Conservative Political Forum

General Category => The Constitution => Topic started by: TboneAgain on October 14, 2014, 09:34:14 PM

Title: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: TboneAgain on October 14, 2014, 09:34:14 PM
Several recent posts have brought up the subject of "bright moments" or "golden opportunities" for legislative and/or constitutional change in this country. A fairly simple review of the history of amendments to the constitution shows an unmistakable pattern, which can be used as a guide for future campaigns.

BACKGROUND

The US Constitution is the literal political backbone of the nation. Its terms, its words, its thoughts actually form the federal government under which we all exist. Amending the US Constitution is, in the obvious sense of the word, a monumental act, and it has always been meant to be so.

The Constitution is not, as the Left wants to claim, a "living document." It is quite literally permanent and restrictive, by careful and deliberate design. It was crafted by indisputably wise men to create a central government... and at the same time to limit that very same government in every way they could think of. The men who wrote and promoted the Constitution understood, in ways that most citizens of this country today cannot, the existential dangers of a strong central government. James Madison is often cited as a model of federalist thinking, but he wasn't alone. As I am wont to quote, George Washington had this to say: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent. It is force."

Nevertheless, the men who wrote the Constitution provided for its amendment. It could be changed for reasons carefully and thoroughly considered by the people, and those changes would have to be voted on accordingly. Right out of the starting gate, at the demand of numerous of the original states, the first ten amendments were quickly adopted en bloc in 1791, just two years after the basic Constitution had been accepted. Unlike later amendments, the first ten were less literal changes to the document, and more extensions of it, and especially extensions and specific explanations of the document's limits on the new federal government. They were concise but expansive statements of what that government could NOT do. They consistently referred to the rights of "the states" and "the people" and they contained the words, "shall make no law," words specifically and directly pointed at the new national government. The Bill of Rights contains most of what people like Barack Obama refer to as "a charter of negative liberties," the most hated of which are the freedoms so eloquently described in the First, Second, Ninth, and most especially Tenth Amendments.

Amendments 11 and 12 were adopted in 1795 and 1804, respectively. They have been largely dismissed as "bookkeeping" amendments, minor corrections to the original document. Since then, the US Constitution has been amended fifteen times. Those amendments are more than rare. They are bellwethers of national thought. And they run in cycles -- they come in bunches.

POST-CIVIL WAR (RECONSTRUCTION) AMENDMENTS (1865-1870)

More than sixty years passed between the 12th and 13th Amendments. Then came three new amendments in just five years -- the 13th (abolishing slavery) in 1865, the 14th (establishing citizenship for former black slaves) in 1868, and the 15th (establishing voting rights for blacks) in 1870. It is worth noting that there was a strong movement meant to amend the Constitution to reduce the "lame duck" period between national elections and inaugurations, but it failed at that time. Argument pointed to the 4-month period between Lincoln's election and his installation in office, a period when the nation was being divided, and during which it could be reasonably argued that the will of the electorate was not being served. This issue would arise again later.

THE FIRST PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT (1913-1920)

After the Fifteenth Amendment, more than forty years passed before another was enacted, and it too was one of a series. In 1913, Amendment 16, which provided the national government with the power to tax personal incomes -- a power specifically prohibited in the original Constitution -- was ratified, and the first legal federal income tax law was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson, the first openly Progressive president. Just months later, the Seventeenth Amendment -- mandating the popular election of US senators -- was ushered in by the same man.

Before he left office, Wilson also heralded two more amendments. The Eighteenth enacted Prohibition and triggered the infamous Volstead Act. The Nineteenth, which extended voting rights to women, was greeted by Wilson in his last year in office.

THE DEPRESSION EMERGENCY/FDR (SECOND PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT) (1933-1951)

In the midst of the Great Depression, two issues grabbed public attention to the extent of generating Constitutional amendments. First, the voters did not care for the fact that, given 20th century technology, the federal government was still allowing four months for the change of governments after an election. (This was mentioned earlier.) As 1933 opened, it is fair to say that a high percentage of the voting public couldn't wait to see the backside of Herbert Hoover. The 20th Amendment, enacted in FDR's first year, provided for that change to move from March 4 to January each year. (Exact dates vary with office.)

Also enacted that year was the 21st Amendment, a landmark goal of the FDR campaign. Briefly stated, the 21st Amendment erased the 18th amendment, and Prohibition ended. Prohibition had always been hated as an extension of Victorian prudery from an earlier time, and by 1933, Prohibition had been widely recognized as one of the causes of the economic depression gripping the country.

I'll put one more amendment into this category -- the 22nd. In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term as president. Even before his death, public opinion was leaning toward thinking he had been in office too long. The 22nd Amendment, finally enacted in 1951, placed a two-term limit on the office of president.

THE SIXTIES/HIPPIE AMENDMENTS (THIRD PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT) (1961-1971)

Liberalism/progressivism once again asserted itself in the 1960s. One of the first things young John F. Kennedy did after taking office was to preside over the adoption of the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution, which granted the District of Columbia a pair of electors to vote in the Electoral College. Before the decade was out, the 24th Amendment, which prohibited poll taxes, and the 25th Amendment, which revised succession procedures, became law. Finally, in 1971 the long-festering movement to empower youth gained fruition with the 26th Amendment, which dropped the voting age to 18.

CONCLUSION

Outside the timeframes specified in the four distinct periods outlined above, and recognizing that the 11th and 12th Amendments were, as generally acknowledged, "bookkeeping" corrections, only one constitutional amendment has taken place -- the 27th, ratified in 1992. And even that was a relatively "minor" act, defining how quickly Congressional salary increases can become active. (Critics then and now point out that the amendment route to this solution was massive overkill.)

The timeline of amendments to the Constitution proves that that particular mechanism is powered by two things -- national emergency and the prominence and power of liberal/progressive forces.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: supsalemgr on October 15, 2014, 03:50:33 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 14, 2014, 09:34:14 PM
Several recent posts have brought up the subject of "bright moments" or "golden opportunities" for legislative and/or constitutional change in this country. A fairly simple review of the history of amendments to the constitution shows an unmistakable pattern, which can be used as a guide for future campaigns.

BACKGROUND

The US Constitution is the literal political backbone of the nation. Its terms, its words, its thoughts actually form the federal government under which we all exist. Amending the US Constitution is, in the obvious sense of the word, a monumental act, and it has always been meant to be so.

The Constitution is not, as the Left wants to claim, a "living document." It is quite literally permanent and restrictive, by careful and deliberate design. It was crafted by indisputably wise men to create a central government... and at the same time to limit that very same government in every way they could think of. The men who wrote and promoted the Constitution understood, in ways that most citizens of this country today cannot, the existential dangers of a strong central government. James Madison is often cited as a model of federalist thinking, but he wasn't alone. As I am wont to quote, George Washington had this to say: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent. It is force."

Nevertheless, the men who wrote the Constitution provided for its amendment. It could be changed for reasons carefully and thoroughly considered by the people, and those changes would have to be voted on accordingly. Right out of the starting gate, at the demand of numerous of the original states, the first ten amendments were quickly adopted en bloc in 1791, just two years after the basic Constitution had been accepted. Unlike later amendments, the first ten were less literal changes to the document, and more extensions of it, and especially extensions and specific explanations of the document's limits on the new federal government. They were concise but expansive statements of what that government could NOT do. They consistently referred to the rights of "the states" and "the people" and they contained the words, "shall make no law," words specifically and directly pointed at the new national government. The Bill of Rights contains most of what people like Barack Obama refer to as "a charter of negative liberties," the most hated of which are the freedoms so eloquently described in the First, Second, Ninth, and most especially Tenth Amendments.

Amendments 11 and 12 were adopted in 1795 and 1804, respectively. They have been largely dismissed as "bookkeeping" amendments, minor corrections to the original document. Since then, the US Constitution has been amended fifteen times. Those amendments are more than rare. They are bellwethers of national thought. And they run in cycles -- they come in bunches.

POST-CIVIL WAR (RECONSTRUCTION) AMENDMENTS (1865-1870)

More than sixty years passed between the 12th and 13th Amendments. Then came three new amendments in just five years -- the 13th (abolishing slavery) in 1865, the 14th (establishing citizenship for former black slaves) in 1868, and the 15th (establishing voting rights for blacks) in 1870. It is worth noting that there was a strong movement meant to amend the Constitution to reduce the "lame duck" period between national elections and inaugurations, but it failed at that time. Argument pointed to the 4-month period between Lincoln's election and his installation in office, a period when the nation was being divided, and during which it could be reasonably argued that the will of the electorate was not being served. This issue would arise again later.

THE FIRST PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT (1913-1920)

After the Fifteenth Amendment, more than forty years passed before another was enacted, and it too was one of a series. In 1913, Amendment 16, which provided the national government with the power to tax personal incomes -- a power specifically prohibited in the original Constitution -- was ratified, and the first legal federal income tax law was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson, the first openly Progressive president. Just months later, the Seventeenth Amendment -- mandating the popular election of US senators -- was ushered in by the same man.

Before he left office, Wilson also heralded two more amendments. The Eighteenth enacted Prohibition and triggered the infamous Volstead Act. The Nineteenth, which extended voting rights to women, was greeted by Wilson in his last year in office.

THE DEPRESSION EMERGENCY/FDR (SECOND PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT) (1933-1951)

In the midst of the Great Depression, two issues grabbed public attention to the extent of generating Constitutional amendments. First, the voters did not care for the fact that, given 20th century technology, the federal government was still allowing four months for the change of governments after an election. (This was mentioned earlier.) As 1933 opened, it is fair to say that a high percentage of the voting public couldn't wait to see the backside of Herbert Hoover. The 20th Amendment, enacted in FDR's first year, provided for that change to move from March 4 to January each year. (Exact dates vary with office.)

Also enacted that year was the 21st Amendment, a landmark goal of the FDR campaign. Briefly stated, the 21st Amendment erased the 18th amendment, and Prohibition ended. Prohibition had always been hated as an extension of Victorian prudery from an earlier time, and by 1933, Prohibition had been widely recognized as one of the causes of the economic depression gripping the country.

I'll put one more amendment into this category -- the 22nd. In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term as president. Even before his death, public opinion was leaning toward thinking he had been in office too long. The 22nd Amendment, finally enacted in 1951, placed a two-term limit on the office of president.

THE SIXTIES/HIPPIE AMENDMENTS (THIRD PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT) (1961-1971)

Liberalism/progressivism once again asserted itself in the 1960s. One of the first things young John F. Kennedy did after taking office was to preside over the adoption of the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution, which granted the District of Columbia a pair of electors to vote in the Electoral College. Before the decade was out, the 24th Amendment, which prohibited poll taxes, and the 25th Amendment, which revised succession procedures, became law. Finally, in 1971 the long-festering movement to empower youth gained fruition with the 26th Amendment, which dropped the voting age to 18.

CONCLUSION

Outside the timeframes specified in the four distinct periods outlined above, and recognizing that the 11th and 12th Amendments were, as generally acknowledged, "bookkeeping" corrections, only one constitutional amendment has taken place -- the 27th, ratified in 1992. And even that was a relatively "minor" act, defining how quickly Congressional salary increases can become active. (Critics then and now point out that the amendment route to this solution was massive overkill.)

The timeline of amendments to the Constitution proves that that particular mechanism is powered by two things -- national emergency and the prominence and power of liberal/progressive forces.

