# data[].attributes.headline
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

# data[].attributes.subject
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

# data[].attributes.body
-The 25th Amendment was created because the Bayh-Celler proposals, which formed the foundations of the 25th Amendment, refined the processes of declaring a President incapable of fulfilling the duties of office and filling a Vice Presidential vacancy.
-If the Vice President vacates his position during his term, the president will nominate a replacement
-President Richard Nixon used this amendment in 1974 when he wrote a declaration to the Congress to resign as President.
-The 25th amendment states that the President can only be removed with a 2/3 vote from the House and the Senate.
-South Carolina, Georgia, and North Dakota has not ratified the amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Presidential succession the United States presidential line of succession is the order in which the vice president of the United States becomes president of the United States or assumes the presidential powers and duties, Filling a Vacancy in the Vice presidency whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, Presidential disability allows the vice president, together with a "majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide",. If the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other bodies as Congress may by law provide, the Vice President immediately has to assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.The President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

# data[].attributes.subject
Presidential succession the United States presidential line of succession is the order in which the vice president of the United States becomes president of the United States or assumes the presidential powers and duties, Filling a Vacancy in the Vice presidency whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, Presidential disability allows the vice president, together with a "majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide",. If the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other bodies as Congress may by law provide, the Vice President immediately has to assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.The President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

# data[].attributes.body
Amendment 25 Presidential Disability and Succession. Ratified on February 10,1967.

Presidential succession the United States presidential line of succession is the order in which the vice president of the United States becomes president of the United States or assumes the presidential powers and duties,

Filling a Vacancy in the Vice presidency whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President,

Presidential disability allows the vice president, together with a "majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide",.

If the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other bodies as Congress may by law provide, the Vice President immediately has to assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

The President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

It clarifies that the vice president becomes president if the president dies, resigns, or is removed from office. The amendment then establishes how a vacancy in the office of the vice president can be filled. Basically if the President has something bad happen to him the Vice President may fill the role. That is how the 25th amendment is used.

# data[].attributes.body
- Congress passed the Twenty-Third Amendment on June 16, 1960. The proposed amendment was quickly ratified as part of the Constitution.
- The Amendment allows American citizens residing in the District of Columbia to vote for presidential electors, who in turn vote in the Electoral College for President and Vice President.
- Before the Amendment, citizens residing in the District could not vote for those offices unless they were validly registered to vote in one of the States.
-The District is deemed to be a State for the purpose of levying and collecting federal and local taxes, for service in the armed forces, for diversity jurisdiction, and for regulating commerce.
- Only 16 of the 38 States needed for ratification approved the proposed amendment before the seven-year period open for ratification expired.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi5ttiive7zAhXpj3IEHWO9B_YQxfQBKAB6BAgEEAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fbeacononlinenews.com%2F2021%2F10%2F28%2Fladies-taking-liberty-celebrating-the-101st-anniversary-of-the-passage-of-the-19th-amendment%2F&usg=AOvVaw2OlDge1dYbzpsTJna-EHFX

# data[].attributes.body
This shows a man on trial, and he is granted the right to a speedy trial due to the 6th amendment.https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2020/05/23/pandemic-is-crushing-sixth-amendment/984096007/

# data[].attributes.headline
Faizaan Islam - Sixth Amendment: speedy and public trial, trial by an impartial jury, December 15, 1791

# data[].attributes.subject
Faizaan Islam - Sixth Amendment: speedy and public trial, trial by an impartial jury, December 15, 1791

# data[].attributes.body
*Gideon was charged for felony breaking and entering.
*When he went to court  without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him.
*According to state law, an attorney can only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one for Gideon.
*Gideon represented himself in trial
*He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a “habeas corpus” petition in the Florida Supreme Court, he argued that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right.

# data[].attributes.headline
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

# data[].attributes.subject
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

# data[].attributes.body
Link to court case
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1970/43-orig

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Petitioner

Oregon, et al.

Respondent

John Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States

Facts of the case

In 1970, Congress passed Voting Right Act Amendments that lowered the voting age in state and federal elections from 21 to 18, forbade the use of literacy tests at the polls, and forbade states from disqualifying voters in presidential and vice presidential elections based on state residency requirements. The states of Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, and Texas sued, and argued that these Amendments infringe on rights the Constitution reserves for the states.

Question

Does the Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970 infringe on the rights the Constitution reserves for the states?

Conclusion

Yes in part and no in part. Justice Hugo L. Black delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that Congress had the power to enact the amendments that changed the voting age for federal elections, abolish literary tests at the polling station, and abolish state residency requirements for presidential and vice presidential election. However, the Court held that lowering the voting age for state and local election was beyond Congressional purview.

The Court held that the Framers intended for Article I Section 4 of the Constitution and the Necessary and Proper Clause to grant the States the power to make the laws that govern elections and for Congress to have the power to alter the laws if necessary. The Court also held that the legislative history surrounding the enactment and enforcement of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments support the role that Congress plays in preventing racial discrimination in the electorate without denying the states their rights. Without evidence that the states use the 21-year-old voting requirement to discriminate based on race in state and local elections, Congress does not have the right to intervene. The Court held that the literacy test bans were constitutional under the enforcement clause of the Fifteenth Amendment.

Justice William O. Douglas concurred in part and dissented in part. He disagreed with the majority's ruling in regards to reducing the voting age in state and local elections. He argued that, because voting is a "fundamental right," which Congress ensures under the Equal Protection Clause, Congress could legislate voting age at the state level as well as the federal.

Justice John M. Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed with the majority's opinion that Congress could prohibit literacy tests but disagreed on the issue of Congress' ability to impose regulations on voting age and state residency requirements. He argued that the legislative history surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment supported the preeminence of the right of the states to legislate voting. Since the Constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the right to legislate voting requirements, the right is reserved to the states. Without evidence that people between 18 and 21 and people who do not meet state residency requirements are being unconstitutionally discriminated against, Congress cannot intervene.

Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Justice Byron R. White, and Justice Thurgood Marshall authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. They disagreed with the majority's opinion that Congress cannot legislate voting age in state and local elections. They argued that, while the states have the right to determine qualifications for voting, Congress has the right to legislate the exercise of this power under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since 18-year-olds are treated as full adults under other aspects of the law, there is evidence that 18- to 21-year-olds are being denied voting rights to which they are entitled, and Congress has every right to intervene.

Justice Potter Stewart also wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. He disagreed with the majority's opinion that Congress could legislate voting laws in federal elections. He wrote that the Framers clearly intended the right to legislate voting to be reserved for the states and that the Constitution does not allow Congress to supersede that right without a compelling interest. He argued that the age qualification did not represent a compelling interest to allow Congress to enact legislation on the issue.

"Oregon v. Mitchell." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1970/43-orig. Accessed 29 Oct. 2021.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oregon, et al. John Mitchell, Attorney General of the United States In 1970, Congress passed Voting Right Act Amendments that lowered the voting age in state and federal elections from 21 to 18, forbade the use of literacy tests at the polls, and forbade states from disqualifying voters in presidential and vice presidential elections based on state residency requirements.

# data[].attributes.body
The 26th Amendment was passed by congress March 23rd,  1971 and ratified July 1st 1971. The 26th amendment was made to lower the voting age to 18 years old. The debate for voting age began during WWII when young men were being the right to vote after fighting for this country. The term “Old enough to fight, Old enough to vote” began. Georgia was the first to lower it from 21 to 18. Jennings Randolph was the democratic congressman who introduced the bill. Dwight D. Eisenhower was the first who supported the new amendment. The Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority decision in the case. Which basically said that Congress didn’t have the right to mandate the age in state/ local elections; but they could in federal elections.

# data[].attributes.headline
Thirteenth amendment: Slavery Prohibited (13=FREE, 14=EQUAL, 15=VOTE) December 6, 1865 

# data[].attributes.subject
Thirteenth amendment: Slavery Prohibited (13=FREE, 14=EQUAL, 15=VOTE) December 6, 1865 

# data[].attributes.body
Abolishes  slavery

13th, 14th and 15th amendment are called reconstruction amendments because they kinda work together

The 13th amendment followed the civil war

13th amendment was drafted to prevent and abolish slavery

The party that participated in slavery have been duly convicted

# data[].attributes.body
History of the thirteenth amendment

# data[].attributes.body
This is basically about how the 13th amendment has a sort of loophole that says that it doesn’t allow slavery, but allows involuntary servitude. It is also said that because of this loophole, the 13th may be linked to the uprising in the prison system that, quote, “incarcerates black people at more than five times the rate of white people”. Also, though the 13th amendment makes an exception for involuntary servitude and not slavery, says history.com, many courts used both terms interchangeably.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Andrew Lichtenstein/Corbis/Getty Images

The year the Civil War ended, the U.S. amended the Constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude. But it purposefully left in one big loophole for people convicted of crimes.

The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, says: "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." Scholars, activists and prisoners have linked that exception clause to the rise of a prison system that incarcerates Black people at more than five times the rate of white people, and profits off of their unpaid or underpaid labor.

"What we see after the passage of the 13th Amendment is a couple of different things converging," says Andrea Armstrong, a law professor at Loyola University in New Orleans. "First, the 13th Amendment text allows for involuntary servitude where convicted of a crime." At the same time, "black codes" in the south created "new types of offenses, especially attitudinal offenses-not showing proper respect, those types of things."

After the Civil War, new offenses like "malicious mischief" were vague, and could be a felony or misdemeanor depending on the supposed severity of behavior. These laws sent more Black people to prison than ever before, and by the late 19th century the country experienced its first "prison boom," legal scholar Michelle Alexander writes in her book The New Jim Crow.

"After a brief period of progress during Reconstruction, African Americans found themselves, once again, virtually defenseless," Alexander writes. "The criminal justice system was strategically employed to force African Americans back into a system of extreme repression and control, a tactic that would continue to prove successful for generations to come."

States put prisoners to work through a practice called "convict-leasing," whereby white planters and industrialists "leased" prisoners to work for them. States and private businesses made money doing this, but prisoners didn't. This meant many Black prisoners found themselves living and working on plantations against their will and for no pay decades after the Civil War.

Was this slavery by another name? Armstrong argues that the 13th Amendment makes an exception for "involuntary servitude," not "slavery," and that there are important historical and legal distinctions between the two. However, she says no court has formally dealt with this distinction, and many courts have used to two terms interchangeably. In 1871, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that a convicted person was "a slave of the State."

Like chattel slavery before it, convict-leasing was brutal and inhumane. Across the country, "tens of thousands of people, overwhelmingly Black, were leased by the state to plantation owners, privately owned railroad yards, coal mines and road-building chain gangs and made to work under the whip from dusk till dawn-often as punishment for petty crimes such as vagrancy or theft," reports The Washington Post.

Many prisoners died in these conditions. In July 2018, researcher Reginald Moore announced he'd found the remains of 95 Black prisoners who'd died working in Sugar Land, Texas in the early 20th century. Experts estimate their ages ranged from 14 to 70, meaning some would've been born into pre-Civil War slavery, freed, incarcerated and then forced into unpaid labor again. More than 3,500 prisoners died in Texas between 1866 and 1912, the year Texas outlawed convict-leasing because the death toll was so high.

States also benefited and profited off of prison labor by forcing chain gangs to build roads and creating prison farms to grow crops like sugar and snap peas. Today, states and private companies still rely on prisoners performing free or extremely low-paid labor for them. For example, California saves up to $100 million a year, according to state corrections spokesman Bill Sessa, by recruiting incarcerated people as volunteer firefighters.

"[States] would not be able to incarcerate as many people as they do without this, in effect, subsidy of the cost," Armstrong says. "So it masks the true nature or the true cost of incarceration."

