# data[].attributes.body
Passed by the Congress on June 13 1866.  This amendment was made to stop state government from violating the rights of former slaves after the Civil War.  It extended the rights in the Bill of rights to citizens and to stop state government from denying those rights.

Citizenship Defined- all people born in the US are American citizens

Representation in Congress- representation in the House of Representatives must be made bias of the whole state.

Penalty for Rebellion- leaders of the confederacy from holding state and federal offices.

Public Debt- confirms the public debt from the Civil War.

Enforcement - Congress may pass legislation to enforce the amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amendment 6: the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, 

# data[].attributes.subject
Amendment 6: the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, 

# data[].attributes.body
1. The rights in the Sixth Amendment apply to all the states.
2. The Sixth Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights by James Madison
3. While an accused person can represent himself in a trial, the court can stop this if the accused is not mentally stable.
4. a fair jury, an attorney if the accused person wants one, and the chance to confront the witnesses who is accusing the defendant of a crime.
5. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial”: The person who is accused of a crime has the right to get a quick trial

# data[].attributes.body
In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts. Following the decision, Gideon was given another trial with an appointed lawyer and was acquitted of the charges.

# data[].attributes.body
News: Were there many people that were against the fact that liquor was banned?

Yes, according to this article by the 1930s a majority of people were against the fact that liquor was prohibited. It was stated that the public opinion changed against the ban. "after 14 years with nothing to drink the American people got thirsty.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What should we learn from the Twenty-First Amendment's repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment? There is a narrow and broader such reading.

The narrow reading regards the Eighteenth Amendment as a success on the ground that "alcohol consumption declined during Prohibition," "[a]rrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922," "violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition," and "following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased," as Professor Mark H. Moore explained in the New York Times. The narrow reading acknowledges:

This is not to say that society was wrong to repeal Prohibition. A democratic society may decide that recreational drinking is worth the price in tragic fatalities and other consequences. But the common claim that laws backed by morally motivated political movements cannot reduce drug use is wrong.

In particular, current federal and state laws that prohibit drug sale and use should be maintained:

There is a price to be paid for such restrictions, of course. But for drugs such as heroin and cocaine, which are dangerous but currently largely unpopular, that price is small relative to the benefits.

I have long defended a broader reading of what we should have learned from the Twenty-First Amendment, but have not. My argument was that drug use touched on issues of the control of consciousness that are at the heart of the values of freedom of thought and experience of the First Amendment (both the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses), and that any prohibition of such drugs must be justified by a compelling secular purpose. Neither the prohibition of alcohol nor of many other drugs could be thus justified, and indeed worsened harms sometimes incident to drug use that could better be mitigated by forms of regulation, including the availability of non-punitive medical and therapeutic services. The Prohibition Amendment for this reason violated human rights, and should further be condemned because its political motives were, on examination, racist, condemning the ways of life not only of people of color but of racialized recent immigrants. Such unjust criminalization-by making sale and manufacture of alcohol illegal-also made now illegal such businesses lucrative, including willingness to use forms of violence to support such businesses. The violent criminality associated with alcohol use was, in fact, largely the product of its unjust criminalization (its criminogenesis).

This essay is part of a discussion about the Twenty-First Amendment with Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Professor of Politics and Parliamentarian, Princeton University. Read the full discussion here.

We have now had enough experience with prohibition of drugs (including alcohol, which is, of course, itself a drug) that the lessons we should have learned from Prohibition are now, I believe, conspicuously a matter of our experience today, including the ferocity of Nixon's War on Crime in general and War on Drugs in particular that continued through the administrations of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and, apparently, Donald Trump. This, in turn, has played a prominent role in racialized mass incarceration in the United States that has now become a national and international scandal to many on both the left and right. What was true of the Prohibition Amendment was true as well of the shabby political motives (and racial and social prejudices) of the largely Republican sponsored War on Drugs, as Nixon advisor John Ehrlichman acknowledged. The violent criminality allegedly associated with drug use remains largely the product of its unjust criminalization, including the criminality that flourishes abroad in the nations that feed our drug habit. And drug prohibition and enforcement are highly racialized, as if the harms of drug use only trigger intervention when they are the drug habits of lower-class people of color.

What we should have learned from the Prohibition Amendment, we have not learned-caught in a repetition compulsion motored by some of our worst, most ignoble political impulses. It is time for a change.

Further Reading:

Mark H. Moore, "Actually, Prohibition Was a Success," New York Times (Oct. 16, 1989).

David A.J. Richards, Sex, Drugs, Death, and the Law: An Essay on Human Rights and Overcriminalization (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1982).

