Constitutional Amendments

The Attack On Birthright Citizenship And The 14th Amendment By Donald Trump, Mike Pence, And Lindsey Graham

Ronald 4 Comments

Donald Trump has opened up a new area of attack on constitutional law, claiming that he can, by executive order, end birthright citizenship for infants born of undocumented immigrants, bypassing the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship for all born in the United States in 1868, exactly 150 years ago.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, for once, is correct when he says that is not possible legally, as executive orders cannot end what is in the Constitution or its amendments.

It is also a fact, despite some, like Vice President Mike Pence, and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham who claim otherwise, that legislation by Congress also cannot end what is in the Constitution or the amendments.

The only way to change what is in the Constitution or its 27 amendments is by another constitutional amendment, as occurred when the 18th Amendment banning liquor (Prohibition) was passed in 1919 and fourteen years later, with much discontent, the amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, the only way Prohibition would ever have ended.

If it was that easy to change what is in the Constitution or its amendments, then there would be a move to end the Electoral College, but that will never happen legally unless an amendment is passed by two thirds of each of the two houses of Congress, and three fourths of the states’ legislatures (38 out of 50).

The idea that Lindsey Graham is suddenly a great friend of Donald Trump, after the way that Trump trashed his good friend, the late Arizona Senator John McCain, is infuriating. One can be certain that McCain would fight this idea that Trump has suggested that he has the authority, all on his own, to destroy the language of the 14th Amendment. It is certain that McCain would be angry at Graham for his changed behavior, and it makes one wonder what is going on in Graham’s disturbed mind that he does not know the basic reality of constitutional law.

Of course, those on the Right would say the Supreme Court could justify what Trump wishes to do, and in theory, a lawless Court, which has already made decisions clearly and purely political in the last ten years, could by a 5-4 vote, including compromised Justice Brett Kavanaugh, do such. But it is hard to imagine that Chief Justice John Roberts would wish to be part of a majority that would undermine his reputation and that of his Court in the long run of history.

If such a disgrace were to happen, the Supreme Court would lose its credibility for all time, and would be helping Donald Trump to destroy our democracy, and impose an authoritarian dictatorship on our nation.

There is absolutely no moral or ethical way that this could happen, and be allowed to stand!

And also, the thought that an infant would not have the opportunity for a good life in America, simply because his or her parents were not documented at the time of his or her birth, is to deny the whole point of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, and the reality that tens of millions of immigrants, and not all legal, with many “slipping in” through our borders and not realized what they had done, contributed to our nation’s greatness.

Think of the refugees from Cuba and Vietnam who came to a nation welcoming them from their personal tragedies in the past half century, and think of the refugees who came from all over the world over two centuries to a nation that gave them a chance to succeed and prosper, and benefit all of the American people!

Criminalization Of Christianity And Kim Davis? Hardly!

Ronald 6 Comments

A federal court judge appointed by George W. Bush has ordered County Clerk Kim Davis of Rowan County, Kentucky to jail for failing to issue marriage licenses to anyone in her county, due to her “religious” beliefs that do not “allow” her to permit marriage licenses to gays and lesbians.

Kim Davis is a hypocrite, who has been married four times, divorced three times, and had twins with someone not her husband at the time, and then, suddenly, she became “religious”, and therefore, will not fulfill her job duties to which she was elected.

It is not as if she can be summarily fired, as she was elected by the voters last November, but she can be required to do her duties as a public official, or be told to resign, or else, someone else should fulfill her duties on marriage licenses in her stead.

If this is allowed to fester, other county clerks in Kentucky, Alabama, and Texas, and other states can use the excuse to disobey the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage,  or really, we can start having government officials refuse to obey federal law on other matters as well!

The Civil War is long over, and states must obey federal law, whether they like it or not, just as those opposed to Citizens United or the Voting Rights Act  or other conservative decisions have the option of trying for a constitutional amendment if they do not wish to accept the Court decision.

