Amendment 27

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

This amendment is to ensure that congress can not give itself a raise.


This is a political cartoon of what could happen if the 27th amendment was not adopted in 1994. The amendment ensures that aside from the political implications of changing your pay, especially in a troubled economy, the pay raise that is voted in will not even take effect until after the next election. This discourages any frivolous pay raise bills that could be brought up in congress.


This is a graph of the annual salary for US congressman from 1860 to 2000. The annual salary was increased slightly to match inflation from 1860 to around 1960, but after that the increase in salary was much more agressive.

Amendment 26

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.


Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This amendment made the voting age no more than 18 for all states and federal elections. It was adopted in 1971 after veterans where returning from the vietnam war, but where unable to vote.
 

This is a graph of voter turnout since 1972, when 18 year olds where first allowed to vote in the presidential election. Voter turnout for younger groups was very low for the first part of the decade, however it rose significantly in the last election.
 

 
This is a mayor that is talking about the importance of the right to vote for the younger generation. He is opening up for a video that is about to be played in an attempt to "get out the vote". Many 18 year olds take the right ot vote for grantedm but it is important to remember that the right did not always exist, and as citizens it is not only a right but a duty to engage in our political system and voice our opinions.

Amendment 25

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.


Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office

This amendment describes the order of succession of the presidency should anything happen to the president and he or she is unable to continue thier duties.

Opinion: Byrd Was Third in Line for the Presidency?
Updated: 162 days 8 hours ago

Special to AOL News (July 1) -- The death of Sen. Robert Byrd at 92 highlights a strange and unsettling fact about the American political system. At the time of his death, the senator -- who had to be gently removed from his perch as Appropriations Committee chairman in 2008 because of his inability to do that job -- stood third in line for the presidency. A decapitating strike at the nation's government that killed or incapacitated the president, vice president and speaker of the House would have put Byrd in the White House.

It is clearly way past time to revisit the line of succession for the nation's leadership.

Having a senator who is barely able to function placed at the front of the line to take over as president in an emergency is not an idea entrenched in the Constitution. Byrd was in the position because he was elected by the Senate to serve as Senate president pro tempore.

The president pro tempore position is the only Senate position mentioned in the Constitution and is viewed as being the highest ranking job in the Senate, though in reality it is ceremonial and given automatically to the longest serving member of the majority party. However, thanks to the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, the president pro tempore follows the vice president and speaker of the House in the line of succession for the presidency.
In the line of presidential succession after President Barack Obama: Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Sen. Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii.The line of presidential succession has been a potential source of concern for years. Most notably, Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., who in 1999 proved unable to serve as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee because of his frailty, held down the job of president pro tempore until the Republicans lost their majority by defection in 2001.

This could just seem like a basic harmless joke, but in the age of high-stakes international terrorism, it is irresponsible to have senators who are clearly not even up to the job of serving as committee chairmen being placed in the position of being president. As we have seen, it is certainly within the realm of possibility that a decapitating terrorist strike could take place and wipe out numerous members of the nation's leadership at once.

It almost happened in the past. On April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth and his confederates nearly succeeded in wiping out a good portion of the nation's leadership in one fell swoop, killing President Abraham Lincoln and stabbing and seriously wounding Secretary of State William Seward. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant was supposed to be killed with Lincoln, but he changed his plans and did not attend the play. Vice President Andrew Johnson's assassin lost his nerve and spent the night drinking in a hotel lobby.

The presidential succession has been changed several times in the past.

•In the original law, in place from 1792 to 1886, the president pro tempore was second in line, before the speaker, for the presidency.

•In 1886, Congress decided to change the law after events over the course of two decades that included two assassinated presidents, two vice presidents who died of natural causes, and the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, who would have been replaced by President Pro Tempore Ben Wade, who was also sitting in judgment of Johnson. The new succession law placed the Cabinet members, starting with the secretary of state, first in line for succession.

•The law was changed back in 1947, though with the switch of putting the speaker of the House before the Senate president pro tempore.

These changes had their positives and negatives. Some people, including the Continuity of Government Commission, feel that the Cabinet members should be first in line, as it would ensure that the president's party does not lose power in case of a major tragedy and it would ward off possible questions of who is in charge. Others believe that the congressional leaders should be at the top of the list, because they are elected -- a view held by Harry Truman.

There are valid arguments both ways, but the most important point should be that the person who takes control be fully functional and able to step up to the leadership in a time of great crisis. Whatever his considerable skills earlier in life, by the end Robert Byrd, like Strom Thurmond before, would not have been able to meet that challenge.

