Lost in Translation
HOW many times have you argued with your idiot friends about what’s constitutional and what isn’t? You may even show them the Constitution, but the disagreement continues. That made me think that maybe the problem is that the entire Constitution is written in English—a language that is very difficult for the average idiot to comprehend. In addition, there are several words in the document longer than three letters, making it a tougher read than the “Dick and Jane” books they normally struggle through.
What follows is a translation (from English to Idiot) of several important parts of the U.S. Constitution, leaving no doubt as to what our Founding Fathers really intended.
Constitution for the United States of America
On July 24, 1787, delegates established a “Committee of Detail” to generate a rough draft of the Constitution, synergizing their debates. The preamble of their first draft read as follows:
We the People of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare, and establish the following Constitution for the Government of Ourselves and our Posterity.
Then, on September 8, the “Committee of Style” was established to refine and revise the Articles that had been agreed upon. After four days of work, they presented a digest version of the Constitution that included this new preamble:
We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Over 22 decades later, it has become easy for us to forget that the three million or so inhabitants of the country at that time considered themselves to be citizens of their own state first, and only then a citizen of the country. It was a far more localized environment, meaning that unifying the various states under the banner of “the United States” was a revolutionary way of thinking.
Notice that it isn’t the Supreme Court that is granted the right to make laws! Shocking.
In retrospect, a term-limit clause might not have been a bad idea here. Say, two or three terms, max? In Federalist Paper #53, James Madison, who also authored the majority of the Constitution, wrote, “A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them.”
Madison seemed to favor experience and know-how, but perhaps time has proven that he may have given our politicians far too much rope with which to hang themselves. He may have also assumed that people like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd would have the good sense to retire before reaching their early hundreds. Or, maybe he just didn’t count on people living as long as they do now. After all, the life expectancy of someone born in Philadelphia from 1754 to 1790 was just 13 years.
In summary: We vote for House members every two years, they have to be 25 years old, have been a citizen for seven years, and live in the state where they were elected. I think Wal-Mart greeters have stricter hiring guidelines than we do.
Idiots point to this line as “proof” that the Founders were racist Klansmen who wore powdered wigs instead of white sheets—but nothing could be farther from the truth. This whole section deals with counting Americans (a census) for the purpose of representation. It does not deal with placing value on human life.
Many of the Founders actually wanted to eliminate slavery, but knew they couldn’t push for it right away and still keep the Union together. For instance, in the 1790 census, which took place three years after the ratification of the Constitution, the slave population of South Carolina alone was 77 percent of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites 265,000 to 237,000, give or take, and, by 1860, the slave population had grown to over 412,000, compared to just 291,000 for whites. Georgia and Virginia also had an enormous number of slaves.
By including the slave population in the census on a one-to-one basis, the South would have had all the representation it needed to outvote the North on the slavery issue . . . indefinitely. So, in order to keep representation of the South down (thereby keeping the elimination of slavery on the table), the Founding Fathers devised this counting method to limit the power the South could wield, thus ensuring that one day this new nation would be able to abolish slavery.
For example, Gouverneur Morris, who assisted James Madison throughout the entire process of drafting the Constitution and was on the committee that decided on its final draft, described slavery as a “nefarious institution . . . The curse of heaven on states where it prevailed.” He also argued that congressional representation should be based on “one for every 40,000 free inhabitants.” As a vehement opponent of slavery, Morris opposed the “three-fifths” compromise because he felt it would still allow the southern states enough representatives to keep slavery going indefinitely.
Founders like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are often described by critics as “hypocrites” when it comes to slavery. Yes, Washington and Jefferson both owned slaves, but both also opposed the slave trade. Is that “hypocrisy”? Well, let’s think of it in modern-day terms: 200 years from now, if people decide that hiring illegal aliens is immoral, will all those who currently have their lawns mowed or children cared for by people who “lack documentation” be looked back on as racist hypocrites? Maybe, and it will certainly be easy to make those accusations, but no one is making them now . . . and that’s exactly how it was in the late eighteenth century.
So, were the Founders who opposed slavery but acquiesced to the three-fifths clause heroes or hypocrites? Here are some of their actual thoughts on slavery; decide for yourself:
JAMES MADISON: “Great as the evil [of slavery] is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse.”
GEORGE WASHINGTON: “There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery].”
JOHN ADAMS: “Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in . . . abhorrence.”