David A.J. Richards, "Drug Use and the Rights of the Person: A Moral Argument for Decriminalization of Certain Forms of Drug Use," 33 Rutgers L. Rev. 607 (1981).

Douglas N. Husak, Drugs and Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Douglas Husak, Legalize This! The case for decriminalizing drugs (London: Verso, 2002).

Douglas Husak, Overcriminalization: The Limits of the Criminal Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness (New York: The New Press, 2010).

John F. Pfaff, Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration and How to Achieve Real Reform (New York: Basic Books, 2017).

David Dagan and Steven M. Teles, Prison Break: Why Conservatives Turned Against Mass Incarceration (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016).

Jason Smiley, How Propaganda Works (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What should we learn from the Twenty-First Amendment's repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment? There is a narrow and broader such reading. The narrow reading regards the Eighteenth Amendment as a success on the ground that "alcohol consumption declined during Prohibition," "[a]rrests for public drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922," "violent crime did not increase dramatically during Prohibition," and "following the repeal of Prohibition, alcohol consumption increased," as Professor Mark H.

# data[].attributes.headline
Political Cartoon For Amendment XXI (21)

# data[].attributes.subject
Political Cartoon For Amendment XXI (21)

# data[].attributes.body
This cartoon tried to persuade people into believing that alcohol is a disease and a great big enemy.

# data[].attributes.body
21st Amendment = Repeal of Prohibition (1933)

The 21st Amendment (XXI) was proposed on February 20th, 1933

The 21st amendment was ratified on December 5th, 1933.

The 21st amendment ended the national prohibition of alcohol in America.

Several other states decided to keep the ban on alcohol.

The 21st amendment cancels the 18th amendment (banning liquor).

# data[].attributes.body
This link talks about the court case where Leser v. Garnett argues that the right for women’s votes should exist because of the 14th amendment.
https://time.com/3716603/leser-v-garnett/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How a Little-Known Supreme Court Case Got Women the Right to Vote

# data[].attributes.headline
Political Cartoon for Amendment XXI (21)

# data[].attributes.subject
Political Cartoon for Amendment XXI (21)

# data[].attributes.body
The people are happy that after 14 years they can finally legally drink alcohol. During this 14 year period their was a lot of illegally selling, buying and drinking of alcohol. Also their was a lot of protest over the fact of alcohol being gone.

Clue :  Repeal of Prohibition

# data[].attributes.body
19th Amendment: Right to vote for women(1920 Women Vote)

This amendment affects all of the U.S because a good portion of the presidential votes are from women.

# data[].attributes.body
. Someone’s vote can’t be denied because of their sex

. Was a very big argument in the late 1800s through the early 1900s

. The 19th amendment applies to anyone who is a women of any race as long as they’re a U.S citizen

. The 19th amendment is followed by all 50 states of the U.S

. The 19th amendment was first proposed in 1878, but was not officially passed until 1919

# data[].attributes.body
In 1971 the United state past the 26th Amendment which stated that age couldn’t be used against you when voting. This helped people who were younger than 21 vote. This helped more votes come in as the weeks went by.

# data[].attributes.body
The states promptly ratified it, and President Richard M. Nixon signed it into law that July.

“Old enough to fight, old enough to vote” became a common slogan for a youth voting rights movement

President Dwight d. Eihsnhower was the first president to publicly voiced his support for a constitutional amendment lowering the minimum voting age.

On March 10, 1971, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously in favor of the proposed amendment

After an overwhelming House vote in favor on March 23, the 26th Amendment went to the states for ratification.

# data[].attributes.body
Amendment 26: Suffrage to 18,19,20 year olds

Clue: “18+8”

Ratified: July 1st 1971

# data[].attributes.body
This cartoon shows the fourth amendment being violated and police entering a person property without any warrant too

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/29/politics/supreme-court-curbs-ability-to-search-automobiles-without-a-warrant/index.html

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supreme Court curbs ability to search automobiles without a warrant | CNN Politics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Supreme Court curbed law enforcement's power to search automobiles without a warrant on Tuesday, holding that if a vehicle is located on private property adjacent to a house police will generally need to meet a higher burden before searching it.

# data[].attributes.body
This Court case affects Americans by showing that people that they can’t change laws without a fight. The law questioned the 18th amendment and how it was passed. In the end nothing was changed.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements.

