"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."
The 17th Amendment is saying each state get two senators and they will be elected by the people of the state, rather than be appointed by the state legislature. Senators run for reelection every six years. In addition, if the senator leaves from office before their term end, the governor of the state will appoint someone to take the spot.
The Framer was against Democracy and George Washington did warn the country the danger from dividing political parties. The Senator selection system became fraught with problems. with state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption.
In my opinion, the United States government should repeal the 17th Amendment. A perfect example is what happened to the state of Illinois after Obama took the president seat. Illinois Governor Blagojevich offered to sell his seat for a larg amount of money. If we don't repeal the 17th Amendment, then there will be more corruptions, deals and Senate seat being bought.
"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."
The 16th Amendment is allowing Congress to levy an income tax without regard to the states or census. Basically, the government have the power to raise tax at any time, whether an individual like it or not. However, this amendment caused many arguments because it was never properly ratified.
The picture above is from the Tax Day Tea Party protest in Medford, Oregon. The protesters rally in opposition to federal tax codes and bailouts that help the wealthy and hurting the middle class. In my opinion, the parents are taking it way too far by having children protesting holding up signs. These children are too young to know what is going on with our country.
For the most part, the Tea Party protest took place in major metropolitan cities. People are outraged and criticizing the federal government "No more spending, no more debt." The protesters believed that governmental bailouts and programs are not the answer. I think the people need to be patient before they can see the result.
"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 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."
The Twelfth Amendment proposed that each candidate get their own ballot. The candidate with the most vote will become the president and the second most vote candidate will be vice president. The Twelfth Amendment provided some remedies:
separate ballots are used for president and vice president
the candidates with the greatest number of votes for each office will be elected if that number constitutes a majority of the total electors
if a majority for the president is lacking, the House of Representatives shall vote by state from among the three highest candidates
if a majority for the vice president is lacking, the Senate shall vote by state from among the two highest candidates
the vice president must meet the same constitutional requirements as provided for the president.
The guy in the video is giving his opinion that Dick Cheney should be impeach; he claimed that he is not part of the executive branch, however according to Article 2 that the vice president is a member of the executive branch.
The Election of 1804 was significant because it leads to the Twelfth Amendment presidential electors were required to specify in their votes their choice for President and Vice President; previously, electors voted only for President, with the person who came in second becoming the Vice President. Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) ran against Federalist Charles Pinckney. Thomas Jefferson won the election; George Mason was elected as Vice President.
In modern elections, a running mate is often selected in order to appeal to a different set of voters. A Habitation-Clause issue arose during the 2000 presidential election contested by George W. Bush (alongside running-mate Dick Cheney) and Al Gore (alongside Joe Lieberman), because it was alleged that Bush and Cheney were both inhabitants of Texas, and that the Texas electors therefore violated the Twelfth Amendment in casting their ballots for both. Bush's residency was unquestioned, as he was Governor of Texas at the time. Cheney and his wife had moved to Dallas five years earlier when he assumed the role of chief executive at Halliburton. Cheney grew up in Wyoming and had represented it in Congress. A few months before the election, he switched his voter registration and driver's license to Wyoming and put his home in Dallas up for sale. Three Texas voters challenged the election in a federal court in Dallas and then appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit where it was dismissed.
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."
The Eleventh Amendment is means a citizen of a state cannot sue another state or country in a federal court. For example, an individual from Arizona cannot sue a person from Mexico. Also, a state cannot sue the federal government.
Chrisholm v. Georgia (1793)
Facts of the Case:
In 1777, the Executive Council of Georgia authorized the purchase of needed supplies from a South Carolina businessman. After receiving the supplies, Georgia did not deliver payments as promised. After the merchant's death, the executor of his estate, Alexander Chisholm, took the case to court in an attempt to collect from the state. Georgia maintained that it was a sovereign state not subject to the authority of the federal courts.
Question:
Was the state of Georgia subject to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the federal government?
Conclusion:
In a 4-to-1 decision, the justices held that "the people of the United States" intended to bind the states by the legislative, executive, and judicial powers of the national government. The Court held that supreme or sovereign power was retained by citizens themselves, not by the "artificial person" of the State of Georgia. The Constitution made clear that controversies between individual states and citizens of other states were under the jurisdiction of federal courts. State conduct was subject to judicial review.
In the case of Chrisholm v. Georgia, the Eleventh Amendment removed federal jurisdiction in cases where citizens of one state or of foreign countries attempt to sue another state.
The court ruled in several cases that the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents citizens from suing state agencies under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. In 2003, the Court ruled that in the case Nevada v. Hibbs, ruled that the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 did not immunize state government agencies against lawsuits brought by former states employees. States are also free to waive their immunity and consent to a lawsuit.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Tenth Amendment means that power not specifically given to federal government but held by State government and the people.