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: “Slavery is . . . an atrocious debasement of human nature.”
ALEXANDER HAMILTON: “The laws of certain states . . . give an ownership in the service of negroes as personal property. . . . But being men, by the laws of God and nature, they were capable of acquiring liberty—and when the captor in war . . . thought fit to give them liberty, the gift was not only valid, but irrevocable.”
Idiots who argue with our Founders’ compromise have no concept of how important this nation was, and still is. But our Founders knew. They had such a clear understanding of what they were creating that they knew it would be better to establish an imperfect Union, rather than risk having the great American experiment fail before it ever got started.
It’s amazing how many seemingly antidemocratic provisions can be found in the Constitution—but it was all by design. This section directed that senators were to be elected by state legislatures, not the people. Why? Two reasons: (1) The Founders felt that creating a direct connection between state governments and the federal government would help the document to be ratified, and (2) They wanted senators to be able to vote their conscience without worrying about pandering to specific groups of voters.
Unfortunately, it didn’t work out the way they’d hoped. Instead of special-interest groups fighting among themselves, state legislators began to fight each other, resulting in postponed elections and, ultimately, empty Senate seats. The process was eventually changed by the Seventeenth Amendment, which, after being ratified in 1913, ensured senators were elected directly by the people. Unfortunately, they once again left out anything about term limits.
Another summary: Two senators per state, each serving six-year terms. A senator has to be thirty years old, a citizen for nine years, and a resident of the state in which he or she is elected. What’s not mentioned: A senator may grow up in Illinois, attend college in Connecticut, move to Arkansas with her husband, move on to Washington, D.C., and then claim to have been a Yankee fan her whole life in order to get elected in New York State. Another loose interpretation would be that a senator could go to a party, drive an Oldsmobile into a river, leave his 19-year-old female companion (who happens to not be his wife) inside the car, go home, sit around for 9 hours before finally calling police, and still be reelected to his Senate seat for the next 40+ years.
At all other times he’ll be sequestered in an undisclosed location, kept from the view of the citizenry. Until his term is over, then you won’t be able to get rid of him.
This shows the amazing foresight of our Founders. They went to great lengths to limit the ways in which the system and, by default, the people in that system, could become corrupted.
As many people have noticed, the “emoluments” (i.e., salary) for the secretary of state were increased during Clinton’s most recent Senate term. That made her constitutionally ineligible to be appointed to that office—but, since Congress didn’t like the outcome, they simply changed the rules of the game.
By using the “Saxbe fix” (named after William Saxbe, whose appointment to attorney general by Republican president Richard Nixon was also unconstitutional), Congress was able to revert the salary for the secretary of state position back to the level it was before Clinton’s latest term. That “fix” allegedly made her eligible for the position, but I think our Founders would disagree, especially considering there wasn’t exactly any ambiguity in their wording of this section.
Besides Clinton and Saxbe, this clause was also violated by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton with their appointments of Ed Muskie as secretary of state and Lloyd Bentsen as treasury secretary, respectively.
To those who care about both the letter and spirit of our laws, the “Saxbe fix” is an abomination. You can’t change history by passing a bill. If you don’t like the emoluments clause, or believe it needs to be better defined, then use the tools our Founders gave us by passing a constitutional amendment.
Notice that there is nothing in here about the presidential practice of “signing statements”—which are pronouncements made by a president upon signing a bill, used to detail some specific issue the president has with it. In some cases, a signing statement can actually modify a bill’s intent. It’s a practice that has been employed by presidents going all the way back to James Monroe, but it was used extensively by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush (who expressed opposition to 1,200 items over his two terms) and has continued under Barack Obama. The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on this practice, but the Constitution makes a president’s options very clear: Veto a bill or “faithfully execute” the laws. Signing statements attempt to carve out middle ground where none was meant to exist.
Here’s what’s not in Section 8: “Congress shall also have the power to retaliate against executives at AIG, a company that will one day be founded, grow extremely large, fall on hard times, receive a government bailout, be allowed by Congress to give bonuses to their executives anyway, then have them taken away via a 90-percent tax levy. Congress shall also have the power to ‘level the playing field’ by imposing extraordinary taxes against successful people and shall at all times endeavor to ‘redistribute wealth’ to the less fortunate.”
Congress seems to have no problem following this clause.
