"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 Amendment states that the salary of Congress cannot change until the next term
of office for representatives of Congress.
Killing all the Rich Monsters
Comment:
The author of this video/slide show, explains the history of the Twenty-seventh Amendment in a way even a child could understand, in the form of a fairy tale. I don't know if I would consider all Congressman monsters, but it is some what of a conflict of interest, that the people who receive the raise are the same ones who decide the amount. There is no other instances in the business world where this would happen. On the contrary, if Congressman receive a generous but reasonable salaries it may keep them more honest and then we could place tighter restriction on campaign funds.
Congressman Mitchell Addresses the House about Stopping the Automatic Congressional 2011 Pay Raise
Comment:
I completely agree with Congressman Mitchell. I don't think it is fair that with high levels of unemployment and, with some people even taking pay cuts, that congress would get an automatic pay increase. We are in an economic crisis and we should spend conservatively. It makes me wonder if many of the Congressman are there because they really want to help the states they represent or are they there because of the money? This is a time of recession and if other people in the country have to adjust to live with the salary that they have right now so should Congress.
"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 power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."
This Amendment changed the voting age from 21 to 18 years old. Goverment stated that if the young Americans could go to war at age 18 then they should be awarded by being able to vote at age 18.
Repealing the Twenty-Sixth Amendment to the Constitution
Nov 27, 2010 Michael Streich
American conservatives view the 18-year-old vote as too liberal and influenced by university professors that support the Democratic Party.
In 1971, the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted, extending voting rights to all citizens that are 18 years of age on the day of the election. The so-called “youth vote” has, however, been token and only became noticeable in the presidential election of 2008, helping to propel Barack Obama to the White House. Similar efforts to revitalize that youth vote in the 2010 midterm election failed, but this has not stopped some commentators like Ann Coulter from calling for a repeal of the 26th Amendment.
Reasons to Repeal the 26th Amendment are Politically Motivated
Lowering the voting age to 18 was directly linked to the Vietnam War. Young men putting their lives on the line should have a say in who makes the policies that sent them into war zones, according to legislators of that time. A New York Times item on the youth vote, however, paints a bleak picture (October 10, 2010). According to Amanda Cox, “…in the last two midterm elections, only one in four people under age 30 voted…”
But conservative writers like Ann Coulter fully believe that when young people vote, they tend to vote for liberal causes and candidates; hence, her call to repeal the 26th Amendment. Many of Coulter’s reasons appear valid, but are only half right. Coulter, for example, states in her November 10, 2010 column (Human Events) that “Eighteen-to 26-year-olds don’t have property, spouses, children or massive tax bills.
But Coulter forgets that property qualifications, long part of segregation policies in the South, were used to deny voting rights. If voting is to be based on property qualifications, only the rich would have the privilege. Property qualifications in voting rights ended with Jacksonian Democracy
Youth Brains and Legal Considerations
Coulter raises a concern being heralded within the educational field: “Brain research in the last five years at Dartmouth and elsewhere has shown that human brains are not fully developed until age 25…” She notes that the affected areas include decision making, “rational thinking, judgment…” Brain research on teens references the development of the frontal lobe. The same can be said of many senior citizens suffering from the early affects of Alzheimer’s disease, however. At what point does the state preclude voting rights based on brain research? Socrates was condemned to death for corrupting the youth of Athens. The example reminds readers that young people have always been the voices of change and reform. During the Vietnam War, college students protested and even died, as at Kent State in May 1970. In 1989, Chinese tanks confronted young university students in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Most recently, student riots in Great Britain in November 2010 protested government increases in university tuition (CNN, November 24, 2010)
Legally, anyone at the age of 18 can sign a valid, legal contract. All the laws of privacy and confidentiality disclosures apply to 18 year olds, which is why colleges and universities refuse to release any student information to parents without written consent signed by the student. In most states, committing a crime at the age of 16 means that the perpetrator will be tried as an adult. The law recognizes eighteen year olds as adults in every respect. Why should they be denied the right to vote?
