amendments to the united states constitution

Power to Add New Citizens?

Did the Constitution give the Federal Government the power to add new lands and people to the Union? Many thought the answer was “no”—until France offered to sell the Louisiana Territory. 

 Senator John Quincy Adams thought an amendment was required to admit the residents of Louisiana to the Union. His motion for an amendment failed.    

 The Louisiana Purchase in 1803 was a deal between the United States and France, in which the U.S. acquired approximately 827,000 square miles of land west of the Mississippi River for $15 million depicted in this map from 1903.

Map of the Territory of Louisiana, 1803-1818

Learn more about the “Amending America” exhibit      

With the controversy over President Trump’s immigration ban, I’ve noticed that a lot of people are arguing over whether undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights. Tomi Lahren tweeted the other day that the “hard left” lives in “a lala land where illegals have constitutional rights.” Glenn Beck has gone a little bit more extreme, saying that undocumented immigrants “do not have legal rights.” And the same point is all over Twitter.

It sounds like it makes sense. Why would the Constitution protect people who aren’t even part of the country or respecting its laws? That’d be wacky, like trusting the people to govern themselves or guaranteeing the right to say whatever you want! The problem, as you probably guessed from the sarcasm, is that undocumented immigrants do have constitutional rights. Lots of them! And this isn’t a controversial opinion, or something “the hard left” invented recently. The Supreme Court of the United States has made this point over and over again in cases like Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Wong Wing v. U.S., Plyer v. Doe and most recently in Zadvydas v. Davis. In Wong Wing, Justice Field even wrote this in his decision:

The term “person,” used in the Fifth Amendment, is broad enough to include any and every human being within the jurisdiction of the republic … This has been decided so often that the point does not require argument. [Emphasis mine]

That was in 1896. This argument was boring people 130 freaking years ago.

The Most Quoted B.S. Myth Inside The Right’s Media Bubble


4 (And maybe 5) Grounds to Impeach Trump

By my count, there are now four grounds to impeach Donald Trump. The fifth appears to be on its way.

First, in taking the oath of office, a president promises to “faithfully execute the laws & the constitution.” That’s Article II Section 2. 

But Trump is unfaithfully executing his duties as president by accusing his predecessor, president Obama, of undertaking an illegal and impeachable act, with absolutely no evidence to support the accusation.

Second, Article I Section 9 of the Constitution forbids government officials from taking things of value from foreign governments. But Trump is making big money off his Trump International Hotel by steering foreign diplomatic delegations to it, and will make a bundle off China’s recent decision to grant his trademark applications for the Trump brand – decisions Chinese authorities arrived at directly because of decisions Trump has made as president.

Third: The 1st Amendment to the Constitution bars any law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But Trump’s ban on travel into the United States from 6 muslim countries – which he initiated, advocated for, and oversees – violates that provision.

Fourth: The 1st Amendment also bars “abridging the freedom of the press.” But Trump’s labeling the press “the enemy of the people,” and choosing who he invites to news conferences based on whether they’ve given him favorable coverage, violates this provision.

A fifth possible ground if the evidence is there: Article II Section 3 of the Constitution defines “treason against the United States” as “adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Evidence is mounting that Trump and his aides colluded with Russian operatives to win the 2016 presidential election.

Presidents can be impeached for what the Constitution calls “high crimes and misdemeanors.” The question is no longer whether there are grounds to impeach Trump. The practical question is whether there’s the political will.

As long as Republicans remain in the majority in the House, where a bill of impeachment originates, it’s unlikely. Another reason why it’s critically important to flip the House in 2018.

The USA is not a Christian nation.

Claiming it as one is extremely UN-american. 

First and foremost we do NOT have a national religion. 

Our constitution not only leaves religion out, but directly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

But if that isn’t enough to convince you that America is founded on religious freedom and not Christianity then why don’t we go back even before the constitution. Yes, we’re going to go further back than 1789 - more than 100 years earlier. 

