said he was invoking the 25th Amendment ''than to do it in this grudging, fudging way.''
Mr. Reagan said in the letters transferring his powers that there was doubt the amendment applied ''to such brief and temporary periods of incapacity.''
''I do not believe that the drafters of this amendment intended its application to situations such as the instant one,'' Mr. Reagan wrote.
The Congressional proceedings that led to the adoption of the 25th Amendment contained several assertions that Presidents would be allowed to transfer their powers to their Vice Presidents briefly when going into surgery.
Both Nichalas deB. Katzenbach, who was Attorney General under President Johnson, and Herbert Brownell, who had been Attorney General under President Eisenhower, testified in 1965 that section 3 of the amendment would allow Presidents to delegate power before surgery in which they would be temporarily incapacitated.
Mr. Feerick said, ''There's no question in terms of the legislative history that the 25th Amendment was intended to cover and apply to the kind of situation that we had on Saturday, namely, the President undergoing anesthesia for a period of several hours.''
Effect of Kennedy Assassination
The 25th Amendment, which also specifies procedures for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, was adopted primarily to resolve a troublesome ambiguity in the Constitution about how to decide when the President, because of illness or otherwise, is unable to do his job.
It was proposed by Congress in 1965 and became law in 1967 when ratified by three-fourths of the states.
The immediate reason for adopting the amendment was the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, which raised questions such as what would have happened if he had gone into a prolonged coma after being shot.
Section 3 of the 25th Amendment was designed to allow and encourage the President himself to transfer his powers to the Vice President whenever he was or anticipated becoming incapacitated even briefly, Mr. Feerick and Mr. Bayh said.
''We purposely left it flexible,'' Mr. Bayh said today, ''so that the President would be comfortable with its application.''
Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Thoughts on the twenty fifth amendment:
This amendment lays out the succession of the presidency. It deals with many scenario's including death, resignation, and incapacity. It fills in all the gaps in regards to succession in most every conceivable way.
The first president to invoke the disability provision of this amendment was Ronald Regan. When he underwent surgery he gave George H. W. Bush the powers of the office.
The succession of the Vice-President to the President in cases of death had occurred seven times previous to this amendment. In each case it was uncontested, but this amendment confirms this succession.
Ford was appointed as the Vice President after Agnew resigned, and then became President when Nixon did..... never being elected to either office!
REAGAN'S ILLNESS: GOVERNMENTAL QUESTIONS;POWER TRANSFER SEEN AS PRECEDENT
Whether he intended to or not, President Reagan set a political precedent for a President to temporarily transfer power to the Vice President before being anesthetized for surgery, several legal experts said today.
The experts also said that the drafters of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution clearly intended to allow and encourage Presidents to transfer their powers in such temporary periods of incapacity as the one caused by Mr. Reagan's surgery Saturday, notwithstanding Mr. Reagan's suggestion to the contrary.
Mr. Reagan transferred his powers to Vice President Bush before undergoing anesthesia and reclaimed them after the surgery, In both instances Mr. Reagan followed procedures similar to those in section 3 of the 25th Amendment, which specifies that the Vice President becomes Acting President whenever the President advises Congress in writing ''that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary.''
Amendment Not Invoked
But Mr. Reagan avoided invoking the amendment directly and did not state explicitly that he would be unable to discharge his powers.
The precedent set by Mr. Reagan was not a binding one, the experts said. They contended it was more a political precedent than a legal one, because the 25th Amendment is designed to be invoked by Presidents themselves, or in extreme cases by the Vice President, the Cabinet and Congress, not by the courts.
But future Presidents about to undergo surgery will feel some pressure to temporarily transfer power to the Vice President, these experts said.
Those expressing these views included Lloyd N. Cutler, who was White House Counsel under President Carter, Birch Bayh, a former Democratic Senator from Indiana who was the principal author of the 25th Amendment, and John D. Feerick, Dean of Fordham Law School, who has written a book on the 25th Amendment.
In addition, some Government lawyers as well as legal experts outside the Government agreed that Mr. Reagan's transfer of power to Vice President Bush for about eight hours Saturday was in effect an exercise of the 25th Amendment, although Mr. Reagan did not invoke it directly.
''Certainly it's exactly the kind of situation the amendment was designed to take care of,'' Mr. Cutler said in an interview today.
Possible Future Situations
Mr. Cutler said that, as the first President to exercise section 3 of the 25th Amendment, Mr. Reagan ''has set a precedent'' that will have to be considered, although not necessarily followed, by any future President in a similar situation.
''It would have been much better,'' Mr. Cutler said, for Mr. Reagan simply to have said he was invoking the 25th Amendment ''than to do it in this grudging, fudging way.''
Mr. Reagan said in the letters transferring his powers that there was doubt the amendment applied ''to such brief and temporary periods of incapacity.''
''I do not believe that the drafters of this amendment intended its application to situations such as the instant one,'' Mr. Reagan wrote.
The Congressional proceedings that led to the adoption of the 25th Amendment contained several assertions that Presidents would be allowed to transfer their powers to their Vice Presidents briefly when going into surgery.
Both Nichalas deB. Katzenbach, who was Attorney General under President Johnson, and Herbert Brownell, who had been Attorney General under President Eisenhower, testified in 1965 that section 3 of the amendment would allow Presidents to delegate power before surgery in which they would be temporarily incapacitated.
Mr. Feerick said, ''There's no question in terms of the legislative history that the 25th Amendment was intended to cover and apply to the kind of situation that we had on Saturday, namely, the President undergoing anesthesia for a period of several hours.''
Effect of Kennedy Assassination
The 25th Amendment, which also specifies procedures for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, was adopted primarily to resolve a troublesome ambiguity in the Constitution about how to decide when the President, because of illness or otherwise, is unable to do his job.
It was proposed by Congress in 1965 and became law in 1967 when ratified by three-fourths of the states.
The immediate reason for adopting the amendment was the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, which raised questions such as what would have happened if he had gone into a prolonged coma after being shot.
Section 3 of the 25th Amendment was designed to allow and encourage the President himself to transfer his powers to the Vice President whenever he was or anticipated becoming incapacitated even briefly, Mr. Feerick and Mr. Bayh said.
''We purposely left it flexible,'' Mr. Bayh said today, ''so that the President would be comfortable with its application.''
Amendment XXIV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Thoughts on the twenty fourth amendment:
This amendment finished the goals set out by the fifthteenth amendment. This amendment elimated the major road block many African-American citizens still faced when they tried to excersise their right to vote.
Shortly after the ratification of this amendment congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These two legislative powerhouses gave the Federal government the power to extened Civil Rights to all areas of the nation. This amendment allowed the Civil Rights movement took a huge leap foward in their struggle that still continues today.
Rosa Parks Bus Tour Teaches About Civil Rights Movement
Sierra Moore Created: 12/1/2009 6:01:49 PM Updated: 12/1/2009 6:04:48 PM
Greensboro, NC -- It's been 54 years since Civil Rights leader Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on an Alabama bus. Greensboro leaders want to share her story with local students.
The Greensboro Transit Authority held its Rosa Parks Bus Tour Tuesday. It's a national effort to educate students on Civil Rights events in our country's history.
The special bus visited Jackson Middle School, and kids got to experience the history lesson inside the bus, complete with pictures from the time period.
Many say Rosa Parks was courageous for her actions.
"If I was Rosa Parks I don't think I would've done anything like that," said Eighth Grader Rashawn Graham. "I probably would've stood up and went to the back of the bus."
The bus tour also made stops at Guilford Middle School, Allen Middle School and Harrison Middle School.
WFMY News 2
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Thoughts on the twenty fourth amendment:
This amendment finished the goals set out by the fifthteenth amendment. This amendment elimated the major road block many African-American citizens still faced when they tried to excersise their right to vote.
Shortly after the ratification of this amendment congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These two legislative powerhouses gave the Federal government the power to extened Civil Rights to all areas of the nation. This amendment allowed the Civil Rights movement took a huge leap foward in their struggle that still continues today.
