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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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".
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.