1620, the Mayflower, Pilgrims, among the first to colonize here- they came to “the new world” on the Mayflower to practice religious freedom. They were followed a decade later(1630) by the Puritans who also came to be free from religious persecution

The United States is not a Christian nation and it certainly was not founded on Christianity- It was founded by religious freedom, and it is that freedom that ALLOWS You to be Christians, it allows me to be an atheist, and it allows everyone else to believe whatever they believe. To claim otherwise is NOT american, it completely undermines everything we stand for

We are a free nation. 

MEXICAN NOT LATINO. Latinos are Anglo Europeans from Italy. NOT HISPANIC. Hispanics are Anglo Europeans from Spain. In the United Stated of America we each own a constitutional first amendment right to have our ethnicity clearly and properly acknowledged.
The children of the sun
A rich culture heritage
A proud indigenous people
The cultural of our choosing
Because we refuse to be anything else


The 13th dir. Ava DuVernay (2016)

The 13th chronicles the history of racial inequality in the United States, examining how the country has produced the highest rate of incarceration in the world, with the majority of those imprisoned being African American. The title of the film of course refers to the 13th Amendment to the Constitution: “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 … ”

Interesting Facts About Gun Control

I got this in an email from a well read relative
And thought I’d share it

There are 30,000 (33,636) gun related deaths per year by firearms. What is never shown, though, is a breakdown of those deaths to put them in perspective; as compared to other causes of death.
• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws - 21,175 o4 63%
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons - 11,208 or 33% including law enforcement.
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths - 505 0r 1.5%

So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington DC (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation or about 75 per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169. Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California of course but understand, it is not the tool (guns) driving this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

What about banning assault weapons. In 2010 there were 358 homicides by rife or 5.6% of all gun deaths (not all were assault rifles although the term is quite vague) and 6,009 or 94.4% were committed with hand guns. In other words, over 95% of gun deaths were not committed by assault rifles.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault; all are done by criminals to victims and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That’s why they are criminals.

But what of other deaths?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose – THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR THAT!
· 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical malpractice. You are safer in Chicago than you are in a hospital!
• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. Time to stop the cheeseburgers!

So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even 10% a decrease would save twice the lives annually of all gun related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).

A 10% reduction in malpractice would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides. Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It’s pretty simple. Taking away guns gives control to governments. This is not conspiracy theory; this is a historical fact.

Why is it impossible for the government to spill over into dictatorship?
Why did the Japanese not even attempt to attack California in WWII?
Because as they put it, “there is a gun behind every blade of grass”.
The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did. They too tried to disarm the populace of the colonies because it is not difficult to understand; a disarmed populace is a controllable populace. Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the constitution. It must be preserved at all costs.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at the facts and remember these words from Noah Webster “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed”. “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”.A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.“
35 psychiatrists just met at Yale to warn Donald Trump has a 'dangerous mental illness'
Donald Trump has a “dangerous mental illness” and is not fit to lead the US, a group of psychiatrists has warned during a conference at Yale University. Mental health experts claimed the President was “paranoid and delusional”, and said it was their “ethical responsibility” to warn the American public about the “dangers” Mr Trump’s psychological state poses to the country.

“Worse than just being a liar or a narcissist, in addition he is paranoid, delusional and grandiose thinking and he proved that to the country the first day he was President.” –Dr. John Gartner, psychotherapist and advisor at Johns Hopkins University Medical School

“I’ve worked with some of the most dangerous people our society produces, directing mental health programmes in prisons. I’ve worked with murderers and rapists. I can recognise dangerousness from a mile away. You don’t have to be an expert on dangerousness or spend fifty years studying it like I have in order to know how dangerous this man is.” –Prof. James Gilligan, psychiatrist and professor at New York University

There’s even a formal petition with almost 50,000 signatures so far:

We, the undersigned mental health professionals …, believe in our professional judgment that Donald Trump manifests a serious mental illness that renders him psychologically incapable of competently discharging the duties of President of the United States. And we respectfully request he be removed from office, according to article 4 of the 25th amendment to the Constitution, which states that the president will be replaced if he is ‘unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.’