The Student Vote is Viewed as Liberal
A December 21, 2007 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (Government and Politics, Volume 54, Issue 17, page A1) notes that, “…Barack Obama is the clear favorite of academics…” An accompanying chart discloses that Harvard University, Stanford University, and Columbia University represented pro-Democratic donations of over 80%. This type of data enrages the American conservative right who use it to postulate that liberal professors unduly influence impressionable students. One Community College student, commenting on Ann Coulter’s column for a class assignment, wrote that, “I’m twenty years old and in the 2008 presidential election I was eighteen but my frontal lobe was developed enough at this point to be smart enough to vote for neither Republican or Democrat but rather for the Libertarian candidate.”
Repealing the 26th Amendment is Problematic
Ann Coulter wasn’t even a teenager when the 26th Amendment was adopted, but she benefited from it once she turned 18. Repealing amendments has become a popular theme in the last two years. Republicans that seek to reform immigration policy want to repeal the 14th Amendment. Senator-elect Rand Paul favors repealing the 17th Amendment and is joined in this view by several Tea Party leaders. (The Hill, June 2, 2010) The same reasons given for the 1971 adoption of the 26th Amendment are valid today. As long as 18-year olds are considered legal adults, they should be allowed to participate in the political process, all the more so given that currently enacted laws will affect them and their children for decades.
This article talks about some people wanting to repeal the Twenty Sixth Amendment. I do not think it is fair, if people can go to war at age 18 why not let them vote? If they think that being 18 is too young and they can get influenced by other people, why don't they take that in consideration also when they send them to war? I think a person at age 18 is responsible enough to know and decide who they are going to vote for. Yes younger people might rather the liberal party or believe more what they see on TV, but that is part of growing up. I don't think many politicians do not realize how much those guys who are only 18 years old do for us, they fight for their country, they risk their lives every day and giving them the right to vote should be just a given.
Twenty-sixth Amendment Certification Ceremony
Comment:
This is a video from the moment when the Twenty-sixth Amendment was ratified, giving the younger people the right to decide who they want to become President of the United States. I liked when 3 of those 18 year old got to sign the ratification. I completely agree with this Amendment. I hope it does not get repealed and if they want to repeal the right for an 18 year old to vote, then they should also stop sending 18 years old to war.
"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."
The Twenty Fifth Amendment states the procedures of the President withdrawing from his position or in case of death or disability the the Vice President would take the position of the New President of the United States of America. It also state who would take the position of the Vice President. The Twenty Fifth Amendment is a more detailed list of who is next in the Presidential succession.
The West Wing - Twenty Five
Comment:
I have never seen this show, but from this clip it seemed like an interesting one. This clip shows us what would happened if the President decided to withdraw from his position. In this case and I am not very sure why the new President became the Speaker of the house. I am assuming that for some reason the Vice President could not take the position because, according to the Twenty Fifth Amendment the Vice President is the next in line for the Presidency and after the Vice President decided or for some reason could not take the charge then its when the Speaker of the House becomes President. Maybe I will need to find more videos and find out what happened.
White House seeks to remove Obama from Presidency via the 25th Amendment , unfit to hold office
Comment:
Until I saw this video I had no idea that there were some people wanting to remove President Obama from office. I know the situation in the US is not getting any better and it won't get better from one day to the other, but is this all President Obama fault? This is something that has being happening for a while now and it takes time to get better. With this I am not saying that I support President Obama in all the things he is doing, but I don't know if there is enough reason to remove him from office.
"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 Amendment states that all citizen have the right to vote for President and Vice President or any other election and they cannot be denied of this right making poll taxes prohibited for both state and federal elections. This Amendment was ratified in 1964
RACHEL MADDOW - THE NEW POLL TAX - PAYING TO VOTE
Comment:
This video starts by talking about the taxes people use to pay which discriminated against the poor people. Now the tax is not longer in effect, however having to wait in line for hours is similar to having to pay a poll tax, because it discriminates against those who are unable to wait in line. This could be for reasons of physical conditions, related to age or financial condition due to ones employment circumstances.
