A Christmas gift

I was touched by the response to last week's post. It is good for me to see that I am not the only one, but I believe it is also good for them.

My patriarchal blessing focuses on gifts I have. At the time I really wanted to know what was in store for me, and that not happening was probably for the best, but I have come to appreciate what is in there anyway.

One of the things mentioned is my ability with my language. It is mentioned in conjunction with how it will help me reach out to other people, to learn about them and share with them. When I was sixteen that mainly seemed to mean by ability to learn other languages, but it applies to my native language too. Words are my thing, and that is for me, but it is also for others.

Looking at these dark times, I see how important it is to be brave and also how important it is to be kind. My bravery frequently seems to manifest through saying things that can really offend people. That may be a kindness to the people with similar feelings, but there could easily be an unkind aspect to it, when sometimes it feels like there is a "you idiot!" hanging on the end of every sentence.

It can be a tricky balance, but the gift I am giving will be to try and always keep that balanced. I will try and leave both no doubt of my beliefs and policies and stands, but that I will also try and leave no doubt of my love.

In practice this means that I will spend as much time as someone needs explaining why something is racist as long as their attempt to understand is sincere. If they are baiting, I will be explaining the stupidity as well, but I hope without name-calling.

(And "idiot" can be seen as an ableist slur because it was an actual diagnosis that could get people locked away at a time when there was more prejudice than science involved, in the shockingly recent past.)

Sharing that I can't share

Here it is - the way in which I am the most religiously rebellious:

I am repelled by missionary work now.

This is uncomfortable for me. I served a full-time mission. There were hard times, but there were really good times too, and I knew what I was doing mattered.

It's not that I don't believe in the Gospel anymore. I do. It's not that I'm not going to church anymore. I am. But I try and think about bringing people to church or introducing them to the missionaries, and I can't.

It's not just the gay thing, though I could not blame anyone who had a problem with the policy there. We could be handling that a lot better, but at this point there are ways in which our policy is better than the attitudes of the members, and that is where we get to the real crux of the problem.

Once upon a time I felt like bringing someone into the church would be introducing them to a lot of wonderful, wise, spiritual people. I do not feel that way now.

I can point to a lot of individual people who I love, and I know they have their good points, but over the past few years we seem to have given up a lot of depth. We were probably always too insular, but that's gotten worse.

For myself, that meant first that Sunday school lessons became painful, then it became true for Relief Society as well. Now I don't pay much attention to talks, and being in Nursery is a relief because I don't have to listen to the lessons.

Before that, any time I made a comment or answered a question I felt like I was speaking a different language. Realistically, I am fairly different. I have never been married or had children, and I am politically liberal.


It is embarrassing that so many Mormons voted for Trump. If some aspects of our church history seem to support racism, it is your time to read the essays. I guess it's nice that some of them voted for Johnson or McMullin instead, but it's still embarrassing that they listen to so much Fox that they believe Hillary is a crook. It's embarrassing that they get so caught up in abortion that they think anyone who even believes that it should be legal - regardless of whether they would get one - is a bad person, and not living the Gospel. It is embarrassing the mental contortions they will do to know that they are right, and everyone else is wrong.

And going back to last week, it is embarrassing how much of that isn't even doctrine, but based on things they have absorbed from the world. Remember, that world is full of people who think all you need to do to be saved is accept Christ, but that members of The Church of Jesus Christ (of Latter-Day Saints) - who pray in his name and do everything in his name - we go straight to Hell. Seems like flawed thinking; are you sure you want to give into them so easily?

It should still be worth sharing. I get enlightenment from the scriptures, and I get edified in the temple, and prayer is an important part of my life, so there is still a lot that I get as an individual from attendance, and that should be open to anyone, but I've seen too many people come in with enthusiasm, get criticized for minor things, and leave. I've seen the "lost sheep" note next to too many names of people don't come and we have accepted that. I get that there's a limit to how pushy you should be, but maybe our ability to write them off that easily contributed to that first loss.

It shouldn't even be an issue. The scriptures are pretty clear about love and charity. If you love the people you see at church, that is a start, but it's a much bigger world out there, and you have to love those people too. There is not a scriptural basis for choosing ignorance, isolation, and prejudice.

So many people that I have come to know and love would not fit in well at a church meeting, and they are still valuable children of God. I want to believe that they would receive a warm welcome that would help them to see how valuable a testimony is. I would want them to feel that God values them reflected in the way they are treated by those trying to follow God.

I do not feel that now.

Disagreement and faith

A while ago some essays went up the LDS web site. They treated some of the more controversial - and more ignored - aspects of our church's history.

https://www.lds.org/topics/essays?lang=eng

I didn't pay a lot of attention, but I know some people really struggled with them, feeling their testimonies shaken. As people began to be upset about things in the handbook, that made it seem really helpful. If you can see things in the development of the church that bother you, but still love the blessings it has brought into your life, then that should provide a path to getting through new things that bother you.

As I was reviewing the Equal Rights Amendment, and finding a talk I hated from Boyd K Packer (whom I do not hate), that seemed like the right time to check out the Essays for myself. Then I could make the analogies and draw the lines between reconciling the things we are not sure about.

I found them really underwhelming.

Another friend who had read them said she has read much worse, so I didn't expect to be personally shaken. I still thought I would understand why other people were shaken, but it was all stuff that I already knew. Maybe it doesn't come up every Sunday, but my seminary teacher had mentioned it, or it was in a church history manual, or something.

So I thought the next logical post would be about reconciling yourself with the fact that Brigham Young could be a racist in a time when that was common, but still successfully get people to Utah and get temples built and have revelations. Maybe it makes sense that it doesn't need to be about that, because it kind of replicates when I was leading up to writing about women and the priesthood.

Instead, this is becoming more about how it is not healthy to have an uninformed testimony. If your comfort at church depends on never hearing anything hard, how long do you think you can keep that up?

Back to that other conversation, my friend said that she has been hearing the word "equal" more and more in regards to men and women. There was never an announced doctrinal shift, but it has felt like a slow change that people are accepting.