The video is explaining that states and the citizens have rights, however federal government do not have the powers.
Federal governments are trying to interfere with States rights and Charles Key is trying to get a bill passed to states sovereignty.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The Ninth Amendment basically are rights of the people that is not listed in the Constitution. The Founding Fathers understand the rights of the citizens. There are way too many laws to be written for this amendment. For example, there isn't a law that say you cannot choose to when you want to watch TV. These rights are something we don't necessarily think about.
The video is explaining the Ninth Amendment. It is the most easiest amendment to remember because there isn't really a law for it. It is just saying just because some rights aren't listed it doesn't mean that you don't have them.
One of the example in the video is the right to defense. If someone try to hurt or harm you in any ways, you can fight back. Just because it did not listed in the Constitution, it does not mean that you don't have it.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
The Eighth Amendment prevents the federal government from imposing excessive bail, fines or cruel and unusual punishments. It guarantees fairness to a person who is being accused or convicted. Excessive bail is the amount of money an individual can use to get the convicted person out of jail. Excessive fine limits the amount of money that the government may fine an individual for a crime. Cruel and unusual punishment prevents the government from severity punishing the person who has been convicted.
Corporal Punishment in U.S. Schools
The Gist:
It seems like a scene from Oliver Twist — a young pupil being beaten by a 300-lb man wielding an inch-thick wooden paddle — but according to a new report by Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union, nearly a quarter of a million children were subjected to corporal punishment in public schools in the U.S. during the 2006-2007 academic year. Based on 202 interviews with parents, students, teachers and administrators, and supplemented with data from the U.S. Department of Education, the report reveals how the spare-the-rod-spoil-the-child philosophy continues to rule thousands of classrooms across America, and how students with disabilities are disproportionately affected by such draconian methods of discipline. Highlight Reel:1. What "corporal punishment" means: "Corporal punishment is defined under human-rights law as "any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort." There is no comprehensive definition of corporal punishment under U.S. state or federal law. The ACLU and Human Rights Watch documented cases of corporal punishment including hitting children with a belt, a ruler, a set of rulers taped together or a toy hammer; pinching, slapping or striking very young children in particular; grabbing children around the arm, the neck or elsewhere with enough force to bruise; throwing children to the floor; slamming a child into a wall; dragging children across floors; and bruising or otherwise injuring children in the course of restraint."
2. On its widespread use in classrooms, especially in punishing disabled students: "Corporal punishment is legal under domestic law in 20 states ... Texas paddles the most students in the nation, as well as the most students with disabilities ... The total number of students, with and without disabilities, who were subjected to corporal punishment in the 2006-2007 school year was 223,190. ... Nationwide, students with disabilities receive corporal punishment at disproportionately high rates. In Tennessee, for example, students with disabilities are paddled at more than twice the rate of the general student population. ... Students with autism are particularly likely to be punished for behaviors common to their condition, stemming from difficulties with appropriate social behavior. ... Anna M., whose son with autism was physically punished repeatedly when he was seven years old, noted, "The teacher felt he was doing some stuff on purpose. If you met him, you wouldn't know he was autistic straight away. People thought we were making an excuse for him.' "
3. On why corporal punishment is still condoned: "Educators, who face the difficult task of maintaining order in the classroom, may resort to corporal punishment because it is quick to administer, or because the school lacks resources and training for alternative methods of discipline. One teacher pointed out that corporal punishment can be considered 'cost-effective. It's free, basically. You don't have to be organized. All you need is a paddle.' Logistical or financial obstacles may prevent teachers from using other methods of discipline. One 18-year-old student who was critical of the use of corporal punishment in his rural school district stated that 'we couldn't have after school detention. There was no busing. Kids who got detention would have to find another way home.' "
4. On the aftermath: "The Society for Adolescent Medicine has documented serious medical consequences resulting from corporal punishment, including severe muscle injury, extensive blood-clotting (hematomas), whiplash damage and hemorrhaging. ... Corporal punishment led to deterioration in family life, as parents were forced to withdraw children from school, resort to homeschooling and give up jobs. ... Rose C.'s son was unable to tell her that he was repeatedly punished in school, but she learned of some of the abuse after watching a security video. She said, 'I don't trust my own eyes anymore.' "
The Lowdown:As the report notes, corporal punishment is banned in most juvenile correction facilities in the U.S., and yet it continues in public schools. The legal paradox can be traced to a 1977 Supreme Court ruling that found the Eighth Amendment only protects convicted criminals from cruel and unusual punishment — not students confined to a classroom. In its plea to convince federal and state lawmakers to impose a national ban on the practice, the authors point out yet another paradox, using the words of a special-ed teacher in Mississippi: "I see these children who get in fights and then get paddled. So you're supposed to teach them not to hit by hitting them?"