There are some easy solutions to the problem. We can change the succession back to the old system of Cabinet members first. Alternatively, Congress can copy what a number of states do and couple the Senate president pro tempore with the Senate majority leader position, ensuring that the true head of the Senate, a presumably fully capable person that the senators selected to lead them, would be the person in line for the job.

What's clear is that action is needed to make sure that in a time of crisis, the president is someone who is fully alert and able to take control.

No reason to rush, though. Sen. Byrd has been succeeded by the spry Democratic senator from Hawaii, Daniel Inouye. He's only 86
This article describes some possible drawbacks of the current order of presidential succession. While the event of the president, vice president, and speaker of the House being killed at one time is a very, very unlikely scenario, this author seems to think that if it where to happen it would leave the presidency to some not so qualified people.
 

 
This is a picture of the current presidential succession.
 

Amendment 24

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This amendment bans congress from requiring any sort of poll tax in order for a citizen to vote. Before this amendment poll taxes where a way to marginalize and exclude groups of people without violating any other part of the constitution.



This cartoon illustrates how poll taxes were used to exclude certain groups and influence elections.


Some controversy that occurs over this amendment is whether or not having to show a drivers license at the polls counts as a poll tax since you have to pay the state for it, and it technically belongs to the state. While the price is not much, forcing someone to present something that they paid the state for in order to vote could fall under a definition of a poll tax as described in this amendment.

Amendment 23

Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct:


A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article using appropriate legislation.

This amendment gave the District of Columbia the same amount of electors as the next smallest state in the Union, which is currently 3 electoral votes. The district still does not have any actual congressman in the House or Senate.



The fact that they can't vote for congressman has prompted the phrase "taxation without representation" to appear on license plates in DC.



The idea of taxation without representation was even worse before this amendment, which at least allows the district to count towards the electoral college.

Amendment 22

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.


Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

This amendment put term limits on the office of President. Before this amendment most presidents did not run for a third term, with the exception of FDR who was elected for four terms. After FDR, a democrat, and Truman was elected, the republican congress at that time wanted to be sure that Truman could be elected for that many terms. The amendment was confirmed in 1951. The next president, Eisenhower, was a republican, and many of the same congressman wanted to repeal this amendment.




This is a Calvin and Hobbes version of what many feared could happen in a world without term limits. They wanted to be sure that a president, even if popular enough to be elected for multiple terms, could not be in a position of such power for so long. This was a step that many forefathers, including Thomas Jefferson, felt was necessary to prevent the tyranny that they where ruled by in England.



The link is not working for some reason... Here is another one: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4418657/new-lawmakers-serious-about-term-limits/?playlist_id=87937
This video is a discussion with one of the newly elected congressman discussing the idea of placing term limits on members of the House and Senate. He believes that just as term limits are a check on an individuals power in the office of president, that the same type of limits are necessary for US congressman.

Amendment 21

Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.


Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission here of to the States by the Congress.

This amendment repealed prohibition.
 

 
This picture was an ad in the 1930's that dipicts a mother trying to protect her child from the organized crime that was rampent during prohibition.
 

 
This political cartoon depicts one of the main reasons prohibition failed, lack of enforcement. Because of this it was still fairly easy to make and sell alcohol, which fueled huge amounts of organized crime until the 21st amendment.

Amendment 20

Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.

This amendment changed the dates of the terms of the President and vice president and changed when the session of congress begins and ends. It extends congresses session to the 3rd of January.
 

 
This is a dramatic reading of the 20th amendment that happened in 2004.
 
 

 
This amendment is also the reason that there is a "lame duck" session of congress, where a new congress has been elected but the old congress' term is not yet up. The lame duck was important for the democrats this year because they were able to try and use thier majority to pass some of the peices of legislation that will most likely fail in the next congress. So far they have not been able to pass much in the lame duck, which is what this cartoon is trying to say.

Amendment 19

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 sex.


Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This amendment gave women the right to vote.
 

 
This is a photo of a rally for women's suffrage, or the right to vote. Rallys like these eventually ended with the ratification of the 19th amendment.
 

 
This video is of a guy taking signitures for a petition to end women's suffrage, or the right to vote. He is making the point of the irony of women signing this petition to stop them from having the right to vote.

Amendment 18

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 started prohibition, and made alcohol illegal in the United States.



This is a poster from the 1920's that tried to persuade people to abide by prohibition and not partake in illegal sale or production of alcohol. It shows a group of kids and attempts to persuade the viewer by telling them that it is for the children's sake. This poster seems to ignore the fact that prohibition created a substantial increase in organized crime and did not cut down on alcohol created or sold in the US.