I don't object to that specific change, but there are much more harmful things that can slip in without examination. That is how you get a seventy hinting at how bad Halloween is without just coming out and saying it. That is getting infected by the world, which can happen when we are not paying attention.

(Even with that, there is nothing wrong with not being in to Halloween, but when you feel like you need to spread that to others, again, that seems like the world is getting to you.)

If you know even the most basic information about the church, you know that we believe that there were prophets who wrote scriptures in the new world as well as the old, that God and angels showed themselves to Joseph Smith, and that the Book of Mormon was translated by the power of God. We are in a cynical age and world, but we believe that. You can handle seeing the power of God working in a variety of ways.

If you have paid any attention to the scriptural accounts of Christ's mortal ministry (and many things prophets and teachers led by him have said), then you know that we believe in being kind and generous, not greedy and judgmental, even though we are living in a cold and materialistic world. You can handle seeing that some things are not charitable without losing your love. At least you need to be able to do so.

And as members of a church with an exclusively lay ministry where we all need to help, you should be able to handle imperfect servants of God. It is often frustrating, but I need forgiveness and guidance and correction all the time, and I am not going to begrudge anyone else their chances at that.

I have had other thoughts, and there are pertinent links below.

Next week I shall explore my most rebellious stance yet.


Related posts:

Multiple posts on following and believing prophets starting here: http://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2014/01/following-and-believing-in-prophets.html

Not infallible: http://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2015/11/not-infallible.html

Early memories of a Mormon feminist

Before I get into dealing with disappointment, it is reasonable to ask if I remember anything from the time period when there was still a question of whether the Equal Rights Amendment would pass.

The first introduction to Congress was in 1923. No memories there, but it clearly didn't really have momentum at that point. Conflict between different feminists and opposition in Congress meant it rarely even reached the Senate floor, except for once in 1946 when it was defeated.

I think when you say "ERA" people really think of the '70s. That is reasonable, but it is also reasonable to remember that history is always more complicated than what is widely known.

In 1972 (when I was born) the Equal Rights Amendment passed both houses of Congress, which sent it to the individual states for ratification. There was an original ratification deadline set for 1979, later extended to 1982, but the real peak would have been 1977 (when I was 5). By then 35 states had ratified and only 3 more were needed. Instead, some states rescinded their ratifications.

In the states that were still up for grabs, there was probably a lot of buzz. Oregon ratified in February 1973, when I was just barely a year old, so even though the issue was still going on, I don't think I would have heard a lot about it. There are three memories that I believe are related.

One was the Batgirl commercial about equal pay that I linked to in an earlier post. I remember it in the same spot in my mind where I remember commercials encouraging you to get government publications from Pueblo, Colorado.

Two is a vague memory of people at church talking about someone saying something as a man or as a prophet. Later I remember church teachers saying "When you hear people talking about whether someone is speaking as a man or a prophet...", but I think for that first memory it was not hypothetical and it was kind of intense. I don't know how often that particular question comes up, but I have a funny feeling that it could have been about Elder Packer speaking on the Equal Rights Amendment in 1977, though the building I remember being at probably puts the memory in 1978 or '79. Maybe he gave more talks that were similar. It could fit.

(You can read it here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/03/the-equal-rights-amendment?lang=eng I had great affection for Elder Packer, but not for this talk.)

The last memory is "The Liberation of Marcia Brady", episode 19 of Season 2 of "The Brady Bunch". It originally aired February 12th, 1971, almost a full year before I was born, but I remember seeing it sometime before I was 6, because we were still living in Wilsonville.

The episode starts off with a reporter asking high school girls what they think about women's equality, which Marcia finds herself feeling strongly about. Challenged on her stance, she joins the Frontier Scouts and proves her abilities, but then doesn't stick with it because it's yucky boy stuff.

I know that doesn't sound that radical, but I remember being struck by the unfairness of the stereotypes, and that she could do as good as them, and it made me not want to attend a scouting event that was coming up.

I remember it so well because it was an early conflict with my father, and I was wrong and stupid because women weren't as good as men. I don't think he said it quite that succinctly. I don't think it was that time when he gave the example of the woman in the Coast Guard who messed up a rescue, or how letting women be firefighters and police officers messes up the height requirements, but he was always very sure of the legitimacy of the inequality, both when he went to church and after he stopped.

I also know, as someone a bit older and more experienced, that it's bull. There are women who are not physically good matches for the military or fire crews, but there are also men who are not. There is enough variation among either gender to rule out any clear signs of superiority, if you are willing to look at it.

Apparently the best reason to not look at it is an unwillingness to face that you do not have clear superiority, but that you have good points and bad points and strengths and weaknesses just like anyone else. It's more complex, and there's more personal responsibility, but it's also true and that's worth a lot.

The failure of ERA

As I was wrapping up the ratified amendments, I had thought I might spend some time on other acts and sections of the United States legal code. Parts I had in mind include Title IX (passed before the Equal Rights Amendment failed, and criticized by many of the ERA's critics), the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Previous posts have already covered that this kind of legislation is often a way of detailing how constitutional protections work, and how they will be enforced, as well as how often these principles go back to the Equal Protection clause. Two weeks ago I posted on clear issues of unequal protection.

If people don't believe in the values that the law supports, they are less likely to comply with the law. That can play out differently, based on how widespread the belief is. When the federal government strongly supports school integration, National Guard escorts may be used to force the issue. When the segregationists then switch to private schools, there may be undercover work to see if there is racial exclusion being practiced. Often de facto segregation prevails as people keep finding new ways to support it.

In the case of the Voting Rights Act, it has faced constant challenges. Those challenges eventually reached a Supreme Court that struck down some protections based on the argument that they were no longer necessary. It would be laughable if it hadn't resulted in disenfranchisement that had a direct impact on the election.

In Why We Lost the ERA, Mansbridge admits that in many ways the passage would not have had an impact. This was both because some legislation had already passed and because some areas were unlikely to be affected based on traditional areas of exception.