Rosa Parks Bus Tour Teaches About Civil Rights Movement
Sierra Moore Created: 12/1/2009 6:01:49 PM Updated: 12/1/2009 6:04:48 PM
Greensboro, NC -- It's been 54 years since Civil Rights leader Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on an Alabama bus. Greensboro leaders want to share her story with local students.
The Greensboro Transit Authority held its Rosa Parks Bus Tour Tuesday. It's a national effort to educate students on Civil Rights events in our country's history.
The special bus visited Jackson Middle School, and kids got to experience the history lesson inside the bus, complete with pictures from the time period.
Many say Rosa Parks was courageous for her actions.
"If I was Rosa Parks I don't think I would've done anything like that," said Eighth Grader Rashawn Graham. "I probably would've stood up and went to the back of the bus."
The bus tour also made stops at Guilford Middle School, Allen Middle School and Harrison Middle School.
WFMY News 2
Amendment XXIII
Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article using appropriate legislation.
Thoughts on the twenty third amendment:
This amendment gives the District of Columbia electors that can vote for President and Vice President. They current have three, in pro potion to the number that the least populous state has.
This is a fair amendment since the citizens of D.C. have all the responsibilities of an American citizen they should have a say in the election of the President. An amendment to give them representation in both Houses of Congress was introduced but never ratified.
There has been a recent push to give the citizens of the District of Columbia full voting rights.
D.C. Voting Rights Supporter Announces Plans for New License Plates
Last Updated Nov 2009
Printer Friendly Version By AFRO Staff
(November 15, 2009) - Larry Ottinger, a Maryland resident and avid supporter of voting rights in the District of Columbia, has a plan to urge drivers in all states to put a D.C. voting rights license plate on their car.
In an interview with WTOP’s “Politics Program with Mark Plotkin,” Ottinger detailed an initiative he’s heading to find a resident in each state across the nation who is willing to purchase a personalized license plate with the message, “DC Vote.” Ottinger said he has his own tag personalized with that message, and hopes to move his plan forward within the next year.
Residents of Maryland and Virginia, “have a special relationship and a special obligation to make the promise of democracy real for our D.C. neighbors and colleagues,” Ottinger, a public interest lawyer and supporter of democracy reform, said in a statement. “We reap immeasurable benefits from being a part of the national capital region. Our employment, transportation, housing, recreational and environmental fates are inextricably linked."
A District native, Ottinger said people across the nation are slowly starting to recognize the importance of voting rights in the District. "This is not a local issue," Ottinger said. "Democracy in America is a national, and even international, concern of the highest order. How can we defend democracy abroad if we deny fundamental rights to our own citizens at home?"
Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, has voiced his approval of Ottinger’s plan and the positive affects it will have on the District and the nation.
"DC's 'taxation without representation' license plates bring national attention to the issue," Zherka said in a statement. "This is a small but impactful thing supporters like Larry can do to shed light on this national civil rights issue."
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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article using appropriate legislation.
Thoughts on the twenty third amendment:
This amendment gives the District of Columbia electors that can vote for President and Vice President. They current have three, in pro potion to the number that the least populous state has.
This is a fair amendment since the citizens of D.C. have all the responsibilities of an American citizen they should have a say in the election of the President. An amendment to give them representation in both Houses of Congress was introduced but never ratified.
There has been a recent push to give the citizens of the District of Columbia full voting rights.
D.C. Voting Rights Supporter Announces Plans for New License Plates
Last Updated Nov 2009
Printer Friendly Version By AFRO Staff
(November 15, 2009) - Larry Ottinger, a Maryland resident and avid supporter of voting rights in the District of Columbia, has a plan to urge drivers in all states to put a D.C. voting rights license plate on their car.
In an interview with WTOP’s “Politics Program with Mark Plotkin,” Ottinger detailed an initiative he’s heading to find a resident in each state across the nation who is willing to purchase a personalized license plate with the message, “DC Vote.” Ottinger said he has his own tag personalized with that message, and hopes to move his plan forward within the next year.
Residents of Maryland and Virginia, “have a special relationship and a special obligation to make the promise of democracy real for our D.C. neighbors and colleagues,” Ottinger, a public interest lawyer and supporter of democracy reform, said in a statement. “We reap immeasurable benefits from being a part of the national capital region. Our employment, transportation, housing, recreational and environmental fates are inextricably linked."
A District native, Ottinger said people across the nation are slowly starting to recognize the importance of voting rights in the District. "This is not a local issue," Ottinger said. "Democracy in America is a national, and even international, concern of the highest order. How can we defend democracy abroad if we deny fundamental rights to our own citizens at home?"
Ilir Zherka, executive director of DC Vote, has voiced his approval of Ottinger’s plan and the positive affects it will have on the District and the nation.
"DC's 'taxation without representation' license plates bring national attention to the issue," Zherka said in a statement. "This is a small but impactful thing supporters like Larry can do to shed light on this national civil rights issue."
Amendment XXII
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by 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.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
Thoughts on the twenty second amendment:
This amendment put a two four year term limit on the presidency. This amendment was ratified in 1951, a fact that was a surprise to me. I had always thought that Article I had defined this term limit. I have come to learn that it was indeed the founding fathers intent but did not become a reality until much later. This amendment came about by a republican congress who had seen FDR elected to four terms and succeed in death by Harry S Truman, both democrats. Although reasonable in its spirit, and I think a good standard, it would come back to haunt the republicans. Dwight D Eisenhower as well as Roland Regan were both republicans that could have been elected to a third or even fourth term. God willing the "Gipper" could still be our president.
22: Presidential term limits
Wednesday, November 27, 2002
22ND AMENDMENT (1951)
George Washington could have been elected to a third term, but declined it, suggesting two terms of four years were enough for any president. In 1797, he quietly returned to Mount Vernon. His two-term example became an unwritten rule in the realm of presidential politics until 1940. That was when Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who steered the nation through the Great Depression of the 1930s, decided he wanted to run again. Newspapers railed against the breach of tradition. His Republican opponent, Wendell Willkie forced the incumbent to run a hard campaign, which Roosevelt won. He then went after, and received, a fourth term in office, explaining that he could not leave the helm at a time he was guiding a nation through the Second World War.
Just months into his fourth term, Roosevelt died and, with him, the idea of unlimited terms for presidents. An amendment, promoted heavily by the Republican party and by others nervous at the idea of a permanent presidency, was passed in 1947. It was ratified by the states four years later. The amendment limits a president to two four-year terms. Today, in the city over which Roosevelt presided for 13 years, youngsters such as Nordina Blackburn, 6, of Norcross, Ga., can visit the monument to the first -- and last -- president to serve more than two terms.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
Thoughts on the twenty second amendment:
This amendment put a two four year term limit on the presidency. This amendment was ratified in 1951, a fact that was a surprise to me. I had always thought that Article I had defined this term limit. I have come to learn that it was indeed the founding fathers intent but did not become a reality until much later. This amendment came about by a republican congress who had seen FDR elected to four terms and succeed in death by Harry S Truman, both democrats. Although reasonable in its spirit, and I think a good standard, it would come back to haunt the republicans. Dwight D Eisenhower as well as Roland Regan were both republicans that could have been elected to a third or even fourth term. God willing the "Gipper" could still be our president.
22: Presidential term limits
Wednesday, November 27, 2002
22ND AMENDMENT (1951)
George Washington could have been elected to a third term, but declined it, suggesting two terms of four years were enough for any president. In 1797, he quietly returned to Mount Vernon. His two-term example became an unwritten rule in the realm of presidential politics until 1940. That was when Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who steered the nation through the Great Depression of the 1930s, decided he wanted to run again. Newspapers railed against the breach of tradition. His Republican opponent, Wendell Willkie forced the incumbent to run a hard campaign, which Roosevelt won. He then went after, and received, a fourth term in office, explaining that he could not leave the helm at a time he was guiding a nation through the Second World War.