After Mr. Harrison had spoken, the question which I have before spoken of was brought forward to prevent the decision of which Mr. Hamilton, the American Cicero, arose.

David S Bogart to Samuel Blachley Webb, June 14th 1788

This at the time of the State Convention in Poughkeepsie, where Hamilton took part in a campaign for the United Stats Constitution’s ratification in New York. He was pitted against the Clintonian faction who wanted to amend the Constitution, while maintaining the state’s right to secede if their attempts failed, while Hamilton’s faction were against any conditional ratification, under the impression that New York would not be accepted into the Union.

anonymous asked:

Hi sorry to bother you! I was curious because you said that Madison and Monroe would be republicans, but you didn't include Jefferson (the most famous Democratic-Republican). Would he be a democrat or a republican or something different! Thanks so much!

Thomas Jefferson would not be a Democrat or a Republican. 

Modern Democrats are descended from the Democratic Republican Party that Jefferson and Madison organized. But Jefferson himself, unlike Madison who would be a republican (in my eyes) would not be a democrat or a republican. 

Jefferson would not be caught dead in the Republican party- yes, and I mean that. Jefferson was a firm believer in the wall of separation of church and state. The modern Republican Party does not share this position, as it is largely dominated by people who disdain the separation of church and state. If had Jefferson seen the efforts by the Religious Right to change science education, enforce religious standards, divert taxpayer money to religious institutions, and use the power of government to regulate personal behavior,- he would be horrified. Jefferson believed in keeping military spending minimal and holding to a largely pacifistic foreign policy. The modern Republican Party believes in pouring LARGE amounts of money into military-industrial creations, including military projects of huge expense. Jefferson believed that war should only be resorted to if ABSOLUTELY necessary; he strenuously avoided war with Britain in 1807 during his second presidency, even when the entire country was wanted it. In contrast, the last Republican administration invaded Iraq, a country that had not attacked the United States and had no plans to do so. Jefferson would have supported the campaign in Afghanistan, which was undertaken in response to a direct attack, but he would have fiercely opposed the invasion of Iraq as unnecessary. Jefferson would have agreed with the Republican’s foundation: lower taxes, smaller government, balanced budgets etc. But he would noticed Republicans not implement their own policies. And they increased the size of government- which the sage of Monticello would not a liked one bit. 

BUT Jefferson wouldn’t be a democrat, either! He would have rejected the Democratic Party’s power of the federal government (Jefferson wanted those be mini). Jefferson would have questioned the use of a federal Department of Education; it should be on a local level (he would decide). He would question the necessity of a federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, when people should be expected to deal with these issues as a community. Also he would ask: do we really need the federal government, rather than the German-American community, to declare October 6 to be German-American Day? The Democratic Party of today does not feel the same way, as demonstrated by their many federal programs that they are constantly creating.

During John Adams’s presidency, Congress passed the Alien Enemies Act (An Act Respecting Alien Enemies), authorizing the arrest, imprisonment and deportation of any male who was a citizen of a nation at war with the U.S., even without any evidence he was an actual threat. Thomas Jefferson wrote on the alien act:

“Alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that ‘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,’ the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled ‘An Act concerning aliens,’ which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.”

In my view, he would be a libertarian today, second an independent and third a democrat. He would never be caught DEAD and I mean that- in the Republican party. 

Writing Tips

A great way to make a lasting impression on your DBQ and essay tomorrow is to bring in things that will surprise whoever is grading your essay. How though?Well for starters, if applicable, always bring in women’s rights, african american rights, and native american rights.