Point is the amendment process has served its purpose for over 200 years. In the whole scheme of things the changes were either necessary or had minimal affect. This is what drives libs crazy. Even they realize they cannot implement their insane ideas through the amendment process. Therefore, they attempt to change the constitution through unlawful Executive excess or Judicial activism.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on October 15, 2014, 05:08:46 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 15, 2014, 03:50:33 AM
Point is the amendment process has served its purpose for over 200 years. In the whole scheme of things the changes were either necessary or had minimal affect. This is what drives libs crazy. Even they realize they cannot implement their insane ideas through the amendment process. Therefore, they attempt to change the constitution through unlawful Executive excess or Judicial activism.
And, Or, outright PC applications of shame, which seems to have an even greater effect than the law.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Mountainshield on October 21, 2014, 01:40:08 AM
Very articulate, well done article.

Might as well abolish every amendment after the fifteenth amendment. Most single women and most teenagers vote left, it's a reason why the socialists wants to lower the voting age to 16 and that they always pander to single mothers with promises of welfare essentially a form of prostitution, better make the father pay 50% of his salary or welfare benefits to the mother instead of making other citizens pay for his irresponsibility, this would lower the birth rate among the poor as well without abortion. Of course all women have the right to vote now and that is not going away, most married women tend to vote conservative as well, and women are excellent conservative politicians. I don't want to fall into the trap of thinking like a liberal that the ends justifies the means by promoting voting restriction on women, but voting should not be the domain of irresponsible teenagers, raise to 21 at least.

It seems to me that the only way to do away with the damage the liberals and socialist have done to your country is the amendment process, with that sort of legislative power being able to unlawfully override the constitution can abolish 99% of the unlawful laws that has been enacted with a single amendment, terminate the 18th amendment and restoring power to the states, terminate the 16th amendment and the other that are unneeded/harmful. A Constitutional Amendment Process can open up for more tyrannical amendments but it seems to be the only peaceful way of restoring government and abolishing the magnitude of hundred of thousands of unlawful laws that has been enacted. If you are not willing to try and fight, then you have already lost in any case.

So what are the arguments against a constitutional amendment process to restore government?

Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: TboneAgain on October 21, 2014, 04:19:01 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 15, 2014, 03:50:33 AM
Point is the amendment process has served its purpose for over 200 years. In the whole scheme of things the changes were either necessary or had minimal affect. This is what drives libs crazy. Even they realize they cannot implement their insane ideas through the amendment process. Therefore, they attempt to change the constitution through unlawful Executive excess or Judicial activism.

My point was almost exactly the opposite. I meant to illustrate what has, over our history, engendered constitutional amendments, and I found them to be largely the products of progressive convulsions. In fact, liberal/progressives ARE implementing their nutball ideas, one at a time, through the amendment process.

Three of the four amendments enacted during Wilson's presidency, for example, were certainly unnecessary and had lasting detrimental effects. The only one of the four I'd classify as either necessary or minimal in effect would be the Nineteenth, which gave women the right to vote -- it was necessary, given the times, but certainly not of minimal impact. The Sixteenth, which directly countermanded the express intention of the framers and empowered the government to collect income taxes, is probably the single most damaging act the nation has ever inflicted on itself. The Seventeenth, which altered the process for electing Senators to the popular vote, probably runs a close second in lasting harm. It was a blow aimed directly at weakening the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, its sole purpose being to dilute the influence of the states in federal matters.

Possibly the third most damaging amendment -- and one custom tailored to achieve Leftist objectives -- was the last of the "hippie amendments," the 26th, which dropped the voting age nationwide to 18, thereby placing the power of the ballot within the reach of high school students. I was a high school student when that one was enacted, and all I heard from my teachers was how I should support school levies and George McGovern. And I should go home and tell my parents that they should support the same things.

If the amendment process has served its purpose, I think that it has done so by making constitutional amendments pretty hard to get done. I'm sure the framers intended it that way. The willingness to amend that document is certainly one of the sharpest differences between us and the Lib/Progs, as is shown by the timeline I presented.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Mountainshield on October 24, 2014, 12:34:24 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 21, 2014, 04:19:01 AM
My point was almost exactly the opposite. I meant to illustrate what has, over our history, engendered constitutional amendments, and I found them to be largely the products of progressive convulsions. In fact, liberal/progressives ARE implementing their nutball ideas, one at a time, through the amendment process.

Three of the four amendments enacted during Wilson's presidency, for example, were certainly unnecessary and had lasting detrimental effects. The only one of the four I'd classify as either necessary or minimal in effect would be the Nineteenth, which gave women the right to vote -- it was necessary, given the times, but certainly not of minimal impact. The Sixteenth, which directly countermanded the express intention of the framers and empowered the government to collect income taxes, is probably the single most damaging act the nation has ever inflicted on itself. The Seventeenth, which altered the process for electing Senators to the popular vote, probably runs a close second in lasting harm. It was a blow aimed directly at weakening the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, its sole purpose being to dilute the influence of the states in federal matters.

Possibly the third most damaging amendment -- and one custom tailored to achieve Leftist objectives -- was the last of the "hippie amendments," the 26th, which dropped the voting age nationwide to 18, thereby placing the power of the ballot within the reach of high school students. I was a high school student when that one was enacted, and all I heard from my teachers was how I should support school levies and George McGovern. And I should go home and tell my parents that they should support the same things.

If the amendment process has served its purpose, I think that it has done so by making constitutional amendments pretty hard to get done. I'm sure the framers intended it that way. The willingness to amend that document is certainly one of the sharpest differences between us and the Lib/Progs, as is shown by the timeline I presented.

I'm sorry I have to ask again, if the amendment process is so powerful then why doesn't the Conservatives or Republicans use it?
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: supsalemgr on October 24, 2014, 04:23:54 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on October 24, 2014, 12:34:24 AM
I'm sorry I have to ask again, if the amendment process is so powerful then why doesn't the Conservatives or Republicans use it?

It takes 2/3 approval in the senate and there is no way with the current makeup any amendment would have a chance. In fact, right now it would not even be brought to the floor for consideration. If the GOP takes the senate some amendments could be presented and then there would be pressure on dems to either support of reject.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: TboneAgain on October 24, 2014, 04:32:42 PM
Quote from: Mountainshield on October 24, 2014, 12:34:24 AM
I'm sorry I have to ask again, if the amendment process is so powerful then why doesn't the Conservatives or Republicans use it?

Conservatives shy away from the amendment process because, in principle, we are generally opposed to changing the fundamental structure of the nation, as embodied in the Constitution.

Liberals and Progressives, on the other hand, resort to the amendment process whenever they can manage it, for exactly the same reason Conservatives oppose it -- the changes wrought are far-reaching and almost guaranteed to be permanent. Consider that only one of the 27 amendments has ever been overturned or reversed, and that reversal took another amendment ordeal to accomplish. You will never hear a true conservative refer to a "living Constitution," but Libs and Progs just can't shut up about that when constitutional debates arise.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: ChristopherABrown on October 26, 2014, 09:25:00 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 24, 2014, 04:23:54 AM
It takes 2/3 approval in the senate and there is no way with the current makeup any amendment would have a chance. In fact, right now it would not even be brought to the floor for consideration. If the GOP takes the senate some amendments could be presented and then there would be pressure on dems to either support of reject.

If 3/4 of the states conduct their own conventions proposing and ratifying each others proposals, 2/3 of the senate is not needed.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: supsalemgr on October 26, 2014, 11:42:41 AM
Quote from: ChristopherABrown on October 26, 2014, 09:25:00 AM
If 3/4 of the states conduct their own conventions proposing and ratifying each others proposals, 2/3 of the senate is not needed.

That is even more unlikely in today's world.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Mountainshield on October 27, 2014, 03:18:16 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 24, 2014, 04:32:42 PM
Conservatives shy away from the amendment process because, in principle, we are generally opposed to changing the fundamental structure of the nation, as embodied in the Constitution.

Liberals and Progressives, on the other hand, resort to the amendment process whenever they can manage it, for exactly the same reason Conservatives oppose it -- the changes wrought are far-reaching and almost guaranteed to be permanent. Consider that only one of the 27 amendments has ever been overturned or reversed, and that reversal took another amendment ordeal to accomplish. You will never hear a true conservative refer to a "living Constitution," but Libs and Progs just can't shut up about that when constitutional debates arise.

I understand, but the damage has already been done. The constitution has been changed through the amendment process, if the Republicans(or constitutionalists) are not willing to use the same tools to undo/repair the damage and instead will focus on new legislation to counter legislation upon legislation until everything becomes obligatory and everything becomes illegal instead of using a process that could fix everything in one attack then what chance or options is there to undo the laws enacted by the liberals and restore the constitution?
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: ChristopherABrown on October 27, 2014, 05:59:52 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on October 26, 2014, 11:42:41 AM
That is even more unlikely in today's world.

Agreed, but only because freedom of speech is abridged.  Of course that becomes circular.  However, the reason for that resides mostly with our information gathering habits or fears gained from them.

Some of those fears are unconscious.  For example the fear of knowing something perceived as dangerous that no one else knows.  Cognitive dissonance sets in.

To counter the problems this creates when a group does it, individuals that understand the consequences need to join together and demonstrate that the knowledge is not only good to know, but healthy and conducive to greater security.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 07:50:17 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 14, 2014, 09:34:14 PM
Several recent posts have brought up the subject of "bright moments" or "golden opportunities" for legislative and/or constitutional change in this country. A fairly simple review of the history of amendments to the constitution shows an unmistakable pattern, which can be used as a guide for future campaigns.

BACKGROUND

The US Constitution is the literal political backbone of the nation. Its terms, its words, its thoughts actually form the federal government under which we all exist. Amending the US Constitution is, in the obvious sense of the word, a monumental act, and it has always been meant to be so.

The Constitution is not, as the Left wants to claim, a "living document." It is quite literally permanent and restrictive, by careful and deliberate design. It was crafted by indisputably wise men to create a central government... and at the same time to limit that very same government in every way they could think of. The men who wrote and promoted the Constitution understood, in ways that most citizens of this country today cannot, the existential dangers of a strong central government. James Madison is often cited as a model of federalist thinking, but he wasn't alone. As I am wont to quote, George Washington had this to say: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent. It is force."

Nevertheless, the men who wrote the Constitution provided for its amendment. It could be changed for reasons carefully and thoroughly considered by the people, and those changes would have to be voted on accordingly. Right out of the starting gate, at the demand of numerous of the original states, the first ten amendments were quickly adopted en bloc in 1791, just two years after the basic Constitution had been accepted. Unlike later amendments, the first ten were less literal changes to the document, and more extensions of it, and especially extensions and specific explanations of the document's limits on the new federal government. They were concise but expansive statements of what that government could NOT do. They consistently referred to the rights of "the states" and "the people" and they contained the words, "shall make no law," words specifically and directly pointed at the new national government. The Bill of Rights contains most of what people like Barack Obama refer to as "a charter of negative liberties," the most hated of which are the freedoms so eloquently described in the First, Second, Ninth, and most especially Tenth Amendments.

Amendments 11 and 12 were adopted in 1795 and 1804, respectively. They have been largely dismissed as "bookkeeping" amendments, minor corrections to the original document. Since then, the US Constitution has been amended fifteen times. Those amendments are more than rare. They are bellwethers of national thought. And they run in cycles -- they come in bunches.

POST-CIVIL WAR (RECONSTRUCTION) AMENDMENTS (1865-1870)

More than sixty years passed between the 12th and 13th Amendments. Then came three new amendments in just five years -- the 13th (abolishing slavery) in 1865, the 14th (establishing citizenship for former black slaves) in 1868, and the 15th (establishing voting rights for blacks) in 1870. It is worth noting that there was a strong movement meant to amend the Constitution to reduce the "lame duck" period between national elections and inaugurations, but it failed at that time. Argument pointed to the 4-month period between Lincoln's election and his installation in office, a period when the nation was being divided, and during which it could be reasonably argued that the will of the electorate was not being served. This issue would arise again later.