Just months into his fourth term, Roosevelt died and, with him, the idea of unlimited terms for presidents. An amendment, promoted heavily by the Republican party and by others nervous at the idea of a permanent presidency, was passed in 1947. It was ratified by the states four years later. The amendment limits a president to two four-year terms. Today, in the city over which Roosevelt presided for 13 years, youngsters such as Nordina Blackburn, 6, of Norcross, Ga., can visit the monument to the first -- and last -- president to serve more than two terms.
Amendment XXI
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Thoughts on the twenty first amendment:
What a great amendment! After fourteen years of a failed experiment in taking booze away from Americans, the twenty first amendment repeals the eighteenth amendment.
This amendment is the only one to repeal another amendment and it is the only one that was ratified by the states and not popular vote.
Prohibition ends on December 5, 1933.
HistoryLink.org Essay 3343 : Printer-Friendly Format
On December 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment to the U.S Constitution is ratified, repealing Prohibition. The manufacture, sale, and possession of alcoholic beverages is no longer illegal and the Seattle City Council enacts an emergency ordinance permitting the sale of beer and wine. In the state legislature, a majority supports state-owned liquor stores.
The state of Washington prohibited the manufacture and sale of liquor beginning in 1916. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution and The Volstead Act made Prohibition the law of the land in 1920. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1881-1945) ran for the presidency in 1932, partly on a platform of the repeal of Prohibition. The 21st Amendment was ratified by the state of Washington on October 3, 1933. On December 5, 1933, Utah was the 36th state to ratify the amendment. President Roosevelt immediately issued a repeal proclamation.
Even before the Utah vote came in, the Seattle City Council prepared an emergency ordinance providing for the sale of beer and wines of up to 16 percent alcohol content. It was approved unanimously and signed immediately by Mayor John F. Dore (1881-1938). Sale was prohibited within two miles of the University of Washington and within 500 feet of any grade or high school. A small section of Madison Park was not included in the University ban because it had been exempted under an old state law. Police Chief L. L. Norton stated that his officers would enforce the ban around the University as soon as the City Engineer determined the boundaries of the dry area.
Beer with an alcohol content of 3.2 percent could be sold in stores, restaurants, and taverns within two miles of the University since it was believed that this was not intoxicating.
Not provided for in the ordinance was the sale of beverages of more than 16 percent alcohol content. The city received a ruling that an old state law would still allow drug stores to sell liquor of all descriptions for medicinal or scientific purposes without a prescription. Some drug stores began to construct elaborate displays. Domestic wine was priced at $1.25 to $1.75 a bottle. Sixteen-year-old whiskey sold for $3.00.
In Vancouver, B.C., an estimated 4.5 million gallons of liquor, mostly bourbon and rye whiskey, were stored in warehouses awaiting official permission to ship to Seattle and San Francisco.
But the first night of legal liquor in Seattle was quiet. A Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter wrote:
"You walked into a bar on lower 3rd Ave. There were nine people in the place. A venerable bartender stood with folded arms, looking at the wallpaper.
"Brandy and soda? Yessir. No, the crowd's nothing extra tonight. In fact," he says confidentially, "it's very slow tonight. Must be the rain."
Sources:
R. B. Berman, "16 Per Cent Drinks O.K'd By Council Ordinance," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 6, 1933, p. 1, 3; "Ratification Of Dry Law Repeal Breaks Record," Ibid., p. 3; "Highlights Of J. Barleycorn's Return To U.S.," Ibid., p. 1; "Prohibition," Britannica CD 2000 Deluxe Edition, (Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2000).
By David Wilma, June 07, 2001
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Thoughts on the twenty first amendment:
What a great amendment! After fourteen years of a failed experiment in taking booze away from Americans, the twenty first amendment repeals the eighteenth amendment.
This amendment is the only one to repeal another amendment and it is the only one that was ratified by the states and not popular vote.
Prohibition ends on December 5, 1933.
HistoryLink.org Essay 3343 : Printer-Friendly Format
On December 5, 1933, the 21st Amendment to the U.S Constitution is ratified, repealing Prohibition. The manufacture, sale, and possession of alcoholic beverages is no longer illegal and the Seattle City Council enacts an emergency ordinance permitting the sale of beer and wine. In the state legislature, a majority supports state-owned liquor stores.
The state of Washington prohibited the manufacture and sale of liquor beginning in 1916. The 18th Amendment to the Constitution and The Volstead Act made Prohibition the law of the land in 1920. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1881-1945) ran for the presidency in 1932, partly on a platform of the repeal of Prohibition. The 21st Amendment was ratified by the state of Washington on October 3, 1933. On December 5, 1933, Utah was the 36th state to ratify the amendment. President Roosevelt immediately issued a repeal proclamation.
Even before the Utah vote came in, the Seattle City Council prepared an emergency ordinance providing for the sale of beer and wines of up to 16 percent alcohol content. It was approved unanimously and signed immediately by Mayor John F. Dore (1881-1938). Sale was prohibited within two miles of the University of Washington and within 500 feet of any grade or high school. A small section of Madison Park was not included in the University ban because it had been exempted under an old state law. Police Chief L. L. Norton stated that his officers would enforce the ban around the University as soon as the City Engineer determined the boundaries of the dry area.
Beer with an alcohol content of 3.2 percent could be sold in stores, restaurants, and taverns within two miles of the University since it was believed that this was not intoxicating.
Not provided for in the ordinance was the sale of beverages of more than 16 percent alcohol content. The city received a ruling that an old state law would still allow drug stores to sell liquor of all descriptions for medicinal or scientific purposes without a prescription. Some drug stores began to construct elaborate displays. Domestic wine was priced at $1.25 to $1.75 a bottle. Sixteen-year-old whiskey sold for $3.00.
In Vancouver, B.C., an estimated 4.5 million gallons of liquor, mostly bourbon and rye whiskey, were stored in warehouses awaiting official permission to ship to Seattle and San Francisco.
But the first night of legal liquor in Seattle was quiet. A Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter wrote:
"You walked into a bar on lower 3rd Ave. There were nine people in the place. A venerable bartender stood with folded arms, looking at the wallpaper.
"Brandy and soda? Yessir. No, the crowd's nothing extra tonight. In fact," he says confidentially, "it's very slow tonight. Must be the rain."
Sources:
R. B. Berman, "16 Per Cent Drinks O.K'd By Council Ordinance," Seattle Post-Intelligencer, December 6, 1933, p. 1, 3; "Ratification Of Dry Law Repeal Breaks Record," Ibid., p. 3; "Highlights Of J. Barleycorn's Return To U.S.," Ibid., p. 1; "Prohibition," Britannica CD 2000 Deluxe Edition, (Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2000).
By David Wilma, June 07, 2001
Amenedment XX
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
Thoughts on the twentieth amendment:
This amendment sets a new date for when the president takes office as Janurary 20th. This shortens the amount of time the current president has in office, his lame duck period. It also sets a date and time for when congress assembles, January 3rd at noon.
This amendment also deals with presidential succession in regards to any circumstances of death or inablity to take office during this period. These sceniors are important in the case one of the sceaniro does come in to play, although to date none have.
I think that the shortend lame duck period is a great thing. It elimates any uneccasary lull between presidencies and allows congress ot be in session when the new president takes office.
An intresting look:
Updated August 19, 2009
Why Obama Is a Lame Duck
FOXNews.com
Obama has made himself already irrelevant on many of the issues he ran on in 2008.
Just seven months into his term -- and 14 months before the 2010 midterm election -- and could it be, is President Obama already a lame duck?
With his passive management style -- which inevitably led to overreaching and heavy-handedness by Congressional Democrats Obama has made himself largely irrelevant on many of the issues he ran on, from health care "reform" to "resetting" our foreign relations. Here are seven signs that Obama's political suasion is waning:
1. On the heels of Obama's tacit DNR on the end-of-life death panels in the Senate Finance Committee's health care "reform" proposal, the administration signaled that it is also willing to bury what has always been a key element of the president's plans for healthcare "reform"(watch this video) -- a government financed "public option" to compete with (and eventually drive out of business) private health insurers. Bowing to opposition from Republicans in both houses of Congress, and fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said on CNN's "State of the Union" that the administration's fall-back position would be to support creation of consumer-owned nonprofit health insurance cooperatives. But the compromise is anathema to House Dems and Obama's liberal base, who vowed to fight to the bitter end for the public option. Either way, it's a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation for Obama (and we saw Sebelieus backtrack on Tuesday) and demonstrates how completely he has lost control of the health care debate.