With women right’s, you should definitely include the cult of domesticity which basically says that women should be nurturers and be domesticated aka be a housewife. After the revolution this cult will turn into republican motherhood which is basically the cult of domesticity combined with how women should also educated their children on democracy and patriotism and why they should vote and thing though women lacked that right. Bring up people such as Alice Paul, Margaret Sanger (she sets up the birth control league which will later become Planned Parenthood), Susan B. Anthony, the Grimkey Sister’s, Abigail Addams and her request to her husband to remember the ladies when the writing of the Constitution was happening, authors such as Margaret Fuller and Emily Dickinson. Remember Clara Barton and her founding of the Red Cross , Jane Adams and the Hull House. Bring up organizations such as the National Women’s Christian Temperance Union, the National Council of Negro Women, don’t forget to add in organizations such as the NWSA, AWSA (which later come together as NAWSA or the National Women’s Trade Labor Union (NWTLU). Bring in how The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan sparked the feminist movement. Mention Seneca Fallsif it fits, bring in the passage of the 19th amendment and how orgs like NAWSA would campaign for suffrage by going on state by state campaigns.

For African Americans, bring up the Emancipation Proclamation and the Civil War. Bring up the 13th-15th amendments and how republicans were big supporters of it. Talk about the Great Migration during WW1, bring in people such as Ida B. Wells, Booker T. Washington, W.E.B DuBois, the creation of the NAACP. Talk about Brown v. Board of Education, Swann v. CMS, Plessy v. Ferguson, the integrated fighting units in the Vietnam War. The Freedman’s Bureau and the multiple chances of abolishing slavery in the writing of the articles of confederation, the constitution, and the bill of rights are great to bring up.

Talk about how the economienda system affected the native americans, how the reservation system sucked major ass, talk about the massacre at mystic. The events of Wounded Knee are important to discuss. Don’t forget Tippacanoe or the French and Indian War . The Dawes Severalty Act is important to discuss.

If the topic that’s at hand can in any way have these groups of people incorporated into it, then by all means write all about them. Bring in whatever other knowledge you know and feel free to add more to this post.


June 19th 1865: Juneteenth

On this day in 1865, the abolition of slavery was formally proclaimed in Texas, in an event which has been celebrated as ‘Juneteenth’ (a contraction of ‘June 19th’). President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves in rebelling Confederate states not under Union occupation, on January 1st 1863. However, the proclamation had little effect in areas like Texas which were not under Union control. It was two years later, in June 1865, when Union troops under Major General Gordon Granger arrived in Galveston, Texas, that abolition came to the state. The Union contingent brought the news that the American Civil War was over, following the surrender of Robert E. Lee in April. Upon his arrival, General Granger read General Order Number 3 declaring slavery abolished, leading thousands of former slaves to leave the state to seek employment or to find their families. Slavery was formally abolished throughout the entire United States with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution in December 1865. Juneteenth was one of the first celebrations commemorating the abolition of slavery in the United States, and served as a poignant time for the black community in Texas and elsewhere to come together in solidarity as they endured the hardship of Jim Crow which followed emancipation. The celebration of Juneteenth waned during the early twentieth century, largely due to financial concerns, but resurged with the onset of the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1980, Juneteenth became an official state holiday in Texas, making it the first state-recognised emancipation celebration. Now, Juneteenth is spreading beyond Texas, and has become a day for celebrating African-American achievement, and remembering the legacy of slavery.

“The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free”
- General Order Number 3, read by General Granger June 19th 1865