Decades of prison and civil rights activism have sought to improve conditions and pay for incarcerated workers. In 1971, inmates at New York's Attica Correctional Facility took control of the prison and issued a list of demands, including the right to join labor unions and earn a minimum wage. More recently, in the summer of 2018, prisoner laborers across the United States went on strike to protest what they called "modern-day slavery."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does an Exception Clause in the 13th Amendment Still Permit Slavery?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The year the Civil War ended, the U.S. amended the Constitution to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude. But it purposefully left in one big loophole for people convicted of crimes. The 13th Amendment, ratified in 1865, says: "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."

# data[].attributes.body
-Adams v. Williams

This case was argued on April 10, 1972 to show that the fourth amendment allows a police officer to approach a person and remove concealed weapons in a persons waistband, this was decided on June 12, 1972.

# data[].attributes.headline
Search and Seizure, 4th amendment ( Lydia Chambers )

# data[].attributes.subject
Search and Seizure, 4th amendment ( Lydia Chambers )

# data[].attributes.body
- The right of the people to be secure in their home

Protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government

I can’t enter private homes or search private property without a warrant

adopted in 1791

Part of the Bill of Rights ( first 10 amendments )

# data[].attributes.body
Election of Senators by direct popular vote

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912

Election of Senators by the people: senatorial vacancies

Constitution of the United States that provided for the direct election of U.S. senators by the voters of the states.

It also revised paragraph 2 of Section 3 to allow the state executive to fill vacancies in the Senate by making temporary appointments to serve until new elections could be held.

When the House passed proposed amendments for the direct election of Senators in 1910 and 1911, they included a "race rider" meant to bar Federal intervention in cases of racial discrimination among voters. ... Over a year later, the House accepted the change, and on April 8, 1913, the resolution became the 17th amendment.

Proponents of the Amendment argued that removing from state legislatures the power to choose U.S. Senators would make state democracy work better, allowing voters to focus on state issues when choosing state officials.

There aren’t any court cases that involve the 17 amendment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Summary of the 24th amendment (Mary Grace Brown)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What It Says

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

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

A Complex Legislative Scheme is Thwarted

In 1965, African American citizens of Virginia had hope that the recently passed Voting Rights Act would finally guarantee them the right to vote. Literacy tests were now illegal, and the Twenty-fourth Amendment had eliminated the poll tax as a voting requirement. Virginia was one of the last five states to maintain the poll tax as late as 1964. But the Virginia legislature had anticipated the amendment. The legislature eliminated the poll tax as a prerequisite to voting in federal elections, but it introduced a requirement that voters either pay the customary poll tax or file a certificate of residence six months before the election. Filing a certificate was cumbersome and time-consuming.

Disgruntled citizens filed two class action suits against this complicated and discriminatory procedure, claiming that the statute violated the Fourteenth, Seventeenth, and Twenty-fourth Amendments. The courts were on their side. In Harman v. Forssenius (1965), the U.S. Supreme Court found the Virginia statute to be in violation of the Twenty-fourth Amendment. "The State may not impose a penalty upon those who exercise a right guaranteed by the Constitution," the Court stated, especially considering that "the Virginia poll tax was born of a desire to disenfranchise the Negro." The residency requirement was too burdensome as an alternative to the poll tax, especially as the Twenty-fourth Amendment had ruled out the poll tax.

The Supreme Court's decision marked a definite shift in thinking from previous years. Before the Twenty-fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court and other federal courts upheld poll taxes as the right of the states to impose, so long as they applied to all citizens equally. Passage of the amendment shifted the legal emphasis to protecting vulnerable groups' right to vote. The Court sought to remove the threat of complex legislative schemes established to disenfranchise certain voters.

What It Means

Although the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited voting discrimination on account of race, many southern states enacted laws to make it difficult for African Americans to vote. The Twenty-fourth Amendment was designed to address one particular injustice, the poll tax. The requirement to pay a fee in order to vote kept low-income citizens, both white and black, from taking part in elections. The Twenty-fourth Amendment made it illegal to charge any voter for the right to cast a ballot in any federal election.

I'm as much a Southerner as anyone, but this is a moderate proposal. It seems to me the South can help its own cause by taking an affirmative position on this.

Florida Senator Spessard L. Holland, defending the constitutional amendment to outlaw the poll tax, speaking in the Senate in 1962

Twenty-fourth Amendment TIMELINE

1792 - New Hampshire eliminates property requirement

New Hampshire is the first state to eliminate the rule that only property owners and taxpayers can vote. Following New Hampshire's lead, other states begin to shift away from such restrictions in an effort to open the electorate to all white males over age twenty-one. In 1856, North Carolina becomes the last state to eliminate property holding as a requirement for voting.

1898 - The Supreme Court upholds literacy tests for voting

In Williams v. Mississippi, the U.S. Supreme Court held that literacy tests for voting did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause so long as there was no proof that they were being given in a discriminatory fashion to exclude voters because of their race.

1915 - "Grandfather clause" is struck down

In Guinn v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court declares unconstitutional the "grandfather clause" in the Oklahoma Constitution, which allows illiterate men to vote if they can prove that their grandfathers had held the right. This provision allows illiterate white men to vote, but not illiterate blacks, as most of their grandfathers had been slaves.

1937 - Poll taxes are upheld as constitutional

Many southern states adopt the policy of charging voters a poll tax. This tactic denies the right to vote to both black and white voters who cannot afford the tax. In Breedlove v. Suttles, Breedlove, a twenty-eight year-old white male, seeks to have Georgia's poll tax declared unconstitutional. The Supreme Court holds that the statute does not violate the Constitution, as it does not discriminate arbitrarily.

1949 - Alabama literacy tests are found unconstitutional

In Davis v. Schnell, the U.S. Supreme Court finds that an Alabama constitutional amendment that requires citizens to pass a test demonstrating their understanding of an article of the federal Constitution in order to vote violates that very document. The legislative history of the Amendment discloses that the tests are intended to disenfranchise African Americans.

1959 - North Carolina's literacy tests are upheld

In Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elections, the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the state of North Carolina's requirement that all voters pass a literacy test in order to vote is constitutional. The Court finds that the policy is not inconsistent with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments' standards of fairness.

1964 - Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1964

In a sweeping move, Congress passes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, and gender in voting, public accommodations (such as restaurants and hotels), the workplace, and schools.