# data[].attributes.headline
Court case: The Seventh Amendment guarantees that juries aren't only for criminal casesJuries can also decide important civil casesIt also says that in some cases, federal courts can't overturn the decision of the juryAgain, the goal was to limit the power of the government and protect the rights of individuals.It extends the right to a jury trial to federal civil cases such as car accidents          Court case. In Tull v. United States, the United States brought suit against

# data[].attributes.subject
Court case: The Seventh Amendment guarantees that juries aren't only for criminal casesJuries can also decide important civil casesIt also says that in some cases, federal courts can't overturn the decision of the juryAgain, the goal was to limit the power of the government and protect the rights of individuals.It extends the right to a jury trial to federal civil cases such as car accidents          Court case. In Tull v. United States, the United States brought suit against

# data[].attributes.headline
Trial by jury in civil suits. December 15 1791, the clue is  (Seven up). Seventh amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,  the right of trial by jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

# data[].attributes.subject
Trial by jury in civil suits. December 15 1791, the clue is  (Seven up). Seventh amendment: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,  the right of trial by jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

# data[].attributes.body
I’m 2000 there was a Supreme Court case named “Dickerson vs United States”. Dickson was arrested for an armed bank robbery and was brought in to be Interrogated. Because he wasn’t read his rights, he made the argument that he confessed involuntarily and should be suppressed.

# data[].attributes.body
. you don’t have to be on trial just because a person accused you of it

. A jury has come together and decided whether or not you should be tried

. Amendment focuses on self incrimination

. Guaranteed right to a grand jury

. It’s also called the “right to remain silent”

# data[].attributes.body
Right of accused persons 1789, ratified December 15th 1791

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Protesters tried to get the right to drink alcohol because they enjoyed it.

# data[].attributes.body
The 18th amendment was passed in January 16th 1919. The 18th amendment took away the right to but or sell alcohol.

# data[].attributes.headline
16th amendment: Income Tax Authorized, Ratified February 3, 1913“You can work at sixteen and the government can tax your income!”

# data[].attributes.subject
16th amendment: Income Tax Authorized, Ratified February 3, 1913“You can work at sixteen and the government can tax your income!”

# data[].attributes.body
Gave congress power to levy taxes on incomes

They could do this from any source derived

Without division among states

Purpose was to simplify the tax code

It was hoped to eliminate the number of people that try to reduce personal income taxes

# data[].attributes.body
News: Was the 16th amendment meant to be temporary? This article debates whether the 16th amendment was meant to make income tax temporary. This was proven to be a false statement, income tax was meant to be a long lasting law. The income tax was intentionally made permanent by the 16th amendment after two temporary income taxes(one was judged unconstitutional by the judicial branch).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The claim: The income tax was meant to be temporary in 1913

As mask mandates remain in effect nationwide due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, social media users are skeptical that the efforts to curb the virus are temporary. Some claim that promises supposedly broken in the past are evidence of overreach.

"Your 2021 reminder that in 1913, Income Tax was said to be temporary too....." a Sept. 8 Facebook post reads.

The post originated on Twitter in February, where it received more than 13,000 likes and 4,000 retweets. On Facebook, it was shared more than 4,000 times in three days.

But that's false. After two temporary income taxes - one of which was deemed unconstitutional - the income tax was intentionally made permanent by the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in 1913.
Fact check: Neither ADA nor Civil Rights Act offer a blanket exemption to mask, vaccine requirements
USA TODAY reached out to the post's creator for comment.

Income tax was intentionally permanent by 1913

By the time the income tax we know today was put in place in 1913, two other national income taxes had been enacted.

The first of the three was the Civil War income tax, instituted by the federal government in 1862 as an emergency measure to finance the Union's cause. It generated approximately $55 million in government revenue throughout the war, according to the National Archives. That tax remained in place until 1872, when President Ulysses S. Grant's administration repealed most emergency taxes.

The second income tax was put in place by President Grover Cleveland's administration via the Income Tax Act of 1894. It targeted the rich, imposing a 2% tax on incomes above $4,000, according to the National Constitution Center.
Fact check: Precursor to ivermectin did win Nobel Prize, but it's not a proven COVID-19 treatment
That tax didn't last long. A year later, the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional because it taxed interest, dividends and rent. Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution requires direct taxes to be in proportion to the states' population.

When President William Taft took office in 1909, the public complained the country's tax system taxed the rich too little and the poor too much, according to the Constitution Center. He sent a letter to Congress lobbying in favor of the 16th Amendment.

"That is why the push to ratify the 16th Amendment started: to pave the way for the federal government to collect sufficient revenue to provide services, etc., to its constituents," said Karen Brown, a business law professor at George Washington University. "Ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 was intended to allow Congress to enact a permanent federal income tax, which it did in October of that year, to allow it to rely on collecting revenue apart from excise taxes on goods and commodities."
Fact check: Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines all passed animal testing
Congress passed the resolution on the 16th Amendment a month after Taft sent his letter, in 1909. It was officially ratified in 1913. At that point, the income tax was intended to be permanent, tax law experts say.