It’s amazing how one small word can change everything. In this case, it’s “among.” The Constitution allows the federal government to regulate commerce among the states, not within them—but that line in the sand is long gone . . . as are states’ rights. If we are serious about returning America to the principles laid out in this document, then it all starts by getting the federal government out of things they don’t belong in. Fortunately, people are finally beginning to understand that—see the Tenth Amendment for one effort that’s under way.
By the way, I wonder if we owe as much to the Indian tribes as we do to China?
“Uniform” means “always the same”—a concept that was shredded when the federal government single-handedly chose which companies would survive and which ones would fail.
Barack “Restore Science to Its Rightful Place” Obama is definitely a fan of this section . . . though I wonder if someone should tell him that our Founders were actually referring to patents and copyrights?
Turned out to be the Navy SEALs, not Congress, that punished a group of pirates on the high seas.
A good question to ask your Idiot friend is: “What was the first ‘insurrection’ put down by a militia called forth by Congress?”
Very likely you will get a blank stare back. An extra-idiotic idiot might claim it was the “tea parties” of 2009, when a bunch of rich people financed by the GOP got together to complain about the president (at least that’s what you were told happened if you listened to the mainstream media). But the new republic’s first insurrection following ratification of the Constitution was actually started by whiskey drinkers and producers. (I know, drunks getting into a fight . . . shocking.)
In 1791, a tax on whiskey was imposed to help pay for the Revolutionary War: 6 cents per gallon for large whiskey producers and 9 cents per gallon for small producers. Of course, the tax not only affected farmers, but also those who drank the whiskey. By 1794, the tension created by this tax gave rise to an armed rebellion, which was quickly extinguished by a U.S. Army force of over 13,000, led by President George Washington himself. No shots were ever fired.
This is a perfect illustration of what eventually happens when the federal government becomes oppressive and nonresponsive to the will of the people. In 1803, the government got the message and repealed the whiskey tax . . . will they get the message this time?
Obama Sub-Article 1a: “We also need a civilian force, just as strong, just as powerful and just as well funded as the military” . . . since our Founders were obviously not insightful enough to provide this. Also, let’s not forget three months of mandatory “voluntary service” for all 18- to 25-year-olds.
That’s right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can’t ask anything of immigrants—including that they abide by our laws.
See, there it is, the smoking gun! You can’t suspend Habeas Corpus ever, under any . . . wait, what? You can suspend Habeas Corpus when the public safety may require it? Wow, I guess this document is a little more accurate than the blogs, huh?
“Attainder” isn’t exactly an everyday word, so allow me to quote Justice Hugo Black’s interpretation of it from a 1946 case, U.S. v. Lovett: “Legislative acts, no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder prohibited by the Constitution.” Now, I’m no constitutional scholar, but I am a thinker—wouldn’t the law that Congress tried to pass targeting the bonuses of certain executives (primarily from AIG) fit that definition almost exactly?
From “time to time” apparently means that we get to see an account of those receipts once every 250 years. Maybe they‘ve used up all the available paper to print money?
I believe this would also include the titles of “Messiah,” “Chosen One,” “All-Powerful Potentate,” and “Savior of the Universe.”
It’s too bad they didn’t include a provision for the unfortunate “gifts” given to other heads of state. That oversight means that the 25 DVDs (that were incompatible with European standards and couldn’t be played) President Obama gave to UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown are apparently not unconstitutional.
“Ex post facto” means “after the fact”—so the intent of this seems pretty clear, right? Hey, States, no retroactive laws! Unfortunately, the Supreme Court didn’t see it that way. In their infinite wisdom, they decided that that clause doesn’t pertain to taxes. Don’t be surprised if states take advantage of that (Connecticut and New York already tried) by attempting to retroactively increase tax rates or retroactively create new ones.
Oops! There are a lot of things in this document that people think are mistakes that really aren’t (i.e., the word “choose” is often spelled “chuse,” but that’s how they rolled back then) . . . but this one actually is an error. It’s kind of funny that, centuries later, most of us still can’t get its vs. it’s right.
Wait, I’m still looking for the part specifying that the Power of the President shall also extend to him serving as the CEO of GM, Chrysler, Citi, Wachovia, Bear Stearns, AIG, etc. It must come later . . . . I’ll keep looking.
