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.
Sunday, July 31, 2016
Sunday, July 24, 2016
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 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.
Sunday, July 17, 2016
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
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
Sunday, July 10, 2016
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.
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.
Sunday, July 3, 2016
The Thirteenth Amendment
XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments can be collectively referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments, all adopted over a five-year period. I thought about treating them all together, but there is enough included in them that it makes sense to give them their own space.
This one could appear to be the most straightforward of the three. It is partially a formalization of what has already happened. Ratified on December 5th, 1865, the Emancipation Proclamation and Juneteenth had already passed. By the date of ratification, all slaves in the United States or anywhere under the jurisdiction of the States should have been freed.
However, slavery had been enshrined in the Constitution, therefore it is appropriate that slavery's end be officially written, voted on and ratified, with no possible room for equivocation. And yet, equivocation was left.
Continuing to allow involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime became a loophole, where many freed Blacks were re-enslaved using the law as a tool and flouting justice in the process. For more information, you can read Slavery By Another Name by Douglas Blackmon, or watch the documentary it inspired: http://www.pbs.org/show/slavery-another-name/
At least one person drafting the amendments knew. All three Reconstruction Amendments have phrasing like that in Section 2 here: Congress shall have power to enforce. There will be a Civil Rights Act and a Voting Rights Act in the future, and the groundwork was laid here by someone with foresight.
Perhaps it was easy to see, shortly after a bloody war, how deeply some people would cling to the ability to maintain ownership of others. I think it is appropriate so close to Independence Day to remember that slavery was only designed to let others be rich. When something requires a lot of hard, backbreaking work to turn a good profit, that's when you need human chattel.
The right to be wealthy at the expense of others may be what some people envision for their pursuit of happiness, but it is not a human right. It requires the abuse of the rights of other humans.
But those who get a taste cling to it.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments can be collectively referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments, all adopted over a five-year period. I thought about treating them all together, but there is enough included in them that it makes sense to give them their own space.
This one could appear to be the most straightforward of the three. It is partially a formalization of what has already happened. Ratified on December 5th, 1865, the Emancipation Proclamation and Juneteenth had already passed. By the date of ratification, all slaves in the United States or anywhere under the jurisdiction of the States should have been freed.
However, slavery had been enshrined in the Constitution, therefore it is appropriate that slavery's end be officially written, voted on and ratified, with no possible room for equivocation. And yet, equivocation was left.
Continuing to allow involuntary servitude as a punishment for crime became a loophole, where many freed Blacks were re-enslaved using the law as a tool and flouting justice in the process. For more information, you can read Slavery By Another Name by Douglas Blackmon, or watch the documentary it inspired: http://www.pbs.org/show/slavery-another-name/
At least one person drafting the amendments knew. All three Reconstruction Amendments have phrasing like that in Section 2 here: Congress shall have power to enforce. There will be a Civil Rights Act and a Voting Rights Act in the future, and the groundwork was laid here by someone with foresight.
Perhaps it was easy to see, shortly after a bloody war, how deeply some people would cling to the ability to maintain ownership of others. I think it is appropriate so close to Independence Day to remember that slavery was only designed to let others be rich. When something requires a lot of hard, backbreaking work to turn a good profit, that's when you need human chattel.
The right to be wealthy at the expense of others may be what some people envision for their pursuit of happiness, but it is not a human right. It requires the abuse of the rights of other humans.
But those who get a taste cling to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)