"The nation adopted the 16th Amendment specifically to allow income taxes at any time Congress felt they were important to fund the federal government," said David Super, a tax law professor at Georgetown University. "Although Congress has enacted temporary taxes, or tax increases, to fund wars and other national emergencies, nothing in the 16th Amendment limited income taxes in that way."

Both Brown and Michael Graetz, a tax law professor at Columbia University, agreed.

"The 16th Amendment in 1913 permitting an income tax was not a 'temporary' change," Graetz told USA TODAY in an email.

"Constitutional power to lay and collect income tax from whatever source derived is not temporary, but rather built into the federal system permanently," Brown said.

National Archives, Dec. 6, 2017, Income Tax Records of the Civil War Years

National Constitution Center, Feb. 3, How we wound up with the income tax

U.S. Census Bureau, accessed Sept. 11, Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution

National Constitution Center, accessed Sept. 11, The Sixteenth Amendment

Karen Brown, Sept. 9, Email exchange with USA TODAY

Michael Graetz, Sept. 9, Email exchange with USA TODAY

David Super, Sept. 9, Email exchange with USA TODAY

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or electronic newspaper replica here. Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook.
Our rating: False

Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that the income tax was meant to be temporary in 1913. The income tax was intentionally made permanent by the 16th Amendment, which was ratified in 1913. Two temporary income taxes had been passed previously.

Our fact-check sources:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fact check: False claim that income tax was intended to be temporary in 1913

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As mask mandates remain in effect nationwide due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, social media users are skeptical that the efforts to curb the virus are temporary. Some claim that promises supposedly broken in the past are evidence of overreach. "Your 2021 reminder that in 1913, Income Tax was said to be temporary too....."

# data[].attributes.headline
16th amendment: Income Tax Authorized, Ratified February 3, 1913, “You can work at sixteen and the government can tax your income!”

# data[].attributes.subject
16th amendment: Income Tax Authorized, Ratified February 3, 1913, “You can work at sixteen and the government can tax your income!”

# data[].attributes.body
° Gave congress power to levy taxes on incomes

° They could do this from any source derived

° Without division among states

° Purpose was to simplify the tax code

° It was hoped to eliminate the number of people that try to reduce personal income taxes

# data[].attributes.body
Senators and representatives can not have their pay increased

No pay increase for senators and representatives during current term in office.

Pay can only be changed after the next election

Pay can be approved by Congress but doesn’t have effect until the next election

# data[].attributes.body
In July. Of 1999 the president of the U.S went to court against people from the senate and House of Representatives for violating the 27th amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
13th Amendment: Slavery Abolished (FREE) January 31, 1856

“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.”

The 13th Amendment keeps you free

The 13th amendment applies for all US states and territories

The 13th amendment allows for people to be prosecuted for forcing someone to work against their free will

During the Civil War President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863 which freed slaves in the Confederate States

Mississippi ratified the 13th amendment in 1995.

The 13th amendment still allows slavery as a punishment for a crime.

# data[].attributes.body
How did the 24th amendment affect Americans? Citizens in some states used to have to pay a fee to vote for a national election. This fee was called a poll tax. Thankfully, the 24th amendment prohibited poll tax on any and all elections for federal officials!

# data[].attributes.body
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/409/
Court Case: This case took place from April 1, 1968 and ended on June 17, 1968. In St. Louis Missouri where Joseph  Lee Jones, an African American, wasn't able to buy land from Alfred H. Mayer Co. because of his skin color. Joseph filed a complaint to the district court. Joseph told the court " I shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property." The court dismissed this case.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 allows the federal government to ban private parties from engaging in discriminatory housing policies.

# data[].attributes.body
In Griswold vs Connecticut, the Court held that the right of privacy within marriage predated the Constitution. The ruling asserted that the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments also protect a right to privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
The third Amendment protects the privacy of all Americans.

# data[].attributes.body
Question

Does the county unit voting system violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

Conclusion

Yes. Justice William O. Douglas, in an 8-1 majority opinion, vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case with directions. The Court held that the weighing of votes through the county unit system violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by giving more voting power to residents of particularly small rural counties. Unlike the district court, the majority held that the county unit system was impermissible in its entirety. The Court reasoned that the longstanding concept of political equality requires elections to be governed by the rule of "one person, one vote." Justice John Marshall Harlan II dissented, arguing that the case should be sent back for trial to establish a fully developed record for the Court to review.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"We're finally now getting to the point where we're going to be addressing the original sin of this country, 400 years old," candidate Joe Biden told Wisconsin voters in September 2020, " slavery and all the vestiges of it."