Want a chill to run down your spine? Here’s the current presidential line of succession:
Presidential compensation started out at $25,000. The president’s current compensation is $400,000, or about what the third-string right-fielder for the Toronto Blue Jays makes. I believe the current president is also about as qualified as the third-string right-fielder for the Toronto Blue Jays.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been running around talking about why “international law” is okay to use as precedent when deciding Supreme Court rulings. That’s “good behavior”?
In a speech given at Ohio State, Ginsburg asked: “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” Well, maybe because of the oath of office she took when she became a Supreme Court Justice?
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
Hmm, that’s interesting . . . the “Constitution and laws of the United States,” huh? No mention of Germany, France, Switzerland, Lichtenstein, or Rwanda. Weird.
Chief Justice John Roberts put it this way: “If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge. And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m thinking it might be time to redefine exactly what the “good behavior” clause really means.
It seems as though it is now nearly impossible to rise to the level of “treason” in this country. You can be an American citizen, from, just as an example . . . California . . . and be carrying an AK-47 on a foreign battlefield, firing at U.S. troops, and, when caught, the worst charge you’re likely to face is “jaywalking in a war zone.”
Rushing to his defense will be idiots with questions like: “What kind of childhood did he have? What drove him to do this? Did his teachers use ‘red ink’ when they marked up his test papers? Did other children call him fatso or doofus at recess? Maybe he couldn’t get a date for prom? Perhaps he had zits?”
When idiots factor in all of that, the perpetrator can’t possibly be responsible for his treasonous actions. In fact, it’s our fault. American society is to blame. Forget what the Constitution says, those men in powdered wigs had no idea how complex our culture would eventually become. The penalty for treason is no longer death, it’s government-sponsored therapy.
We take all of this unity among states for granted because, due to the wisdom of our Founders, it’s been ingrained in our society for over 200 years—but things didn’t start out that way. New Yorkers had no tolerance for the ways of Virginians, who, in turn, were leery of people from Massachusetts, etc. But now, we’re all one big happy family. Void in Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, California, and all other states where idiotic ideology has taken root.
This has me very concerned about the “57 states” mentioned by then-candidate Obama during his election campaign. Were those widely unknown seven states admitted by the Congress? He also mentioned that he had “one left to go,” which would make 58, plus he hadn’t visited Alaska or Hawaii yet. Are there, in fact, 60 states? If so, did Congress formally admit all ten? I DEMAND ANSWERS!
So we decided to honor our contracts even though we were going through a time of massive change? Wow, someone should tell Congress.
This is the article that makes many people so uneasy with the U.N. The idiots in your life probably know nothing more about the U.N. than their “Trick or Treat for UNICEF” campaign. They don’t pay attention to things like the “Convention on the Rights of the Child,” which could give some international body of “experts” control over education, or the “Law of the Sea Treaty” which could give the U.N. control over U.S. territorial waters. (Sing to the tune of the “Chicken of the Sea” jingle) . . . “Ask any mermaid you happen to see, what’s the worst treaty . . . Treaty of the Sea!” Hmm . . . maybe that doesn’t work so well in print?
Bill of Rights
That doesn’t seem so hard to understand, does it? There’s no problem as long as Congress doesn’t make a law that tells Americans that Frisbetarianism (the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and you can’t get it back down . . . like a Frisbee) is the official state religion to which all people must belong or pass a law that prohibits us from worshipping or not worshipping.
Given that straightforward definition, why are your idiot friends always screaming, “Separation of church and state!!”? Maybe you should ask them to point out those five words to you in this document.
They’re not there.
That phrase was actually contained in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802, fifteen years after the Constitution was written. The Danbury Baptists were a minority religious group that feared that they had no “inalienable” right granted them by the state of Connecticut to worship as they chose. Instead, they felt they were allowed to worship only as a “favor” granted to them by the state. So, they wrote to President Jefferson seeking his guidance and comfort that they could continue to worship as they would.
Jefferson responded with the exact words from the Constitution to allay their fears. He then mentioned the “establishment clause” created a “wall of separation between church and state.”
AHA, the smoking gun!! Actually, no, if you read the letter, Jefferson’s clear meaning was that religions were protected from the state, not the other way around. “The legitimate powers of government,” he told them, “reach actions only, & not opinions.”
You’ll also notice that there is no mention of constitutional protection from “being offended.” If a person is offended by a religious display on government property, a nativity scene, for example . . . tough. We are all sorry for you, but we have every confidence that you’ll get over it. If not, oh well—there’s always France.