1965 - The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is adopted

Believing the social gains that African Americans achieved by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can best be protected by exercising the right to vote, Congress writes a comprehensive voting rights law. It temporarily suspends literacy tests and provides for the appointment of federal examiners with the power to register qualified citizens to vote. Under this law, any racially discriminatory act that prevents Americans from voting is prohibited.

1965 - The Supreme Court strikes down Virginia's residency requirement

Following ratification of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, Virginia amends its poll tax law. Voters can either pay the poll tax or file a "certificate of residency" proving they lived in the state six months prior to the election. In Harman v. Forssenius, the Supreme Court rules that the burden of proving residency so far in advance of an election violates the Twenty-fourth Amendment.

1966 - Poll taxes are ruled unconstitutional

In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, the U.S. Supreme Court overrules its earlier decision in Breedlove v. Suttles (1937) and declares that the use of a poll tax at state elections is unconstitutional. The Court holds that discrimination based on economic status is in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result of this ruling and the passage of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, poll taxes can no longer be used in federal or state elections.

1972 - "Durational residency" rule is found unconstitutional

Tennessee passes a "durational residency" rule for citizens to qualify to vote. Under this rule, voters must live in the state for one year and in the county for ninety days before being allowed to vote. In Dunn v. Blumstein, the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the residency rule as an unconstitutional restriction on the right to vote. The Court notes that there are other ways to achieve the state's goals of deterring voter fraud and ensuring that voters are knowledgeable without blocking otherwise eligible voters from participating in elections.

1982 - Congress strengthens the Voting Rights Act

Renewing its commitment to voting rights for another twenty-five years, Congress extends the authority of the Justice Department to review legislative redistricting in some southern states. In Mobile v. Bolden (1980), the Supreme Court rejects a class action suit by African Americans who argue that electing the Mobile, Alabama, city council on an at-large basis-meaning that council members were elected by the city population as a whole rather than in neighborhood-based districts-dilutes the black vote. The Court finds that at large elections are racially neutral. In response to this ruling, Congress amends the Voting Rights Act to permit a finding of racial discrimination without proof that the state specifically intends to discriminate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Twenty-fourth Amendment (1964) - Annenberg Classroom

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

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The Anti Poll Tax Measure is finally passed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This shows how money was lost from the citizens for having to pay for poll taxes in order to vote.

# data[].attributes.headline
New York Times News Article On The 24th Amendment 

# data[].attributes.subject
New York Times News Article On The 24th Amendment 

# data[].attributes.body
Mary Grace Brown

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit... The New York Times Archives

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times's print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

PIERRE, S. D., Jan. 23-The South Dakota Legislature, beating out Georgia legislators in a race to make history, wrote the anti‐poll tax amendment into the United States Constitution today.

South Dakota became the 38th state to ratify the resolution when the State Senate approved it, 34 to 0. The action banished a practice that had endured since the birth of the Republic.

The 24th Amendment to the Constitution forbids the collection of poll taxes as a requirement for voting in primaries and elections for President, Vice President and members of Congress.

The State Senate's action completed the ratification process in time for the Presidential election this year. The amendment needed the approval of three‐fourths of the 50 State Legislatures.

Only a technicality remained. The administrator of the General Services Administration, upon receiving notification of the action here, will formally certify that the amendment has been ratified.

President Johnson hailed the death of the poll tax in Federal elections as a "triumph of liberty over restriction."

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

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

"It is a verification of people's rights, which are rooted so deeply in the mainstream of this nation's history," he said.

The Mississippi Attorney General, Joe Patterson, said, "Some machinery will have to be set up to reckon with two sets of voters‐one for state elections and one for national elections." Alabama's Attorney General, Richmond Flowers, saw an expensive and "terrifically confusing" situation arising.

The South Dakota Senate hurriedly suspended its rules and rushed the proposal to a vote after the Georgia Legislature threatened to beat this Northern Plains state to a vote.

The Georgia Senate approved the amendment, 43 to 0, this morning. But the Georgia House, working on other legislation, which had priority, delayed immediate action on the poll tax measure.

South Dakota's ratification came at 2:26 P.M. on a roll‐call vote after very little debate. The State House approved the amendment Friday, 52 to 18.

The amendment outlaws the poll taxes still in effect in five Southern states-Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas. The action today insured that the Presidential election this year would be the first ever held in the United States without a poll tax in any state.

States may still impose poll taxes, however, as a requirement to vote in other state and local elections.

Congressional sponsors of the 24th Amendment believed it would discourage states from levying poll taxes in state elections. But the Virginia Legislature, anticipating the enactment of the amendment, had already acted to ensure that its poll tax would be retained in state elections.

A new Virginia law would permit residents to vote for Federal candidates by filing certificates of residence but would require annual payments of $1.50 a person for voting in state elections.

The 24th Amendment resolution was submitted to the states Sept. 24. 1962, after the United States House and Senate approved it by the required two‐thirds majorities. Illinois was the first state to approve the measure, acting Nov. 14. 1962.

Of the 11 states of the old Confederacy, only Tennessee and Florida had approved the amendment by the time it was made a part of the Constitution. Mississippi formally rejected it.

No other Congressionally originated proposed constitutional amendments are now before the states for action.

The last previous amendment to the Constitution, the 23d, gave District of Columbia residents the right to vote in Presidential elections.

Ratification of the amendment was completed March 29, 1961, when Kansas became the 38th state to ratify. The amendment was formally declared in force April 3, 1961.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
24TH AMENDMENT, BANNING POLL TAX, HAS BEEN RATIFIED; Vote in South Dakota Senate Completes the Process of Adding to Constitution (Published 1964)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times's print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them. Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

# data[].attributes.body
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/the-fifth-amendment-s-act-of-production-doctrine-an-overlooked-shield-against-grand-jury-subpoenas-duces-tecum

# data[].attributes.body
History of the Fifth Amendment

# data[].attributes.headline
Fifth Amendment (Jada Eure): Rights of accused person, December 15, 1971 

# data[].attributes.subject
Fifth Amendment (Jada Eure): Rights of accused person, December 15, 1971 

# data[].attributes.body
Fifth Amendment (Jada Eure): Rights of accused person, December 15, 1971
* A person does not have to testify against himself or herself

* The government must present witnesses and evidence to prove the crime and cannot force someone to testify against themselves

* guarantees the right to a grand jury

* protects the accused against bad quality as well as against prosecution

* the right against self-incrimination

# data[].attributes.body
It affects Americans by making it possible to  a modern, nationwide income tax

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sixteenth-amendment.asp

# data[].attributes.body
Basically the 16th amendment allows the federal government to collect an income tax from all Americans. Before the 16th amendment the federal government could not do this.