MyLatinoNews.com - GOP Pursues Poll Tax
Comment:
This is a funny and interesting video. Before people used to pay taxes to vote and this lead to discrimination, because not everybody could afford to pay the taxes. Mario Solis-Marichi talkes about how the GOP wanted to pass a law where voters had to present their passport at the moment of voting, and this would also lead into discrimination, since older people, disable and minorities would not be able to vote.
"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."
This Amendment gave the right to the residents of the District of Columbia to vote for president and Vice President. This Amendment was ratified by the states on March 29th, 1961.
Senator Akaka on DC Voting Rights
Comment:
I completely agree with Senator Akaka. I ma not sure if it is still an issue today for the residents of DC to be able to vote in the presidential election, and if it is then I believe that they should have the right like any other citizen of the United States. Just like Senator Akaka mention in the video, they are also paying taxes like any other person, in this country. I don't think it is fair not to count them when it should be the complete opposite since they also happen to live in the capital of this country.
Keep fighting for voting rights
By Ilir Zherka, Washington
Ben Pershing’s Nov. 28 article, “For D.C. voting rights, window appears closed,” offered an overly pessimistic view of Washington’s future. If recent elections have taught us anything, it is that such bold, blanket predictions regarding the political future are almost always incorrect. None of us knows what lies in store for the next two years, much less the next 10. “D.C. voting rights is dead” — that is what was said after the House failed to take up a bill in 2006 and after senators filibustered in 2007. After each of those setbacks, we regrouped and pushed forward. Each time the bill was “resurrected” from the ashes, it had more votes in support than it had before. But we must also remember this fight is about more than voting rights. Equally important is defending and expanding home rule to give D.C. residents the full democracy all other Americans enjoy. While the District has not yet obtained a full vote in the House, it has made many other significant advances. Congress finally passed the District’s budget without riders limiting home rule. The District was able to implement long-delayed public health programs, serving its constituents as needed like every other local jurisdiction in the nation. This success is a direct result of the collective work of the D.C. democracy movement. We must defend this progress in the next Congress. In June, a Post editorial stated that “fighting for voting rights is hard. That isn’t reason to give up.” DC Vote, along with our partners in Congress and the D.C. government, will not give up. We will keep fighting every fight that will bring Washington closer to full democracy.
This article is also in favor of the voting rights for the residents of the District of Columbia. I believe as I sad in my post above that all the citizens of the United States regardless to where they live, that they should be counted equally. There is a reason for this Amendment, because WE THE PEOPLE are one nation, and we all have the same rights and we all should be counted equally.
"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 sets a term limit for the President of the United States, stating that a President cannot be elected for a third term. He or she can only serve for two terms. Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947 and it was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.
Obama: plans to be in office "8-10 years" - Moving to Repeal 22nd Amendment?
Comment:
According to this video it seems and maybe President Barack Obama made a mistake when he said that he was planning on meeting with the other president for the next ten years. This does lead into a misunderstanding making ourselves ask if he will repeal the Twenty second Amendment. In the United States only one President served for more than two terms, Franklin D Roosevelt. I don't think that on this time something like this would happened. I am sure if Obama would like to change the Constitution many people in the US would be against it.
The 22nd Amendment Could Destroy This Country
By Michael Pomper
Here we go again. Another reason for Americans to be afraid of this administration and do anything peacefully necessary to get this President and all the far left followers he has out of office. Or to at least begin to listen to the American people. The 22nd. Amendment to the US Constitution which limits the amount of time one person can serve as President to two terms or a maximum of ten years. In 1951 a bill was passed putting the 22nd. Amendment into law, limiting terms in office to two, four year terms plus two years if you were put into office by means other than a vote such as the case with Gerald Ford when President Nixon was impeached.