We are a nation of laws and the Constitution, and the Supreme Court, right or wrong, is the final arbiter, as we are not a nation governed by the beliefs of any religious group, and no such group should be allowed to dictate what they will obey when it comes to law.

The concept of criminalization of Christianity is totally baseless, and no one should take it seriously, as there is no persecution of Christians, although there is persecution of Muslims, in some areas Jews, and certainly of Atheists and Agnostics!

We are a nation of many different Christian groups with a variety of doctrines, but we are not a “Christian” nation, a theocracy, and no religion can be allowed to control public policy!

A Need For A Constitutional Amendment To Insure Ability Of Any President To Promote His Or Her Agenda

Ronald Leave a comment

It is very clear that there is a dire need for a constitutional amendment to insure that when a President is elected, that he or she is able to set goals and get them accomplished, as the present stalemate makes it impossible.

The concept that a member of the House of Representatives should have to be, constantly, engaged in raising funds for every election on a two year basis, is long overdue for change, as it would encourage more attempts to accomplish an agenda, if the term was four years, instead of two. Since 90 percent of the House, on the average, wins reelection every two years, it would be much better if election campaigns only occurred in Presidential years, once every four years.

If a Presidential candidate has enough coattails to carry in a majority of his or her own party, all to the good, as it would make our government, therefore, more productive. If the election for the Presidency is close, then the President might have to deal with an opposition Congress, but the election results will indicate the need to promote compromise to get things done. With the House knowing it faced elections in only every Presidential year, that would encourage more across the aisle negotiations, to show evidence that these members of the House are trying to achieve the ideas and programs that the American people have made clear should be the priorities.

As far as the US Senate is concerned, an amendment should be advocated that would either make the members of that body serve a four year term in tandem with the House in Presidential years, OR have half the Senate elected every four years, and the other half at the next four year cycle of Presidential elections, making for an eight year term for each Senator. Since most Senators also get reelected, under ordinary circumstances, it would not be harmful to make their election cycles become, also, less often, so the eight year term is better than the four year term.

At the same time, such an amendment for both Houses of Congress should set a term limit that would be enforced for the future, with no member of the House or Senate to have more than a maximum of 32 years, meaning eight House terms or four Senate terms, with the only variable being that a different half of the Senate is elected every Presidential election year, with each state having one Senator elected at one election, and then each state having the other Senator elected in the next Presidential election year.

Since the average person has a 30 year career before retiring, requiring no more than 32 years would make it likely we would have fewer members of Congress at very advanced ages, although there would not be an actual age limit per se!

Commentary on this idea of a constitutional change is invited!

Conservative Right Wing Attack On The Constitution: The Threat Of Another Constitutional Convention Wiping Out Constitutional Amendments!

Ronald 1 Comment

The Founding Fathers gave us a Constitution, admitting in the process that there would always be room for improvements, so made clear that amendments were appropriate over time.

So we have had 27 Amendments, including the first ten that make up the Bill of Rights.

When one looks at the amendments, particularly those that came after the Bill of Rights, one realizes that the vast majority of them were “progressive” in tone, designed to expand democracy in America, or else, amendments dealing with the office of the Presidency.

So the “progressive” amendments included the 13th (ending slavery and involuntary servitude); the 14th (promoting due process and equal protection and making African Americans citizens); the 15th (guaranteeing the right to vote for African Americans and others which had been denied that right); the 16th (providing for a federal income tax to raise revenue to deal with mounting social and economic issues); the 17th (granting the people the right to elect their two United States Senators by popular vote); the 19th (guaranteeing women the right to vote); the 23rd (guaranteeing residents of Washington, DC the right to vote); the 24th (preventing a poll tax for voting); and the 26th (guaranteeing young people 18-21 the right to vote).

So nine of the seventeen amendments after the first ten of the Bill of Rights promote progressive change, while the 12th, 20th, 22nd and 25th deal with the office of the Presidency.