I still feel like it could have been incredibly important symbolically. When the key issues that prevent us from truly progressing are people stubbornly clinging to the past, symbolically saying "Yes, women are equal and the law will uphold that," can matter.

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

Having that language enshrined in the Constitution would have mattered. It's not that there wouldn't constantly be people pushing back against it, just as they have continued to push back against Civil Rights Legislation, but there is still a power.

We had a chance to do something good and we didn't. That echoes.

And it puts me in opposition to my church, so next week will be about that.

ERA opposition - Protecting whom?

Much of the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment focused on what women would lose if it did pass. That protection largely focused on the legal responsibilities husbands had toward their wives. The first question that comes to mind for me as a single woman is "How does this help me?"

I can handle some self-sacrifice for the greater good, but that is not what we have here.

We are decades past the failure to ratify ERA, and some progress has been made, but consider the response to Donald Trump's bragging about kissing women and grabbing their privates without waiting for consent:

• His white supremacist supporters said (pardon the vulgarity) "Women don't mind men grabbing pussies; just being pussies."
• Comedian Dave Chappelle said the women not stopping Trump sounds like consent to him, without considering whether there might be any elements of fear or shock at play.
• Paul Ryan said “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified."

That last one sounds better, but it is the crap that enables the first two.

One thing that happens too often is that you will have a guy crudely hitting on a woman, and then when he finds out she is married he will apologize to the husband. The problem is not his boorish behavior and the discomfort it causes, but the lack of respect for previously marked territory.

I submit to you that it is not helpful for women to be property, no matter how fond the owner is of his property.

I went back and read some talks from people speaking against ERA back at the time, and one of the points made was that most women he knew wouldn't want to lower themselves to be equal to men. I'm sure that received a chuckle, and it sounds admiring, but it's patronizing in the most literal sense, because it makes the man the patron of his wife. And he will be benevolent and protect her, but all of that protection depends on his goodness. (It's not particularly respectful of men either.)

In theory, the man will provide for his wife, so she doesn't need equal wages, but very few families can afford to get by on a single income today. Wouldn't it help if her equal work was valued equally?

It goes beyond economics. What if a woman marries an abuser? Laws might allow her to leave and collect alimony, but that's assuming she can get out with her life, and receive support instead of shame, and that he won't quit or work under the table or flee or something to avoid payment. That's a lot of potential pitfalls, all of which have some precedence.

Let's get back to the shame, though, because that is the big catch of being up on the pedestal. They can say as much as they want about how women are naturally better, but do something to make them mad and see how it goes. Suddenly you're "just like a woman", and it is no longer a compliment. When all of your goodness - and the reverence your champion owes you - comes down to you fulfilling his ideas of sweetness and virtue, that sounds like objectification. Not being allowed to be a full person is dehumanization.

And it is a system that is full of ugly things, upholding rape culture and all kinds of abuse, devaluing more than half the population, and keeping it uncomfortable to talk about any of it. ERA opponents were afraid equality would rip apart the traditional family, but wouldn't it be better to have a family where two equals stayed together through mutual affection and respect, rather than lack of options and fear?

If I can't do better than that, I will gladly stay single.

The Equal Protection Clause

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This is from the 14th Amendment, and it seems pretty straightforward. It's kind of not. At the time it did not really cover women. While it covered Black men it did not make people of other races citizens, and soon the government was going to greatly relax enforcement efforts so that they could be better reconciled with the South.

So yes, it seems straightforward, and has been used as a way of holding state laws to a higher standard, but there are constantly decisions being made about who gets to be equal and what is equal enough. I would like to point out three examples where there is not equal protection under the law.

First of all, there is often not equal protection under the law for people with disabilities. While statistics about police shootings frequently focus on race, disabilities are often overlooked. Traumatic brain injuries and seizures have played a role in some shootings, deaf people have been shot for not following orders they did not hear, and people on the autism spectrum are often in danger.

I have no doubt that police response could be improved there, but these incidents often start without them knowing that there is a disability in play. When they are responding to a mentally ill person having a breakdown, or a suicidal person, that should be enough information to handle things differently. Responders still frequently escalate the situation, and then shoot. We know how to do better - Memphis has pioneered progress in how to do better - but too many cities don't choose to improve, making an important segment of the population not protected, but more endangered.

But that race issue is there too. Drug policy has been selectively enforced, showing a clear racial bias. Communities that fund through fines target poor communities, which often includes racial bias, because there is a perception that people of color will be less able to successfully combat the fines. Stop and frisk is a racist and ineffective program. There is compelling evidence that there is not equal protection under the law or from the law by race.

Third, let's talk about rape. A backlog in rape kit testing has been a scandal, but in many cases kits were not prioritized not because there was no budget, or there was too long a wait, but because the responding officers did not find the victim credible. Attacks on other victims may later make the case for some credibility, but there is a pressure on rape victims that other crime victims don't get. What were you wearing? Did you know him? Are you sure you didn't lead him on? Do you really want to ruin his life? Quite possibly the only people to face similar pressure are those complaining of police brutality.

That is not equal protection.

Recently a friend of my sister was mad because a boy kissed her granddaughter - who did not want it - and both the boy and the granddaughter got in trouble. This reminds me of policies in some departments where on a domestic violence call the standard is to arrest both people in the dispute. I believe the justification is to discourage false complaints, but it is a policy that discourages true complaints as well, and punishes someone who is already suffering.

Thinking about that, and how often children asking for help are told to just ignore their bullies, I think the real issue is that we are uncomfortable challenging the power structure. The bully is the one with the power, or the one doing the beating - we can't fight that! Police officers and principals are after all establishment, so it should not be too surprising if they support the traditional power structure.

It should be a little surprising that so many of us put up with a power structure that is disadvantageous to so many, and we make dents in it here and there, but it really isn't satisfactory. We should not be satisfied with "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

The Equal Rights Amendment

I did extra homework for this one.