On This Day: June 13
  • 1381: Peasants’ Revolt: John of Gaunt’s Savoy Palace is burnt to the ground and court records are destroyed in London.
  • 1866: 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution passed by Congress granting citizenship to & ensuring civil liberties of recently freed slaves.
  • 1889: Amadeo Bordiga born in Ercolano, Italy. He was a Marxist who called Stalin “gravedigger of the revolution” & helped found the Communist Party of Italy.
  • 1897: Protesta Humana established. Began after El Perseguido folded. “Protesta Humana” is followed by the (daily) Protesta.
  • 1909: In Spain, Congress of the labor federation Solidaridad Obrera votes overwhelmingly to accept the general strike tactic, “depending upon circumstances.”
  • 1910: In Paris, confrontations take place at Faubourg Saint-Anthony between cabinetmakers and police. The anarchist Henri Cler is wounded and dies. Cler’s funeral at the Pantin cemetery draws tens of thousands of people, and is the scene of new police violence.
  • 1910: Anarchist and historian Fernand Rude (aka Pierre Froment) is born in Lyon.
  • 1917: Israel Kugler born in Brooklyn. He was a sociology professor, and in 1960s organized NYC college faculty into labour unions.
  • 1944: French anarchist Jules Le Gall dies in Buchenwald.
  • 1966: The US Supreme Court rules in Miranda v. Arizona that the police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning them.
  • 1967: Thurgood Marshall is the first African-American nominated for Supreme Court. He was a lawyer on case that ended legal segregation in schools.
  • 1970: President Nixon appoints the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest. The report issued in September finds a direct correlation between the unrest and the level of US military involvement in Indochina.
  • 1971: Pentagon Papers: The New York Times publishes the first excerpt of illegally leaked secret US military documents detailing US intervention in Indochina since 1945. A Federal Court injunction on June 15 temporarily stops the releases.
  • 1971: Rioting broke out at Roosevelt Park in Albuquerque, New Mexico after police attempted to arrest a young man standing in a crowd of several hundred rowdy youth. A small scuffle escalated into a brawl leading officers to fire upon the crowd, wounding at least nine people.
  • 1980: Walter Rodney assassinated in Guyana. He was a historian, radical activist and academic.
  • 1982: French anarchist André Claudot dies in Lœuilley, France. He was an artist and teacher known for his opposition to the clergy and anti-militarism. The libertarian filmmaker Bernard Baissat makes a film of his life, Ecoutez Claudot in 1979.
  • 1991: Jeffrey Collins wins $5.3 million from Shell which fired him “for private homosexual conduct away from his employment”.
  • 1996: Guernsey votes to legalise abortion.

anonymous asked:

i'm not american so this might be a dumb question but is there a vice presidential line of succession or does maybe the next person in the presidential line move up if there's a vp that dies

No, there isn’t a Vice Presidential line of succession. In the case of a Vice Presidential vacancy, the 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, allows the President to appoint a new VP who must be confirmed by both the House and the Senate. This has happened twice: in 1973 when President Nixon appointed Gerald Ford to fill the vacancy created when Vice President Spiro Agnew was forced to resign the Vice Presidency, and in 1974 when Ford succeeded Nixon as President and appointed Nelson Rockefeller to fill his vacancy.

A mechanism for filling a vacancy in the Vice Presidency was badly needed. I’ve written about it before, but the Vice Presidency has existed since 1789 and in those 228 years there has been a vacancy in the Vice Presidency for nearly 38 years overall. So, for over 16% of our nation’s history, there hasn’t been anybody in the most important position in the Presidential line of succession. And to point out even more explicitly how crazy that is, think of it this way: every time in American history that a President has died in office or been assassinated, the new President who assumed office didn’t have a Vice President of their own.

This is from an older post on this same subject:

7 Vice Presidents died in office:
•George Clinton died April 20, 1812, leaving the office vacant for 318 days
•Elbridge Gerry died November 23, 1814, leaving the office vacant for 2 years, 101 days.
•William Rufus DeVane King died April 18, 1853, leaving the office vacant for 3 years, 320 days.
•Henry Wilson died on November 22, 1875, leaving the office vacant for 1 year, 102 days
•Thomas A. Hendricks died on November 24, 1885, leaving the office vacant for 3 years, 99 days.
•Garret A. Hobart died on November 21, 1899, leaving the office vacant for 1 year, 103 days.
•James S. Sherman died on October 30, 1912, leaving the office vacant for 125 days.

2 Vice Presidents resigned from office:
•John C. Calhoun resigned on December 28, 1832, leaving the office vacant for 66 days.
•Spiro Agnew resigned on October 10, 1973, leaving the office vacant for 57 days.

