"Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress."
This Amendment was adopted in 1920 and prohibited the manufacture and sale of alcoholic beverages in the United States. This Amendment later got repeal in 1933 by the Twenty-First Amendment of the Constitution.
Prohibition: To Drink or Not to Drink
Comment:
This is a very interesting video, where it explains when the Eighteenth Amendment passed and how eventually it got overturned. This relates very much to today's case with some illegal drugs the ones that some people want to become legal. In my personal opinion I think that having alcohol is not bad but other drugs I don't think it is necessary since many people misuse them and they can cause some bigger problems.
1920's Anti-Alcohol Commercial
Comment:
This is a commercial from the 1920's when alcohol was prohibited. The church and Christian groups were the main supporters of this cause. IN this video the preacher uses the little girl as the reason for not to drink. Putting alcohol as something very bad for our kids and the society.
"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."
This Amendment says that each state gets 2 senators, the ones that will be elected by the people who lives in the state, instead of being appointed by the state legislature. The Senators are elected for a six year term. If a Senator leaves the office before they finish their term for any reason then the governor of the state will appoint someone to cover the position.
What's Wrong with the 17th Amendment?
Comment:
Like the video said the Seventeenth Amendment seemed to be more democratic by allowing voters to elect senators directly rather than being appointed by the state legislation. However this takes some of the powers away from the states, and it wasn't the intended purpose of the Founding Fathers.
Buck Said He Supports Repeal of 17th Amendment
Comment:
According to this video, many people in office are against the Seventeenth Amendment, since this Amendment has beeing misunderstood. The power as I said in my post above, is taking the power away from the states, and this is the cause for wantingto repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.
"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"
This Amendment gives Congress the power to collect and impose taxes on income from any source this income may come, without apportioning it to the states.
Schoolhouse Rock - Tax Man Max
Comment:
This is a funny video, that explains in a nice and sweet way that all the money we get is gone because of taxes, also if we want to use our utilities we not only pay for unisng thme but also we pay taxes o them. The government states that the collection of taxes is to improve the schools, roads, and other public services. I understan we have to pay taxes but sometimes taxes are a bit to much.
3 Great Reasons to Pay Your Taxes (or Else)!
Comment:
This is a funny video, the two first ones very funny. This pretty much says that we all need to pay our taxes, even fampus and rich people becuase even them got o jail, or their career goes to and end.
"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 Amendment gives the right to all citizens of the United States to vote, and they cannot discriminate them due to their race, color, or any other reason.
President Lyndon Johnson - Speech on Voting Rights
Comment:
In this speech President Johnson says that no one shall be denied of their right to vote. He says that all the problems in the United States are "not a white problem, or a black problem, it is an American problem" meaning that the problems Americans face is responsibility of all the Americans as a one.
Emancipation and the New Black Vote
Comment:
This video, explains how important was for the black people, to finally get their right to vote. How they felt after their first time voting and how this was the beginning of a new life for all those who lived under the slavery and discrimination.
"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 Amendment in section one, states that all person who was born in the US is a citizen of the United States and the state where he/she was born. The states do not have the right to deny their privileges. Also the state shalll not punish them without a proper trial. Section two states that the number of representatives for the house of representatives will be determined for each state by the number of people that lives in the state, not counting Indians who did not pay taxes. Also, any male above the age of 21 be restricted the right to vote for any reason beyond rebellion or an act of crime, then the basis of the representation will be reduced solely to those who were given the capacity to vote in that state. Section 3 states that no person can hold any elected office under the United States of America if they've committed any sort of felony, act of rebellion against the United States, or assisted the enemies of the United States. Section 4 states that the validity of the debt of the United States treasury will not be questioned, but the United State will not pay any debt made in the assistance of rebellion against the united states, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of slaves. Section 5. Congress has the power to enforce what is written in this amendment.
Bye! Bye! Fourteenth Amendment
Comment:
This amendment says very clear that ALL people born in this country shall not be denied of their citizenship from the country and state where they are born. I do not think it is fair that just because the parents of the baby are not from the USA shall be denied from their rights. I completely agree with the reporter saying that this act is discriminatory against the new born.
NEED TO KNOW | In perspective: Dred Scott and the Fourteenth Amendment | PBS
Comment:
The Fourteenth Amendment states that all those born in the USA have all the rights allow to a citizens, it does not say that if the parents of that person are original from a different country they should be denied from their rights. At some point in each of our family origins our ancestors could came illegally and they had kids and you are all citizens today, so wouldn't it be fair to go back and denied their citizenship as well?
"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."
This Amendment declares that slavery and/or involuntary servitude is illegal. Giving all the slaves their freedom, except as punishment for a crime. It was adopted on December 6, 1865.
Barrack Obama "Thirteenth Amendment" / Slavery
Comment: This is a very nice video, where it explains how the freedom of the slaves took place, how this was the beginning of a new area, and it did not only gave more opportunities for black people, but also for all the races that now live in the United State
Slavery and the Founding Fathers
Comment: This video explains to us the original purpose of the Founding Fathers, which was making clear that ALL the people of the United States are equal. But unfortunately many people did not agree with this. After many years of suffering finally the slaves got their freedom and the opportunity for a new life.