The only amendment that was ever passed to limit the freedom of Americans was the 18th (prohibition of liquor), but later repealed by the 21st Amendment.

Now we have the real threat by right wing conservatives, including the Tea Party Movement, who want a new Constitutional Convention to wipe out these “progressive” amendments!

They do not like voting rights for African Americans, other minorities, women, residents of Washington DC (mostly African Americans) and young people; and they are unhappy that African Americans are considered equal under the law, and if they had the ability to do so, they would love to re-enslave poor people, which by corporate power is occurring in an informal way for many minorities, as well as white lower class people struggling every day to survive!

And they wish they could restore the US Senate elections to the corrupt state legislatures, taking away the popular vote. Finally, they hate the federal income tax, even though many of them avoid substantial taxation by having investments, rather than working for a living like most of us do. So they would prefer a sales tax, which is regressive, and would hurt the middle class and the poor much more than the wealthy elite!

But that is exactly the extremist right wing intention—to restore the “good old days” when they were in charge, and everyone had to kowtow to them!

We must not allow such a threat to develop, so the battle for progressivism is never ending, as a result!

159th Anniversary Of Founding Of Republican Party: Not A Celebration!

Ronald 47 Comments

The Republican Party, which gave us Abraham Lincoln, Thaddeus Stevens, Charles Sumner, William Seward in the years of the 1850s and 1860s; which gave us Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette, Sr, George Norris, William Borah, Hiram Johnson in the 1900s-1940s; which gave us Dwight D. Eisenhower, Nelson Rockefeller, William Scranton, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr,, George Romney in the 1950s-1960s; and which gave us Mark Hatfield, Charles Mathias, Charles Percy, Howard Baker, Bob Dole, Gerald Ford in the 1970s–1990s, reached its 159th birthday today.

The Republican Party began as an anti slavery expansion party, with elements of abolitionism also present when the party began on this day in Ripon, Wisconsin in 1854.

It became the party of civil rights legislation, three civil rights constitutional amendments, progressive legislation, and supportive of much bipartisan legislation with Democrats in the New Deal and Great Society eras.

Of course, they had their evil elements, including McCarthyism, nativism, and tying themselves to organized religious influences that wished to take America backward, but until the past few years, they always had redeeming values in many ways, and would often denounce the extremists in their midst.

But now the Republican Party has become a party dominated by Tea Party radicals, who promote racism, misogyny, nativism, concern only to promote the welfare of the wealthy, and willingness to engage in foreign wars that have cost us dearly in treasure and loss of life and limb!

The Republican Party is no longer, in any way, reflective of its past, and in fact, insults its honorable, respectable history, sullying the names of its heroes and champions over a century and a half!

This is a tragedy of massive proportions, and the name “Republican” should be co-opted by the true moderates who are sitting by, watching the destruction going on, and holding their heads in their hands, ashamed that the name has been so damaged by reckless, anarchistic haters of the federal government! The party which fought the Civil War to uphold the Union is now more like the secessionist Democrats of that era!

1913: A Year Of Two “Progressive” Amendments To The Constitution, 16 And 17!

Ronald Leave a comment

A century ago, as the Presidency of William Howard Taft came to an end, and as Woodrow Wilson was about to be inaugurated, the Constitution had two new amendments added within two months of each other—the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment.

Other than the original ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, never was the country to be so affected by constitutional change that transformed the nation, as with these two amendments.

President Taft, the so called “conservative” leaving office, supported both of these amendments, and they have have a massive impact on the nation ever since.