THE FIRST PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT (1913-1920)

After the Fifteenth Amendment, more than forty years passed before another was enacted, and it too was one of a series. In 1913, Amendment 16, which provided the national government with the power to tax personal incomes -- a power specifically prohibited in the original Constitution -- was ratified, and the first legal federal income tax law was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson, the first openly Progressive president. Just months later, the Seventeenth Amendment -- mandating the popular election of US senators -- was ushered in by the same man.

Before he left office, Wilson also heralded two more amendments. The Eighteenth enacted Prohibition and triggered the infamous Volstead Act. The Nineteenth, which extended voting rights to women, was greeted by Wilson in his last year in office.

THE DEPRESSION EMERGENCY/FDR (SECOND PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT) (1933-1951)

In the midst of the Great Depression, two issues grabbed public attention to the extent of generating Constitutional amendments. First, the voters did not care for the fact that, given 20th century technology, the federal government was still allowing four months for the change of governments after an election. (This was mentioned earlier.) As 1933 opened, it is fair to say that a high percentage of the voting public couldn't wait to see the backside of Herbert Hoover. The 20th Amendment, enacted in FDR's first year, provided for that change to move from March 4 to January each year. (Exact dates vary with office.)

Also enacted that year was the 21st Amendment, a landmark goal of the FDR campaign. Briefly stated, the 21st Amendment erased the 18th amendment, and Prohibition ended. Prohibition had always been hated as an extension of Victorian prudery from an earlier time, and by 1933, Prohibition had been widely recognized as one of the causes of the economic depression gripping the country.

I'll put one more amendment into this category -- the 22nd. In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term as president. Even before his death, public opinion was leaning toward thinking he had been in office too long. The 22nd Amendment, finally enacted in 1951, placed a two-term limit on the office of president.

THE SIXTIES/HIPPIE AMENDMENTS (THIRD PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT) (1961-1971)

Liberalism/progressivism once again asserted itself in the 1960s. One of the first things young John F. Kennedy did after taking office was to preside over the adoption of the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution, which granted the District of Columbia a pair of electors to vote in the Electoral College. Before the decade was out, the 24th Amendment, which prohibited poll taxes, and the 25th Amendment, which revised succession procedures, became law. Finally, in 1971 the long-festering movement to empower youth gained fruition with the 26th Amendment, which dropped the voting age to 18.

CONCLUSION

Outside the timeframes specified in the four distinct periods outlined above, and recognizing that the 11th and 12th Amendments were, as generally acknowledged, "bookkeeping" corrections, only one constitutional amendment has taken place -- the 27th, ratified in 1992. And even that was a relatively "minor" act, defining how quickly Congressional salary increases can become active. (Critics then and now point out that the amendment route to this solution was massive overkill.)

The timeline of amendments to the Constitution proves that that particular mechanism is powered by two things -- national emergency and the prominence and power of liberal/progressive forces.

This is really interesting and well written.  I don't know much about what is currently going on with amendments.  Do you have a link or can you tell me how many pending amendments there are and who has proposed them?  Are they all repeals or are there proposed additions?
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 09:43:19 AM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 07:50:17 AM
This is really interesting and well written.  I don't know much about what is currently going on with amendments.  Do you have a link or can you tell me how many pending amendments there are and who has proposed them?  Are they all repeals or are there proposed additions?

Sorry I meant to say proposed and not pending. In the mean time I found a list of 15 proposed this century.  I don't know if it's complete or if there's more.  Two of the amendments are repeals.

21st century[edit]
A balanced budget amendment, in which Congress and the President are forced to balance the budget every year, has been introduced many times.[8]
School Prayer Amendment proposed on April 9, 2003, to establish that "The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools."[9]
God in the Pledge of Allegiance – declaring that it is not an establishment of religion for teachers to lead students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (with the words "one Nation under God"), proposed on February 27, 2003, by Oklahoma Representative Frank Lucas.[10]
Every Vote Counts Amendment – proposed by Congressman Gene Green on September 14, 2004. It would abolish the electoral college.[11]
Continuity of Government Amendment – after a Senate hearing in 2004 regarding the need for an amendment to ensure continuity of government in the event that many members of Congress become incapacitated,[12] Senator John Cornyn introduced an amendment to allow Congress to temporarily replace members after at least a quarter of either chamber is incapacitated.[13]
Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment – proposed by Senator Orrin Hatch. It would allow naturalized citizens with at least twenty years' citizenship to become president.
Seventeenth Amendment repeal – proposed in 2004 by Georgia Senator Zell Miller. It would reinstate the appointment of Senators by state legislatures as originally required by Article One, Section Three, Clauses One and Three.
The Federal Marriage Amendment has been introduced in the United States Congress four times: in 2003, 2004, 2005/2006 and 2008 by multiple members of Congress (with support from then-President George W. Bush). It would define marriage and prohibit same-sex marriage, even at the state level.
Twenty-second Amendment repeal – proposed as early as 1989, various congressmen, including Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Steny Hoyer, Rep. José Serrano,[14] Rep. Howard Berman, and Sen. Harry Reid,[15] have introduced legislation, but each resolution died before making it out of its respective committee. The current amendment limits the president to two elected terms in office, and up to two years succeeding a President in office. Last action was On January 4, 2013, Rep. José Serrano once again introduced H.J.Res. 15 proposing an Amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment, as he has done every two years since 1997.[16]
On January 16, 2009, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana proposed an amendment which would have denied US citizenship to anyone born in the US unless at least one parent were a US citizen, a permanent resident, or in the armed forces.[17]
On February 25, 2009, Senator Lisa Murkowski, because she believed the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 would be unconstitutional if adopted, proposed a Constitutional amendment that would provide a Representative to the District of Columbia.[18]
On November 11, 2009, Senator Jim DeMint proposed term limits for the U.S. Congress, where the limit for senators will be two terms for a total of 12 years and for representatives, three terms for a total of six years.[19]
On November 15, 2011, Representative James P. McGovern introduced the People's Rights Amendment, a proposal to limit the Constitution's protections only to the rights of natural persons, and not corporations. This amendment would overturn the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[20]
On December 8, 2011 Senator Bernie Sanders filed The Saving American Democracy Amendment, which would state that corporations are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as people. It would also ban corporate campaign donations to candidates, and give Congress and the states broad authority to regulate spending in elections. This amendment would overturn the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[21][22]
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. backed the Right to Vote Amendment, a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote for all legal U.S. citizens and empower Congress to protect this right; he introduced a resolution for the amendment in the 107th,[23] 108th,[24] 109th,[25] 110th,[26] 111th[27] and 112th,[28] all of which died in committee. On May 13, 2013, Reps. Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison re-introduced the bill.[29]
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2014, 09:57:48 AM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 09:43:19 AM
Sorry I meant to say proposed and not pending. In the mean time I found a list of 15 proposed this century.  I don't know if it's complete or if there's more.  Two of the amendments are repeals.

21st century[edit]
A balanced budget amendment, in which Congress and the President are forced to balance the budget every year, has been introduced many times.[8]
School Prayer Amendment proposed on April 9, 2003, to establish that "The people retain the right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, and traditions on public property, including schools."[9]
God in the Pledge of Allegiance – declaring that it is not an establishment of religion for teachers to lead students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance (with the words "one Nation under God"), proposed on February 27, 2003, by Oklahoma Representative Frank Lucas.[10]
Every Vote Counts Amendment – proposed by Congressman Gene Green on September 14, 2004. It would abolish the electoral college.[11]
Continuity of Government Amendment – after a Senate hearing in 2004 regarding the need for an amendment to ensure continuity of government in the event that many members of Congress become incapacitated,[12] Senator John Cornyn introduced an amendment to allow Congress to temporarily replace members after at least a quarter of either chamber is incapacitated.[13]
Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment – proposed by Senator Orrin Hatch. It would allow naturalized citizens with at least twenty years' citizenship to become president.
Seventeenth Amendment repeal – proposed in 2004 by Georgia Senator Zell Miller. It would reinstate the appointment of Senators by state legislatures as originally required by Article One, Section Three, Clauses One and Three.
The Federal Marriage Amendment has been introduced in the United States Congress four times: in 2003, 2004, 2005/2006 and 2008 by multiple members of Congress (with support from then-President George W. Bush). It would define marriage and prohibit same-sex marriage, even at the state level.
Twenty-second Amendment repeal – proposed as early as 1989, various congressmen, including Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. Steny Hoyer, Rep. José Serrano,[14] Rep. Howard Berman, and Sen. Harry Reid,[15] have introduced legislation, but each resolution died before making it out of its respective committee. The current amendment limits the president to two elected terms in office, and up to two years succeeding a President in office. Last action was On January 4, 2013, Rep. José Serrano once again introduced H.J.Res. 15 proposing an Amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment, as he has done every two years since 1997.[16]
On January 16, 2009, Senator David Vitter of Louisiana proposed an amendment which would have denied US citizenship to anyone born in the US unless at least one parent were a US citizen, a permanent resident, or in the armed forces.[17]
On February 25, 2009, Senator Lisa Murkowski, because she believed the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 would be unconstitutional if adopted, proposed a Constitutional amendment that would provide a Representative to the District of Columbia.[18]
On November 11, 2009, Senator Jim DeMint proposed term limits for the U.S. Congress, where the limit for senators will be two terms for a total of 12 years and for representatives, three terms for a total of six years.[19]
On November 15, 2011, Representative James P. McGovern introduced the People's Rights Amendment, a proposal to limit the Constitution's protections only to the rights of natural persons, and not corporations. This amendment would overturn the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[20]
On December 8, 2011 Senator Bernie Sanders filed The Saving American Democracy Amendment, which would state that corporations are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as people. It would also ban corporate campaign donations to candidates, and give Congress and the states broad authority to regulate spending in elections. This amendment would overturn the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.[21][22]
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. backed the Right to Vote Amendment, a proposal to explicitly guarantee the right to vote for all legal U.S. citizens and empower Congress to protect this right; he introduced a resolution for the amendment in the 107th,[23] 108th,[24] 109th,[25] 110th,[26] 111th[27] and 112th,[28] all of which died in committee. On May 13, 2013, Reps. Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison re-introduced the bill.[29]
Alfred, you need to link all posts where you quote the content. Copyright laws and all that.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 10:19:55 AM
OK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitutiont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitutiont) 
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2014, 10:21:28 AM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 10:19:55 AM
OK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitutiont (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitutiont)
Thanks, but you'll find most ignore Wiki as a source for anything political.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 11:03:37 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2014, 10:21:28 AM
Thanks, but you'll find most ignore Wiki as a source for anything political.

OK, but in this case there wasn't any comment.  It's just a list.  It would be interesting to know which of these proposed amendments could be supported or if they're all seen as tampering with the wishes of the founding fathers. 

One proposal that looks interesting (although it might be overkill to make it an amendment and it was written by a socialist) is the Saving American Democracy amendment.  It could possibly cross philosophical lines if you think corporations have too much sway.  I'm not advocating it, I just find it interesting.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2014, 12:31:51 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 11:03:37 AM
OK, but in this case there wasn't any comment.  It's just a list.  It would be interesting to know which of these proposed amendments could be supported or if they're all seen as tampering with the wishes of the founding fathers. 

One proposal that looks interesting (although it might be overkill to make it an amendment and it was written by a socialist) is the Saving American Democracy amendment.  It could possibly cross philosophical lines if you think corporations have too much sway.  I'm not advocating it, I just find it interesting.
"Saving American Democracy"?  :biggrin: There is no such animal.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 12:50:03 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2014, 12:31:51 PM
"Saving American Democracy"?  :biggrin: There is no such animal.

Did you mean there is no democracy or there is no such amendment? 
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2014, 12:57:20 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 12:50:03 PM
Did you mean there is no democracy or there is no such amendment?
We Are Not A Democracy! We Are a Republic!
Show me where the founders claimed we were a Democracy.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2014, 12:57:20 PM
We Are Not A Democracy! We Are a Republic!
Show me where the founders claimed we were a Democracy.