I felt I should. It was the most recent of the failed amendments, happening during my childhood, though while I heard about I certainly didn't have much understanding of it. It was one the church was specifically against, which I believe I would feel conflicted about. When I feel like I don't know enough, my usual solution is to read.

I read Why We Lost the ERA by Jane Mansbridge. Knowing more, I have more to say, and I think there will be more than one post.

If we start out by focusing on the failure of ratification, there were some interesting factors. One point Mansbridge made was that no controversial amendments had passed for years. Child Labor had organized opposition from factory owners.  So just the fact that there was organized opposition - and enough controversy to provide organized opposition - lowered its chances of ratification.

At the beginning the odds still looked good. It received fairly broad congressional support on the federal level, but then opposition heated up in the states.

Part of the problem was disagreement about what it would mean. Opponents focused on how it would force women into the draft and into combat. Mansbridge makes a pretty solid legal argument for why that would not necessarily be true, but the perception was there.

That might seem like the war was lost on a fairly insignificant battle, but at the same time it was significant. Many states had laws giving veterans preferential treatment in hiring, so military service was a jobs issue. Many women were serving in the military, but the most prestigious assignments, with opportunities for higher pay and advancement, were closed off to them.

Over the years from the beginning of the push for an Equal Rights Amendment to the final defeat, the already existing Equal Protection Clause from the 14th amendment had been being referred to more, and being interpreted more generously, where some of the initial benefits one might expect from the ERA would be seen as already resolved. That's an interesting idea, and next week I want to spend more time on Equal Protection. 

For now, one common focus for proponents was the equal pay issue. That brings us back to the issue of whether you always need an amendment or whether other legislation can suffice, with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, arguing that it can be done without an amendment but making its argument a few decades later.

On that note, I leave you with this ad that I remember from my childhood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is5vIf7nwsU

It's not a joke indeed.

About abortion

For many people this election (and all elections) appears to come down to the issue of abortion.

I believe that life and people are too complex for single-issue voting anyway, but it is a real concern for people. I have had some thoughts on it, and I am going to propose something very radical.

Allow me to suggest that what is wrong about abortion is for the parents, not for the children.

If there is one thing that my faith is sure on, it's that God has a plan for all of us, including the ability to heal and resolve things that are done to us. I believe that any children that could have been born will not miss out on anything that they could have had. Maybe religions that believe unbaptized infants go to Hell have a picture of God where aborted children are erased or punished or something horrible, but that is not our our doctrine, and that is more fear than faith.

For adults to become like God, following His plan, then understanding the power to create life, and to not take that lightly, and to learn the value of chastity and fidelity, then yes, it makes sense that abortion would not be desired or needed for the most part. There might be times when the pregnancy is high risk and you still choose to proceed because of your value for that life, but you are choosing. There is no one forcing you to carry or forcing you to terminate, because it is your choice.

This mindset erases the need to crusade for the unborn, and puts us back to trying to create a better world through service and evangelism.

One friend posted an article recently about how abortions tend to go up during Republican administrations and decrease during Democrat administrations:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-is-the-best-choice-for-voters-against-abortion-170258/

That should be the opposite, based on policies, but in a world where you focus more on taking care of the living, and respecting their choices, you have a world that is more welcoming to children.

In a world that tells you "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em", without working toward a living wage, a lot of people might feel unable to be parents, even if it had been something they wanted.

I often go back to the "fruit of the spirit" as my guide to whether something is right: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Do the following circumstances lead to those feelings?

A heartbroken woman, one child already dead, the other with no hope of survival, crying for twelve hours waiting for an ethics committee to decide whether she could end the pregnancy.

http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-womans-resonse-about-late-term-abortion-going-viral-after-presidential-debate

A woman dying in a hospital because her miscarrying was not enough to justify saving her life.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Lawmakers saying that abortion in the case of rape isn't an issue because if it were really rape she wouldn't get pregnant.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-abortion-legitimate-rape_n_1807381.html

It is not uncommon for those justifying anti-choice laws to start saying really twisted and horrible things, where it appears that they are more concerned with controlling a woman's sexuality than anything else.

Maybe the problem is really that they have chosen the wrong battle.

When you need an amendment

We have one unratified amendment left, and then some other laws, but I wanted to stop and focus on when you might have an amendment.

With the first 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, there was a need to put in the values that were important to the nation that had just set up how it would run. Shortly after that, there is some fine-tuning to be down; this process isn't specific enough, or we forgot to address this issue that has come up now. That is the case for the 11th and 12th, and for the 27th, though ratification was delayed.

Sometimes the amendment is to grant a power not previously specified. The 18th for Prohibition gave the Federal government power to do something they did not previously have the power to do. Now it seems like the silliest amendment, requiring a new amendment to repeal it (the 21st).

The failed Child Labor amendment from last week stems from an inability to regulate interstate commerce in the needed way, to an attempt to instead of regulating the commerce, simply making the protection of children and labor laws regarding them a federal matter.

Many of the successful amendments have been to extend rights and protections. We did not grant this group full citizenship before, and it was wrong of us. A lot of additional legislation has been in support of that.


There may sometimes be confusion over why things work in certain ways. For example, with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, it was established that not only was slavery not allowed but Black men could vote and were citizens (with Black women still having to wait until the 19th).

There were still many obstacles to the enjoyment of that citizenship. In time that led to the Civil Rights Act (which included the Fair Housing Act) and Voting Rights Act. Without judging their efficacy here, the key issues were nonetheless seen as something that was already constitutional.

It seems like that could have been true for the abolition of the poll tax as well, but that did get an amendment, the 24th. It had previously been argued that the poll tax went against the Equal Protection clause, which certainly sounds reasonable.

Perhaps it was different because people had been talking about it for longer, with opposition to state poll taxes being offered by FDR, continued investigation under Truman, and urging for the amendment from JFK. There were arguments that the laws imposing the poll tax were based on the Constitution, and it could be seen as a states' rights issue.

It may only obfuscate the issue to remember that both Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education treated "separate but equal", and they came down on different sides.