2. After repeatedly insisting on getting a bill on his desk before Congress recessed for the summer, President Obama thought he had a deal with Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) that if the "Gang of Six" -- three Democrats and three Republican senators on the Finance Committee -- can't reach a consensus on a bipartisan bill by September 15 then the effort will be scrapped and Dems will push forward with their partisan proposals. But then Gang of Six member Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told "FOX News Sunday's" Chris Wallace that he and the others will not be "held hostage" by the mid-September deadline, and that he and his five colleagues "rejected" a specific timetable, because "it's more important to get this right."In a warning to Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, he added, "What we have agreed to is that we are going to be ready when we're ready."
3. A recipient of $45 billion in taxpayer assistance -- with the government holding a 34 percent ownership interest -- Citibank is required to submit the pay packages for its 25 senior executives and highest-paid employees to Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's special compensation master (AKA "pay czar") for review. The New York Times reports that Citi plans to pay two of its traders a combined $128 million under contracts that had been signed before Congress passed a law tasking the Treasury Secretary with examining compensation packages of top executives at companies that received funds from the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- even after being warned by Treasury officials that the contracts would be rejected:
Now the bank's decision presents the administration with an awkward political choice between doing little or doing nothing about the contract.
Treasury officials could issue a nonbinding advisory opinion critical of the pay package that that would carry no legal weight but could ameliorate some of the expected political fallout. Or it could do nothing and face the wrath of the public and Congress, which will consider legislation to limit executive pay after its August recess.
Feinberg himself is unsure of whether he has the legal authority to make Citi toe the line. Speaking in generalities, he told Reuters that his authority over executive compensation is "binding" and can "claw back" money already paid out, but regarding the specific case of the two Citi traders -- one of which stands to earn $98 million this year -- he admitted that he is unsure at this juncture "[w]hether I have jurisdiction to decide his compensation or not"and that he has "limited power" over contracts signed before February 11, 2009."
So if Citi thumbs its nose at Tiny Tim Geithner and Feinberg, there may be little or nothing the Obama administration can do about it.
4. If enacted, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that the House's "cap-and-trade"climate change bill would cost $8 billion over a 10-year period to implement, and would require thousands of new bureaucrats to formulate nearly 1,500 regulations and mandates for at 21 federal agencies, reports The Washington Times.
Now, four Democratic Senators -- Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan (both representing North Dakota) want to scale down the upper chamber's climate-change bill, reports Bloomberg.com:
The resistance by Lincoln and her Senate colleagues undercuts President Barack Obama's effort to win passage of legislation that would cap carbon dioxide emissions and establish a market for trading pollution allowances, said Peter Molinaro, the head of government affairs for Midland, Michigan- based Dow Chemical Co., which supports the measure.
Leaders of the Democratic-controlled Senate say they are sticking with their plan to combine a version of that bill with a separate measure mandating energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources such as solar and wind power. The legislation also provides for an extension of offshore oil and gas drilling in certain areas, broadening its support.
Reid needs 60 votes to pass a bill that includes a cap-and-trade measure in the Senate, and 15 Dems have already joined their Repub colleagues in opposition because of concerns on the effects of the legislation on the economy.
5. Leaving aside Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez's continual disrespect towards Obama "calling him an "ignoramus"and saying he is "lost in the Andromeda Nebula" -- The Christian Science Monitor notes that "President Obama may be willing to talk to America's adversaries abroad, but six months into his tenure hardly anyone is returning his call"and that "[w]hether the issue is key security threats, as with Iran and North Korea, or lower-profile matters, as with Cuba or Burma (Myanmar), Obama's critics and even some backers of the "talk to the enemy' approach are starting to speak of the policy's limits:
As Americans went to the polls last year, they were apparently ready to give Obama's approach a try, after the perceived failures of the Bush administration's practice of freezing out enemy states. As president, Obama wasted no time converting a campaign pledge to official policy, declaring in his inaugural address, "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
More than six months later, Obama can claim no breakthroughs or cite any obvious unclenched fists. Of the cases where the policy faces its biggest test -- Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba -- responses to Obama's outstretched hand range from a bite back on the nuclear front (North Korea) to silence (Iran) to modest movement (Syria and Cuba).
[C]ritics say the months since the extended hand of the inauguration have allowed adversaries time to further their own goals.
6. Here at home, Obama's grass-roots network -- the 13 million member-strong Organizing for America -- is not exactly champing at the bit to have a go at opponents of his health care objectives, reports The New York Times:
More than a dozen campaign volunteers, precinct captains and team leaders from all corners of Iowa, who dedicated a large share of their time in 2007 and 2008 to Mr. Obama, said ..."they supported the president completely but were taking a break from politics and were not active members of Organizing for America.
Some said they were reluctant to talk to their neighbors about something personal and complicated like health care. ...
But even among those who turned out for the meetings, many of whom had Obama buttons affixed to their shirts and spoke glowingly of the president, there was a sense of fatigue at the prospect of returning to the political calisthenics the Obama army once required.
To Jim Pinkerton, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and a FOX News contributor, the lack of enthusiasm is quite illuminating -- "a tale of not only political enervation, but also an epic tale of policy defeat." In a post published on the Serious Medicine Strategy blog, Pinkerton writes:
"Taking a break from politics"? Excuse me, but that's not how political activists operate. They get into politics because they like a campaign, or, if one prefers, a crusade. And they get out when they don't have such an energizing effort to throw themselves into -- or when their eager hearts are broken. And yet that's what Obama has given Democratic activists -- a heartbreaking, de-energizing argument. ...
But of course, we are out of money for health care because Obama chose to spend that money on other priorities -- Tim Geithner's friends. ... Given a choice between investment bankers and non-masters-of-the-universe, Obama and his investment-banker-ish advisers chose ... investment bankers. Maybe Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan can make those grassrootsy phone calls in Iowa.
What Americans get all fired up about, Pinkerton rightly observes, is fighting for their own health, not for "health insurance reform."
7. A new Gallup Poll, "Political Ideology By State, January 2 -- June 30, 2009," finds that "a significantly higher percentage of Americans in most states -- even some solidly Democratic ones -- call themselves conservative rather than liberal. Here's the breakdown: In all 50 states, more people call themselves "conservative" than "liberal;"in 22 states, more people call themselves "conservative" than "moderate; and in 10 states, the number of people who call themselves "conservative"and "moderate" are tied or virtually tied. And remember, this poll was taken before the healthcare "reform"issue ignited and moderates and independents started attending town hall meetings demanding to know how the government will pay for a massive, costly new entitlement.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said people have lost confidence in government:
You know, this debate isn't about health care. Health care's the symptom. The debate is an uncontrolled federal government. ... [T]he tone is based on fear of loss of control of their own government. ... [W]e have raised the question of whether or not we're legitimately thinking about the American people and their long-term best interests.
The Democrats control both houses of Congress and, as president, Obama is the head of the party so a loss in confidence in the government is, at least in part, a loss in confidence in his leadership of the government.
Columnist Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, marvels, "[w]e are witnessing one of the more rapid turnabouts in recent American political history:
President Obama's popularity has plummeted to 50 percent and lower in some polls, while the public expresses even less confidence in the Democratic-led Congress and the direction of the country at large. Yet, just eight months ago, liberals were talking in Rovian style about a new generation to come of progressive politics - and the end of both the Republican party and the legacy of Reaganism itself. Barack Obama was to be the new FDR and his radical agenda an even better New Deal.
Hanson attributes Obama's puffed-up popularity falling like a souffle to 10 factors -- including voters being wary that the cures for global warming, illegal immigration, health care and other large, seemingly intractable problems are worse than the problems themselves --especially new direct and indirect taxes taking an even bigger bite out of the family budget; becoming outraged over the quadrupling of the national debt; finding Obama to be extremely partisan, polarizing and "hyper-racially conscious" and apprehension that Obamania is verging on something sinister and Orwellian.