OK.  I guess he should have called it Saving Our Republic.  The proposed amendment says that corporations are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as people.  It bans campaign contributions to candidates by corporations and gives the congress and the states the power to regulate campaign spending.  It over turns the supreme court decision. 

I know it was written by a socialist and I know the reasons the Electoral Commission was sued, but I don't think that "We the people..." was meant to include giant corporations with tons of money to buy influence.  It makes me feel puny and powerless.  Besides including a legal entity in the definition of person, just doesn't ring true to me.  Why should Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, or Google have more power than I do?  Still, I don't know if it should be an amendment, I just like the idea.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 13, 2014, 01:48:06 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 01:36:37 PM
OK.  I guess he should have called it Saving Our Republic.  The proposed amendment says that corporations are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as people.  It bans campaign contributions to candidates by corporations and gives the congress and the states the power to regulate campaign spending.  It over turns the supreme court decision. 

I know it was written by a socialist and I know the reasons the Electoral Commission was sued, but I don't think that "We the people..." was meant to include giant corporations with tons of money to buy influence.  It makes me feel puny and powerless.  Besides including a legal entity in the definition of person, just doesn't ring true to me.  Why should Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, or Google have more power than I do?  Still, I don't know if it should be an amendment, I just like the idea.
Then you and Pelosi share a common goal of amending the Constitution.
Funny how it was never an issue when Unions did it, but when the common investor sinks his money into a corporation willingly, one that shares his ideals, it's suddenly wrong.

Let that absorb a moment.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 02:44:24 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 13, 2014, 01:48:06 PM
Then you and Pelosi share a common goal of amending the Constitution.
Funny how it was never an issue when Unions did it, but when the common investor sinks his money into a corporation willingly, one that shares his ideals, it's suddenly wrong.

Let that absorb a moment.

Absorbed.  I don't like anyone buying influence: unions, corporations, wealthy individuals, it doesn't matter.  Since we're a republic, whoever I voted for, if they win, should represent me and not someone who paid for their election.  With PAC's you don't even know who's footing the bill.  It could be someone whose interests are detrimental to me and I wouldn't even find out about it until their man's in office (think George Soros).  Where's the thoughtful discussion of issues, its been replaced by 30 second sound bites and pictures of candidates having a bad hair day.  If we're to have freedom, then everything needs to be transparent, otherwise how can you make a wise decision?  Big business and big government fear you and work hand in hand to make sure that you as an individual don't have the power.  I thought that was what this forum was all about, protecting the freedom of the individual.  Maybe I was wrong. 
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: TboneAgain on December 13, 2014, 08:31:49 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 02:44:24 PM
Absorbed.  I don't like anyone buying influence: unions, corporations, wealthy individuals, it doesn't matter.  Since we're a republic, whoever I voted for, if they win, should represent me and not someone who paid for their election.  With PAC's you don't even know who's footing the bill.  It could be someone whose interests are detrimental to me and I wouldn't even find out about it until their man's in office (think George Soros).  Where's the thoughtful discussion of issues, its been replaced by 30 second sound bites and pictures of candidates having a bad hair day.  If we're to have freedom, then everything needs to be transparent, otherwise how can you make a wise decision?  Big business and big government fear you and work hand in hand to make sure that you as an individual don't have the power.  I thought that was what this forum was all about, protecting the freedom of the individual.  Maybe I was wrong.

This forum is all about discussing and promoting what is known as the conservative point of view. Part and parcel of that point of view is the preservation of individual freedom. In fact, individual freedom can be said to be the one principle that drives and defines conservatism. Think about it.

Smaller/less government = more individual freedom.

Fewer regulations = more individual freedom.

Lower taxes = more individual freedom.

Literal interpretation of the Constitution = more individual freedom.

See how it works?  :tounge:
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: supsalemgr on December 14, 2014, 05:24:02 AM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 01:36:37 PM
OK.  I guess he should have called it Saving Our Republic.  The proposed amendment says that corporations are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as people.  It bans campaign contributions to candidates by corporations and gives the congress and the states the power to regulate campaign spending.  It over turns the supreme court decision. 

I know it was written by a socialist and I know the reasons the Electoral Commission was sued, but I don't think that "We the people..." was meant to include giant corporations with tons of money to buy influence.  It makes me feel puny and powerless.  Besides including a legal entity in the definition of person, just doesn't ring true to me.  Why should Microsoft, Berkshire Hathaway, or Google have more power than I do?  Still, I don't know if it should be an amendment, I just like the idea.

What about unions?
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 14, 2014, 08:11:25 AM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 13, 2014, 02:44:24 PM
Absorbed.  I don't like anyone buying influence: unions, corporations, wealthy individuals, it doesn't matter.  Since we're a republic, whoever I voted for, if they win, should represent me and not someone who paid for their election.  With PAC's you don't even know who's footing the bill.  It could be someone whose interests are detrimental to me and I wouldn't even find out about it until their man's in office (think George Soros).  Where's the thoughtful discussion of issues, its been replaced by 30 second sound bites and pictures of candidates having a bad hair day.  If we're to have freedom, then everything needs to be transparent, otherwise how can you make a wise decision?  Big business and big government fear you and work hand in hand to make sure that you as an individual don't have the power.  I thought that was what this forum was all about, protecting the freedom of the individual.  Maybe I was wrong.
All that happened was, SCOTUS removed barriers to groups voicing their opinions with money to create leverage.
Basically what they did was create competition for lobbyists of the elite. For example, Christians, Vets, Conservatives of all stripes can now compete on what used to be an elitist fixed field.

Again, absorb.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 14, 2014, 10:09:29 AM
Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2014, 08:11:25 AM
All that happened was, SCOTUS removed barriers to groups voicing their opinions with money to create leverage.
Basically what they did was create competition for lobbyists of the elite. For example, Christians, Vets, Conservatives of all stripes can now compete on what used to be an elitist fixed field.

Again, absorb.

That's true, but it's not all it did.  Let me tell you a little story.  The first part is true, the second part is a hypothetical.  I'll let you know when the story changes.  I'm not going to name name's because I have a pension that can be revoked at any time for any reason.

Our company supplies oil and gas related equipment for field development, product transmission, and refining.  Call it X Inc. out of Houston.  Back in the early 80's our business agent in Dubai (an agent is an independent contractor you pay a flat fee to so he can bribe all the right people and you don't  get your hands dirty because you don't really know what he's doing) told us that the Iranians needed revenue and wanted to refurbish some of their aging oil fields and develop a new one.  We could still do business with them, but they couldn't do business with the Great Satan.  No problem.  We have a regional facility in country Y so we shipped all our equipment there, did some minor assembly, and slapped made in country Y on everything (just like we do now with Chinese golf club heads and Japanese shafts, "Assembled in the USA").  Everybody was happy.  Us, the agent, the bribed Iranians, the Ayatollah, we were all making money.  That's the nice thing about business, it's amoral.  Making money is good, losing money is bad.  It's all black and white (or red in this case).  Then came the embargo in the 90's and the revenue stream from Iran was cut off.  No problem.  Country Y was not participating in the embargo.  We spun off part of our regional facility, incorporated it as our subsidiary under the laws of country Y, staffed it completely with local nationals (so no Americans were involved), and set up separate accounting so the only thing we saw were the numbers from our sub, which then rolled up into our numbers with no knowledge of where the money came from (the sub was also doing business in surrounding countries like Iraq).  Now we could turn the revenue stream back on.  The only problem was the Iranians couldn't get their hands on any cash.  No problem.  We sold them their equipment through a trading company registered in another country, not participating in the embargo, who them bartered the equipment for oil.  Once again everybody's happy, including the trading company and now the Russians.  Why the Russians?  Because they wanted to supply uranium enrichment technology to Iran and now the Iranians had the additional resources to buy it (there is no good or bad, there's only money).

This is about the time I retired so the rest of the story is hypothetical, but it illustrates the kind of thing that used to happen all the time, and can happen again with the SCOTUS decision.

Senator Bozo, a moderate Republican from the great state of Z,  is informed by the Jewish lobby about what's going on in Iran and since they're a big supporter of his,  they want some action.  So Senator Bozo starts an investigation and vows to introduce new regulations that will shutdown this kind of business activity.  Company X is not amused.  This is a billion dollar a year revenue stream.  Now since corporations are allowed to contribute to political campaigns and PACs don't have to reveal their donors, Company X dumps $100M into the campaign of Mr. Right.  They portray Senator Bozo as out of touch, part of the good old boy crony system, and probably a socialist, since he's compromised with the left at times during his 20 year tenure.  The attack ads are aired every fifteen minutes 24/7.  Senator Bozo loses the nomination and Mr. Right easily wins the election in the solid red state of Z.
Now the investigation is trashed and company X can go back to business as usual.  Everybody's happy again.  The Ayatollah, the bribed officials, the trading company, the agent, the sub, company X, the Russians, and you (because that socialist Bozo is out of office).  If Israel is unhappy that's ok.  We'll sell them laser guided bunker busters so they can take out the enrichment facilities.  If they destroy those facilities that's great, because then the Iranians will have to buy everything over again.  It's so beautiful.  It's perfection. 
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 14, 2014, 12:05:15 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 14, 2014, 10:09:29 AM
That's true, but it's not all it did.  Let me tell you a little story.  The first part is true, the second part is a hypothetical.  I'll let you know when the story changes.  I'm not going to name name's because I have a pension that can be revoked at any time for any reason.

Our company supplies oil and gas related equipment for field development, product transmission, and refining.  Call it X Inc. out of Houston.  Back in the early 80's our business agent in Dubai (an agent is an independent contractor you pay a flat fee to so he can bribe all the right people and you don't  get your hands dirty because you don't really know what he's doing) told us that the Iranians needed revenue and wanted to refurbish some of their aging oil fields and develop a new one.  We could still do business with them, but they couldn't do business with the Great Satan.  No problem.  We have a regional facility in country Y so we shipped all our equipment there, did some minor assembly, and slapped made in country Y on everything (just like we do now with Chinese golf club heads and Japanese shafts, "Assembled in the USA").  Everybody was happy.  Us, the agent, the bribed Iranians, the Ayatollah, we were all making money.  That's the nice thing about business, it's amoral.  Making money is good, losing money is bad.  It's all black and white (or red in this case).  Then came the embargo in the 90's and the revenue stream from Iran was cut off.  No problem.  Country Y was not participating in the embargo.  We spun off part of our regional facility, incorporated it as our subsidiary under the laws of country Y, staffed it completely with local nationals (so no Americans were involved), and set up separate accounting so the only thing we saw were the numbers from our sub, which then rolled up into our numbers with no knowledge of where the money came from (the sub was also doing business in surrounding countries like Iraq).  Now we could turn the revenue stream back on.  The only problem was the Iranians couldn't get their hands on any cash.  No problem.  We sold them their equipment through a trading company registered in another country, not participating in the embargo, who them bartered the equipment for oil.  Once again everybody's happy, including the trading company and now the Russians.  Why the Russians?  Because they wanted to supply uranium enrichment technology to Iran and now the Iranians had the additional resources to buy it (there is no good or bad, there's only money).

This is about the time I retired so the rest of the story is hypothetical, but it illustrates the kind of thing that used to happen all the time, and can happen again with the SCOTUS decision.