9 Vice Presidents succeeded to the Presidency:
•John Tyler succeeded to the White House upon President Harrison’s death on April 4, 1841, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 3 years, 333 days.
•Millard Fillmore succeeded to the White House upon President Taylor’s death on July 9, 1850, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 2 years, 238 days.
•Andrew Johnson succeeded to the White House upon President Lincoln’s death on April 15, 1865, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 3 years, 323 days.
•Chester Arthur succeeded to the White House upon President Garfield’s death on September 19, 1881, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 3 years, 166 days.
•Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to the White House upon President McKinley’s death on September 14, 1901, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 3 years, 171 days.
•Calvin Coolidge succeeded to the White House upon President Harding’s death on August 2, 1923, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 1 year, 214 days.
•Harry Truman succeeded to the White House upon President Roosevelt’s death on April 12, 1945, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 3 years, 283 days.
•Lyndon Johnson succeeded to the White House upon President Kennedy’s death on November 22, 1963, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 1 year, 59 days.
•Gerald Ford succeeded to the White House upon President Nixon’s resignation on August 9, 1974, leaving the Vice Presidency vacant for 132 days.

There was no provision established for filling a vacancy in the Vice Presidency until the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified in 1967.  The Amendment allows the President to fill a vacancy in the Vice Presidency by appointing a new Vice President who must be confirmed by a majority vote in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

Two Vice Presidential vacancies have been filled under the 25th Amendment. Gerald Ford was appointed to the Vice Presidency by President Nixon following Spiro Agnew’s resignation in October 1973 and confirmed by Congress in December.  In August 1974, President Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford succeeded to the Presidency and President Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller as the new Vice President.  Rockefeller was confirmed as Vice President by Congress on December 19, 1974.

If any of the Vice Presidents who succeeded to the Presidency prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment had died in office, the first person in the line of succession would have been – depending on the year – an “Officer” chosen by Congress (1789-1792), president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate (1792-1886), Secretary of State (1886-1947), or Speaker of the House of Representatives (1947-present).

Here are the people who were first in the line of succession to the Presidency due to a Vice Presidential vacancy prior to the ratification of the 25th Amendment:

Presidency of James Madison (Mar. 4, 1809-Mar. 4, 1817)
(Vacancy from April 20, 1812-March 4, 1813 due to the death of Vice President George Clinton. Vacancy from November 23, 1814-March 4, 1817 due to the death of Vice President Elbridge Gerry) 
•Apr. 20, 1812-Mar. 4, 1813: William H. Crawford, president pro tempore of the Senate
•Nov. 23, 1814-Nov. 25, 1814: Langdon Cheves, Speaker of the House
•Nov. 25, 1814-Mar. 4, 1817: John Gaillard, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Andrew Jackson (Mar. 4, 1829-Mar. 4, 1837)
(Vacancy from December 28, 1832-Mar. 4, 1833 due to the resignation of Vice President John C. Calhoun)
•Dec. 28, 1832-Mar. 4, 1833: Hugh Lawson White, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of John Tyler (Apr. 4, 1841-Mar. 4, 1845)
•Apr. 4, 1841-May 31, 1842: Samuel L. Southard, president pro tempore of the Senate
•May 31, 1842-Mar. 4, 1845: Willie Person Mangum, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Millard Fillmore (July 9, 1850-Mar. 4, 1853)
•July 9, 1850-July 11, 1850: Howell Cobb, as Speaker of the House, was next in line to the Presidency for the two days following President Taylor’s death since there was no president pro tempore of the Senate, but Cobb was Constitutionally ineligible to be President as he was only 34 years of age.
•July 11, 1850-Dec. 20, 1852: William Rufus DeVane King, president pro tempore of the Senate
•Dec. 20, 1852-Mar. 4, 1853, David Rice Atchison, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Franklin Pierce (Mar. 4, 1853-Mar. 4, 1857)
(Vacancy from April 18, 1853-March 4, 1857 due to the death of Vice President William R. D. King)
•Apr. 18, 1853-Dec. 4, 1854: David Rice Atchison, president pro tempore of the Senate
•Dec. 4, 1854-Dec. 5, 1854: Lewis Cass, president pro tempore of the Senate
•Dec. 5, 1854-June 9, 1856: Jesse D. Bright, president pro tempore of the Senate
•June 9, 1856-June 10, 1856: Charles E. Stuart, president pro tempore of the Senate
•June 10, 1856-Jan. 6, 1857: Jesse D. Bright, president pro tempore of the Senate
•Jan. 6, 1857-Mar. 4, 1857: James Murray Mason, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Andrew Johnson (Apr. 15, 1865-Mar. 4, 1869)
•Apr. 15, 1865-Mar. 2, 1867: Lafayette Sabine Foster, president pro tempore of the Senate
•Mar. 2, 1867-Mar. 4, 1869: Benjamin Franklin Wade, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Ulysses S. Grant (Mar. 4, 1869-Mar. 4, 1877)
(Vacancy from Nov. 22, 1875-Mar. 4, 1877 due to the death of Vice President Henry Wilson)
•Nov. 22, 1875-Mar. 4, 1877: Thomas W. Ferry, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Chester Arthur (Sept. 19, 1881-Mar. 4, 1885)
•Sept. 19, 1881-Oct. 10, 1881: There was literally NO ONE in the Presidential line of succession until a special session of the Senate nearly a month after President Garfield’s assassination. At the time of Garfield’s death and Arthur’s succession creating a vacancy in the Vice Presidency there were also vacancies in the offices of Speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate.
•Oct. 10, 1881-Oct. 13, 1881: Thomas Francis Bayard, president pro tempore of the Senate
•Oct. 13, 1881-Mar. 3, 1883: David Davis, president pro tempore of the Senate
•Mar. 3, 1883-Mar. 4, 1885: George Franklin Edmunds, president pro tempore of the Senate