The 16th Amendment established the “progressive” federal income tax, at a time when we had seen the tripling of population, and the multiplication of social and economic injustice since the Civil War 50 years earlier. Without the federal income tax, there was no way that the nation could ever have moved forward and met its responsibilities to its citizens. The only problem was that over the years the wealthy would find all kinds of ways to manipulate the system, and so, today, the federal income tax is no longer very “progressive”. And also, there is a move on by conservatives and libertarians to repeal the income tax amendment, and have a national sales tax instead, a move that will not happen, but it if did, it would mean greater taxation based on consumption, and would hurt the poor and the lower middle class much more than the wealthy and upper middle class.

The 17th Amendment, the most democratizing amendment we had yet seen, called for direct popular election of the United States Senate, a move encouraged by muckraker David Graham Phillips and his book, THE TREASON OF THE SENATE, published in 1909. Instead of corrupt politicians in state legislatures choosing US Senators, an indication that the Founding Fathers did not trust the masses to choose their Senators, the decision was to allow the people to choose their Senators for a six year term.

How could anyone find fault with this, even with the recognition that often states may make “bad” choices for their Senators? Whatever we think about the choices, it is still better to have the people select their Senators, and in a sense, to be held accountable if they make an embarrassing, or disastrous choice. This is the power of the people, a movement toward direct democracy. And yet, there is a movement among conservatives to repeal this amendment, as well as the 16th Amendment.

Fortunately, it is very difficult to accomplish an amendment, and only the repeal of prohibition of liquor, the 21st Amendment effectively negating the 18th Amendment, has ever occurred.

We can look back on a century of the 16th Amendment and the 17th Amendment, and applaud what progressives accomplished a century ago!

The Constitution, The US Senate, Exceptions To Majority Rule, And The Filibuster Crisis

Ronald Leave a comment

Anyone who studies Congress knows that the House of Representatives is based on majority rule, the need to have 218 votes, if everyone is voting, to pass legislation through the chamber.

One would like to think that the same idea applies to the US Senate, that 51 votes are needed to take action, or 50 votes with the Vice President casting the tie breaking vote.

But, actually, the Constitution, drawn up by the Founding Fathers, set up FIVE conditions, where a two thirds vote was needed to take action.

A Constitutional Amendment requires a two thirds vote.

A vote to remove a President, Vice President, Cabinet Officer, Supreme Court Justice, or a lower level Federal Court Judge, after an impeachment trial, requires a two thirds vote.

A treaty with a foreign nation requires a two thirds vote for ratification.

An attempt to override a Presidential veto of legislation requires a two thirds vote.

The expulsion of a Senator, after investigation of his actions and behavior, requires a two thirds vote.

That is it, no other time when the Constitution requires more than a majority vote.

However, the evil action known as the filibuster has emerged to become a monster, which bottlenecks and paralyzes Senate action in recent times.

A rarity until 2007, the filibuster dates back a century, but was rarely used. But when it was, it required the individual or the group to spend hours upon hours speaking on the floor of the Senate.

Now, with 386 “filibusters” in the past six years by the Republican minority, with none of them leading to debate for hours and hours, but simply blocking action by the threat itself, it has become clear that action should be taken against this weapon of the minority to cripple the Senate,

So action is being planned to lower the filibuster numbers required to stop action from 60 senators to a number likely to be 55, but other plans are also being developed, and the decision will be made at the beginning of the new Senate on January 3, 2013.

More discussion of the filibuster will be done by this author in the weeks leading up to that momentous decision, to try to allow the Senate to act in a manner which allows action, rather than total paralysis, which has made the Senate lose its respectability!

The Ultimate “Firewall” For Barack Obama: The Midwest

Ronald Leave a comment

This author has commented before about the fact that the Midwest, an area of declining electoral votes and representation in Congress, because of the rapid migration from the “Frost Belt” to the “Sun Belt”, remains an area that has had a dramatic effect on American politics and Presidential elections.

Ohio and Missouri have been the ultimately accurate states to predict elections, with Missouri only voting with the loser twice—1956 and 2008—and Ohio, also only twice with the loser—1944 and 1960—since 1900.