This video describes prohibition and the reasons for its eventual repeal.

Amendment 17

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 made it so that US congressman are elected by a popular vote and not directly from the state legislators.



This video is pretty rediciculous. It calls for a repeal of the 17th amendment, claiming that direct election of senators somehow throws off the balance of state and federal government power, and makes it somehow easier for the federal government to force mandates that the states do not want. This argument, to me anyway, does not seem to make any sense. The ridiculous part, though, is when the video cites that this is similar to the Revolutionary War.



This is a picture before the recent midterm elections, depicting the democrats being "stomped" by the GOP and losing thier majority. The reason our midterm elections happen the way they do now, with citizens being able to cast thier vote for a senator or representative, is because of the 17th amendment.

Amendment 16

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 right to levee taxes, with no obligation to giving a certain amount to the states and without having to base it on census results






This is an exerpt from "America: Freedom to Fascism", and describes a supposed fraud surrounding the 16th amendment.

Amendment 15

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 gauranteed everyone the right to vote regardless of race. It still did not allow women the right to vote, though.
 

 
This video shows how the 13, 14, and 15 amendments work together to work towards freed slaves to have equal rights in america. The 13th freed the slaves, the 14th made them citizens, and the 15th finally gave them the right to vote. This is three amendments that probably could or should have been accomplished in one.
 

 
This picture shows how the 15th amendment, while giving everyone the right to vote regardless of race, still did not give women the right to vote.

Amendment 14

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 makes everyone that is born in the United States a citizen, and grants them all of the rights and priveledges that come with citizenship.



This video is part of a recent controversy of the 14th amendment in that it allows for "anchor babies" or "birth right citizenship", where a child of 2 illegal aliens is automatically a citizen when they are born in the U.S. The man in the video is reminding people the original reason for this amendment, which was to make the freed slaves citizens. He says before you try to repeal it you should consider how else people would become citizens, and consider whether or not the government could use that power to deny a group of people rights, like it did after the slaves were freed. 




This video is also talking about the recent talk in the GOP of repealing the 14th amendment. It has been construed to be allowing illegal aliens a path to citizenship just by having a baby in the US. Proponents of this argument forget about the history behind this amendment or why it is there in the first place, and offer no alternative to replace the way in which we become citizens. If you are not automatically a citizen when you are born, then there would be reason to believe the government can systematically reject citizenship to a certain group of people and deny those people rights, like what has happened in the past.

Amendment 13

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 abolished slavery, however it did not make former slaves technically citizens of the United States.
 

 
This image shows a slave asking for freedom, combined with the phrase "Am I not a man and a brother?" This picture shows the ideology that the 13th amendment attempted to spread, that all men are created equal and the government should no longer treat people as if they are property.
 


This video is mainly focusing on states individual rights, but they bring up a point as an example of how the Obama administration is violating the 13th amendment by forcing young people to be made to do community service. They compare this to slavery and say that if you are not allowed to set your own pay scale or negotiate any sort of pay than it is against the 13th amendment. This obviously not what the 13th amendment is talking about and is in no way the same thing as slavery. The congressman is largely overstating the problem in order to gain support for a House joint resolution declaring New Hampshire a "sovereign state".
 

Amendment 12

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.[1]

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 lengthy text explains the way in which the president and vice president are elected. It replaced article 1 section 3 of the constitution, and describes the way the electoral college functions.



This video explains how the election process works described in the 12th amendment. Instead of casting two votes for president, and the winner becoming president and the second runner up becoming vice president, the electors vote specifically for a president and vice president.



This is an image of the electoral college in the last presidential election. This is the election process that is described by the twelfth amendment.

 

Amendment 11

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.

This amendment deals with each state's soveirgnty, or immunity from being sued in federal court by someone of another state or country.

Im not sure why the link is not working..... Here is another one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc9TCUzNriU

This is a video of recent controversy of Latin American countries challanging Arizona's immigration policy. The argument is that this is against the eleventh amendment because it should give state's protection from being sued in a federal court by another country.


Arm Of The State?


By fitsnews • on December 8, 2010Comment Email Print ShareThis



In defending their institution from a wrongful termination suit filed by a former employee, Clemson University attorneys recently argued that the school was an “arm of the state,” thus affording it immunity from prosecution under the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.



In a ruling issued on July 22, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Perry agreed with Clemson … dismissing former board of trustees’ secretary Eugene Troutman’s suit “pursuant to the doctrine of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.”



Troutman’s crime? He exposed the fact that Clemson hid hid nearly $140 million from state lawmakers at the same time they were begging the state for more money (and nearly tripling tuition costs for parents).