I don't know that I can provide much additional clarity, but one thing to remember is that if you study almost any amendment, there is at least one associated legal case that got people thinking about the issue, and whether the current laws were sufficient or even correct. Even with the amendments from the Bill of Rights, there were legal examples of problems that had happened under British rule that inspired them.

Beyond that, sometimes a law that should be sufficient isn't. That may be because there are too many people who don't believe in it. When that is the issue, passing the new legislation will probably not resolve the issue, but it may still provide an avenue for recourse that can be valuable.

But really what you need is better people. We should always be working on that.

The Child Labor Amendment - unratified

Section 1. The Congress shall have power to limit, regulate, and prohibit the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.

Section 2. The power of the several States is unimpaired by this article except that the operation of State laws shall be suspended to the extent necessary to give effect to legislation enacted by the Congress.

The first thing that I thought seeing this as an unratified amendment was that obviously we have done some things without the amendment. There aren't factories full of child workers, at least in this country.

When that did happen, children had accidents at a higher rate than adults. Their development was stunted, both physically and intellectually. As people begin advocating for the children, some states began passing laws about child labor. This raised concerns that states that protected children were at an economic disadvantage by competing against states that still exploited the little beggars.

(And, they could have been literal beggars without the jobs; many of the child laborers had parents who could not afford to feed them without the additional income.)

The first attempts to handle the competitive issue involved prohibiting imports from states who used child labor into states that did not, or placing a fine on the businesses that used child labor. When these laws were contested, they were ruled unconstitutional.

This is actually quite sensible. The laws were taking a child labor issue and turning it into an interstate commerce issue. That led to the amendment proposal, specifically regulating the labor of persons under eighteen years of age.

Technically it could still be ratified, and would require another ten states, but it probably doesn't seem like a need. I remember in my youth that I could get a work permit at age fourteen, but I did not bother because I would not have been able to work past 7 PM. At sixteen there were more options and I started my stint in fast food and retail.

Except, I did still work before that, in unregulated ways. I babysat, where it was always until past 7 and often until 11 PM. I picked berries in the summer, which probably did have some regulations on it, but all I remember was needing a signed permission slip.

Hold that thought.

A lot of changes came with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. It does have rules regarding child labor, but it was probably more significant that it also provided for 40 hour work weeks, overtime pay, and a national minimum wage. Providing better remuneration for the parents probably made it much less necessary to have the children work anyway, which should have been an additional incentive for keeping the law.

Most people are aware there are some limitations to the protections provided. Employees who can reasonably expect to get tipped do not have to be paid the minimum wage. Certain industries are exempt from paying overtime:

http://www.lni.wa.gov/WorkplaceRights/Wages/Overtime/Exemptions/default.asp

There are practical considerations, but it does still leave some room for exploitation, and a lot of that wiggle room is in agriculture. That may explain the school bus full of teenage berry pickers that I remember, but I am sure it also explains this:


http://www.cc.com/video-clips/l0fvyd/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-nicoteens

We don't need a constitutional amendment to fix this, but we would need to decide it was a problem. Perhaps we would decide that their parents need to be paid more, and that would mean the teenagers don't need to be there. Perhaps we would only decide that the employers should provide the gear and breaks.

There could be a lot of different ways to go, but nothing happens if people don't care.

Unratified amendments

Wikipedia lists six unratified amendments.

Some of them probably don't matter much.

There is one on how to apportion House representatives, but Congress has managed to function without its ratification. There was a proposed amendment that accepting titles of nobility would end US citizenship, but that doesn't come up that often. We can probably get by.

One would have been very bad. The Corwin Amendment attempted to protect slavery, so that Federal decisions would not have been able to overturn it on the state level. It was an attempt to draw back the seceding states - a reminder that many would have been willing to sacrifice human rights for peace. There was some strong support, but it is better that it didn't pass.

The D.C. Voting Rights one is interesting, because it would overturn the 23rd Amendment and bring the voting rights of residents of the District of Columbia more in line with the voting rights of those who reside in states. There is still progress to be made there, and perhaps it would make sense to look at the rights of other US possessions there.

That leaves two more, and they become interesting not merely in terms of what does and does not get supported, but also in what you can do with legislation that does not require amendment.

More on that next week.

Conference Break

I want to spend some time on the US legal code beyond the Constitution. It's pertinent to previous posts, and important, especially in this particular election year. (No, I'm not studying for the LSAT.)

However, first here on General Conference weekend, I want to confess something. In April I got mad in almost every session. There are two things I specifically still remember. One was the guy who kept emphasizing that Halloween wasn't his favorite holiday, implying we shouldn't like it either without coming right out and saying it. The other was one who mentioned entitlement, assuming that the issue is people receiving aid without working, when if you look into how the system works at all you know that many food aid and housing aid recipients are working and being underpaid, so maybe the real entitlement issue are the job "creators" who will do anything to avoid paying a fair share of taxes or living wages when it would cut into their share.

If you are concerned now that I am apostate or a heathen (or finally have confirmation of what you knew all along), back it up a scooch. I still go to church, pray, read scriptures, fulfill my callings, and all of those things. It does concern me that I am not as enthusiastic for conference as I have been, but I can live with it. I have been thinking about it.

While the one brother did not come right out and say Halloween was evil, it felt like he wanted to. I believe the reason he didn't is because the church celebrates it all the time. As a group we don't believe it's evil. There are other churches that do, and there may have been an increase in that as part of a greater conservative backlash against acceptance of others and liberals (and minorities) holding office. That can affect other people. I think he got the idea from others.

(And I take it personally because I love Halloween, which I have always been very clear about.)

In the same way, it has been very common for conservatives to talk about entitlement as a problem with "other" people, and it sounds good because hard work is a good value, but it pushes a false understanding of how the system currently works, who is receiving aid and what their lives are like, and it reinforces a harsh and not Christ-like attitude. It is reinforced by politicians and pundits and if you didn't look around you could easily believe that the world is full of lazy people looking for handouts and that's the only problem with it. That's not reality, and Christ did not put any caveats on his commandments to help the poor.