And now, with Obama clearly winning Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois, and seemingly ahead in Ohio, Iowa, and Wisconsin, the President could afford to lose the three Southern states he won in 2008—Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina—and still win the Electoral College.

With 237 electoral votes in Obama’s camp, and only needing 33 more, Ohio, Iowa and Wisconsin would give him 34, raising his total to 271, exactly what George W. Bush won in 2008, against Al Gore, who won the national popular vote by more than 500,000 votes.

With some observers seeing a popular vote surge to Mitt Romney, we could be witnessing a scenario of the same situation as in 2000- –the winner of the electoral vote NOT winning the popular vote, which would make it the fifth time in history, and the second time in 12 years, that such a situation occurred.

The difference is that this time the Democrat will have benefited, while the last time, the Republican benefited.

In a way, if that happened, it would be “justice” for Al Gore supporters and Democrats!

However, it would also lead to growing demands to change the Constitution and get rid of the Electoral College, with the reality being that the likelihood of such a change is near zero!

Mitt Romney Advocate Of Limiting Presidency To Those Who Have Been In Business World!

Ronald Leave a comment

Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney has endorsed a constitutional amendment, further limiting who could be eligible for President to only those who have worked in the business world.

Under his idea, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and other Presidents would not have been eligible for the White House!

John McCain, Bob Dole, and other Presidential nominees would also be ineligible!

This is crazy, as to say that our President MUST have experience in the business world makes that more important than being in the military, or serving in government, learning the ins and outs of state and national government!

Looking at the record of those who have been in the business world, such as George W. Bush and Herbert Hoover, one has to say that Mitt Romney has no understanding of what the Presidency is all about!

Thankfully, no such crazy idea will ever go anywhere as a constitutional amendment, and hopefully, Mitt Romney will be able to go back to the business world, if he wishes, after losing the Presidential Election of 2012!

The Need For Supreme Court Reform By Constitutional Amendment

Ronald 1 Comment

THe controversy over the US Supreme Court has grown in recent years, with the Bush V. Gore case of 2000, where the Court, by partisan majority, chose a President; and the Citizens United case of 2010, which also, by partisan majority, the Court claimed that corporations and labor unions had the same right to freedom of speech in politics as did ordinary citizens, and has led to the Super PACs that are now distorting campaign finance in the Presidential Election of 2012.

That, along with the concern that the Court might strike down the Obama Health Care legislation by another 5-4 partisan majority, and the Strip Search decision of the Court this past Monday, also by partisan majority, makes many wonder if there is not a need for Supreme Court reform.

This is nothing new, as a century ago, during their Progressive Party campaigns for President of former President Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette, Sr. in 1924, as well as proposals of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937, suggestions for changes, including constitutional amendment changes by TR and La Follette. were advocated.

Of course, the constitutional amendment route is a very difficult one, and it could be a long road to necessary change, but even if not imminent, the changes that this blogger proposes are worthy of consideration, if not adoption.

These proposed changes would include the following:

A term on the Supreme Court should not be lifetime, but instead 15 years maximum, which in most cases, would mean the Justice would be over 70 at the end of the term.

No one should serve on the Supreme Court past the age of 80, with only a handful who have so served, including outstanding men, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Paul Stevens. Losing such luminaries at age 80 is a shame, but no one can be considered as irreplaceable, as the President and the Pope are replaceable, as well as any other position in any government!

While 5-4 decisions on normal cases would continue, any attempt to override legislation passed by Congress should require a super majority of 6-3 to have such effect. Since we have a two thirds vote for a constitutional amendment to pass Congress and go to the states for ratification; a two thirds vote to override a Presidential veto; and a two thirds vote to ratify a treaty in the US Senate, it seems reasonable that a two thirds vote should be necessary to overturn a congressional law.

What these suggested amendments do is allow turnover on the Court more regularly, and stop the image of the Supreme Court as being out of touch with America, and as an arrogant, unelected group that can hold back progress!