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President--The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States"
This Amendment specifies how the President and the Vice-President are elected. The Amendment states that the president and the Vice-President shall be elected by ballot from each state. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be President.This Amendmet was ratified in June 15th, 1804.
ByJay Cost The political world has been atwitter of late with talk of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg entering the 2008 presidential race.
Could he win? I do not think so. Actually, I am pretty sure that he could not win.
It is extremely unlikely that, in a three way race, Mr. Bloomberg could take a majority of the Electoral College vote. So, the most likely scenario that is also the best case for Mr. Bloomberg is a split in the Electoral College. That is, Mr. Bloomberg gets enough electoral votes so that no candidate obtains an outright majority of 270 electors. In this case, the race would be decided in the House of Representatives. Specifically, the House of the 110th Congress would decide it.
While this would be better than an outright loss for Mr. Bloomberg, it would still not be very good. Charlie Cook asks the right question:
Could a Democratic House really pick a third-place finisher to be president, or might they opt for a politically compatible independent who finished first?
The answer to this is complicated by the strange nature of the House voting system. It is true that the Democrats have a thirty-seat majority in the House. However, a vote for President in the House is conducted in a most peculiar way. The 12th Amendment states:
[I]f no person have such a majority [of Electoral College votes for President], then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote.
You read that correctly. There would not be 435 votes cast for President in the House. There would be fifty. North Dakota and California would both get one vote. Each state casts one vote based upon the vote of the state's caucus. In this regard, the difference between the parties is smaller. In the 110th Congress (the one to "choose immediately"), the Democrats have a majority of legislators in twenty-six states, the Republicans in twenty-one states. Three states - Arizona, Kansas and Mississippi - are split. Thus, on a straight-up party line vote, the Democrats would have an absolute majority of a bare state. Continue the amenders:
[A] quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the [Twentieth day of January] next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President
So, as far as the vote for President goes, the Democrats do not have an advantage of thirty votes, or even an advantage of five votes. They have a one vote advantage. If that does not hold, no presidential candidate in the House would garner a majority, and the selected Vice President would be sworn in as President, and would serve until the House makes up its mind. It might be difficult for this majority to hold. After all, two of the Democrats' twenty-six states are North Dakota and South Dakota, both of which will probably go for the Republican by a 2-1 margin in the popular election, and both of which are represented in the House by single members, Democrats Earl Pomeroy and Stephanie Herseth, respectively. Could both of them be counted upon to vote with their party? Could Mike Castle, the sole Republican from Delaware, be counted upon to vote with his party? Maybe, maybe not. The bottom line is that the Democratic majority in this instance would be relatively small and tenuous. There might very well be no decision reached, in which case the elected - or rather, selected - Vice President serves as Chief Executive. And how is the Veep selected?
[I]f no person have such a majority [of Electoral College votes for Vice President], then from the two highest numbers on the list the Senate shall choose the Vice President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.
So, the third place finisher in the Electoral College would not even see his vice presidential candidate considered for nomination. Here, there is no stipulation that there be a state-by-state count. However, a majority is still necessary. And who is the 51st "Democrat" in the Senate? The scare quotes give the answer: Joe Lieberman. If he votes for the Republican candidate, and everybody else votes by party, the vote would be 50-50. Ties in the Senate are broken by the Vice President, in this case, Republican Dick Cheney. So, again, a Democratic majority in the Senate for something as consequential as this might not be sufficient to achieve the party goal. [N.B. Pause a second to appreciate the thinking of the Founders here. The voting procedure in the Senate is explicitly set up to make sure that we have a President on the day of inauguration and that he or she is preferred by an absolute majority of at least one body. This is why only two veep candidates are up for consideration in the Senate and the vote is not state-by-state. A tie is literally impossible. So, even in the worst case scenario, we still get a President on January 20th. This is why I am usually annoyed when people talk about "constitutional crises," for they imply that we find ourselves in a position for which our Constitution has no provision. People would invariably call this kind of situation a constitutional crisis, even though the Framers included a provision to preclude a crisis.] All in all, an election decided by the House could be very complicated - especially in light of the fact that, at least in this instance, the GOP has some leverage. This structure admits of multiple compromises that could reasonably occur. Some of them are quite "perverse." We might wind up with a Democratic President and a Republican Vice President. We might wind up with a Vice President serving temporarily or even permanently as President, as the House lacks the capacity to break a tie. There are multiple ways this could work out.
Few of them favor Bloomberg. Mr. Cook notes that Republicans and Democrats would have to cast a vote for the independent Mr. Bloomberg. Will they do that? Surely, you say, Mr. Bloomberg should receive the House votes for the states that he carried in the Electoral College. That is just fair. And, for that matter, would House members really risk voting against their states? After all, they will be up for reelection in 23 months (by that
point) and they do not want to alienate their constituents.