When I hear these things in conference, I am not terribly surprised. God uses imperfect people to do His work, which is necessary or I wouldn't be any help, and certainly the members have had a real tendency toward conservatism (and being judgmental).

However, I also see that we have members infected by the world. It's not by the partying, feel-good drugs and sex part of the world. We get scared of that, but it doesn't really have that much appeal for a lot of us. Instead, it's the Pharisaical part of the world and - make no mistake - that is still worldly. And it's even more insidious because it comes with so many trappings of righteousness.

I'm not really saying this as something to keep in mind while watching conference; it's more for the rest of your life. Do you feel love toward others? Can you understand them and their needs? Can you bear to read articles or listen to news that doesn't exactly support your views?

Are the fruits of the Spirit a part of your life? Even on Halloween.

The Malheur Occupation

The Bundy clan and their pocket Constitutions were not the only reason that I decided to do this review, but there was an influence. So many people complain about infringement on their Constitutional rights, and yet what they are saying does not sound quite right. After all, I hadn't really read the whole thing since high school, so maybe it was time to do it again.

Nothing in all of the review seemed to offer even a tiny toehold to the occupiers. I thought I'd read at one point that it had to do with an overly expansive reading of how the rules set up for Washington DC affect the federal government's ability to own land, but that doesn't really fly. Doing some internet searches, some have suggested an opposite interpretation of Article IV (section 3, clause 2):

http://lawatthemargins.com/2331-2/

That at least relates to land ownership, but again, you have to think it means the opposite of what it says.

I also read some reasoning that once Oregon became a state that it would invalidate federal claims to land, but even if you went there, then any actions should be on the state of Oregon's behalf, which they clearly were not.

So it was puzzling, but I think the answer to this conundrum is found not in the United States Constitution, but in other contrasts between things that the occupiers said and did.

Consider that the Bundy's bragged about how their actions in Nevada were peaceful and effective, without acknowledging that among the people they drew to the area to stand up to authority were people that killed police shortly after.

Consider that they said that if the Hammond's didn't want them there, or that if the locals did not want them there, they would go. After the Hammond's and many local people made it clear they did not want the occupiers there, they stayed.

Consider that Ammon Bundy is calling himself a political prisoner. He is not in jail for heading an opposition party, or voting wrong, or running an underground newspaper or radio broadcast. He is in jail for illegal actions.

We could probably go on quite a bit, but I don't think there's a point. They can continue to hold their unique interpretations of the law, but they will be judged by a more conventional and fact-based interpretation of the law, as it should be.

Their real motivation seems to be that they should be able to do and have what they want. So if they believe that it's okay to not pay grazing fees, but continue to graze, and not turn over land that they don't own and aren't paying for, well that's what they want!

If they protest to defend ranchers who have set illegal fires, endangering some lives and threatening others, when even those particular criminals don't want the protest, so what? This is what they want!

It is interesting to me that their political protests seemed to be increasing at about the same time that their outside success in the world was decreasing. I guess failed business owners have more time on their hands anyway, but it seems like there might be a lesson on toxic masculinity there. However, that's something I tend to address more on a different blog.

So, for this particular post, it seems more like this is a case of those people who mistake their First Amendment right of freedom of religion for the right to impose that religion on others, and get offended when others live differently. And the only thing I can really say to that is that is not how the Constitution works. Fortunately! It would be awful if it worked that way.

The Twenty-Seventh 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.

This ended up being the most surprising amendment for me. I knew what it was about, and seeing that it was the most recent, I had thought that it came about sometime around Newt Gingrich and a Congress full of hostility and spite.

It was actually one of the first amendments proposed, and it received votes for ratification, though not in the timeliest manner. I'm linking to the Wikipedia article. While it is common for their amendment articles to have a list of which states ratified it and by which dates, the range on this one is fascinating:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Six states ratified it between 1789 and 1792, then Ohio in 1873, and the next vote happened over one hundred years later. Many of the votes were protests. New Jersey and Rhode Island rejected the amendment in the 18th century, but ratified it in the 20th.

Of course the protest votes do indicate some of that political animosity I suspected, and it may not be a coincidence that the college student whose research led to its eventual ratification was studying in Texas, but it's an interesting interlude.

It does seem like the kind of thing where it would be fine written in procedures or legal code or rules of order somewhere, rather than being specifically enshrined as an amendment, but fine. Americans may mistrust their government, and they may wish to punish a legislator for increasing pay by voting out the greedy lawmaker.

So be it.

The Twenty-Fifth 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.


This is a fairly long amendment, due to its specificity, and that was exactly its point.

The processes had been mostly in place before. By the time of the amendment there had been presidential deaths from assassination and illness, impeachment, and long periods without a vice president. There had also been a time of an incapacitated president (Woodrow Wilson) where the situation was hidden by his wife and doctor.

Hammering out all of the details took a while, with many different proposals. In the case of Senator Estes Kefauver - for whom the disability question was very important - his own death kept him from seeing how things turned out.

However, since its ratification we have been through Nixon's resignation and an assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan. And even though the reaction of Reagan's Secretary of State, Alexander Haig, to the attempt ("I am in control here") while Vice President Bush was out of town seemed a little eager, things have nonetheless gone smoothly.

The amendment appears to have worked out.

The Twenty-Fourth 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.

This is another one that I thought of treating with other amendments. It relates to the Reconstruction Amendments (13, 14, and 15), and yet part of the need for the 24th amendment is that after the Reconstruction Amendments a poll tax was one method used to keep the newly enfranchised from exercising it.

It also could go with some of the other amendments we treated together recently (19, 23, and 26), as different groups were given the right to vote, and yet the poll tax has also been used against poor white men, who previously always had the vote.

And so we return to that Section 2, and its many friends. We know that the nature of men will constantly work on new ways to strip the rights from others, and we must continually be on guard, via new legislation and enforcement of existing legislation, to keep the vote safe for all. 

The Twenty-Second 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.