Senator Bozo, a moderate Republican from the great state of Z,  is informed by the Jewish lobby about what's going on in Iran and since they're a big supporter of his,  they want some action.  So Senator Bozo starts an investigation and vows to introduce new regulations that will shutdown this kind of business activity.  Company X is not amused.  This is a billion dollar a year revenue stream.  Now since corporations are allowed to contribute to political campaigns and PACs don't have to reveal their donors, Company X dumps $100M into the campaign of Mr. Right.  They portray Senator Bozo as out of touch, part of the good old boy crony system, and probably a socialist, since he's compromised with the left at times during his 20 year tenure.  The attack ads are aired every fifteen minutes 24/7.  Senator Bozo loses the nomination and Mr. Right easily wins the election in the solid red state of Z.
Now the investigation is trashed and company X can go back to business as usual.  Everybody's happy again.  The Ayatollah, the bribed officials, the trading company, the agent, the sub, company X, the Russians, and you (because that socialist Bozo is out of office).  If Israel is unhappy that's ok.  We'll sell them laser guided bunker busters so they can take out the enrichment facilities.  If they destroy those facilities that's great, because then the Iranians will have to buy everything over again.  It's so beautiful.  It's perfection.
Regardless of who supplies what, if Americans don't participate, the profit will no doubt go to the enemy, China, Russia, NK etc.
But then you try and wrap it up under a lie, the lie that PACS don't have to reveal where the money comes from.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012 (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012)

Either we become an isolationist nation, or we freely participate in the free mkt is the question, there is no gray area here.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: supsalemgr on December 14, 2014, 12:18:10 PM
We are still awaiting an answer if you feel the same way about union contributions to candidates and parties.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 14, 2014, 12:58:29 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2014, 12:05:15 PM
Regardless of who supplies what, if Americans don't participate, the profit will no doubt go to the enemy, China, Russia, NK etc.
But then you try and wrap it up under a lie, the lie that PACS don't have to reveal where the money comes from.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012 (http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012)

Either we become an isolationist nation, or we freely participate in the free mkt is the question, there is no gray area here.

I didn't intend to lie, I was just misinformed.  Really though it doesn't matter.  A company is not going to invest millions for some idealistic reason.  They're going to do it because they know it's going help them make money in the future.  You know, "someday I'm going to ask you to return the favor."  That's just the way the real world works.
If you don't have a problem making money by helping people sponsoring terrorism and who want to destroy you, then you really are a free market capitalist.  Maybe you should find a way to sell shoulder fired missile to Al Qaeda.  They seem to have a lot of cash.  I mean if you don't do it then the North Koreans might and they'll make all the money.

The point I'm trying to make is that the infusion of big money into campaigns, on both sides, promotes back door quid pro quos that I don't think have any place in our government.  And, there are issues where there is common ground between libertarians and progressives (even though we disagree on 99% of everything else).  Common ground where neither side has to compromise, in the least, their deeply held values.  But you have to look hard for that 1%, and when you find it you can make a real change for the better.  It's not compromise, it's common ground and it does exist.  For most people it's much easier just trash everything the other side says.  That's why nothing really gets done. 
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 14, 2014, 02:10:13 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 14, 2014, 12:58:29 PM
I didn't intend to lie, I was just misinformed.  Really though it doesn't matter.  A company is not going to invest millions for some idealistic reason.  They're going to do it because they know it's going help them make money in the future.  You know, "someday I'm going to ask you to return the favor."  That's just the way the real world works.
If you don't have a problem making money by helping people sponsoring terrorism and who want to destroy you, then you really are a free market capitalist.  Maybe you should find a way to sell shoulder fired missile to Al Qaeda.  They seem to have a lot of cash.  I mean if you don't do it then the North Koreans might and they'll make all the money.

The point I'm trying to make is that the infusion of big money into campaigns, on both sides, promotes back door quid pro quos that I don't think have any place in our government.  And, there are issues where there is common ground between libertarians and progressives (even though we disagree on 99% of everything else).  Common ground where neither side has to compromise, in the least, their deeply held values.  But you have to look hard for that 1%, and when you find it you can make a real change for the better.  It's not compromise, it's common ground and it does exist.  For most people it's much easier just trash everything the other side says.  That's why nothing really gets done.
I'm neither condemning nor condoning PACS, I'm just pointing out where SCOTUS merely leveled the playing field.
Unions were already allowed to funnel money, a majority of which is Marxist based.
Allowing the common man to form PACS, whether it be corporate, Christian, or a voice to those of us wanting to support Founding values, it was a move towards Liberty, in that anyone now has Right to influence as a concerted voice.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 14, 2014, 03:26:07 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 14, 2014, 02:10:13 PM
I'm neither condemning nor condoning PACS, I'm just pointing out where SCOTUS merely leveled the playing field.
Unions were already allowed to funnel money, a majority of which is Marxist based.
Allowing the common man to form PACS, whether it be corporate, Christian, or a voice to those of us wanting to support Founding values, it was a move towards Liberty, in that anyone now has Right to influence as a concerted voice.

OK, I'll buy into that.  I guess it's corporations that I'm most concerned about.  I don't think they're the common man.  Far from it.  Once again, their not going to invest their money in anybody unless they know it's going to pay off.  If you limit the amount that can be contributed by any entity, it levels the playing field even more.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 14, 2014, 03:28:03 PM
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 14, 2014, 12:18:10 PM
We are still awaiting an answer if you feel the same way about union contributions to candidates and parties.

Sorry, I missed your post.  The answer is yes, I feel the same way about unions.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: zewazir on December 14, 2014, 04:43:20 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 14, 2014, 03:26:07 PM
OK, I'll buy into that.  I guess it's corporations that I'm most concerned about.  I don't think they're the common man.  Far from it.  Once again, their not going to invest their money in anybody unless they know it's going to pay off.  If you limit the amount that can be contributed by any entity, it levels the playing field even more.
One of the problems with the "Corporate money = BAD" arguments is that not all corporations are for profit. And, in fact, not all for-profit corporations are out there to enslave us. In fact, there are a very large number of corporations out there whose primary reason for being is to promote the economic, or sometimes political concerns of their membership. For instance, under the rules (unconstitutional squared and cubed IMO) of the 501(c)(3) regulations of the IRS, a not-for-profit, community benefit corporation does not have to pay taxes on revenues gained for the operation of said not-for-profit. BUT, supposedly because the corporation does not pay taxes, the corporation is also PROHIBITED from making political comment which can be construed to be in support of, or in opposition to a particular political candidate, or any direct-election political issue. (Since when must one pay taxes to be able to speak out on politics? If this were true, a large number of registered democrats could not talk politics.)

This regulation puts the IRS in the position of being able to squash political dialog from those types of not-for-profit organizations which the IRS deems to be a threat to their power base. Witness the way the IRS targeted TEA Party organizations the last presidential election, as well as the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

The fact is, with a society the size of the U.S., or even one of its member states, it takes a lot of money to get a message out to where a lot of people will be exposed to the ideas of the message.  That's just the way the world works, and it has been that way for a long, long time. And while I can see the desire to keep people like George Soros "level" with Joe Common Citizen, the problem is doing so without shooting ourselves in the foot, not to mention without being hypocritical to the principles of freedom of expression.

Corporations, whether they are for profit or not, are NOT, as the media and liberal pundits like to say, being treated as a person. The concept of corporate personhood was introduced as a means to make treating with a corporation manageable in the legal system: between the corp. and its clients, between the corp. and government, etc. The entire "corporate personhood" concept has since then been grossly misrepresented and/or misinterpreted as part of the entire class warfare scheme of the socialists. What is being done to counter the socialist interpretation (read LIE) is recognizing that a corporation DOES NOT EXIST, unless there were real PEOPLE behind it. As such the PEOPLE of the corporation have EVERY RIGHT to be heard under the 1st Amendment, which guarantees not only freedom of expression, but also the right to free assembly. (ie: organize as a group to present a unified message.) We start limiting what corporations can do, we are limiting the entire concept of free assembly.

Yes, it allows people like Soros to F with things in a manner Joe Common Citizen cannot compete with. But when one supports the ideal of personal freedom, then the bad comes with the good, because those who oppose us are free to try to take our freedom away. One good parallel to this concept is the ideal that is is better for a hundred criminals to go free than one innocent be convicted.  Similarly, it is better for our opponents to be free to oppose our freedoms (and, ironically, their own) than to curb the freedom and rights of any person in order to inhibit those who oppose us.

Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 14, 2014, 08:47:41 PM
Quote from: zewazir on December 14, 2014, 04:43:20 PM
One of the problems with the "Corporate money = BAD" arguments is that not all corporations are for profit. And, in fact, not all for-profit corporations are out there to enslave us. In fact, there are a very large number of corporations out there whose primary reason for being is to promote the economic, or sometimes political concerns of their membership. For instance, under the rules (unconstitutional squared and cubed IMO) of the 501(c)(3) regulations of the IRS, a not-for-profit, community benefit corporation does not have to pay taxes on revenues gained for the operation of said not-for-profit. BUT, supposedly because the corporation does not pay taxes, the corporation is also PROHIBITED from making political comment which can be construed to be in support of, or in opposition to a particular political candidate, or any direct-election political issue. (Since when must one pay taxes to be able to speak out on politics? If this were true, a large number of registered democrats could not talk politics.)

This regulation puts the IRS in the position of being able to squash political dialog from those types of not-for-profit organizations which the IRS deems to be a threat to their power base. Witness the way the IRS targeted TEA Party organizations the last presidential election, as well as the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

The fact is, with a society the size of the U.S., or even one of its member states, it takes a lot of money to get a message out to where a lot of people will be exposed to the ideas of the message.  That's just the way the world works, and it has been that way for a long, long time. And while I can see the desire to keep people like George Soros "level" with Joe Common Citizen, the problem is doing so without shooting ourselves in the foot, not to mention without being hypocritical to the principles of freedom of expression.

Corporations, whether they are for profit or not, are NOT, as the media and liberal pundits like to say, being treated as a person. The concept of corporate personhood was introduced as a means to make treating with a corporation manageable in the legal system: between the corp. and its clients, between the corp. and government, etc. The entire "corporate personhood" concept has since then been grossly misrepresented and/or misinterpreted as part of the entire class warfare scheme of the socialists. What is being done to counter the socialist interpretation (read LIE) is recognizing that a corporation DOES NOT EXIST, unless there were real PEOPLE behind it. As such the PEOPLE of the corporation have EVERY RIGHT to be heard under the 1st Amendment, which guarantees not only freedom of expression, but also the right to free assembly. (ie: organize as a group to present a unified message.) We start limiting what corporations can do, we are limiting the entire concept of free assembly.

Yes, it allows people like Soros to F with things in a manner Joe Common Citizen cannot compete with. But when one supports the ideal of personal freedom, then the bad comes with the good, because those who oppose us are free to try to take our freedom away. One good parallel to this concept is the ideal that is is better for a hundred criminals to go free than one innocent be convicted.  Similarly, it is better for our opponents to be free to oppose our freedoms (and, ironically, their own) than to curb the freedom and rights of any person in order to inhibit those who oppose us.

Great reply.  I've only read it once, so I'm going to have to take some to time to think it over and get back to you.  Thanks again.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: supsalemgr on December 15, 2014, 06:08:36 AM
Quote from: zewazir on December 14, 2014, 04:43:20 PM
One of the problems with the "Corporate money = BAD" arguments is that not all corporations are for profit. And, in fact, not all for-profit corporations are out there to enslave us. In fact, there are a very large number of corporations out there whose primary reason for being is to promote the economic, or sometimes political concerns of their membership. For instance, under the rules (unconstitutional squared and cubed IMO) of the 501(c)(3) regulations of the IRS, a not-for-profit, community benefit corporation does not have to pay taxes on revenues gained for the operation of said not-for-profit. BUT, supposedly because the corporation does not pay taxes, the corporation is also PROHIBITED from making political comment which can be construed to be in support of, or in opposition to a particular political candidate, or any direct-election political issue. (Since when must one pay taxes to be able to speak out on politics? If this were true, a large number of registered democrats could not talk politics.)