Here’s a loose translation: If you break into my house in the middle of the night, you’ll be shot dead. I won’t be yelling, “Do anything you want with my wife and kids, but leave me alone . . . please!” A much more academic translation, along with a loooooooong response to idiots who like to talk about our Founders’ use of grammar, can be found in our “Second Amendment” chapter.
This one hasn’t really come up much recently, but I’m sure next time it does we’ll have plenty of activist groups trying to keep soldiers away by debating the location of the comma. In the meantime, should a soldier knock on your door and ask for a room, please call your nearby constitutional lawyer for immediate assistance.
At this point, your idiot friend is likely screaming, “George Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program!” I don’t know of a single American citizen (who’s never had a conversation with an Osama wannabe in some musty cave in Pakistan) that is actually affected by this program . . . and neither does your idiot friend. Oh, and by the way, Barack Obama has not only defended the Bush program, he’s broadened the government’s legal argument for it.
“Twice put in jeopardy” The Founders worded this much more eloquently than we do. We just call it “double jeopardy” or “The O.J. Clause.” Unfortunately for O.J., the Framers never mentioned anything about not being convicted for a completely unrelated crime and then having the mistaken verdict from your first trial used against you in the second.
“Witness against himself” Thus the familiar refrain, “I take the Fifth.” That doesn’t mean the person is asking for a fifth of whiskey (though many people who take the Fifth could certainly use a fifth at that point), it means that he is claiming his right to not bear witness against himself, granted to him by this clause, the Fifth Amendment.
This simple term was actually the result of much debate among the Founders. After seeing the lack of respect that the tyrannical British government had for private property, they wanted to include language to ensure that wouldn’t happen here—but they disagreed on the exact wording. Some wanted to use the term “public purpose,” or “public benefit”—a concept that would have made it much easier to seize property. (“Hey there, Joe, sorry, but we’re gonna need your land to build a new Department of Motor Vehicles.”)
“Public use” James Madison struck a compromise with the far more restrictive term “public use” and also included “just compensation” for victims of what we now call “eminent domain.” Of course, the debate among our Founders turned out to be pointless, given the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed a Connecticut city to seize private property just so they could make money by selling it to a developer. Madison must be rolling over in his grave.
With our court system so jammed up with frivolous lawsuits (it’s only a matter of time be fore the Slanket sues the Snuggie) the right to a “speedy” trial is somewhat subjective. I would also argue that the whole “public” aspect has really been run through the shredder. I think our Founders would be quite disappointed to find out that we have high-def TVs hanging on walls broadcasting live feeds from around the world and we still have to fight to get cameras into the courtroom.
Since our Founders could never have known the insane rate at which we’d be “coining” money, they probably also didn’t realize the effect that inflation would have on the value of a dollar. That’s a likely reason why the “twenty dollars” wasn’t indexed for inflation. But, if we’re looking for original intent, the value of $20 back in 1787 was, well, who knows because the Bureau of Labor Statistics wasn’t even created until the late 1800s. But given that $20 in 1913 would be worth $432 today, you can guess that the Founders didn’t intend every jaywalking ticket to be decided by a jury.
While some of our Founders, like Thomas Jefferson, insisted on a Bill of Rights, others did not want to include them in the Constitution for fear that if certain rights were specified, then the people could be denied other rights that were not specifically listed. This amendment was the agreed-upon compromise.
This is a profound and critical amendment, widely ignored by the federal government. Everything that is not specifically spelled out here (abortion, for example) is decided by the states. Instead, the federal government has unconstitutionally overstepped its boundaries in almost every way possible. They’re so far over the line that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to ever rein them back in—but one state is trying anyway.
Montana recently passed a bill asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from all federal gun regulations, including registration requirements, background check, and dealer-licensing rules. Why? Because Article I, Section 3 gives the federal government the right to regulate commerce only between states, not within them.
While this bill is specifically written to pertain to firearms, it’s really about the much larger concept of state rights. “It’s a gun bill,” said Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer, “but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana.”