# data[].attributes.headline
Karley Wagner- Sixteenth amendment: Income Tax Authorized (You can work at sixteen and the government can tax your income!) date July 2nd 1909.

# data[].attributes.subject
Karley Wagner- Sixteenth amendment: Income Tax Authorized (You can work at sixteen and the government can tax your income!) date July 2nd 1909.

# data[].attributes.body
*The power to lay and collect taxes on incomes from whatever source.

*Allows Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states on the basis of population.

*The 16th amendment established Congress's right to impose a Federal income tax.

*Sixteenth Amendment ratification arguments have been rejected in every court case.

*Making it possible to enact a modern, nationwide income tax.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/federal-circuit-applies-11th-amendment-immunity-to-inventorship-claims-against-state

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This court case takes about how the IST circuit court allows the emergency room to continue boarding.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amendment 24: Poll Tax Banned in Federal Elections (Mary Grace Brown)

# data[].attributes.subject
Amendment 24: Poll Tax Banned in Federal Elections (Mary Grace Brown)

# data[].attributes.body
The 24th Amendment: Help the poor! Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

1. States cannot require a poll tax for citizens to vote.

2. People who have failed to pay any other taxes may still vote.

3. Outlawing the poll tax as a voting requirement in federal elections.

4. The right of citizens are allowed to vote in any primary or other election without having to pay poll taxes or other taxes.

5. Individual states cannot make their own laws without violating the Congress.

# data[].attributes.headline
Laura Nelson: Third Amendment: Quartering of Troops (3 is a crowd) date Dec 15th 1792 

# data[].attributes.subject
Laura Nelson: Third Amendment: Quartering of Troops (3 is a crowd) date Dec 15th 1792 

# data[].attributes.body
Citizens cannot be forced to house troops.

Citizens have to give consent.

Nor in time of war.

Unless it is ordered by law.

In response to the British Quartering Act.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Marianne A. ENGBLOM and Charles E. Palmer, Plaintiffs vs. The State of New York

# data[].attributes.body
News link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/23/federal-court-rejects-third-amendment-claim-against-police-officers/

The third amendment states that citizens cannot be forced to house troops without consent.

# data[].attributes.headline
The 10th Ammendment un delegated powers reserved to the states and people 

# data[].attributes.subject
The 10th Ammendment un delegated powers reserved to the states and people 

# data[].attributes.body
18th Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
Smith, 253 U.S. 221 (1920), was a United States Supreme Court case coming out of the state of Ohio. It challenged the validity of the way in which the 18th Amendment had been passed.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/253us221

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Did Ohio’s 1918 amendment providing that amendments to the United States Constitution should be subject to a referendum conflict with Article Five of the United States Constitution?

# data[].attributes.body
The 11th amendment: Places limits on judicial power, Lawsuits against a state must be tried in that state's courts. 2/7/1795,No 1 on 1.

*Lawsuits against a state must be tried in that states courts, this means that any state that files a lawsuit against another state has to be tried in the other state’s courts.

*Courts cannot place lawsuits against other states and try it in their own state.

*The judicial power of the U.S. cannot be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity.

*They cannot try for anything against any other state unless it’s in the states courts at all times, it won’t count if it is in their own courts.

*If North Carolina filed a lawsuit against Florida for wearing the NC flag on the people’s clothing it cannot be tried unless it’s in that state's court.

# data[].attributes.body
The democrats are saying they aren’t going to take your guns away. But a man is being smart and is about to say I think we should repeal the 2nd.

# data[].attributes.headline
National Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors January 16, 1919

# data[].attributes.subject
National Prohibition of Intoxicating Liquors January 16, 1919

# data[].attributes.body
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States imposing the federal prohibition of alcohol.

The amendment passed both chambers of the U.S. Congress in December 1917 and was ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states in January 1919.

The Eighteenth Amendment emerged from the organized efforts of the temperance movement and Anti-Saloon League.

Most of the organized efforts supporting prohibition involved religious coalitions that linked alcohol to immorality.

Its language called for Congress to pass enforcement legislation, and this was championed by Andrew Volstead

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-12th-amendments-dangerous-defect-11614035616

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | The 12th Amendment’s Dangerous Defect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What if it had been up to Congress to choose the president Jan. 6?

# data[].attributes.body
This amendment took out the 18th amendment

The 18th amendment was the prohibition of intoxicating liquors

Passed by Congress on February 20th 1933

It is an example of the adaptivity of the constitution

It is the only amendment to take out another amendment

On February 20th, 1933 the amendment was passed and on December 5th, 1933 it was ratified. This amendment officially canceled the 18th amendment.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/twentyfirstamendment.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Twenty-First Amendment: The Power of States to Regulate the Sale of Alcoholic Beverages

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page includes materials relating to the continuing controversy over how the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment should be interpreted.inks, images, documents.

# data[].attributes.headline
U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton- court case

# data[].attributes.subject
U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton- court case

# data[].attributes.body
In 1992, Arkansas they added a 73rd amendment to their state. So in Arkansas if you have severe three or more terms as a member of the House of Representatives you can’t be re-elected for a representative in Arkansas. This is a lot like the 22nd except the 22nd only allows 2 terms. Therefore Arkansas was violating the 22nd amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Heller is going against DC for being able to have guns and how you are able to own them.