This regulation puts the IRS in the position of being able to squash political dialog from those types of not-for-profit organizations which the IRS deems to be a threat to their power base. Witness the way the IRS targeted TEA Party organizations the last presidential election, as well as the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

The fact is, with a society the size of the U.S., or even one of its member states, it takes a lot of money to get a message out to where a lot of people will be exposed to the ideas of the message.  That's just the way the world works, and it has been that way for a long, long time. And while I can see the desire to keep people like George Soros "level" with Joe Common Citizen, the problem is doing so without shooting ourselves in the foot, not to mention without being hypocritical to the principles of freedom of expression.

Corporations, whether they are for profit or not, are NOT, as the media and liberal pundits like to say, being treated as a person. The concept of corporate personhood was introduced as a means to make treating with a corporation manageable in the legal system: between the corp. and its clients, between the corp. and government, etc. The entire "corporate personhood" concept has since then been grossly misrepresented and/or misinterpreted as part of the entire class warfare scheme of the socialists. What is being done to counter the socialist interpretation (read LIE) is recognizing that a corporation DOES NOT EXIST, unless there were real PEOPLE behind it. As such the PEOPLE of the corporation have EVERY RIGHT to be heard under the 1st Amendment, which guarantees not only freedom of expression, but also the right to free assembly. (ie: organize as a group to present a unified message.) We start limiting what corporations can do, we are limiting the entire concept of free assembly.

Yes, it allows people like Soros to F with things in a manner Joe Common Citizen cannot compete with. But when one supports the ideal of personal freedom, then the bad comes with the good, because those who oppose us are free to try to take our freedom away. One good parallel to this concept is the ideal that is is better for a hundred criminals to go free than one innocent be convicted.  Similarly, it is better for our opponents to be free to oppose our freedoms (and, ironically, their own) than to curb the freedom and rights of any person in order to inhibit those who oppose us.


"Yes, it allows people like Soros to F with things in a manner Joe Common Citizen cannot compete with."

I differ with this view and here is why. Joe Common Citizen does have some influence with this ruling he previously did not have. If one does their homework they can find PAC's that support their values. Hence, by supporting those organizations their "small" voices can be heard. As Solar posted it does level the playing field from what it was.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 15, 2014, 08:46:24 AM
Quote from: zewazir on December 14, 2014, 04:43:20 PM
One of the problems with the "Corporate money = BAD" arguments is that not all corporations are for profit. And, in fact, not all for-profit corporations are out there to enslave us. In fact, there are a very large number of corporations out there whose primary reason for being is to promote the economic, or sometimes political concerns of their membership. For instance, under the rules (unconstitutional squared and cubed IMO) of the 501(c)(3) regulations of the IRS, a not-for-profit, community benefit corporation does not have to pay taxes on revenues gained for the operation of said not-for-profit. BUT, supposedly because the corporation does not pay taxes, the corporation is also PROHIBITED from making political comment which can be construed to be in support of, or in opposition to a particular political candidate, or any direct-election political issue. (Since when must one pay taxes to be able to speak out on politics? If this were true, a large number of registered democrats could not talk politics.)

This regulation puts the IRS in the position of being able to squash political dialog from those types of not-for-profit organizations which the IRS deems to be a threat to their power base. Witness the way the IRS targeted TEA Party organizations the last presidential election, as well as the 2010 and 2014 midterm elections.

The fact is, with a society the size of the U.S., or even one of its member states, it takes a lot of money to get a message out to where a lot of people will be exposed to the ideas of the message.  That's just the way the world works, and it has been that way for a long, long time. And while I can see the desire to keep people like George Soros "level" with Joe Common Citizen, the problem is doing so without shooting ourselves in the foot, not to mention without being hypocritical to the principles of freedom of expression.

Corporations, whether they are for profit or not, are NOT, as the media and liberal pundits like to say, being treated as a person. The concept of corporate personhood was introduced as a means to make treating with a corporation manageable in the legal system: between the corp. and its clients, between the corp. and government, etc. The entire "corporate personhood" concept has since then been grossly misrepresented and/or misinterpreted as part of the entire class warfare scheme of the socialists. What is being done to counter the socialist interpretation (read LIE) is recognizing that a corporation DOES NOT EXIST, unless there were real PEOPLE behind it. As such the PEOPLE of the corporation have EVERY RIGHT to be heard under the 1st Amendment, which guarantees not only freedom of expression, but also the right to free assembly. (ie: organize as a group to present a unified message.) We start limiting what corporations can do, we are limiting the entire concept of free assembly.

Yes, it allows people like Soros to F with things in a manner Joe Common Citizen cannot compete with. But when one supports the ideal of personal freedom, then the bad comes with the good, because those who oppose us are free to try to take our freedom away. One good parallel to this concept is the ideal that is is better for a hundred criminals to go free than one innocent be convicted.  Similarly, it is better for our opponents to be free to oppose our freedoms (and, ironically, their own) than to curb the freedom and rights of any person in order to inhibit those who oppose us.

First let me say, I'm not a lawyer and I couldn't possibly argue before the Supreme Court.  The court has decided and so that's the way things are for the moment.  Whether their decision for Citizens United was correct I have to defer to the legal scholars.  I know how I feel about it, however.

1.  I don't like the idea of unions spending a member's union dues on candidates or propositions the member may not approve of.  In the same vein, I don't like the idea of for-profit corporations spending money I've invested with them on candidates or propositions I don't approve of.  You may say my stock ownership is voluntary, but I have a stake through my 401K and my mutual funds in hundreds of companies.  It would be a nearly impossible task for me to research and keep up with what they're doing.  Why the court decided to include for-profits along with non-profits in their decision is something I don't understand.

2.  While a large political contribution may not actually involve a quid pro quo, it creates the perception there could be one which undermines my faith in the system.  In addition, there's always the threat of either you vote the way we want you to or we're going to spend you into oblivion.  This threat becomes more palpable as you work your way down from national to state and local offices and becomes problematic in the case of judges.

3.  Big money may actually limit free speech by monopolizing the airways and effectively gagging those with lesser resources.

4.  The decision seems to me to side with the Federalist point of view over the Jeffersonian.  That is, the power of the wealthy merchants over the common man.  This is reinforced when I read quotes from Jefferson like the following:

"The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain." Letter to Larkin Smith 1809

"Merchants have no country.  The mere spot they stand does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." Letter to H.G. Spafford 1814

Finally,

"I hope we shall take warning from the example (of England) and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."  Letter to George Logan 1816
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: walkstall on December 15, 2014, 03:24:51 PM
IF your going to have Freedom you must take the shit that goes with it.  Walks 12/15/2014


(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20131029180227%2Fsonicfanchara%2Fimages%2Fd%2Fda%2FDbz-meme.jpg&hash=0a068deae631833500c8ea752ddf64a3755d7436)
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 15, 2014, 05:03:08 PM
Quote from: walkstall on December 15, 2014, 03:24:51 PM
IF your going to have Freedom you must take the shit that goes with it.  Walks 12/15/2014


(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic2.wikia.nocookie.net%2F__cb20131029180227%2Fsonicfanchara%2Fimages%2Fd%2Fda%2FDbz-meme.jpg&hash=0a068deae631833500c8ea752ddf64a3755d7436)

Thanks to your words of wisdom, when  main stream Republicans bury Tea candidates with truck loads of their corporate buddies' cash, I'll be able to blow it off because I'll know that I'm really free.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 15, 2014, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 15, 2014, 05:03:08 PM
Thanks to your words of wisdom, when  main stream Republicans bury Tea candidates with truck loads of their corporate buddies' cash, I'll be able to blow it off because I'll know that I'm really free.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Wait, you were serious? Since when did money trump ideology?
TEA (an ideology) isn't even a party, yet look at the changes the last two midterms have accomplished, even up against billions of Establishment cash coupled with that of the GOP slush fund, and we still kicked their socialist collective asses.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 15, 2014, 05:34:43 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2014, 05:22:53 PM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Wait, you were serious? Since when did money trump ideology?
TEA (an ideology) isn't even a party, yet look at the changes the last two midterms have accomplished, even up against billions of Establishment cash coupled with that of the GOP slush fund, and we still kicked their socialist collective asses.

Really?   http://theweek.com/article/index/271391/how-the-tea-party-lost-the-2014-midterms (http://theweek.com/article/index/271391/how-the-tea-party-lost-the-2014-midterms)
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: walkstall on December 15, 2014, 05:49:41 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 15, 2014, 05:03:08 PM
Thanks to your words of wisdom, when  main stream Republicans bury Tea candidates with truck loads of their corporate buddies' cash, I'll be able to blow it off because I'll know that I'm really free.

Your going to have to decide what side your pulling for.  Do you wish to be free or controlled. 
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 15, 2014, 06:00:25 PM
Quote from: walkstall on December 15, 2014, 05:49:41 PM
Your going to have to decide what side your pulling for.  Do you wish to be free or controlled.

I've already decided a long time ago I want to be free, which means I have a voice, and I'm not squashed by powerful forces that  don't give a damn about me unless I can make them some money. 
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 15, 2014, 06:27:44 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 15, 2014, 05:34:43 PM
Really?   http://theweek.com/article/index/271391/how-the-tea-party-lost-the-2014-midterms (http://theweek.com/article/index/271391/how-the-tea-party-lost-the-2014-midterms)
You do realize, TEA is an ideology, not a party, right?

Tea Firebrand Wins Big in Iowa. Republican Joni Ernst, an outspoken right-winger, is the new Senator-elect from Iowa. In 2014, it appears, the key to winning in a swing state is to avoid talking about issues and emphasize pig castration.
Search domain www.thedailybeast.comthedailybeast.com (http://www.thedailybeast.comthedailybeast.com)

Tea Takes Wendy Davis' Senate Seat, Konni Burton Wins
Big Government; Big Journalism; Big ... Breitbart Sports; The Conversation; The Wires; Location Specific Navigation. Breitbart London; Breitbart Texas; Breitbart California; Tea Party Takes Wendy Davis' Senate Seat, Konni Burton Wins. Print article Send a Tip. by Merrill Hope 4 Nov ...
www.breitbart.combreitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/11/04/Tea-Party-Take...More (http://www.breitbart.combreitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/11/04/Tea-Party-Take...More) results

Tea wins big in Texas runoff elections | Human Events
Bare-knuckle political brawls end in Tea Party wins for Lt. Governor, U.S. House, and Attorney General. POLITICS. RedState; ... The Tea Party counted another big win in Texas by unseating 91-year-old incumbent Rep. Ralph Hall, ... © 2014 EAGLE PUBLISHING, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Search domain humanevents.comhumanevents.com
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: walkstall on December 15, 2014, 07:32:52 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 15, 2014, 06:00:25 PM
I've already decided a long time ago I want to be free, which means I have a voice, and I'm not squashed by powerful forces that  don't give a damn about me unless I can make them some money.

Trust me.  NOT all people or companies are that way.   You had a choice you could have worked for someone that give a shit.    If I did not like the people or companies that I work for through the years I move on.  I worked and paid taxes for over 65 years.  My last 36 years was for a company with great people.   
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: AlfredDrake on December 15, 2014, 07:41:12 PM
Quote from: Solar on December 15, 2014, 06:27:44 PM
You do realize, TEA is an ideology, not a party, right?