The key phrase in the last sentence is "their constituents." Suppose that Mr. Bloomberg wins New York. He surely is not going to win New York's fifteenth congressional district, which is held by Rep. Charlie Rangel. So, for whom does Mr. Rangel vote if his intention is to reflect his constituents' views? The Democratic nominee, of course!
In other words, to presume that because Mr. Bloomberg won a state, he can lay a democratic claim to the votes of the members within that state's House delegation is to commit the fallacy of division. If representatives are acting democratically - i.e. if they are voting the interests of their constituents - they will follow how their districts voted.
Accordingly, just because a state voted for Bloomberg does not mean that a plurality of districts in that state voted for him. Indeed, it could be that none of the districts voted for Mr. Bloomberg.
This could be a major hurdle for him. The Democratic and Republican nominees would not suffer from this problem nearly as much, as presumably they could induce several of their partisans (especially the lame ducks) to vote for them in the House even if their districts went another way. But Mr. Bloomberg would not have this kind of bond with any House member. So, he would have to induce them to vote for him based only upon the argument that they should represent their constituents. For this to be successful, he will have to have won a large bloc of congressional districts that add up to a large bloc of states.
It gets worse for him. Assume that Mr. Bloomberg does indeed sport victories in a large number of states, that he can indeed lay a democratic claim to enough Representatives to win those states in a House vote, and that he does indeed induce those Representatives to vote for him. What happens next? There is probably a split decision. Mr. Bloomberg is unlikely to win twenty-six states in this manner, and he will probably rack up enough states to keep either the Republican or the Democratic candidate from winning twenty-six states. Thus, no candidate wins a majority in the first House vote, and there is a re-vote. That means that, eventually, compromise among members will have to occur. In other words, some set of Representatives will have to vote either against their party, against their constituents, or both. Otherwise, the winner of the Senate contest will become President.
Whose interests are least represented in an internal House compromise of this nature? Mr. Bloomberg's! He'll probably be the first one tossed overboard! Imagine the post-vote press conference of Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner, "Republicans and Democrats had to compromise with each other to put an end to this constitutional crisis. Somebody had to lose. And it was up to us to make the choice. We chose [insert name of losing Republican or Democrat] and Mayor Bloomberg. We're sorry. They're good human beings and probably would have made fine Presidents, but our system demanded that we make a choice and we made it." Surprise, surprise! The House, which is 435-to-0, Republican/Democratic-to-Independent, decides that the loser in the compromise is...the Independent!
All in all, it is very difficult to envision a reasonable scenario in which Mr. Bloomberg wins a House vote. Sure, he could wind up the compromise choice. It is theoretically possible. But it is quite unlikely. After all, for Bloomberg to win the House vote, it would have to be that almost no member of the House gets their first choice for President. Dr. Kenneth Arrow and his impossibility theorem tell us that this is possible, but that does not mean it is likely. In fact, it seems exceedingly unlikely. The only likely way he could win such a vote is by having a strong claim to districts that sum to a majority of twenty-six states. In that case, he would probably have won the Electoral College outright, anyway.
So, Mr. Bloomberg's best path to the White House is probably a win in the Electoral College. I don't think he could do that. I don't think even a national hero like Dwight Eisenhower could win as a third party candidate. We'll talk more about the general problem that third parties have in the coming days. One final point is worth mentioning. Chuck Hagel seems to be flirting with the idea of running with Mr. Bloomberg. This would be a dumb decision. Return to the 12th Amendment, specifically how the Vice President is selected: only the top two Electoral College vote getters are considered in the Senate. Mr. Bloomberg might be thinking that he only has to win a few electoral votes to send the election to the House, where he has a greater chance of garnering a majority. But unless he is one of the top two vote getters in the Electoral College, his vice presidential nominee will not be considered by the Senate. The Senate only considers the two veep candidates who received the most electoral votes. As Bloomberg's strategy would probably be to finish third in the Electoral College and first in the popular vote, his strategy therefore implies that his veep candidate is going nowhere. This would create for Senator Hagel a perverse final vote in Congress: he would have to vote for his opponent. The only reason Senator Hagel should sign up for such a run is if Mr. Bloomberg warrants that he will make him Secretary of State (or something) if the latter should win the presidency and the former lose the vice presidency. Of course, how does one go about enforcing such a contract? I do not know, and I think Senator Hagel would be wise to pass on any offer presented to him.
Comment: This article is talking about the presidential elections of 2008, when the Mayor from NYC wanted to run for president. Using the 12th Amendment, explain the process by how the President and Vice-President are elected. This writer of the article says that on his opinion Michael Bloomberg would not get the votes he needed to run for president, since the democratic party already had two other candidates on the race.
The Electoral College or National Popular Votes
Comment
Thru this video we get to understand better how does the electoral college works. One question that I have always had is; Who counts more, the Edoctoral College or the people's votes? To me it seems that it does not really matter who the people vote to be President, at the end it is up to the Electoral College who decided who becomes President of the United States.
