Posted in American History, history, Politics

The Amendments: Thirteen

This is another amendment that is probably one of the more well known ones:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

SECTION 2

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

(source)

The thirteenth amendment outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude except in causes where one is found guilty of a crime (basically a prison sentence).  Many people believe that the Emancipation proclamation outlawed Slavery, but it didn’t.  It only outlawed it in states that had been disloyal to the union.  Which I have to wonder how they intended on enforcing that proclamation in that case.  However, a few politicians of the age recognized the issue, and decided a more formal amendment was needed.  That Slavery should be outlawed everywhere, and not just in the confederate states.

Several representatives submitted proposals, and they were combined and edited to get what you have above.  It was approved by congress in 1864, and within a year was ratified by the 3/5ths majority it needed to be.  Several states however rejected the amendment at first.  A few reversed their position within a few years, but a couple held out till the next century.

As of 1995, all the states who were states when the amendment was passed out for ratification have ratified it.  It is however surprising that it took them this long, or that they figured it was still worth looking at despite the fact that it was already ratified.  I’m sure the late arrivals felt the idea, even if it was a mute point as far as the amendment went, was still important to pass.

There are a few other amendments connected to this one, as it was realised that this amendment didn’t do enough.

 

Posted in book reviews, bookit

Bookit Review: Nerves of Steel

Title: Nerves of Steel
Author: CJ Lyons
Publication date: 2009

My Grade: B

My Review:

CJ Lyons is an author I like to pick up from time to time.  I’ve read her Angels of Mercy series, and enjoyed it, so I decided to start reading another series by her.  Nerves of Steel is the first book in a four book series starring Cassandra Hart (An ER doctor) and Mickey Drake (a Detective).  The series is called Hart & Drake for obvious reasons.  My main draw to CJ Lyon’s books is that they take place in Pittsburgh.

In this book, the main characters are trying to solve a run of OD cases using Fentanyl.  They end up falling in love along the way, but I think that was a bit of a given.  However, it is an interesting case.  They have to find out who’s stealing the medication from the hospital and selling it to drug addicts who are dying from it.

There are three more books in the series, although I don’t have the middle two, just this one and the last one which I plan on reading soon.  However I do recommend it to people who like romance novels, mysteries and seeing Pittsburgh show up.

I also like the high amount of female characters involved in the actual case solving roles.  Besides the main character, there are several nurses, a social worker, a pharmacy tech, a detective and a Police commander all involved in trying to solve this case.

 

Posted in general

Happy Easter

While I know my readers no doubt have a variety of reasons for liking (or not liking) the holiday, for me this holiday has two meanings.

There is the religious one.  I am a Christian, and this holiday celebrates the idea that Christ died for our sins.  To me this holiday is more significant religiously then Christmas.  I attended Church this morning which was uplifting.

There is also the commercial holiday which is fun and enjoyable.  I love chocolate and its always fun to watch little kids riffle through their easter baskets seeing what treats or toys are waiting for them.   This year I got my niece a bunch of scribble eggs, plastic eggs she could draw on.  She seemed quite happy to doodle away, carrying the egg wherever she went for awhile.

Its also a day of togetherness.  So I wish all of you a happy Easter for whatever reasons you celebrate it.  If you don’t, I hope you had a great day as well.

EDIT:  I thought I posted this yesterday, but apparently I only saved it to my drafts.  So pretend it was yesterday when you read this.

Posted in American History, essay, Politics

The Amendments: Twelve

This amendment is a bit long, so I’m going to put a read-more cut before it. This amendment affects the Electoral college, so if you are interested in that, considering upcoming events, this is a good one to look into.

It was passed by Congress in December 1803, and ratified in June of 1804.  It relates to Article 1, Section II on the elections of Presidents and Vice Presidents as well as Amendments 20  & 22 , which actually edits part of this amendment.

Continue reading “The Amendments: Twelve”

Posted in American History, essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Eleven

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.  (source)

The eleventh amendment was the first amendment done after the Bill of Rights and the ratification of the Constitution.  It was proposed on March 4, 1794 and ratified on February 7, 1795.  So it took nearly a year to pass through Congress and get ratified by the states.

This amendment is often debated because of the range of different takes on how to follow this amendment.  Does this mean that the state governments can not be sued by their own citizens, or does it just bar out of state citizens and foreign parties?  Does it restrict what cases the federal government can view if there is an appeal.

At the very least it protects States from being sued by citizens not their own, and of being named in suits from foreign groups. Debate  on how broad or narrow this amendment is continues to this day.  It is connected to aspects of the fourteenth amendment, so that tailers what this amendment is read as.

 

 

Posted in American History, essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Nine & Ten

The 9th and 10th amendments, the last of the 1791 Bill of Rights, deal with similar concepts.  Mainly relations to rights not expressly listed by the Bill of Rights

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

This basically says they realise that the rights in the bill of Rights was not complete, that there are rights held by the people not listed and that the government can’t say “Well, its not mentioned, so you don’t have it.”

I’m sure this gets argued often enough.  It also allows for amendments to be added as times change and new problems come to the surface about various rights that should be self-evident but apparently need it bolded for some people to get.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Source)

This amendment gives powers to the States.  During the foundation of this nation, there was a big argument over whether the Federal or the states governments should have the most power.  It became clear fairly early after the articles of confederation that the Federal Government had to have some power.  Yet even during the construction of the Constitution, debate waged on just how much power the Federal government has.  Its still a debate today, and actually was what caused us to have our first political parties (The Federalists who wanted a strong central government and the Democratic-Republicans who wanted a weak Federal government with most power going to the States).

Basically this amendment says if a right is not listed here, and is not prohibited by the states, its up to the individual states or local municipalities to make a judgement call.  Which of course causes all kinds of arguments when the Federal government makes decisions that a state doesn’t like.

This is also why some laws differ from state to state even though you might think its common sense.  Most states have seatbelt laws, but not all, and each state has different idea of what they want to regulate.  One such law in my own state was that we used to have a law that motorcyclists had to wear helmets.  This always made sense to me.  I figured it was one of those common sense laws put in because some people don’t use theirs.  However, the state next door had no helmet law and when I would travel through it I would be amazed to see motorcyclists with bandanas or leather caps as their only protection.

The helmet law was repealed in my state in 2003 because it was argued that was over regulation of the people.  Now if you are 21 and older and have a full license, you don’t have to wear a helmet.

Posted in essay, history, Politics

The Amendments: Seven & Eight

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.  (source)

This one was a bit harder for me to understand. This amendment deals with civil cases, not criminal ones.  Civil trials are not usual, according to the National Constitution center its only been used in 1% of civil cases.  Most civil cases are decided upon by judges.

This does however protect the use of juries in civil trials, and limits the Judge’s ability to overturn jury responses to cases.

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

This protects people from being charged excessively for fines/bail, and not being treated unfairly. It’s probably also one of the more straightforward amendments.  There is debate on what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment (which apparently was referring to torture from the arguments given at the time).  This is often cited in arguments against the death penalty, or other methods of modern punishment such as solitary confinement.

It also brings to question the right of the US government to use torture, and other methods most would consider cruel on non-US citizens during time of War.  Beyond International agreements, do we have to right within our own guidelines to inflict this on other people?

I personally am against the Death penalty as I do not think it works as a deterrent, and far too many people are released later in life due to new evidence for me to trust convictions enough to subscribe to the penalty.  Also our current justice system has filled our prisons with minor infractions that don’t deserve lengthy time nor is it a good reason to execute someone to free up prison space.

I’m also against torture as it also has not been shown as a reliable way of getting information.   I feel that not only am against these things as they are logically unsound, I also am against them morally.