All of which may be setting Dems up for a comeuppance in November 2010. Byron York, chief political correspondent of The Washington Examiner, writes: "It's a possibility many Republicans speak of only in whispers and Democrats are just now beginning to face. After passionate and contentious fights over health care, the environment, and taxes, could Democrats lose big -- really big -- in next year's elections? ... Not long ago, some Republicans were worried about becoming a permanent minority party. Although they may not win in 2010, they feel like they're back in the game.
In either case, the 2010 election could put checks and balances on Pelosi and Obama -- which will make it even harder than it has proven thus far for the president to keep his campaign promises. And when he runs for re-election in 2012, disappointed, disillustioned and dispirited libs and young voters may not report for duty at Organizing for America, or flock to the polls as they did in 2008.
Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
Thoughts on the twentieth amendment:
This amendment sets a new date for when the president takes office as Janurary 20th. This shortens the amount of time the current president has in office, his lame duck period. It also sets a date and time for when congress assembles, January 3rd at noon.
This amendment also deals with presidential succession in regards to any circumstances of death or inablity to take office during this period. These sceniors are important in the case one of the sceaniro does come in to play, although to date none have.
I think that the shortend lame duck period is a great thing. It elimates any uneccasary lull between presidencies and allows congress ot be in session when the new president takes office.
An intresting look:
Updated August 19, 2009
Why Obama Is a Lame Duck
FOXNews.com
Obama has made himself already irrelevant on many of the issues he ran on in 2008.
Just seven months into his term -- and 14 months before the 2010 midterm election -- and could it be, is President Obama already a lame duck?
With his passive management style -- which inevitably led to overreaching and heavy-handedness by Congressional Democrats Obama has made himself largely irrelevant on many of the issues he ran on, from health care "reform" to "resetting" our foreign relations. Here are seven signs that Obama's political suasion is waning:
1. On the heels of Obama's tacit DNR on the end-of-life death panels in the Senate Finance Committee's health care "reform" proposal, the administration signaled that it is also willing to bury what has always been a key element of the president's plans for healthcare "reform"(watch this video) -- a government financed "public option" to compete with (and eventually drive out of business) private health insurers. Bowing to opposition from Republicans in both houses of Congress, and fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius said on CNN's "State of the Union" that the administration's fall-back position would be to support creation of consumer-owned nonprofit health insurance cooperatives. But the compromise is anathema to House Dems and Obama's liberal base, who vowed to fight to the bitter end for the public option. Either way, it's a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation for Obama (and we saw Sebelieus backtrack on Tuesday) and demonstrates how completely he has lost control of the health care debate.
2. After repeatedly insisting on getting a bill on his desk before Congress recessed for the summer, President Obama thought he had a deal with Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) that if the "Gang of Six" -- three Democrats and three Republican senators on the Finance Committee -- can't reach a consensus on a bipartisan bill by September 15 then the effort will be scrapped and Dems will push forward with their partisan proposals. But then Gang of Six member Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told "FOX News Sunday's" Chris Wallace that he and the others will not be "held hostage" by the mid-September deadline, and that he and his five colleagues "rejected" a specific timetable, because "it's more important to get this right."In a warning to Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, he added, "What we have agreed to is that we are going to be ready when we're ready."
3. A recipient of $45 billion in taxpayer assistance -- with the government holding a 34 percent ownership interest -- Citibank is required to submit the pay packages for its 25 senior executives and highest-paid employees to Kenneth Feinberg, the Obama administration's special compensation master (AKA "pay czar") for review. The New York Times reports that Citi plans to pay two of its traders a combined $128 million under contracts that had been signed before Congress passed a law tasking the Treasury Secretary with examining compensation packages of top executives at companies that received funds from the U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) -- even after being warned by Treasury officials that the contracts would be rejected:
Now the bank's decision presents the administration with an awkward political choice between doing little or doing nothing about the contract.
Treasury officials could issue a nonbinding advisory opinion critical of the pay package that that would carry no legal weight but could ameliorate some of the expected political fallout. Or it could do nothing and face the wrath of the public and Congress, which will consider legislation to limit executive pay after its August recess.
Feinberg himself is unsure of whether he has the legal authority to make Citi toe the line. Speaking in generalities, he told Reuters that his authority over executive compensation is "binding" and can "claw back" money already paid out, but regarding the specific case of the two Citi traders -- one of which stands to earn $98 million this year -- he admitted that he is unsure at this juncture "[w]hether I have jurisdiction to decide his compensation or not"and that he has "limited power" over contracts signed before February 11, 2009."
So if Citi thumbs its nose at Tiny Tim Geithner and Feinberg, there may be little or nothing the Obama administration can do about it.
4. If enacted, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warns that the House's "cap-and-trade"climate change bill would cost $8 billion over a 10-year period to implement, and would require thousands of new bureaucrats to formulate nearly 1,500 regulations and mandates for at 21 federal agencies, reports The Washington Times.
Now, four Democratic Senators -- Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan (both representing North Dakota) want to scale down the upper chamber's climate-change bill, reports Bloomberg.com:
The resistance by Lincoln and her Senate colleagues undercuts President Barack Obama's effort to win passage of legislation that would cap carbon dioxide emissions and establish a market for trading pollution allowances, said Peter Molinaro, the head of government affairs for Midland, Michigan- based Dow Chemical Co., which supports the measure.
Leaders of the Democratic-controlled Senate say they are sticking with their plan to combine a version of that bill with a separate measure mandating energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources such as solar and wind power. The legislation also provides for an extension of offshore oil and gas drilling in certain areas, broadening its support.
Reid needs 60 votes to pass a bill that includes a cap-and-trade measure in the Senate, and 15 Dems have already joined their Repub colleagues in opposition because of concerns on the effects of the legislation on the economy.
5. Leaving aside Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez's continual disrespect towards Obama "calling him an "ignoramus"and saying he is "lost in the Andromeda Nebula" -- The Christian Science Monitor notes that "President Obama may be willing to talk to America's adversaries abroad, but six months into his tenure hardly anyone is returning his call"and that "[w]hether the issue is key security threats, as with Iran and North Korea, or lower-profile matters, as with Cuba or Burma (Myanmar), Obama's critics and even some backers of the "talk to the enemy' approach are starting to speak of the policy's limits:
As Americans went to the polls last year, they were apparently ready to give Obama's approach a try, after the perceived failures of the Bush administration's practice of freezing out enemy states. As president, Obama wasted no time converting a campaign pledge to official policy, declaring in his inaugural address, "We will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
More than six months later, Obama can claim no breakthroughs or cite any obvious unclenched fists. Of the cases where the policy faces its biggest test -- Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba -- responses to Obama's outstretched hand range from a bite back on the nuclear front (North Korea) to silence (Iran) to modest movement (Syria and Cuba).
[C]ritics say the months since the extended hand of the inauguration have allowed adversaries time to further their own goals.
6. Here at home, Obama's grass-roots network -- the 13 million member-strong Organizing for America -- is not exactly champing at the bit to have a go at opponents of his health care objectives, reports The New York Times:
More than a dozen campaign volunteers, precinct captains and team leaders from all corners of Iowa, who dedicated a large share of their time in 2007 and 2008 to Mr. Obama, said ..."they supported the president completely but were taking a break from politics and were not active members of Organizing for America.
Some said they were reluctant to talk to their neighbors about something personal and complicated like health care. ...
But even among those who turned out for the meetings, many of whom had Obama buttons affixed to their shirts and spoke glowingly of the president, there was a sense of fatigue at the prospect of returning to the political calisthenics the Obama army once required.
To Jim Pinkerton, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and a FOX News contributor, the lack of enthusiasm is quite illuminating -- "a tale of not only political enervation, but also an epic tale of policy defeat." In a post published on the Serious Medicine Strategy blog, Pinkerton writes:
"Taking a break from politics"? Excuse me, but that's not how political activists operate. They get into politics because they like a campaign, or, if one prefers, a crusade. And they get out when they don't have such an energizing effort to throw themselves into -- or when their eager hearts are broken. And yet that's what Obama has given Democratic activists -- a heartbreaking, de-energizing argument. ...