This amendment is interesting to me based on when people are against it. There are people who were mad about the amendment after Reagan's second term; there are people who wish Obama could serve again now. One article I read where they wanted a third term for Bill Clinton referred to the Republican passage of the bill after Roosevelt's death as sneaky.

I remain convinced that a two-term limit is a good idea. I am not a strong advocate of term limits for Congress, but for executive positions - president, governor, mayor - not going beyond two terms seems like a good idea.

The reasoning generally given for the limit is to avoid the appearance of a ruling dynasty, coming too close to monarchy. I see the value in that, but there are other more practical reasons.

Roosevelt did not live out his elected terms. If Reagan had tried a third term, he might have lived but his Alzheimer's disease was overtaking him. We had enough presidential incapacity with Woodrow Wilson.

You may not be able to predict how the health of any individual will go, but you can't rule out that the strain of a prolonged presidency might bring health problems on. Take a look sometimes at pictures of two-term presidents and see how they have aged from the time of their own inauguration to that of their successor. Eight years should show anyway, probably, but would it show that much? Even in the case of George W. Bush, whom you could argue offloaded a lot of the responsibility to his vice president and cabinet, showed the strain.

There is a huge pressure on the president, even beyond times of partisan gridlock. How often does the president have to make life and death decisions? And it's not a matter of choosing life over death, but of choosing how many deaths or which deaths. And then, no matter what you choose, some people will think you're a butcher and some will think you're weak and ineffective simultaneously.

If we value their work and their humanity, even the best president should have a chance to take a rest after eight years. Bear in mind, that rest may be monitoring elections, building homes for the homeless, working to make AIDS treatment affordable and lowering the price of malaria treatment. They have learned about the world and its problems while in office and they have made connections. Setting the presidential responsibilities aside and focusing on the area of their choice can usher in a lifetime of great usefulness and joy. Let them have that.

Two terms is enough.

The Twentieth Amendment

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.


This is a pretty straightforward amendment, which thrills me because I have been sick and need to go lie down.

Previously with inauguration in March instead of January, that was a long lame duck session for a sitting president and waiting time for a newly elected president, but it was even worse for newly elected congressmen in some years.

In looking at the calendar, it was easy to see that some previous scheduling that must have seemed practical at the time, but this was 1933. Now there was not only the telegraph and train, but also telephone, cars, and planes.

Sections 3 and 4 are interesting in that it handles succession, but not so definitively that there will not be a twenty-fifth amendment coming in 34 years, but we will get to that later.

The Nineteenth, Twenty-Third, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments

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.


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 by appropriate legislation.


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.


If you are shocked by my putting these together, as if underplaying the 19th Amendment, I understand. There are a few reasons.

One is the reminder that Votes for Women really only meant White Women at the time. There are many interesting things that happened with that, and it was historically important, but there were still issues. We went over that somewhat in the post on the 15th Amendment:

http://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-fifteenth-amendment.html

That post also referenced 23 and 26, which are less well-known.

For the 23rd Amendment, it did seem reasonable at the country's founding to have the capitol be a neutral zone, not bound up in the interests of any particular state. Lawmakers who worked there had home states, but that did not allow for the permanent residents, often poorer people waiting on the lawmakers. Not only could they not have a say in the presidential elections, even home rule where they could have a mayor and city counsel was not allowed until 1974. (That greatly simplifies a fairly complicated history, but you can learn more by researching the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.)

The rise of student activism in conjunction with the Vietnam War pushed for the lowering of the Voting Age from 21 to 18. After all, if you can be drafted and sent to die for your country, surely you should get a say in who makes the decision to send you.

Since the ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971, there has only been one other amendment, and no other constitutional changes to who can vote. There are still strong efforts to take away the voting rights of others, and there is always some justification. The justification may even sound plausible, but the root is always that some people don't want other people to get in their way, despite the constitutional protection.

https://thinkprogress.org/voter-suppression-battles-to-watch-in-2016-429c6a53eaa8#.g9mxcf45h 

Some governors are working hard to protect the franchise; others to take it away:

https://thinkprogress.org/virginia-governor-bypasses-court-ruling-to-help-200-000-ex-felons-vote-7b17c78453c0#.nc8g8jovu

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-felon-without-voting-rights-08142016-20160813-story.html 

(This may be a good time to note that "felon" means nothing more than marijuana user far more often than it should.)

There are many other challenges to voting rights. Ari Berman is a good one to watch for that:

http://ari-berman.com/ 
 
If there is one consistent message through all of my blogs, it is that people matter. To try and remove their voices from the democratic process flies in the face of my most cherished belief. With all of the efforts to silence various votes, this is a good time to remember that. 

In considering the 23rd Amendment, some of the perils of not being protected by statehood became clear. That made it heartening to see the attention paid to the U.S. Territories by Hillary Clinton. The last time I recall seeing attention paid was when maintaining free license to abuse in the Marianas Islands became a Republican party platform:

http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2012/11/how-plank-enters-platform.html

Sometimes people will make jokes about letting Texas secede, or getting rid of the South, because of bone-headed things that happen there, but any place that frustrates us is full of people who rely on federal protection, and who would be cut off with the state.

Remember that there are many individuals whose lives are affected by your vote. That may be a reason for you to vote responsibly, but it is also a reason to respect and protect their rights to vote.

Related post:
http://sporkful.blogspot.com/2016/05/things-i-dont-like-about-bernie-sanders.html

The Eighteenth and Twenty-first Amendments

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 the 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.

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.

I have had doubts before about whether it makes sense to combine some of the amendments, but there was no doubt here. Together these two tell the story of the only amendment to be so completely revoked. Some legal aspects linger in the government controls on the sale of alcohol, but otherwise something that seemed important enough to require a constitutional amendment rather than any other type of legislation became thoroughly ready for removal within thirteen years.

There may be a few lessons to be learned here.

One interesting side note is that at the time, Prohibition was considered to be a very progressive idea. We understand the term differently now, but Progressivism started as the idea that as science and technology advanced it must be used to improve the human condition. That sounds reasonable enough, but science and technology often have some growing pains. Around the time of Prohibition, another popular ideas was eugenics.