He should have been given a medal …



Anyway, the bad guys won again … which is par for the course in this state. Case closed … right?



Not so fast …



In spending hundreds of thousands of tax dollars to successfully mount this elementary defense, Clemson may have exposed itself to a serious problem regarding the constitutionality of its Board of Trustees. It’s a classic “win the battle, lose the war”-type situation.



As we noted in a recent post about Clemson, seven of the school’s thirteen trustees are lifetime appointments who get to anoint their successors. They’re untouchable, in other words, as well as a perpetual majority of the school’s governing body. The other six members? They’re appointed by the S.C. General Assembly to four-year terms.



There’s just one problem with those life appointees … well, assuming you have just successfully dodged a lawsuit by declaring yourself to be an “arm of the state.”



According to Article VI, Section I of the state constitution, “no person may be elected or appointed to office in this State for life or during good behavior, but the terms of all officers must be for some specified period except officers in the militia.”



Translation? Lifetime appointments are unconstitutional in South Carolina … which means that control of the Clemson board of trustees is currently in the hands of seven people who are flagrantly violating this provision.



As we have done with unnecessary spending and inefficiencies at the University of South Carolina, FITS has made it a point to expose similar frauds at Clemson … that hasn’t exactly endeared us to the administration up there, and we’re sure that lending our distinct “thump” to the drumbeat calling for



But there are bigger issues



Bottom line? We don’t think that South Carolina parents should continue to be subjected to exorbitant tuition increases because these schools cannot focus on their core mission of educating students.



They certainly shouldn’t be exposed to such mismanagement under an unconstitutional governance structure that lacks any semblance of accountability.



Also Clemson simply cannot have it both ways … if the school is an “arm of the state” and can avoid prosecution because of that status, then it is subject to the laws of this state – including the ban on lifetime appointments.



We hope that S.C. Gov.-elect Nikki Haley – a Clemson grad who is thick as thieves with the school’s leadership (Haley named Clemson Board of Trustees Chairman David Wilkins to lead her transition team) – will get behind an effort to end Clemson’s lifetime appointments



After all, Haley built her 2010 gubernatorial campaign on the notion of accountability in government. What better way to show her seriousness on that front?



We also hope that S.C. lawmakers – who appropriate hundreds of millions of dollars to Clemson each year – will get behind this effort as well in the interests of promoting accountability at an institution that desperately needs it.



Clemson has declared itself to be an “arm of the state …” now it must abide by South Carolina’s laws.

This article is about a school that was accused of fraud that claimed that it could not be taken to court by the accuser because it declared itself  "an arm of the State" and was thus protected by the eleventh amendment.
 A district court judges ruled in their favor, agreeing that the protection of the eleventh amendment extended to Clemson since they received state funding and were technically an "arm of the state".

Amendment 10

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.

This amendment makes it clear that the federal government only has exclusive powers over what is explicitly delegated to it within the constitution, and everything that falls outside of the constitution can be retained by states. This does not mean that the federal government has no control over states actions, though. There is a reason that the drinking age in every state is 21, and every states speed limits are relatively the same. Congress can withhold funding from a certain state if it makes certain changes that the government does not want, or does not want spilling over to other states.



This video is an interview with a congressman about the tenth amendment. He is talking about the federal government encroaching on states rights under the tenth amendment such as education and health care. He believes that the government should have no say in these issues at all. It is hard to decide whether or not the government making federal standards in education or regulating things like healthcare is constitutional or not, because there is no way the founding fathers could have known about how our educational system or healthcare system operates or is funded. I think a lot of the debate about this amendment stems from whether or not we feel the constitution should be interpreted literally or is somewhat of a living document.



This cartoon is depicting the recent controversy over medical marijuana. This is an example of where the tenth amendment protected the states rights to allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes.

Amendment 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This amendment was very important to many of the founding fathers, because they wanted it made very clear that just because a right is not explicitely stated in the Bill of Rights does not mean that the citizens do not retain that right. There have been many cases based on this amendment. The basis of this amendment is the penumbra, or the gray area between what rights we retain vs what rights we can be denied. Most of the cases that rule on the basis of this amendment rule that we have many rights that are not specified, but garanteed through unspecified rights.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted




This amendment ensures that a judge cannot post excessive bail that does not fairly match the severity of the crime. The major part of this amendment that is debated today, however, is the cruel and unusual punishment aspect. There is a lot of debate on whether or not certain activities that the US partakes in, such as capital punishment and "advanced interogation techniques". Specifically the torture that happened in Guantanamo bay has been subject to much debate until the recent executive order passed by Obama to close the base.  This amendment ensures the basic freedom that your punishment should fit your crime, and that your punishment must be something that the court assigns on a regular basis, such as jail time.