But of course, we are out of money for health care because Obama chose to spend that money on other priorities -- Tim Geithner's friends. ... Given a choice between investment bankers and non-masters-of-the-universe, Obama and his investment-banker-ish advisers chose ... investment bankers. Maybe Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan can make those grassrootsy phone calls in Iowa.
What Americans get all fired up about, Pinkerton rightly observes, is fighting for their own health, not for "health insurance reform."
7. A new Gallup Poll, "Political Ideology By State, January 2 -- June 30, 2009," finds that "a significantly higher percentage of Americans in most states -- even some solidly Democratic ones -- call themselves conservative rather than liberal. Here's the breakdown: In all 50 states, more people call themselves "conservative" than "liberal;"in 22 states, more people call themselves "conservative" than "moderate; and in 10 states, the number of people who call themselves "conservative"and "moderate" are tied or virtually tied. And remember, this poll was taken before the healthcare "reform"issue ignited and moderates and independents started attending town hall meetings demanding to know how the government will pay for a massive, costly new entitlement.
On NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said people have lost confidence in government:
You know, this debate isn't about health care. Health care's the symptom. The debate is an uncontrolled federal government. ... [T]he tone is based on fear of loss of control of their own government. ... [W]e have raised the question of whether or not we're legitimately thinking about the American people and their long-term best interests.
The Democrats control both houses of Congress and, as president, Obama is the head of the party so a loss in confidence in the government is, at least in part, a loss in confidence in his leadership of the government.
Columnist Victor Davis Hanson, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, marvels, "[w]e are witnessing one of the more rapid turnabouts in recent American political history:
President Obama's popularity has plummeted to 50 percent and lower in some polls, while the public expresses even less confidence in the Democratic-led Congress and the direction of the country at large. Yet, just eight months ago, liberals were talking in Rovian style about a new generation to come of progressive politics - and the end of both the Republican party and the legacy of Reaganism itself. Barack Obama was to be the new FDR and his radical agenda an even better New Deal.
Hanson attributes Obama's puffed-up popularity falling like a souffle to 10 factors -- including voters being wary that the cures for global warming, illegal immigration, health care and other large, seemingly intractable problems are worse than the problems themselves --especially new direct and indirect taxes taking an even bigger bite out of the family budget; becoming outraged over the quadrupling of the national debt; finding Obama to be extremely partisan, polarizing and "hyper-racially conscious" and apprehension that Obamania is verging on something sinister and Orwellian.
All of which may be setting Dems up for a comeuppance in November 2010. Byron York, chief political correspondent of The Washington Examiner, writes: "It's a possibility many Republicans speak of only in whispers and Democrats are just now beginning to face. After passionate and contentious fights over health care, the environment, and taxes, could Democrats lose big -- really big -- in next year's elections? ... Not long ago, some Republicans were worried about becoming a permanent minority party. Although they may not win in 2010, they feel like they're back in the game.
In either case, the 2010 election could put checks and balances on Pelosi and Obama -- which will make it even harder than it has proven thus far for the president to keep his campaign promises. And when he runs for re-election in 2012, disappointed, disillustioned and dispirited libs and young voters may not report for duty at Organizing for America, or flock to the polls as they did in 2008.
Amendment XIX
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 sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Thoughts on the nineteenth amendment:
This is the amendment that finally gave women the right to vote. It took an additional 50 years after African-American men got the right to vote for women to gain this great privilege.
The push for women's suffrage was led by the NWSA and the AWSA. It was a long battle for what we now take for granted. Susan B Anthony was one of the major advocates of women's suffrage and sadly she did not live to see the day when women gained this right.
Needless to say I think that this was a great, all be it long overdue, amendment.
Kennedy's Seat: Will Women Vote for a Woman?
Nancy HopkinsAmgen, Inc. Professor of Biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Share Print CommentsWill women shake their biases against other women when they go to the polls on December 8 to choose the Democratic candidate for Massachusetts senator? If Martha Coakley doesn't win in a landslide, we can be certain that they didn't.
Coakely is a highly popular elected Attorney General, formerly DA, and holds the views of a typical Massachusetts Democrat such as our iconic late-Senator Kennedy. She is pro-choice, anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-public option in health care reform, pro-wind power for energy, pro-pay equity for women, pro-PLA for union workers. She's tough but gracious, funny yet serious. There's not a whiff of personal scandal about her.
Women are 51% of the voting public. Thus there can be only two reasons why women are so egregiously under-represented in the US Senate (17% women) and why Massachusetts has never had a female US senator in its history: Either women haven't run for office so it was impossible to elect them, or women ran but not enough women voted for them to get them elected. In politics generally, evidence supports both statements.
Why don't women support women? One reason is unconscious gender bias: women, like men, don't see women as having leadership potential.
Psychologists have long understood the strange fact of unconscious gender bias from studies that show that both men and women slightly undervalue otherwise identical work if they think it was done by a woman. In the last two years they have extended this research to analyze why women, like men, penalize successful women and have difficulty accepting them as leaders. Regardless of the reasons, the reality of the phenomenon persists today.
Once you get over your shock that women (like men) discriminate against women you realize that, in fact, this result makes sense. No one escapes the biases of their culture. As long as women remain second-class citizens, women as well as men will hold them in lower esteem. This low esteem can take surprising forms, and it's a hard thing to fix because it's entirely unconscious and often invisible. It exists even though people's intentions are good: People are sincerely meritocratic in their beliefs, but your beliefs don't inoculate you from undervaluing women and overvaluing men.
Here's an example I've seen repeatedly among Massachusetts women voters when talking about Coakley. "I'm not going to vote for her just because she's a woman."
Well of course you don't vote for someone just because she's a woman. If you're a Republican you're not likely to vote for a Democrat. If the candidate holds a view you find abhorrent, of course you won't vote for her. If she isn't the best candidate (or at least the equal of any other candidate) you won't vote for her. But those aren't the problems here. These are Democrats talking about Martha Coakley in a race where she is arguably the best candidate and certainly the equal of any other candidate, and where all the candidates hold similar views.
So why would a Democratic woman voter even raise the issue that Coakley happens to be a woman, particularly as a reason not to vote for her? You wouldn't hear someone say, "I'm not going to vote for Mr. Male Candidate just because he's a man."
What I've come to realize is that women who say, "I won't vote for her just because she's a woman", are really saying, "I won't vote for her precisely because she's a woman." These women will almost always succeed in finding a male candidate whom they can convince themselves is "better." And they'll tell you how much they support women - just not in this race. For these female voters, unconscious bias is determining how they vote. We will never achieve a representative democracy until women - along with men - overcome the gender biases they have demonstrated in job recruiting, resume evaluation, academic peer review, service evaluation - and voting.
And undervaluing women is only one reason women do not vote for superior women candidates who share their political views.
At a dinner party a few weeks ago I was seated next to a woman whose husband is a high-ranking judge. I named another judge I know and she replied, "Oh, my husband would love to have his job, but of course to get that job today you have to be a woman or a minority. We support diversity, of course," she went on. "But it isn't really fair, is it?"
Not only is her belief that women have an unfair advantage demonstrably false (how much data would you like to see?), but it yanked the cover off women who pay lip service to gender equality. These women see highly successful, ambitious women as competition for the jobs their husbands and sons deserve. No wonder they don't vote for women!
As for young women, most believe gender inequality is a thing of the past. The fact that only 17 of 100 US Senators are women, or that there has never been a woman in the White House is so embedded in the air they breathe that they don't see it as odd, disgraceful, and even un-American. They just plain don't see it. Or if they do, they believe it has nothing to do with their own generation.
So between men, a hefty percent of whom say they would never vote for a woman for high office, older women who view women politicians as competition, young women who are altogether ignorant of this issue, and women and men who undervalue women without knowing it (perhaps all of us), it's no surprise that America ranks about 70th in the world in women's representation in its federal government. Some countries, recognizing the problem, have laws requiring equality in gender representation among public officials.