# data[].attributes.subject
Heller is going against DC for being able to have guns and how you are able to own them.

# data[].attributes.body
In the Colorado department of state vs. beca, Beca was a elector who was fired for voting against the majority vote in the 2016 election. The Supreme Court ruled that under the constitution this was allowed.  https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-case-could-have-major-consequences-presidential-races

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The founders put the Electoral College system in place, in part, because many of them were opposed to the idea of electing presidents by direct popular vote. As a result, they entrusted a limited number of elite electors with the responsibility of electing presidents, a process that takes place in December during presidential election years.

As the 2020 general election approaches, the Supreme Court is poised to issue a decision in Colorado Department of State v. Baca, which will decide whether "faithless electors" are obligated to fulfill their pledges and vote for the winner of the popular vote in their states. (A faithless elector is a member of the Electoral College who votes in contradiction to popular vote outcomes in their state.)

The Baca case emerged from the 2016 presidential election, in which Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by winning a majority of the 538 Electoral College votes despite losing the popular vote by a margin of nearly 3 million. During that election, Michael Baca, an elector from Colorado, made it clear that he would not vote for Clinton (who had won the popular vote in his state) during the final official Electoral College vote. Despite being threatened with prosecution, Baca crossed out Hillary Clinton's name from his ballot and wrote in the name of then-Ohio Governor John Kasich, who had run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, but was not on the general election ballot. Subsequently, Baca was removed from his post as an elector by Colorado's secretary of state and replaced with a faithful elector who voted for Clinton. He then sued the Colorado Department of State claiming his removal was unconstitutional.

Colorado argues that it has the right to require its electors to vote for Clinton, in concert with how the majority of the people of the state voted - a requirement that reinforces strong democratic norms. Proponents of this position ask why people should bother to vote at all if electors can vote for someone who wasn't even on the general election ballot.

But the constitutional thicket in this case is a bit more complicated, and the 12th Amendment, which is designed to prevent electoral deadlock, could prove pivotal in the eventual decision. The amendment was adopted after the contested election of 1800, in which Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received an equal number of Electoral College votes, making it unclear which candidate had been elected president. (Before the 12th Amendment was passed, the winner of the Electoral College became the president, while the candidate with the second highest number of electoral votes became vice president. The 12th Amendment requires the president and vice president to be elected together as a two-person ticket.)

Baca's lawyers contend that his position as an elector is created by the Constitution itself, and thus that he cannot be restrained by the state of Colorado to vote in any particular way. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Baca that "the use of elector to describe both congressional and presidential electors lends significant support to our conclusion that the text of the Twelfth Amendment does not allow states to remove an elector and strike his vote for failing to honor a pledge to vote for the winner of the popular election. Instead, the Twelfth Amendment provides presidential electors the constitutional right to vote for the candidates of their choice for President and Vice President." In other words, the court interpreted the text and history of this part of the Constitution to allow for faithless electors.

The Supreme Court may find Baca's argument compelling because several of the justices in the conservative majority fancy themselves originalists. And a fair reading of the original meaning of the 12th Amendment would allow Baca to vote his conscience as an elector regardless of how the rest of Colorado voted. If the Supreme Court rules in Baca's favor and with the same reasoning as the 10th Circuit, voters should hold on to their hats during the 2020 election.

With enough faithless electors, it is possible that the candidate who appears to lose the presumptive Electoral College headcount could end up as president-elect. And given that Baca was trying to vote for John Kasich, who was not even on the general election ballot in 2016, it is possible that enough faithless electors could vote in 2020 to elect someone other than Donald Trump or Joe Biden as president.

If the Supreme Court reverses the 10th Circuit, it is likely to conclude that faithless electors can be removed by states given the potential for unprecedented election outcomes that were not intended by quotidian American voters. But the Court will have to turn the Constitution into textual pretzels to get that result. Alternatively, the Court may sidestep all of the thorny issues raised by Baca by stating that the case is moot. After all, the 2016 election is over.
The views expressed are the author's own and not necessarily those of the Brennan Center.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
This Supreme Court Case Could Have Major Consequences for Presidential Races

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The founders put the Electoral College system in place, in part, because many of them were opposed to the idea of electing presidents by direct popular vote. As a result, they entrusted a limited number of elite electors with the responsibility of electing presidents, a process that takes place in December during presidential election years.

# data[].attributes.body
This amendment was designed to prevent state governments from violating the rights of former slaves after the civil war. It has been used to extend almost all of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights to citizens and prevent state governments from denying those rights.

* Declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are American citizens and citizens of their state of residence.

*Representation in the House of Representatives must be made on the basis of the whole state population, excluding Native Americans not taxed.

*This excluded leaders of the confederacy from holding state or federal offices unless congress agreed to remove the ban by a two-thirds vote of each house.

*Confirms the public debt from the Civil War. However, the debt of the confederacy was declared invalid.

*Congress may pass legislation to enforce the amendment. This is the basis upon which the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.

# data[].attributes.body
a case against Robinson and California 1962 the 8th amendment was used when there was a cruel and unusual punishment for being addicted to narcotics even though it wasn’t proven that he had possession of narcotics in the state.

# data[].attributes.headline
15th Amendment Right To Vote With No Barriers

# data[].attributes.subject
15th Amendment Right To Vote With No Barriers

# data[].attributes.body
Harris Huynh

# data[].attributes.body
13 - Free 14 - Equal 15 - Vote

# data[].attributes.body
Your vote cannot be rejected by the US Goverement because of your, race, color or being a slave.
The 15th amendment was created after the civil war after fighting for rights for African and Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
It was a voting rights case brought to the supreme case which formed the 15th amendment, it provides sufferage for people who couldn’t vote due to their race, color or being a previous slave.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Arizona law last week that would have criminalized the delivery of other people's early ballots. In its decision, the 11-judge panel mentioned the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 19 times, reaching back 150 years to halt what's perceived as modern-day voter suppression.

The lasting power of the 15th Amendment, which awarded African Americans the right to vote, resonates today in courtrooms across America. But Civil War scholars and voting rights advocates warn that the amendment should serve as a cautionary tale: Challenges to voting rights today, from photo ID requirements to registration restrictions in some states, echo those that have plagued the 15th Amendment for more than a century.