Many people blame the rise of organized crime on Prohibition, and can see a continuation of that with existing drug laws. The Federal Bureau of Narcotics was created in 1930, toward the end of Prohibition. One might wonder at the apparent lack of learning; shouldn't we have figured out years ago that criminalizing certain things doesn't work?

That line of thought would be ignoring the purposes of the War on Drugs, which is an important subject but probably too much to take on here. What may be more to the point is that it is not reasonable to hold on to a mindset where legal equals good. There can be many behaviors that are destructive but where criminalization only creates more problems.

Alcohol can still be implicated in many social ills, but there are people who choose not to drink it, who only drink it in certain settings, and people who find they can't handle it and may need to seek help. We can have those discussions without thinking that the answer has to be making it illegal for anyone to drink, and I believe we can manage that with drugs as well.

I don't have any books to recommend on Prohibition at this time, but I can recommend two books on drugs and law:

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, by Michelle Alexander

Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs, by Johann Hari

The Seventeenth 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.

I don't feel a need to spend a lot of time on this one, because we did cover it briefly when we covered Article I:

http://preparedspork.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-constitution-article-i.html

After 103 years, it feels more normal to us to have direct election of senators, but there was a time when it was different.

Some concerns with the old system were that it was more prone to corruption and to deadlock, but there are some interesting things about that. While the potential for corruption is obvious, often concerns about it did not end up being substantiated. That could just mean that some things are hard to track down, but it is nice to think that people did not abuse the system.

For the concern on deadlock, this was attributed more to inexperienced legislators as states were added, and then as they gained experience it became less common. It is good to know that there is growth and development.

I think for our day and age, it feels better to feel like we have a voice in who our senator will be. In many ways our government is more representative than democratic. There are good things about that, but there are shortcomings as there is with any governmental form. When there are places where our voice can be more direct, that can feel very right.

The Sixteenth Amendment

XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

One of the most interesting things about this amendment is how long we went without it. It was adopted February 3, 1913.

That is not because there were not federal taxes before, but a question came up in another case, Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co, about taxes on income through property owned, as opposed to a tax on the property itself. This is important because as such it was seen as a direct tax, which needed to be apportioned. The wording of the amendment directly takes into account what had previously been necessary for taxation, and what would no longer be.

In some ways it feels inevitable that it would happen. Many people do not own property but do have incomes. Previous governing models have given more weight to land owners, and some founding fathers may still have had that in mind, but it is not ultimately how the Constitution was written.

One thing that is interesting in retrospect is to see the rate at which states began adopting income taxes. The Constitution did prohibited a state income tax before, but only Wisconsin and Mississippi had them in place. (Hawaii had an income tax, but was not yet a state.)

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/when-did-your-state-adopt-its-income-tax

After the 16th amendment, a state income tax becomes increasingly common. The fastest period of growth was in the 1930s, during hard economic times, so following the federal example is not the only motivation, but I do think that the federal income tax could have legitimized the idea of a state income tax.

The other thing that seems worth pointing out is that in a previous election cycle there was a lot of focus on who does and does not pay federal income tax, but that is only one part of the overall tax burden, and a part that did not exist for taxpayers until just about one century ago.

The Fifteenth Amendment

XV
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

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

This again seems fairly straightforward. The 14th amendment established the citizenship of Black men, and citizens can vote. It would again be very necessary to enforce it by appropriate legislation. That would include the 24th amendment abolishing the poll tax in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In addition there would be questions on who else would be counted as a citizen and get to have a voice. Three of the upcoming amendments are about adding groups of voters: 19 (women), 23 (citizens of DC), and 26 (18 year old citizens).

Some enfranchisement happened without amendments. Chinese Americans were given the vote in 1943, Asian Indians in 1946, and other Asian Americans in 1952.

http://www.racefiles.com/2013/07/31/three-things-asian-americans-owe-to-the-civil-rights-movement/

Up until 1957, some states did not allow Native Americans to vote.

Currently there are no legal barriers officially based on race, but when segments of the population are disenfranchised, it tends to be people of color.

So we still have a long way to go, and knowing our history, including legal history, remains important.

On that note, here's a brief clip from the movie Selma:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YRUUFYeOPI

The Fourteenth Amendment

XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

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

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

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

This is the longest of the Reconstruction amendments, and it is referenced fairly frequently for court cases. 

Looking at the different sections, Section 1 comes right out and overturns the Dred Scott decision, saying that those of African descent could never be citizens. If they were born here, there were citizens, black or white. (I would say no matter what color, but that required some time.)

This section should nonetheless have covered all of the freed slaves. Based on the ending of slavery in Canada in 1833, Mexico in 1829 (despite reinstatement by Texas), and the end of purchasing new slaves from Africa, and the United States abolishing the African slave trade around 1807 (it took about a year to take effect), that by the 1868 ratification, it should have covered all African-Americans. They were now entitled to due process and equal protection. The Equal Protection clause is one element that is referred to often.

There was an understanding that some states were still going to have a hard time with this, with gives us the next two sections. If you do not count these citizens, it is coming out of your representation. Your representatives also need to not have been rebels, and we can pardon them for that, but this is going to remain a union, with Black men as citizens.

There are still questions about counting Native Americans - ostensibly a question of sovereignty, though that seems arguable based on the enforced relocations. (Just another reminder that we still have race problems because we have clung to them so tightly.)

Inclusion that there will be no payment for the loss of slaves seems like a practical issue - preventing the government from drowning in claims, but can also serve as a statement that no one should have had slaves in the first place. It could also be helpful when new cases arise of people trying to get around slavery, which happened a lot.

Finally, that final clause reminding that this can and will be enforced. Sadly, in a few years the North would decide that it was more important to placate the hurt feelings of the South than protect the new citizens, but we will keep coming back to it as many times as it takes: Brown versus the Board of Education, Obergefell versus Hodges, and many more.