An important goal of voters should be to achieve gender parity in the US Senate by 2020 - the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage. Martha Coakley's career choices and actions, and her recent principled leadership over the abortion issue in health care show why we must have more women in government. If there were no such thing as gender bias, women and men in Massachusetts would be saying "I'm going to vote for Coakley because she is a woman, as well as a great candidate."
If women can't elect Coakley in Massachusetts, its time to stop and face the fact that women will never achieve equality until they overcome their own prejudices against one another
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Thoughts on the nineteenth amendment:
This is the amendment that finally gave women the right to vote. It took an additional 50 years after African-American men got the right to vote for women to gain this great privilege.
The push for women's suffrage was led by the NWSA and the AWSA. It was a long battle for what we now take for granted. Susan B Anthony was one of the major advocates of women's suffrage and sadly she did not live to see the day when women gained this right.
Needless to say I think that this was a great, all be it long overdue, amendment.
Kennedy's Seat: Will Women Vote for a Woman?
Nancy HopkinsAmgen, Inc. Professor of Biology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Share Print CommentsWill women shake their biases against other women when they go to the polls on December 8 to choose the Democratic candidate for Massachusetts senator? If Martha Coakley doesn't win in a landslide, we can be certain that they didn't.
Coakely is a highly popular elected Attorney General, formerly DA, and holds the views of a typical Massachusetts Democrat such as our iconic late-Senator Kennedy. She is pro-choice, anti-war, anti-death penalty, pro-public option in health care reform, pro-wind power for energy, pro-pay equity for women, pro-PLA for union workers. She's tough but gracious, funny yet serious. There's not a whiff of personal scandal about her.
Women are 51% of the voting public. Thus there can be only two reasons why women are so egregiously under-represented in the US Senate (17% women) and why Massachusetts has never had a female US senator in its history: Either women haven't run for office so it was impossible to elect them, or women ran but not enough women voted for them to get them elected. In politics generally, evidence supports both statements.
Why don't women support women? One reason is unconscious gender bias: women, like men, don't see women as having leadership potential.
Psychologists have long understood the strange fact of unconscious gender bias from studies that show that both men and women slightly undervalue otherwise identical work if they think it was done by a woman. In the last two years they have extended this research to analyze why women, like men, penalize successful women and have difficulty accepting them as leaders. Regardless of the reasons, the reality of the phenomenon persists today.
Once you get over your shock that women (like men) discriminate against women you realize that, in fact, this result makes sense. No one escapes the biases of their culture. As long as women remain second-class citizens, women as well as men will hold them in lower esteem. This low esteem can take surprising forms, and it's a hard thing to fix because it's entirely unconscious and often invisible. It exists even though people's intentions are good: People are sincerely meritocratic in their beliefs, but your beliefs don't inoculate you from undervaluing women and overvaluing men.
Here's an example I've seen repeatedly among Massachusetts women voters when talking about Coakley. "I'm not going to vote for her just because she's a woman."
Well of course you don't vote for someone just because she's a woman. If you're a Republican you're not likely to vote for a Democrat. If the candidate holds a view you find abhorrent, of course you won't vote for her. If she isn't the best candidate (or at least the equal of any other candidate) you won't vote for her. But those aren't the problems here. These are Democrats talking about Martha Coakley in a race where she is arguably the best candidate and certainly the equal of any other candidate, and where all the candidates hold similar views.
So why would a Democratic woman voter even raise the issue that Coakley happens to be a woman, particularly as a reason not to vote for her? You wouldn't hear someone say, "I'm not going to vote for Mr. Male Candidate just because he's a man."
What I've come to realize is that women who say, "I won't vote for her just because she's a woman", are really saying, "I won't vote for her precisely because she's a woman." These women will almost always succeed in finding a male candidate whom they can convince themselves is "better." And they'll tell you how much they support women - just not in this race. For these female voters, unconscious bias is determining how they vote. We will never achieve a representative democracy until women - along with men - overcome the gender biases they have demonstrated in job recruiting, resume evaluation, academic peer review, service evaluation - and voting.
And undervaluing women is only one reason women do not vote for superior women candidates who share their political views.
At a dinner party a few weeks ago I was seated next to a woman whose husband is a high-ranking judge. I named another judge I know and she replied, "Oh, my husband would love to have his job, but of course to get that job today you have to be a woman or a minority. We support diversity, of course," she went on. "But it isn't really fair, is it?"
Not only is her belief that women have an unfair advantage demonstrably false (how much data would you like to see?), but it yanked the cover off women who pay lip service to gender equality. These women see highly successful, ambitious women as competition for the jobs their husbands and sons deserve. No wonder they don't vote for women!
As for young women, most believe gender inequality is a thing of the past. The fact that only 17 of 100 US Senators are women, or that there has never been a woman in the White House is so embedded in the air they breathe that they don't see it as odd, disgraceful, and even un-American. They just plain don't see it. Or if they do, they believe it has nothing to do with their own generation.
So between men, a hefty percent of whom say they would never vote for a woman for high office, older women who view women politicians as competition, young women who are altogether ignorant of this issue, and women and men who undervalue women without knowing it (perhaps all of us), it's no surprise that America ranks about 70th in the world in women's representation in its federal government. Some countries, recognizing the problem, have laws requiring equality in gender representation among public officials.
An important goal of voters should be to achieve gender parity in the US Senate by 2020 - the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage. Martha Coakley's career choices and actions, and her recent principled leadership over the abortion issue in health care show why we must have more women in government. If there were no such thing as gender bias, women and men in Massachusetts would be saying "I'm going to vote for Coakley because she is a woman, as well as a great candidate."
If women can't elect Coakley in Massachusetts, its time to stop and face the fact that women will never achieve equality until they overcome their own prejudices against one another
Amendment XVIII
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.
Thoughts on the eighteenth amendment:
BOO!!! This amendment outlawed alcohol in America. No longer could you legally manufacture, sell or consume alcohol. This amendment was the fruits of Christian groups and women's groups who believed that alcohol was a major factor in the moral decay of America and was the reason for many acts of violence and poverty. They may have had good reason and even good intentions in wanting this, but they soon found that they were wrong.
Organized crime flourished in the bootlegging business during Prohibition and crime went up significantly. Many people , including Joe Kennedy, prospered greatly from the illegal manufacturing and selling of alcohol. Speakeasy popped up everywhere and drinking was hardly curbed at all.
One interesting fact is that this amendment passed over the veto of President Woodrow Wilson!
On the Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition, Let’s Not Repeat Historyby Rich Muny
Prohibition, touted as “The Noble Experiment” in its time, criminalized the manufacturing, transportation, and sale of alcohol. While the law did many things, there was one thing it could not accomplish. It could not stop Americans from drinking. As our country approaches the 76th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition, it’s time to look back and see how it impacts policymaking today.
Some wish for America to try a new prohibition – with Internet poker the target of misguided efforts. Laws like the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) have made Americans less free in their own homes, but have not stopped Americans from playing poker. Like Prohibition, however, the policies of this prohibition are fundamentally flawed and pose a threat to safety.
Prohibition advocates of the early twentieth century sought to eliminate what they believed to be a negative attribute of society. However, regardless of one’s view on alcohol consumption or Internet poker, it is undeniable that Americans will seek out ways to continue proscribed activities. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise. As a nation founded on liberty, it’s in our DNA.
Prohibition demonstrated the detrimental effects bans can have. Hazardous forms of alcohol were ingested, jails became overrun, and dangerous entities like organized crime became involved in transactions. The rigid UIGEA requirements could foster a similar environment in the realm of gaming. In addition, this prohibition would do nothing to protect those who are most vulnerable – underage participants and those with excessive gaming habits. Today’s Internet poker players are a diverse, ever-expanding body from all walks of life. Overindulgence is an unfortunate reality for a small subset of the gaming world, yet this tendency can be seen in areas all across society. To single out Internet poker is an affront to consumer interest and ignores sensible solutions that can be met through technology and oversight.