Presidency of Grover Cleveland (Mar. 4, 1885-Mar. 4, 1889)
(Vacancy from November 25, 1885-December 7, 1885 due to the death of Vice President Thomas A. Hendricks)
•Nov. 25, 1885-Dec. 7, 1885: At the time of Vice President Hendricks’s death creating a vacancy in the Vice Presidency there were also vacancies in the offices of Speaker of the House and president pro tempore of the Senate. For twelve days nobody was in the Presidential line of succession.
•Dec. 7, 1885-Jan. 19, 1886: John Sherman, president pro tempore of the Senate
•Jan. 19, 1886-Mar. 4, 1889: Thomas F. Bayard, Secretary of State

Presidency of William McKinley (Mar. 4, 1897-Sept. 14, 1901)
(Vacancy from November 21, 1899-March 4, 1901 due to the death of Vice President Garret A. Hobart)
•Nov. 21, 1899-Mar. 4, 1901: John Hay, Secretary of State

Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (Sept. 14, 1901-Mar. 4, 1905)
•Sept. 14, 1901-Mar. 4, 1905: John Hay, Secretary of State

Presidency of William Howard Taft (Mar. 4, 1909-Mar. 4, 1913)
(Vacancy from October 30, 1912-March 4, 1913 due to the death of Vice President James Schoolcraft Sherman)
•Oct. 30, 1912-Mar. 4, 1913: Philander C. Knox, Secretary of State

Presidency of Calvin Coolidge (Aug. 2, 1923-Mar. 4, 1925)
•Aug. 2, 1923-Mar. 4, 1925: Charles Evans Hughes, Secretary of State

Presidency of Harry Truman (Apr. 12, 1945-Jan. 20, 1949)
•Apr. 12, 1945-June 27, 1945: Edward R. Stettinius, Secretary of State
•June 27, 1947-July 3, 1945: Henry Morgenthau, Secretary of the Treaury
•July 3, 1945-Jan. 21, 1947: James F. Byrnes, Secretary of State
•Jan. 21, 1947-July 17, 1947: George C. Marshall, Secretary of State
•July 17, 1947-Jan. 3, 1949: Joseph W. Martin, Speaker of the House
•Jan. 3, 1949-Jan. 20, 1949: Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House

Presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson (Nov. 22, 1963-Jan. 20, 1965)
•Nov. 22, 1963-Jan. 20, 1965: John W. McCormack, Speaker of the House