In my opinion, teachers should allow to hit students due to disciplinary actions. However, the Constitution never mention "student" it only mention an individual who is being accused or convicted. For example, if I have kids in school that have a disciplinary problems, I would not want the teacher to hit them because that not is not teacher them.
I thought it was funny that if the student missed the Obama's speech, then their punishment would be listening to Joe Biden's speech. How interesting is that.
"In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
The Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution states that in trials the value of the potential award is greater than twenty dollars, the accuser has the right to ask that they by try by a jury. In any civil case where the potential award is more than twenty dollars, the person who stands to lose the money has the right to insist that the case be heard by a jury.
The Veterans' Enemy at Home
Of all the troubles that U.S. troops may face when they come home, getting their old jobs back should not be one. Uncle Sam supposedly took care of that with a law saying civilians turned soldiers cannot be fired for serving their country--or denied the right to sue in federal court.
Which is why returning veterans should hear the story of Michael Garrett. Thirteen years ago, Captain Garrett of the U.S. Marine Corps traded his camouflage utility uniform for the business-casual dress of a Circuit City service manager. The electronics company was booming, and Garrett could still get his dose of a soldier's life as a member of the Marine Reserve.
For almost a decade, Garrett ascended the company's ranks. But in October 2002, with war in Iraq near certain, his bosses asked whether he would go on active duty, according to Garrett. He said it was possible, and within weeks, the sniping began: his department took too long with repairs, one boss said, and its work was sometimes shoddy. Then, on March 17--two days before the U.S. invaded Iraq--Garrett got fired.
The company declines to comment, saying only that it "supports the mission and values of the United States Armed Forces." But Garrett says the timing was no coincidence: he lost his job because of his military status. If true, that would violate a 1994 federal law. So Garrett sued Circuit City, only to see it spring yet another surprise.
Garrett, the company said, had to take his case to private arbitration, a quasi-legal process offering sharply limited rights. Garrett acknowledged that his employment contract required arbitration, but he argued that the 1994 act overrode the contract. A federal judge in Dallas agreed in 2004, just before Garrett was activated for a 10-month tour in the Horn of Africa. Last year, though, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans reversed that decision, becoming the first court to rule that a contract crafted to help employers trumps the law designed to protect the rights of veterans. "That just blows me away," says Garrett, whose case heads for arbitration.
No one knows how many veterans are in a similar bind, but the numbers are substantial--and will grow as more troops return home. Complaints under the 1994 act have increased steadily, to more than 1,500 in 2006 from about 800 in 2001. Some have become lawsuits, and employers may have tried to steer many toward arbitration, since about one-fifth of U.S. companies require the procedure for workplace disputes. In defense of employers, it's not easy reserving jobs for workers called to active duty. But Congress judged that the cost was worth the peace of mind of citizen soldiers, willing to sacrifice their time and perhaps lives to the military. Like predecessor statutes dating from 1940, the 1994 act's broad protections rest on the promise of a federal jury trial--with rights to evidence, a fair hearing and an appeal--if an employer fails to comply.
Companies like Circuit City say binding arbitration is faster and cheaper than going to court, though studies have cast doubt on both claims. What really bugs employees are the rights they lose in arbitration--and the apparent bias of arbitrators. There are strict limits on gathering evidence for arbitration hearings, and it is virtually impossible to appeal them. Arbitrators don't necessarily have to follow the law, and studies suggest they favor companies that regularly hire them. Still, the courts generally uphold arbitration clauses unless a law makes absolutely clear that the employee can go to court, arbitration be damned. That pretty much describes the 1994 act, as three federal courts have ruled.
But the magic of law is that even federal judges can give it surprising twists, as the court of appeals judges did in Garrett's case. Sure, they explained, the act says the rights it grants can't be limited. But the judges said that referred to "substantive rights" like the guarantee of a job. Whether such rights are enforced in court or arbitration, the judges thought, is just a matter of process. It's hard to believe, though, that Congress thought a second-class justice system like arbitration was just as good as the federal courts for veterans. As Bob Goodman, Garrett's lawyer, says, "Taking away the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial is no way to treat the troops." Or to welcome them home.
In my opinion that is wrong for the judge to referred to substantive rights like the guarantee of a job. I think veteran should be able to get their old job back because they are out there to protect the citizens and they deserve to be trial fairly like everyone else.
The Seventh Amendment serves to ensure that civil litigants are entitled to jury trials, much as the Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to be tried by a jury of peers.