It’s also a sign of hope. This bill is being crafted specifically to pick a fight with the federal government—a fight that I believe is long overdue. The theory goes that once someone from Montana attempts to exercise their rights under this legislation, a federal agency will intervene. At that point a lawsuit would be filed that, since the case involves the constitutionality of a law, could make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If that happens, and if the Supreme Court were to rule in favor of Montana (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, but you better act fast), it would be a major victory for state rights, and one that could extend far beyond guns to virtually every aspect of our lives. Texas and Alaska have similar laws pending—but more states have to get on the bandwagon if this is ever to succeed as a national issue.
Even with enough Supreme Court justices seemingly open to reestablishing state rights, they’re not going to take this argument lightly. In 2005, they ruled in favor of the federal government being able to regulate marijuana grown and used in California. That means any new effort will have to navigate through the faults of California’s attempt and present a clear, cohesive, and compelling case that the federal government has needlessly overstepped its bounds. If that happens—and that’s a Montana-sized “if”—we may have finally found the kryptonite that can be used against the progressives’ relentless attack on this document.
It took 78 years and the deaths of 618,000 people during the Civil War (including deaths due to disease), but the long effort to abolish the blight of slavery had finally ended. Article 1, Section 9 had allowed twenty years of further slave trade, a length of time that many Founders hoped would be sufficient for the South to wean itself from the horrendous practice. But even after the importation of new slaves stopped in 1808, the South was so dependent upon slavery that it was unwilling to let it go. (Sound a little like businesses relying on illegal immigration today?) Thus, it became necessary to end slavery by expanding unthinkable amounts of blood and treasure.
Perhaps no amendment has been twisted and turned as much as this one. The “birthright citizenship” clause was originally meant to ensure that children of freed slaves would be American citizens. Of course, we don’t really have that problem anymore, so here’s the 21st-century revision:
“All persons who successfully sneak into the country will be allowed to stay indefinitely. All crimes committed by those lawbreakers (i.e., identity theft, fraud, and tax evasion) shall be ignored. These non-American Americans will be afforded free health care at emergency rooms, free education, and special in-state tuition deals at colleges, not afforded legal citizens. All children born of these lawbreakers shall immediately become citizens of the United States. Any persons attempting to thwart this revision of Section 1 will be labeled racists, hatemongers, xenophobes, and all-around bad people.”
Does shaking hands with and accepting books from our enemies give them comfort? If so, then this section should be looked at a little more closely.
It was President Woodrow Wilson who finally got the progressive income tax passed in this country. Of course, his rhetoric would sound nothing like that of today’s politicians, right? You decide. Here are Wilson’s words from an address he gave in 1913:
“You are here in order to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world . . .”
Such was the rhetoric of the new progressives in America, as they began their campaign of “social justice” and “equity” in our country, all for the “greater good.” Naturally, only the meanest, most evil one percent of wage earners would be affected by this new income tax, so 99 percent of the country didn’t need to worry . . . at least until it was expanded a couple of decades later.
It’s interesting that this amendment was proposed just two years (and ratified six years) after the death of FDR, a president who was allegedly so beloved that he was elected to four terms. I guess we loved him so much that we wanted to make sure no one would ever stay in office that long again. Makes sense. One interesting side note: Harry Truman was specifically excluded from this amendment. He could have run for a third term but wisely chose not to.
Younger Americans probably skip right past this amendment, but it was actually pretty important . . . and controversial. Around the turn of the twentieth century, several states, unhappy about the end of slavery, instituted poll taxes as a way of keeping African-Americans out of the voting booth. By the time 1962 came around, five states (Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Virginia, and Texas) still used the taxes as a means of discrimination.
This amendment made federal poll taxes a crime (and state taxes were also outlawed under the equal-protection clause)—but it had a hard time getting out of the Senate. Southern Democrats, intent on keeping the amendment from coming up for a vote, filibustered for ten straight days. Then, according to one account, “they ran out of words.” The Senate jumped into action, but, since the wording of the amendment was stuck in the Judiciary Committee (headed by a senator from poll-tax-friendly Mississippi), they had to rely on an old political trick instead.
After the filibuster ended, Florida conservative Spessard Holland introduced a resolution to make Alexander Hamilton’s former home a national monument. Once it was approved, Holland then moved to exchange the proposed language of the Twenty-fourth Amendment with the Hamilton resolution. That passed as well and the final vote was a landslide. The amendment was ratified by the states 514 days later, though Mississippi stuck to its guns; it was the only state to outright reject it.
Joe Biden was actually 25 years old when this amendment, precipitated by the assassination of JFK, was ratified. If they only knew then what we know now . . .