On Monday, America celebrates the 150th anniversary of the 15th Amendment. This year also marks the 100th anniversary of the 19th Amendment, that won women the right to vote, and the 55th anniversary of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which cemented voting rights for Black citizens - all in a presidential election year.

"It's a remarkable accomplishment given that slavery was such a dominant institution before the Civil War," Columbia University history professor and author Eric Foner said of the 15th Amendment. "But the history of the 15th Amendment also shows rights can never be taken for granted: Things can be achieved and things can be taken away."

The 15th Amendment was the last of three Constitutional amendments passed in the wake of the Civil War. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and the 14th Amendment granted African Americans citizenship and equal treatment under the law.

Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party knew they needed to enshrine voting rights in law and, after much debate in Congress, drafted the 15th Amendment, declaring that the "right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Its passage touched off widespread celebrations. According to Foner's book, "The Second Founding: How the Civil War and Reconstruction Remade the Constitution," African Americans called the amendment the nation's "second birth" and a "greater revolution than that of 1776." Seven thousand Blacks squeezed down Broadway in New York City for a celebratory march and in Baltimore, some 10,000 people took part in a massive parade of Black army regiments, militia companies, trade unions and other groups, according to the book.

African Americans - many of them newly freed slaves - put their newfound freedom to use, voting in scores of Black candidates. During Reconstruction, 16 Black men served in Congress and 2,000 Black men served in elected local, state and federal positions, Foner said.

"There was tremendous optimism and hope and there was voting," said historian Yohuru Williams of St. Thomas University in Minneapolis. "Clearly, the amendment has impact. But it's short-lived."

The amendment's main flaw was that it didn't guarantee citizens the right to vote - it only said that states couldn't bar voting on the basis of race or color, Williams said. Starting around 1900, states found workarounds to the law, enacting poll tax laws and literacy tests as means of restricting the Black vote. Also, intimidation and violence from groups like the Ku Klux Klan greatly diminished Black voting. From 1901 to 1928, no Black members served in Congress.

Women's rights advocates Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony also attacked the measure, complaining that the 15th Amendment didn't include women's rights. It wouldn't be until 1920 and the 19th Amendment that those rights would be ratified.

It would take the blood and effort of the Civil Rights Era of the 1950s and '60s to affix voting rights for Blacks via the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Williams said. That act more definitively prohibited racial discrimination in voting and gave teeth to the 15th Amendment.

"The fatal defect of the 15th Amendment was enforcement," he said. "You needed a second Civil War Reconstruction - the Civil Rights Era - to make those amendments real."

The lack of a national voting right continues plaguing Americans today, said Allan Lichtman, an American University history professor and author of "The Embattled Vote in America: From the Founding to the Present."

Recent voting initiatives, such as stricter photo ID requirements, poll closures and early voting cutbacks have disproportionately impacted minority communities, Lichtman said. Backers of the laws say they're created to prevent voter fraud and other irregularities.

Since 2010, 24 states have put in place new voting restrictions, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law.

"The debates over the 15th Amendment are incredibly relevant today in the new wave of these restrictive measures," Lichtman said. "We need a constitutional right to vote. We need to join virtually every other democracy and do that."

Ali Lozano, voting rights outreach coordinator at the Texas Civil Rights Project, said she's continually fighting against intrusion into the 15th Amendment and 1965 Voting Rights Act in Texas, from voter purge lists to racial gerrymandering to voter intimidation at the polls. The voter suppression initiatives she encounters are usually aimed at minority communities, she said.

"I consider it an aspirational law," Lozano said of the 15th Amendment. "People need to be aware there's a difference between passage and implementation. There's a question about how these policies are implemented and are they doing what they're intended to do?"

Jill Savitt, president and chief executive of the National Center for Civil and Human Rights in Atlanta, said the 15th Amendment's significance is "enormous," given all the blood that was shed to adopt that amendment. But it should be remembered in the context of all the recent challenges to voting rights.

"The spirit of the 15th Amendment, on its 150th anniversary, is choking," she said. "It's not being lived up to in law or in spirit."

The 15th Amendment's legacy is one of remarkable accomplishment, Foner said. Just five years after the end of slavery, America allowed former slaves to participate in its democracy - a singular feat among countries that abolished slavery, he said.

But voting rights have been assailed ever since, Foner said.

"It's a very checkered history," he said. "American history is not just greater and greater freedom for everyone. Sometimes, it goes backward."
Jervis is the Austin-based national correspondent for USA TODAY. Follow him on Twitter: @MrRJervis.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Black Americans got the right to vote 150 years ago, but voter suppression still a problem

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down an Arizona law last week that would have criminalized the delivery of other people's early ballots. In its decision, the 11-judge panel mentioned the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 19 times, reaching back 150 years to halt what's perceived as modern-day voter suppression.

# data[].attributes.headline
Joanna Bernard- Twenty-second Amendment: Two-Term Limit for Presidents (limit terms two twice) date February 27, 1951

# data[].attributes.subject
Joanna Bernard- Twenty-second Amendment: Two-Term Limit for Presidents (limit terms two twice) date February 27, 1951

# data[].attributes.body
The 22 amendment

Before 1951, the President could run for as many terms as he wanted.

After severing two terms as President, George Washington chose not to run again.

All the other Presidents followed his example until Franklin D. Roosevelt successfully ran for office four times.

Six years after Roosevelt’s death, Congress passed this amendment limiting Presidents to two terms.

This amendment did not apply to President Truman, who held office at the time to amendment was ratified.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
This shows that everyone has a right to defend even if it’s a loss cause 

# data[].attributes.body
Amendment (720) or the seventh amendment was approved in 1792 stating if a controversy exceeds twenty dollars it shall be preserved.

1. Any case that a person is sued more than twenty dollars you have to take it to court.

2.if the sue is less than twenty it is a person problem and can be solved alone

3. This is a law REQUIRED in common law in the  U.S

4. The seventh also protects the right to have a simple and civil court case.

5. If a court case or a result of a case turns violent who ever started gets the sentence that was offered up

Amendment (720) or the seventh amendment was approved in 1792 stating if a controversy exceeds twenty dollars it shall be preserved.