Earlier this week, Wired Safety, a leading non-profit organization dedicated to Internet safety, released a study by Professor Malcolm K. Sparrow of Harvard University showing that licensing and regulating online poker is the most effective way to protect underage participants and those with excessive gaming habits. Without the ability to license and regulate, there is simply no way for government to enforce laws and provide active oversight over an industry that will exist, with or without their approval.
If a lesson can be learned from the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 and the subsequent years of effective regulation, it is that there is ample room for compromise. The United States owes it to its citizens not to provide a system that does more harm than good by forcing industries underground. The country also owes it to itself to capitalize on this opportunity for billions of dollars in revenue, especially in the current economic climate.
Bills recently introduced into both the House (H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act) and the Senate (S. 1597, the Internet Poker and Games of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act) echo the public voice in enacting responsible licensing of Internet poker that promotes transparency, accountability and protection above all else. History must not repeat itself, and there is no time more advantageous for new precedents to be set than the present.
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.
Thoughts on the eighteenth amendment:
BOO!!! This amendment outlawed alcohol in America. No longer could you legally manufacture, sell or consume alcohol. This amendment was the fruits of Christian groups and women's groups who believed that alcohol was a major factor in the moral decay of America and was the reason for many acts of violence and poverty. They may have had good reason and even good intentions in wanting this, but they soon found that they were wrong.
Organized crime flourished in the bootlegging business during Prohibition and crime went up significantly. Many people , including Joe Kennedy, prospered greatly from the illegal manufacturing and selling of alcohol. Speakeasy popped up everywhere and drinking was hardly curbed at all.
One interesting fact is that this amendment passed over the veto of President Woodrow Wilson!
On the Anniversary of the Repeal of Prohibition, Let’s Not Repeat Historyby Rich Muny
Prohibition, touted as “The Noble Experiment” in its time, criminalized the manufacturing, transportation, and sale of alcohol. While the law did many things, there was one thing it could not accomplish. It could not stop Americans from drinking. As our country approaches the 76th anniversary of the repeal of Prohibition, it’s time to look back and see how it impacts policymaking today.
Some wish for America to try a new prohibition – with Internet poker the target of misguided efforts. Laws like the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) have made Americans less free in their own homes, but have not stopped Americans from playing poker. Like Prohibition, however, the policies of this prohibition are fundamentally flawed and pose a threat to safety.
Prohibition advocates of the early twentieth century sought to eliminate what they believed to be a negative attribute of society. However, regardless of one’s view on alcohol consumption or Internet poker, it is undeniable that Americans will seek out ways to continue proscribed activities. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise. As a nation founded on liberty, it’s in our DNA.
Prohibition demonstrated the detrimental effects bans can have. Hazardous forms of alcohol were ingested, jails became overrun, and dangerous entities like organized crime became involved in transactions. The rigid UIGEA requirements could foster a similar environment in the realm of gaming. In addition, this prohibition would do nothing to protect those who are most vulnerable – underage participants and those with excessive gaming habits. Today’s Internet poker players are a diverse, ever-expanding body from all walks of life. Overindulgence is an unfortunate reality for a small subset of the gaming world, yet this tendency can be seen in areas all across society. To single out Internet poker is an affront to consumer interest and ignores sensible solutions that can be met through technology and oversight.
Earlier this week, Wired Safety, a leading non-profit organization dedicated to Internet safety, released a study by Professor Malcolm K. Sparrow of Harvard University showing that licensing and regulating online poker is the most effective way to protect underage participants and those with excessive gaming habits. Without the ability to license and regulate, there is simply no way for government to enforce laws and provide active oversight over an industry that will exist, with or without their approval.
If a lesson can be learned from the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 and the subsequent years of effective regulation, it is that there is ample room for compromise. The United States owes it to its citizens not to provide a system that does more harm than good by forcing industries underground. The country also owes it to itself to capitalize on this opportunity for billions of dollars in revenue, especially in the current economic climate.
Bills recently introduced into both the House (H.R. 2267, the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act) and the Senate (S. 1597, the Internet Poker and Games of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act) echo the public voice in enacting responsible licensing of Internet poker that promotes transparency, accountability and protection above all else. History must not repeat itself, and there is no time more advantageous for new precedents to be set than the present.
Amendment XVII
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.
Thoughts on the seventeenth amendment:
This amendment states that each state gets two senators to represent them in the senate, and that each senator serves for six years. It goes on to give the Governor the right to appoint a senator in the case of and abstinence until such time that an election can be held. This amendment repealed the original way that Article I had had the state legislatures elect the Senator.
Again, it might be because I am accustomed to this method, but I think that having the people elect their senate representation is the best, most fair way to ensure that the people truly are represented.
Capuano campaigns in Pittsfield for Kennedy's seat
PITTSFIELD -- On December 8, Massachusetts voters will hold a primary for a replacement for the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
Friday, Boston-area Congressman Michael Capuano made several quick lunchtime stops in Pittsfield. He is running second in the four-person Democratic Primary field, closing the gap on front-runner Martha Coakley from North Adams. She still holds a double-digit lead with little more than a week remaining.
"I have, in every race I've ever run, been the underdog," Capuano said. "I actually think of myself as the underdog and I like it that way because, up to now, I've found myself always closing the gap in the last week or so and that's what we're doing again this week."
Capuano follows the late Ted Kennedy's basic philosophy on health care. Capuano favors a strong public option. The way the issue is dragging in the Senate Capuano could vote on it if he can pass the two upcoming election hurdles. It's very clear there are not 60 votes for his position. No matter, says the Congressman, we'll go with fewer.
"If Democrats were to stay in the way of the process I think that it would be a major problem for them number one," Capuano said. "Number two would call for us to use reconciliation if necessary so that we get around that 60 vote requirement. I hope they don't do that. I don't mind people voting their conscience.That's what I want. At the same time, voting your conscience on the substantive matter and denying others the same ability to do that is a whole different game."
Capuano wants us to leave Afghanistan now... not send in more troops. He wants us out of Iraq, and voted against sending troops there in the first place.
Even though Coakley has roots in Western Massachusetts, Capuano has endorsements from the Mayors of North Adams and Pittsfield.
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.
Thoughts on the seventeenth amendment:
This amendment states that each state gets two senators to represent them in the senate, and that each senator serves for six years. It goes on to give the Governor the right to appoint a senator in the case of and abstinence until such time that an election can be held. This amendment repealed the original way that Article I had had the state legislatures elect the Senator.
Again, it might be because I am accustomed to this method, but I think that having the people elect their senate representation is the best, most fair way to ensure that the people truly are represented.
Capuano campaigns in Pittsfield for Kennedy's seat
PITTSFIELD -- On December 8, Massachusetts voters will hold a primary for a replacement for the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
Friday, Boston-area Congressman Michael Capuano made several quick lunchtime stops in Pittsfield. He is running second in the four-person Democratic Primary field, closing the gap on front-runner Martha Coakley from North Adams. She still holds a double-digit lead with little more than a week remaining.
"I have, in every race I've ever run, been the underdog," Capuano said. "I actually think of myself as the underdog and I like it that way because, up to now, I've found myself always closing the gap in the last week or so and that's what we're doing again this week."
Capuano follows the late Ted Kennedy's basic philosophy on health care. Capuano favors a strong public option. The way the issue is dragging in the Senate Capuano could vote on it if he can pass the two upcoming election hurdles. It's very clear there are not 60 votes for his position. No matter, says the Congressman, we'll go with fewer.
"If Democrats were to stay in the way of the process I think that it would be a major problem for them number one," Capuano said. "Number two would call for us to use reconciliation if necessary so that we get around that 60 vote requirement. I hope they don't do that. I don't mind people voting their conscience.That's what I want. At the same time, voting your conscience on the substantive matter and denying others the same ability to do that is a whole different game."
Capuano wants us to leave Afghanistan now... not send in more troops. He wants us out of Iraq, and voted against sending troops there in the first place.
Even though Coakley has roots in Western Massachusetts, Capuano has endorsements from the Mayors of North Adams and Pittsfield.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