What would this mean and how could Obama make this happen? Right now, President Obama has another issue he is dealing with. That issue is illegal immigration. How could he use this to his advantage? Just think of the gratitude the immigrant community would have for the President if all of a sudden he rewarded them for coming here illegally by automatically giving them all citizenship.
The President would have a huge benefit to his Presidency by having all illegal immigrants so grateful, they would use their new found freedom to vote and cast that vote in favor of Obama. Not only would he get that vote, he would also get the vote of all the family members associated with their once illegal relatives.
This is another issue we Americans need to pay close attention to. You will see fraudulent groups out there spending yours and my tax dollars to get this passed anyway they can in order to keep Obama in office so they can continue their illegal operations without any consequences for squandering our tax dollars for their personal agenda. We cannot let that happen. This President is destroying this country at a rapid rate, far more excelled with spending our money than any other President in US history.
Has anyone noticed how many issues have been on the table with this administration? Foreign affairs,(Speeches apologizing for the US), Economy which includes auto, housing, banks etc... Health care,Global Warming, Illegal Aliens, Iraq, Iran, N.Korea,Russia to name a few. I could go on but I will be here all night long listing the things Obama is dealing with. The biggest problem is that he seems to want to do everything all at the same time. Why? His agenda is socialism. He can't afford to wait for people to realize how bad his plans are for this great country, and that it is destroying the country right in front of our eyes.
It is crucial that we start to understand just how urgent it is for us to do something about it right now. Plan now to get the word out that those we voted for to represent us, have sold out and do not represent our best interests any longer and it is time for them to go.
As I have mentioned in the past,The President has a habit of showing urgency to push one of his policies through to the point of not giving enough time to read these enormous bills with thousands of pages. The President is again trying to push two bills through.The Health Care plan and the Cap and Trade. These may not be on the table to be set in stone yet, even with the Cap and Trade passing through the House, It still needs to go through the Senate and if those Politicians want to continue their careers, it would be wise for them to vote no.
These are what we need to pay attention to. President Obama has been in office just over five months now and look at what he has done so far. It is ludicrous what is happening in Washington. The President continues to defend his policies, but his approval is declining. That shows that Americans strongly want to see a shift in the policies of this administration.
One reason this country has been able to remain strong over the years is the ability to ensure a new President within a reasonable amount of time so we don't get stuck in a situation that is going on with other politicians such as the Kennedy's, Barney Frank to bring up a couple names from the State I grew up in. It's this kind of politics that breed corruption, and we cannot let this continue or get worse, by allowing a President to manipulate the system in his favor.
So in conclusion, we Americans need to make sure we preserve the 22nd. Amendment as it is written, to keep our government from becoming a dictatorship. It's scary, but this concept is not too far off base the way things are going. Don't let the 22nd. Amendments demise happen and destroy this countries tradition.
Michael Pomper
An American Citizen concerned for the very freedoms we have enjoyed for over 230 years and counting...
In this article the author states that for many reason that are happening right now in the US President Obama would be thinking about repealing the Twenty-second Amendment. The author also says that if he does get to repeal the Amendment he would get many votes from the illegal immigrants if he gets them to solve all the problem that they are facing at the moment. I don't think Obama is planning on repeal the Amendment and even if he is I don;t think he would get elected and for many reasons I don't think he would even get to win a second term.
"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 here of to the States by the Congress."
This Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment, putting an end to prohibition in the United States.
Budweiser Prohibition Repeal Announcement
Comment:
After the Eighteenth Amendment got repealed, many people in the US celebrated what it is know as the end of prohibition. This video shows us how one of the biggest and most important beer companies in the US Budweiser sent a press message celebrating the end of prohibition. They also state that thanks to this Amendment many men went back to work improving the economic situation in the United States.
Prohibition Ended!
Comment:
This video is also a celebration toward the end of prohibition. They also say that with this new era more men will be back to work improving the economy. No more military busting the barrels of rum, the night clubs re-opened, the bars were opened and everybody who wanted to drink could do it right away.