1. Any case that a person is sued more than twenty dollars you have to take it to court.

2.if the sue is less than twenty it is a person problem and can be solved alone

3. This is a law REQUIRED in common law in the  U.S

4. The seventh also protects the right to have a simple and civil court case.

5. If a court case or a result of a case turns violent who ever started gets the sentence that was offered up

H

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/22/the-second-amendment-vs-the-seventh-amendment-the-terminal-decay-of-the-seventh-amendment-and-the-revival-of-the-second-amendment/

This news link explains the 7th and 2ed amendment and their differences.

The seventh amendment is a very important amendment. It protects and makes sure that EVERY court case runs smoothly and well. Without it we would have a very poorly organized court and would not be a good process.

# data[].attributes.body
Twelfth amendment: New method of electing President and Vice President. This amendment was established in 1804 separate election for #1 guy and #2 guy.

Whoever has the most votes for president becomes the president

Whoever has the most votes for vice-president becomes Vice President

No person constitutionally ineligible to to be President shall be eligible to be Vice-President

If there’s a tie for Vice President the senate’s will choose the Vice President

If there’s a tie for President each state will get one vote for the president

# data[].attributes.body
*dosent allow torture
**no cruel punishment
*no excessive fines
*excessive bail shall not be required
*small cases shouldn’t be charged much
Clue - No hate on eight

# data[].attributes.body
The The congress shall assemble at least once a year

# data[].attributes.body
The 20th amendment “Lame duck”, was ratified January 23, 1933. This amendment is the terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon. On the 20 day of January. This is ironic because it is the 20 amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amendment 19: Right for Women to Vote (Ethan York)

# data[].attributes.subject
Amendment 19: Right for Women to Vote (Ethan York)

# data[].attributes.body
A clue to remember is 1920 women vote
-political action
-groups struggled for many years for woman’s rights
- congress shall have power to force this law
- the right to vote shall not be denied
- nationwide
Passed by Congress June 4 1919. Rarified August 1892

# data[].attributes.body
Guilty people must not be punished in a cruel way. Bail fines must not be excessive

# data[].attributes.headline
Second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed (bare arms) date Dec 15 1791 (DrewWeber)

# data[].attributes.subject
Second amendment: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed (bare arms) date Dec 15 1791 (DrewWeber)

# data[].attributes.body
*It gives American citizens the right to bear arms. This means that people can keep weapons such as guns to protect themselves.

*People believed that governments sometimes used armies to control their own people. They believed the federal government should only be able to put together an army when fighting against a foreign enemy.

*Some people worried that this took away the right of the states to defend themselves. The Second Amendment was a compromise that allowed states to keep their militias and individuals to keep their guns.

*The National Guard is a reserve military force that replaced state militias after the Civil War.

*Based on the Second Amendment, the government can’t forbid citizens from owning weapons. However, the government can regulate firearms.

# data[].attributes.body
New York Times article:
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/08/16/archives/conservationists-urged-to-plead-9th-amendment.html

# data[].attributes.body
*States people have more rights than in the constitution such as:
*Life
*Liberty
*Pursuit of Happiness
*Federal Government does not own rights
Clue: 9-keeps you fine

# data[].attributes.headline
First Amendment: Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition (free SPARP) date Dec 15th, 1791

# data[].attributes.subject
First Amendment: Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition (free SPARP) date Dec 15th, 1791

# data[].attributes.body
*The government cannot stop people from saying (Speech) or printing (Press) what they think or believe.
*The government cannot stop criticism of it.
*A group can gather (Assemble) peacefully to debate what the government does.
*The government cannot tell someone how or how not to worship. (Religion)
*The people can (Petition) the government to address their grievances (problems)

# data[].attributes.body
History of the First Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
News: Does First Amendment freedom of speech apply to social media?
Many constitutional lawyers have argued that the first amendment does not protect freedom of speech when it is published on a company owned site. In that case the private company like (Facebook, Twitter) have the right to set parameters or guidelines on what cannot be published, hate speech etc. The first amendment mostly protects the people from government attack against of their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
RICHMOND, Va. (WWBT) - Twitter has defined the voice of the Trump Administration for the past four years, but after Wednesday's deadly insurgence at the US Capitol, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have permanently banned the president.

Virginia Senator Amanda Chase is facing similar suspensions from Facebook after the social media giant says she spread false claims about the riots. The move is drawing criticism from Trump, Chase, and others who are calling the decision a violation of free speech. But VCU constitutional law expert, Dr. John Aughenbaugh, says that isn't the case.

"What Twitter did does not violate the First Amendment of the constitution," Aughenbaugh said. "The First Amendment applies to the government, and Twitter or Facebook, or any other social media platform, by and large, is a private sector actor and therefore the First Amendment does not apply."

Aughenbaugh says even without social media, the government isn't stopping anyone from expressing free speech elsewhere.

The president can go the streets, issue a press release, call up his friends talk to supporters, sure. The government is not stopping the president or anyone else for that matter," Aughenbaugh said.

In addition, by using platforms like Twitter or Facebook, Augenbaugh says you are also agreeing to their terms of the agreement.

"In joining or using the platform, you agree to certain conditions. And if you don't, the platform can ban you," Aughenbaugh said.

Because so many people specifically use social media to express their voice, Aughenbaugh says Twitter and Facebook's actions raise important questions.

"What's the purpose of social media?" Aughenbaugh said. "Is it supposed to be an echo-chamber where you get to hear your voice and your platform? Or is the purpose of any social media platform to be exposed to ideas that are different from yours that you may possibly not like? So, what are you willing to trade-off?"
Copyright 2021 WWBT. All rights reserved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'First Amendment does not apply': Law expert says Trump's social media ban is constitutional

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
RICHMOND, Va. (WWBT) - Twitter has defined the voice of the Trump Administration for the past four years, but after Wednesday's deadly insurgence at the US Capitol, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have permanently banned the president. Virginia Senator Amanda Chase is facing similar suspensions from Facebook after the social media giant says she spread false claims about the riots.