Tea Firebrand Wins Big in Iowa. Republican Joni Ernst, an outspoken right-winger, is the new Senator-elect from Iowa. In 2014, it appears, the key to winning in a swing state is to avoid talking about issues and emphasize pig castration.
Search domain www.thedailybeast.comthedailybeast.com (http://www.thedailybeast.comthedailybeast.com)

Tea Takes Wendy Davis' Senate Seat, Konni Burton Wins
Big Government; Big Journalism; Big ... Breitbart Sports; The Conversation; The Wires; Location Specific Navigation. Breitbart London; Breitbart Texas; Breitbart California; Tea Party Takes Wendy Davis' Senate Seat, Konni Burton Wins. Print article Send a Tip. by Merrill Hope 4 Nov ...
www.breitbart.combreitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/11/04/Tea-Party-Take...More (http://www.breitbart.combreitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/11/04/Tea-Party-Take...More) results

Tea wins big in Texas runoff elections | Human Events
Bare-knuckle political brawls end in Tea Party wins for Lt. Governor, U.S. House, and Attorney General. POLITICS. RedState; ... The Tea Party counted another big win in Texas by unseating 91-year-old incumbent Rep. Ralph Hall, ... © 2014 EAGLE PUBLISHING, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Search domain humanevents.comhumanevents.com

I understand.  It's an ideology inside a party that doesn't want to have anything to do with it.  It's an ideology inside a party that would love to run Jeb Bush for president.  That's Mr. Amnesty Bush.  That's an ideology inside a party who's presidential candidate John McCain called Ted Cruz looney toons.  They're already developing a strategy for 2016 that's going to completely ignore and repudiate the Tea ideology so they can move to the center.  They're going to outspend the Tea ideology by sums you can only dream of.  If Tea wins that bare knuckles fight, then it can square off against Hillary, who's already moved towards the center and will capture all the independents.  Tea needs to find a voice that can at least resonate within the Republican party or form another party.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 15, 2014, 07:50:53 PM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 15, 2014, 07:41:12 PM
I understand.  It's an ideology inside a party that doesn't want to have anything to do with it.  It's an ideology inside a party that would love to run Jeb Bush for president.  That's Mr. Amnesty Bush.  That's an ideology inside a party who's presidential candidate John McCain called Ted Cruz looney toons.  They're already developing a strategy for 2016 that's going to completely ignore and repudiate the Tea ideology so they can move to the center.  They're going to outspend the Tea ideology by sums you can only dream of.  If Tea wins that bare knuckles fight, then it can square off against Hillary, who's already moved towards the center and will capture all the independents.  Tea needs to find a voice that can at least resonate within the Republican party or form another party.
Again, it matters not what the rino do, they just showed the nation they don't give a damn about their constituency, or rather the people left with no other option but to elect  people the Establishment selected for them, or how they pushed to allow millions of illegals to flood the country.

That's over! were you been asleep in 2010 when TEA swept he Nation and both party's in seizing more than 700 Legislative seats?

It matters not what you think, but the facts speak for themselves where the anger of the Right translates into minimizing the power of the Establishment.

Get back to me in January.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: supsalemgr on December 16, 2014, 04:15:35 AM
Quote from: AlfredDrake on December 15, 2014, 07:41:12 PM
I understand.  It's an ideology inside a party that doesn't want to have anything to do with it.  It's an ideology inside a party that would love to run Jeb Bush for president.  That's Mr. Amnesty Bush.  That's an ideology inside a party who's presidential candidate John McCain called Ted Cruz looney toons.  They're already developing a strategy for 2016 that's going to completely ignore and repudiate the Tea ideology so they can move to the center.  They're going to outspend the Tea ideology by sums you can only dream of.  If Tea wins that bare knuckles fight, then it can square off against Hillary, who's already moved towards the center and will capture all the independents.  Tea needs to find a voice that can at least resonate within the Republican party or form another party.

I must have missed Hillary moving to the center. The last I heard she said we should have empathy for our enemies and corporations do not create jobs. Where are you getting your news?
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Solar on December 16, 2014, 05:15:51 AM
Quote from: supsalemgr on December 16, 2014, 04:15:35 AM
I must have missed Hillary moving to the center. The last I heard she said we should have empathy for our enemies and corporations do not create jobs. Where are you getting your news?
Apparently liberal rag opinion pieces that reference other liberal rags to back up their bull shit.
Did you read through that piece of tripe he posted to evidence his point?
It was packed full of links to other lib opinion pieces as proof to back up their claim that an ideology has been smite.

A claim about as ludicrous as claiming they had killed off belief in God.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: Possum on December 16, 2014, 06:17:54 AM
Two numbers which are usually not discussed but help the left are : 47% pay no taxes, 67% receive more from the govt. than they pay in. (These numbers come from the bortz talk show and I do not remember where he got them).  We are not losing our voice in our government due to corporate donations,  we are losing our voice due to all of the handouts!
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: red_dirt on January 24, 2015, 03:08:36 PM

      Equally disconcerting is the blatant disregard for the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights.
Even though the excesses began discretely prior to the election of Barack Obama, his administration
has thrown discretion out the door.

      If in Mexico, which has no guaranteed right to privacy in one's personal business, would you feel
comfortable logging on to the internet for banking transactions?  I'm sure people do, but we know it
can't be the same. For one thing, one man controls all the phone lines, and he answers not to the public.
Under Obama, America has just about gotten to the same place. People and governments routinely trespass
"private" communications here, with impunity.

      People have lost any comprehension of how important this is and the ramifications. Because merchandisers and others have figured out ways to turn this trespass to a profit, the money is now
available to influence law makers to the will of the trespassers. The Founding Fathers didn't have
internet marketing in mind when they drafted the 4th amendment, any more than Obama when he
stomps all over it, with Congressional quiet.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: daidalos on January 24, 2015, 05:41:07 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 14, 2014, 09:34:14 PM
Several recent posts have brought up the subject of "bright moments" or "golden opportunities" for legislative and/or constitutional change in this country. A fairly simple review of the history of amendments to the constitution shows an unmistakable pattern, which can be used as a guide for future campaigns.

BACKGROUND

The US Constitution is the literal political backbone of the nation. Its terms, its words, its thoughts actually form the federal government under which we all exist. Amending the US Constitution is, in the obvious sense of the word, a monumental act, and it has always been meant to be so.

The Constitution is not, as the Left wants to claim, a "living document." It is quite literally permanent and restrictive, by careful and deliberate design. It was crafted by indisputably wise men to create a central government... and at the same time to limit that very same government in every way they could think of. The men who wrote and promoted the Constitution understood, in ways that most citizens of this country today cannot, the existential dangers of a strong central government. James Madison is often cited as a model of federalist thinking, but he wasn't alone. As I am wont to quote, George Washington had this to say: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent. It is force."

Nevertheless, the men who wrote the Constitution provided for its amendment. It could be changed for reasons carefully and thoroughly considered by the people, and those changes would have to be voted on accordingly. Right out of the starting gate, at the demand of numerous of the original states, the first ten amendments were quickly adopted en bloc in 1791, just two years after the basic Constitution had been accepted. Unlike later amendments, the first ten were less literal changes to the document, and more extensions of it, and especially extensions and specific explanations of the document's limits on the new federal government. They were concise but expansive statements of what that government could NOT do. They consistently referred to the rights of "the states" and "the people" and they contained the words, "shall make no law," words specifically and directly pointed at the new national government. The Bill of Rights contains most of what people like Barack Obama refer to as "a charter of negative liberties," the most hated of which are the freedoms so eloquently described in the First, Second, Ninth, and most especially Tenth Amendments.

Amendments 11 and 12 were adopted in 1795 and 1804, respectively. They have been largely dismissed as "bookkeeping" amendments, minor corrections to the original document. Since then, the US Constitution has been amended fifteen times. Those amendments are more than rare. They are bellwethers of national thought. And they run in cycles -- they come in bunches.

POST-CIVIL WAR (RECONSTRUCTION) AMENDMENTS (1865-1870)

More than sixty years passed between the 12th and 13th Amendments. Then came three new amendments in just five years -- the 13th (abolishing slavery) in 1865, the 14th (establishing citizenship for former black slaves) in 1868, and the 15th (establishing voting rights for blacks) in 1870. It is worth noting that there was a strong movement meant to amend the Constitution to reduce the "lame duck" period between national elections and inaugurations, but it failed at that time. Argument pointed to the 4-month period between Lincoln's election and his installation in office, a period when the nation was being divided, and during which it could be reasonably argued that the will of the electorate was not being served. This issue would arise again later.

THE FIRST PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT (1913-1920)

After the Fifteenth Amendment, more than forty years passed before another was enacted, and it too was one of a series. In 1913, Amendment 16, which provided the national government with the power to tax personal incomes -- a power specifically prohibited in the original Constitution -- was ratified, and the first legal federal income tax law was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson, the first openly Progressive president. Just months later, the Seventeenth Amendment -- mandating the popular election of US senators -- was ushered in by the same man.

Before he left office, Wilson also heralded two more amendments. The Eighteenth enacted Prohibition and triggered the infamous Volstead Act. The Nineteenth, which extended voting rights to women, was greeted by Wilson in his last year in office.

THE DEPRESSION EMERGENCY/FDR (SECOND PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT) (1933-1951)

In the midst of the Great Depression, two issues grabbed public attention to the extent of generating Constitutional amendments. First, the voters did not care for the fact that, given 20th century technology, the federal government was still allowing four months for the change of governments after an election. (This was mentioned earlier.) As 1933 opened, it is fair to say that a high percentage of the voting public couldn't wait to see the backside of Herbert Hoover. The 20th Amendment, enacted in FDR's first year, provided for that change to move from March 4 to January each year. (Exact dates vary with office.)

Also enacted that year was the 21st Amendment, a landmark goal of the FDR campaign. Briefly stated, the 21st Amendment erased the 18th amendment, and Prohibition ended. Prohibition had always been hated as an extension of Victorian prudery from an earlier time, and by 1933, Prohibition had been widely recognized as one of the causes of the economic depression gripping the country.

I'll put one more amendment into this category -- the 22nd. In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term as president. Even before his death, public opinion was leaning toward thinking he had been in office too long. The 22nd Amendment, finally enacted in 1951, placed a two-term limit on the office of president.

THE SIXTIES/HIPPIE AMENDMENTS (THIRD PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT) (1961-1971)

Liberalism/progressivism once again asserted itself in the 1960s. One of the first things young John F. Kennedy did after taking office was to preside over the adoption of the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution, which granted the District of Columbia a pair of electors to vote in the Electoral College. Before the decade was out, the 24th Amendment, which prohibited poll taxes, and the 25th Amendment, which revised succession procedures, became law. Finally, in 1971 the long-festering movement to empower youth gained fruition with the 26th Amendment, which dropped the voting age to 18.

CONCLUSION

Outside the timeframes specified in the four distinct periods outlined above, and recognizing that the 11th and 12th Amendments were, as generally acknowledged, "bookkeeping" corrections, only one constitutional amendment has taken place -- the 27th, ratified in 1992. And even that was a relatively "minor" act, defining how quickly Congressional salary increases can become active. (Critics then and now point out that the amendment route to this solution was massive overkill.)

The timeline of amendments to the Constitution proves that that particular mechanism is powered by two things -- national emergency and the prominence and power of liberal/progressive forces.

Yep, the 27th needs to be repealed too. Because of it, Congress gets an automatic pay raise, unless a member can introduce, and get passed a bill to stop it that year.

Yeah right like that's going to happen. Who the hell is going to vote to deny themselves a pay increase? Not many.

That's one that ignores human nature. Which the founders never did. They kept and had in mind human nature, when they wrote the Constitution and then the Bill of Rights for example.

And that's the genius of the framers Tbone, in my own opinion.  :smile: About the Constitution being a document that is, static, stable, and restrictive.

It's that way because the "central" government was created for one reason. To establish the means, for the central government to provide for the creation of a military and to provide "mutual" defense for the States that's pretty much it. The rest of the Constitution, was designed to limit what the Federal Government's involvement in our personal daily lives would be. Leaving the rest of things, such as "healthcare" or "term limits" for example, as something each individual, sovereign STATE would decide for it's own people themselves.