Presidency of Richard Nixon (Jan. 20, 1969-Aug. 9, 1974)
(Vacancy between the resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew on October 10, 1973 and the confirmation of Vice Presidential nominee Gerald Ford on December 6, 1973.)
•Oct. 10, 1973-Dec. 6, 1973: Carl Albert, Speaker of the House

Presidency of Gerald Ford (Aug. 9, 1974-Jan. 20, 1977)
(Vacancy between Vice President Gerald Ford’s succession to the Presidency on August 9, 1974 and the confirmation of Vice Presidential nominee Nelson Rockefeller on December 19, 1974.)
•Aug. 9, 1974-Dec. 19, 1974: Carl Albert, Speaker of the House

ELI5: During a police interrogation, can you actually get away with not saying anything until you're provided with a lawyer?

Depends on where you live, but I assume you are talking about the United States.

In the US, the sixth amendment to the constitution says the following:

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

Brewer v. Williams (1979) held that once adversarial proceedings have begun against a defendant, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him.

So basically, yes, it works like it does on TV. At least, it does in the States.

Now, in practical matters, the police are allowed to lie to you. There’s nothing stopping them from trying to convince you that you don’t need a lawyer. You could say to them something like “I think I need a lawyer,” and they could say something like “Why do you need a lawyer? Lawyers are for bad guys. You aren’t a bad guy, are you? We just want to get a bit of information”

Explain Like I`m Five: good questions, best answers.

anonymous asked:

There is nothing that says a president who had two terms can't be the vice president. I've seen studies that prove you're incorrect about that.

It’s pretty difficult to see in the original text, but the very last sentence of the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says:

“But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

So, I mean, the United States Constitution literally says that nobody can be Vice President is they aren’t eligible to be President. And anybody who has served two terms as President is definitely ineligible to be President again. I’m not sure which studies you’re suggesting that prove me wrong, but I’m going to go with the Twelfth Amendment, ratified by three-fourths of the states of the nation back in 1804, instead of trusting your “studies”.


December 6th 1865: 13th Amendment ratified

On this day in 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified by the states, formally banning slavery in the United States. Ratification does not require unanimous approval, and some states rejected the amendment; Mississippi only ratified the 13th Amendment in 2013, 148 years after the amendment’s passage. The 13th amendment marks the first of the three so-called ‘Reconstruction’ amendments, which secured civil and voting rights for African-Americans after the Civil War. The amendment was proposed by the Lincoln administration following the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation - which was a temporary war measure abolishing slavery in the Confederacy - to assert that the ban on slavery was to be permanent. Lincoln did not initially intend to free the slaves, and always prioritised saving the Union, but emancipation became intriscially tied to Union victory. This was due to the actions of slaves, who fled to Union lines and tried to enlist in the army. The Reconstruction period that followed the American Civil War was largely a contest over the implications of the 13th Amendment and the emancipation of four million slaves. Radicals in Congress pushed for equality of the law and opportunity, while white Southerners, with assistance from violent groups like the Ku Klux Klan, sought to maintain racial subordination and white supremacy. Reconstruction ultimately failed to truly implement freedom for African-Americans, and it was not until the Civil Rights Movement one hundred years later that America again tried to come to terms with the legacy of emancipation.

Freedom is apparently bad for business 

That’s the message from the private prison industry which is threatening to sue states if they don’t start locking more people up. {Please REBLOG this!}

The private prison companies, well-known for profiting off of incarceration and crime, is now saying that the state’s they have contracted with aren’t keeping up their end of the bargain. The private prisons rely on a certain number of inmates for free and virtually-free slave labor.

That labor is used for a variety of trades, including making uniforms for popular restaurants like McDonalds and Applebee’s. But if the private prisons don’t have enough inmates locked up then production goes down correlative with the decrease in free labor (i.e. slavery).

It comes as a surprise to many Americans, but slavery was never actually abolished in the United States. That’s not a metaphor, it’s a matter of careful reading of the 13th amendment to the Constitution. That amendment – often lauded for abolishing slavery – actually makes an exception for prisons. Slavery is still completely legal as “punishment for a crime.”

Follow us see our Archive