Amendment 7

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


This amendment deals with civil suits that exceed what is now 75,000 dollars. It garauntees that in these suits a trial by jury is garaunteed, so that the judge would not be subject to bribery and the decision could not be biased. In 1938 congress amended these rules. The Judge can instruct the jury what to consider when making thier decision, and can overturn thier decision if he feels that they decided the suit the wrong way. These abilities give much more power to judges than the founders originally intended, but still allow for a fair trial in civil cases. This amendment has still not been incorporated to the states.

Amendment 6

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.



This amendment provides the basic rights to a speedy trial, a fair and impartial jury, and the rights of an accussed to face the witnesses testifying against him. These are many of the basic rights that we take for granted in our justice system today, but did not exist under British rule. There are only a few cases that are attributed to this amendment, the first being Escobado v Illinois 1964, which extended the right to council all the way to the interrogation chamber. The other case, Powell v Alabama in 1932 incorporated these rights to the states.

Amendment 5

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation



One of the major parts of the fifth amendment is the protection against double jeopardy, or being charged for the same crime twice. This is a right that the colonists did not have under British rule, and something that the writers of the bill of rights wanted to ensure in the future. The movie poster above is about a woman who is framed for the murder of her husband, however he is still alive. When she gets out of prison, she realizes that she cannot be tried for his murder because of her fifth amendment right protecting her from double jeapordy. She then attempts to actually murder her husband. Of course in the real world, cases are typically not this extreme, however the amendment is still a very important part of our legal system. It ensures that a person would not be ruled innocent in court, and then tried over and over again until proven innocent. This amendment is also the basis of the Miranda rights, based on Miranda v Arizona in 1966. This basically requires officers to inform the suspects that they have the right to remain silent, or not compelled to bear witness against themselves. This amendment is the basis for many freedoms we enjoy in our legal system today.

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized



This video shows a direct violation of the fourth amendment. What is most shocking to me is that the Deputy defends the woman that is attempting to search his property and take pictures as evidence, and says that the man should not be worried if he has "nothing to hide." The man is absolutely right in sayinfg that it is not an issue of whether or not he has anything to hide, but whether or not she has probable cause to search the property. This is the exact reason behind this amendment, to protect people from searches based on no evidence or probable cause. The woman even tells him that she will stay "as long as she needs to". The law enforcement officer is directly sponsering a violation of the constitution, and his lack of knowledge about the amendment is ridiculous.

Amendment 3

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law

This amendment has not really been necessary since its adoption. It was originally needed as a safegaurd against homeowners being forced to house soldiers by the government in a time of war, like what the English did to the colonists during the Revolution. There has however been some question as to whether or not the hospitals and houses used as bases in the Civil War were against this amendment. Seeing as most of the field hospitals used were not mandatory, but a volunteer service, and most homes used were volunteered rather than mandated by the government, then it probably was not a violation of the amendment. Other than that, there has been no real need for this amendment.

Amendment 2

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed



The second amendment has been subject to much debate due to the vagueness in what it means to bear arms. It leaves a lot up to interpretation on what types of guns can be owned, for what purposes, and by who. This video is showing how the vagueness in the wording of the amendment contributes to the debate about gun rights in a rather humorous way.




This cartoon focuses on the first part of the amendment, and argues that the right for everyone to bear any type of weapon is probably not the original intent of the amendment. The text of the amendment is based on the premise of the people, as individual states, have the right to bear arms in terms of keeping a well regulated militia for the sake of the safety of the people, both from themselves and from the government.

Amendment 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



I find this video both hilarious and ironic. In the video the crew try to see how man people they can get to sign a "petition" to repeal the first amendment of the US constitution. The answer is way too many. They get people to sign it by telling them that it would stop "hate speech" and would stop disagreements with the president. Most people that sign the "petition" did so in good intentions, but failed to realize the actual consequences such an action would have if what they were signing was actually a petition. Many people don't realize that while you may not agree with what another person is saying or why they are saying it, they still have the right to say it. The irony in this is that the freedom to sign this petition derives from the very thing that it says it will repeal.



This cartoon is a parody of how passionately the NRA defends the right to bear arms. If there were an agency this devoted to protecting the first amendment, it would likely look much like this...

The Lego Preamble



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, 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.

This video is a Lego rendition of the preamble to the constitution. It shows how the preamble outlines the basic duties of the government, and secures the liberties of the people. The video shows the basic principles of the preamble and how they apply to our freedoms in our everyday life.