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.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Sunday, August 21, 2016
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.
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.
Sunday, August 14, 2016
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 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
Sunday, August 7, 2016
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)