Not what we wound up with is it, but that's what it was supposed to be.

Now skip ahead to today, there's a push to hold a new Constitutional Convention. Each time there's been a "revision" to our Constitution, through the amendment process.

There has been a liberal progressive attempt to include things, which would destroy the U.S. as a free and libertine, Constitutional Representative Republic, as it would grant to the Federal Government expanded authority to act in area's of the States rights, and in our daily lives.

So I am personally, not convinced we should hold one. Especially given the liberals of today...but if it is called for by the requisite State Governments, fine.

In that event all we the small fry citizen's like us can do, is pray those sent to represent the States are smart enough to take into account basic human nature, and wise enough to recognize liberal progressivism, and reject it.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: daidalos on January 24, 2015, 06:17:23 PM
Quote from: red_dirt on January 24, 2015, 03:08:36 PM
      Equally disconcerting is the blatant disregard for the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights.
Even though the excesses began discretely prior to the election of Barack Obama, his administration
has thrown discretion out the door.

      If in Mexico, which has no guaranteed right to privacy in one's personal business, would you feel
comfortable logging on to the internet for banking transactions?  I'm sure people do, but we know it
can't be the same. For one thing, one man controls all the phone lines, and he answers not to the public.
Under Obama, America has just about gotten to the same place. People and governments routinely trespass
"private" communications here, with impunity.

      People have lost any comprehension of how important this is and the ramifications. Because merchandisers and others have figured out ways to turn this trespass to a profit, the money is now
available to influence law makers to the will of the trespassers. The Founding Fathers didn't have
internet marketing in mind when they drafted the 4th amendment, any more than Obama when he
stomps all over it, with Congressional quiet.

http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/08/22/white-house-admits-it-hired-firm-to-spam-americans-on-health-care.php (http://wizbangblog.com/content/2009/08/22/white-house-admits-it-hired-firm-to-spam-americans-on-health-care.php)

2009 it's reported they're selling private communications to third party, for profit corporations.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/privacy-advocates-seek-protection-consumers-feds-healthcare-site/ (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/privacy-advocates-seek-protection-consumers-feds-healthcare-site/)

2015 the White House admit's it was/is selling private communications too for profit third party corporations.

Now right before friday's announcement. Last week in fact, on the fourteenth, I recieved an email telling me that as a smoker I better hurry up and get enrolled now.

Because that if I didn't, afterwards I might not be able to get Insured and then I would be facing fines assessed by the IRS, and possibly even 25 years prison time or both.

Note that despite the White House denials, that the new law, includes any jail time if you don't get insured and then don't pay the "fines" the email, which I recieved, also states that I cannot share any of the information in it.

As it's "proprietary" to the company which sent me the email.

How the hell someone can make such a claim about an email they sent to me unsolicited is beyond me.

As there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in that situation. But that's what it says at the bottom of the thing.

But it did, despite White House denials that the new law includes any provision of jail time, for not being insured or if you are given fines by the IRS and don't pay them.

It did tell me that I would face imprisonment if I didn't sign up with healthcare.gov

And I got this email, despite never ever having signed up on healthcare.gov because I already knew I didn't have/need too. As I have ins, through Medicare and Medicaid and (god forbid if need be) the VA already.

It told me I smoke, have type 2 Diabetes, and suffer Chronic pain, all of which again I have never sent to any ins company as I already have coverage.

I was thinking prior to this, that one of my Dr's had sold them this information. Which would be illegal as all hell, so I was trying to be smart about things, and find out which Dr office did, and then sue them out of practicing medicine again, unless they are doing so for free because they're paying me their paychecks for the rest of time.

But now, I suspect this means instead they sold, to this third party company that sent me the email, my personal VA and Medicare and Medicaid information. All three of which are governmental agencies I recently gave my email address too.

When asked for it, when dealing with getting a bill paid, as it should have been to start with.

Now I know though, how I got the email, how my info was obtained by a for profit ins company, and how someone in one of the few State's I've never visited in my life, had someone show up at the ER trying to use my Med ins. to obtain care.

Anyway's my point is this. We just yesterday had an admission by the White House, that this was indeed going on. What assurance would we the people have, that government won't do it again?

If not for some sort of amendment which would enumerate that if the government does this to a citizen, those government officials, all the way to the top, will be facing fines, personally liable for any punitive damages arising from any harm caused by this breach of privacy, and jail time or all three.

None. It's time that Congress act to seriously protect the personally identifiable information of our citizen's.

Instead of doing things, which only enable the citizens, personally  identifiable information. As in this day and age, where everyone walking down the road knows what ID theft is, it is unconscionable that the Government is doing this, and the Congress refuses to act to stop it, and to help those by providing assistance to stop ID theft in it's tracks.

Which the FTC will NOT help the individual to do. Which they won't do, if the perps of the crime are individuals.

Instead only collecting data on companies, from consumers who think they've been wronged. (Which is stupid given most ID theft is not done by a corporation, but an individual).

Don't believe me, call their ID theft line sometime. And then listen to the recording our Government's paying big buck for, really close. As they sort of ramble it off real fast like.

The whole situation of our nation is crap, and it's all stemming from expansion of the Federal Government through means other than amending the Constitution. Because the Constitution is intentionally difficult to amend.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: daidalos on May 19, 2015, 08:10:44 AM
Quote from: Mountainshield on October 24, 2014, 12:34:24 AM
I'm sorry I have to ask again, if the amendment process is so powerful then why doesn't the Conservatives or Republicans use it?
Amendments are actually pretty rare, instead we have a Congress that passes acts, to change the Constitution, thereby avoiding the amendment process entirely.

Take Obamacare for example.
Title: Re: Constitutional Amendments -- There Is A Pattern.
Post by: daidalos on June 28, 2015, 01:52:42 AM
Quote from: TboneAgain on October 14, 2014, 09:34:14 PM
Several recent posts have brought up the subject of "bright moments" or "golden opportunities" for legislative and/or constitutional change in this country. A fairly simple review of the history of amendments to the constitution shows an unmistakable pattern, which can be used as a guide for future campaigns.

BACKGROUND

The US Constitution is the literal political backbone of the nation. Its terms, its words, its thoughts actually form the federal government under which we all exist. Amending the US Constitution is, in the obvious sense of the word, a monumental act, and it has always been meant to be so.

The Constitution is not, as the Left wants to claim, a "living document." It is quite literally permanent and restrictive, by careful and deliberate design. It was crafted by indisputably wise men to create a central government... and at the same time to limit that very same government in every way they could think of. The men who wrote and promoted the Constitution understood, in ways that most citizens of this country today cannot, the existential dangers of a strong central government. James Madison is often cited as a model of federalist thinking, but he wasn't alone. As I am wont to quote, George Washington had this to say: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent. It is force."

Nevertheless, the men who wrote the Constitution provided for its amendment. It could be changed for reasons carefully and thoroughly considered by the people, and those changes would have to be voted on accordingly. Right out of the starting gate, at the demand of numerous of the original states, the first ten amendments were quickly adopted en bloc in 1791, just two years after the basic Constitution had been accepted. Unlike later amendments, the first ten were less literal changes to the document, and more extensions of it, and especially extensions and specific explanations of the document's limits on the new federal government. They were concise but expansive statements of what that government could NOT do. They consistently referred to the rights of "the states" and "the people" and they contained the words, "shall make no law," words specifically and directly pointed at the new national government. The Bill of Rights contains most of what people like Barack Obama refer to as "a charter of negative liberties," the most hated of which are the freedoms so eloquently described in the First, Second, Ninth, and most especially Tenth Amendments.

Amendments 11 and 12 were adopted in 1795 and 1804, respectively. They have been largely dismissed as "bookkeeping" amendments, minor corrections to the original document. Since then, the US Constitution has been amended fifteen times. Those amendments are more than rare. They are bellwethers of national thought. And they run in cycles -- they come in bunches.

POST-CIVIL WAR (RECONSTRUCTION) AMENDMENTS (1865-1870)

More than sixty years passed between the 12th and 13th Amendments. Then came three new amendments in just five years -- the 13th (abolishing slavery) in 1865, the 14th (establishing citizenship for former black slaves) in 1868, and the 15th (establishing voting rights for blacks) in 1870. It is worth noting that there was a strong movement meant to amend the Constitution to reduce the "lame duck" period between national elections and inaugurations, but it failed at that time. Argument pointed to the 4-month period between Lincoln's election and his installation in office, a period when the nation was being divided, and during which it could be reasonably argued that the will of the electorate was not being served. This issue would arise again later.

THE FIRST PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT (1913-1920)

After the Fifteenth Amendment, more than forty years passed before another was enacted, and it too was one of a series. In 1913, Amendment 16, which provided the national government with the power to tax personal incomes -- a power specifically prohibited in the original Constitution -- was ratified, and the first legal federal income tax law was signed into law by Woodrow Wilson, the first openly Progressive president. Just months later, the Seventeenth Amendment -- mandating the popular election of US senators -- was ushered in by the same man.

Before he left office, Wilson also heralded two more amendments. The Eighteenth enacted Prohibition and triggered the infamous Volstead Act. The Nineteenth, which extended voting rights to women, was greeted by Wilson in his last year in office.

THE DEPRESSION EMERGENCY/FDR (SECOND PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT) (1933-1951)

In the midst of the Great Depression, two issues grabbed public attention to the extent of generating Constitutional amendments. First, the voters did not care for the fact that, given 20th century technology, the federal government was still allowing four months for the change of governments after an election. (This was mentioned earlier.) As 1933 opened, it is fair to say that a high percentage of the voting public couldn't wait to see the backside of Herbert Hoover. The 20th Amendment, enacted in FDR's first year, provided for that change to move from March 4 to January each year. (Exact dates vary with office.)

Also enacted that year was the 21st Amendment, a landmark goal of the FDR campaign. Briefly stated, the 21st Amendment erased the 18th amendment, and Prohibition ended. Prohibition had always been hated as an extension of Victorian prudery from an earlier time, and by 1933, Prohibition had been widely recognized as one of the causes of the economic depression gripping the country.

I'll put one more amendment into this category -- the 22nd. In 1944, Franklin Roosevelt was elected to his fourth term as president. Even before his death, public opinion was leaning toward thinking he had been in office too long. The 22nd Amendment, finally enacted in 1951, placed a two-term limit on the office of president.

THE SIXTIES/HIPPIE AMENDMENTS (THIRD PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT) (1961-1971)

Liberalism/progressivism once again asserted itself in the 1960s. One of the first things young John F. Kennedy did after taking office was to preside over the adoption of the 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution, which granted the District of Columbia a pair of electors to vote in the Electoral College. Before the decade was out, the 24th Amendment, which prohibited poll taxes, and the 25th Amendment, which revised succession procedures, became law. Finally, in 1971 the long-festering movement to empower youth gained fruition with the 26th Amendment, which dropped the voting age to 18.

CONCLUSION

Outside the timeframes specified in the four distinct periods outlined above, and recognizing that the 11th and 12th Amendments were, as generally acknowledged, "bookkeeping" corrections, only one constitutional amendment has taken place -- the 27th, ratified in 1992. And even that was a relatively "minor" act, defining how quickly Congressional salary increases can become active. (Critics then and now point out that the amendment route to this solution was massive overkill.)

The timeline of amendments to the Constitution proves that that particular mechanism is powered by two things -- national emergency and the prominence and power of liberal/progressive forces.
Tbone it wasn't"overkill" because that was done. It was overkill because it put into place a system, wherein a person would have to intro a bill, and then get it passed, to stop themselves from getting a raise automatically.

Um yeah right, when was the last time you ever saw anyone, willing to cast a vote in the affirmative, to deny themselves a raise, across the board?