On his first day in office, President Joe Biden signed an executive order that cited "the Civil War and the abolition of slavery." A presidential proclamation in March decried "the damaging legacy of slavery," while another, on June 1, lamented the "unconscionable hardships of slavery."

On June 17, Biden signed into law the Juneteenth national holiday. "Juneteenth marks both the long, hard night of slavery and subjugation, and a promise of a brighter morning to come," Biden said in the White House's East Room.
56 HOUSE REPUBLICANS URGE BIDEN TO REMOVE HARRIS FROM LEADING ROLE ON MIGRATION CRISIS
Joe Biden clearly opposes the slavery of 1619-1865. As well he should.

Too bad he enables the slavery of 2021.

"Biden's open-border policies have produced the largest human-trafficking operation since the international slave trade," Rep. Tom McClintock, R- Calif., told me. "To the extent that immigrants are forced to labor as indentured servants to the crime cartels, these policies have reintroduced slavery into the United States."

During a June 10 House Judiciary Committee hearing, McClintock asked FBI Director Christopher Wray, "So we basically, 170-plus years after the 13th Amendment have slavery burgeoning in this country as a result of these policies?"

"I do consider human trafficking a modern form of slavery," Wray agreed. "I mean, it's almost medieval."
BORDER CRISIS SHOWS FEW SIGNS OF SLOWING AS MIGRANT ENCOUNTERS, FENTANYL SEIZURES STAY HIGH
The 13th Amendment to the Constitution was adopted in 1865. This provision drove the final stake into the heart of human bondage in America:

"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."

Today, 156 years after that language entered the Constitution, it is being trampled beneath a flow of humanity that resembles traffic on the northbound San Diego Freeway.

From February 1 through May 31, Customs and Border Protection reports 633,124 land encounters with illegal aliens on the U.S.-Mexico border versus 111,490 during 2020's like period - up 468 percent. Not all of these are modern-day slaves. But those who are can be hidden easily, out in the open, amid such congestion.
REPUBLICANS GRILL MAYORKAS ON LACK OF FUNDING FOR BORDER PATROL AGENTS, WALL
"We have what can be described as modern-day slavery," said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation of American Immigration Reform. "Human traffickers (as opposed to smugglers) lure unsuspecting migrants with promises of all sorts of opportunity in the U.S., and then hold them hostage once they arrive here with threats of violence against them, or family members back home. Often people who are trafficked are forced to work in the sex trades."

"Since many do not have the cash up front, they are required to work it off once here," Mehlman explained. "Not unlike the Mafia, that can entail some significant accrual of interest, thereby extending the period of servitude."

Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) correctly cites key distinctions between modern slavery and the slavery of yore.

"I believe that some forms of trafficking and indenture that have been enabled in this crisis are indeed comparable to slavery, even if they are not as systemic, institutionalized, and tolerated as slavery was in the world a century or two ago," Vaughan told me.

"I have not heard of many cases of people being bought and sold as property, but it does happen, there is no doubt, particularly in sex trafficking."

Indeed, today's outrage - sexual slavery in America - would turn Robert E. Lee's stomach.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER
Reporting from the southern frontier, Fox News contributor Sara Carter detailed this human-rights catastrophe on "Hannity."

"We're talking about children as young as 8-years-old sold into prostitution," Carter said on June 17. "It's just horrific."

She interviewed a law-enforcement officer in front of a just-shuttered brothel in which 10 illegal-alien sex slaves were trapped and exploited, sometimes on foam mats tossed on the floor.

"One of them was actually eight months pregnant and being forced to engage in sex for money here," Lt. Craig Cummins of the Texas Department of Public Safety told Carter.

"A lot of the women that are engaged in sex trafficking are, you know, younger than 18," Cummins added. "The sad part is, they were required to work six days a week to pay off their debt, and if they did not get to work all six days, whatever money that they would have made - that would have went to pay that debt - is erased for that week."

W. Kurt Hauser is a Distinguished Overseer with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace at Stanford University. He also knows slavery when he sees it. He is the author of "Invisible Slaves: The Victims and Perpetrators of Modern-Day Slavery."

"The huge increase in illegal immigration caused by the rescission of prior immigration practices, policies and laws by the Biden administration, and the violation of human rights that has accompanied many of these immigrants - including coercion, violence, rape, debts, and payments would qualify as human trafficking," Hauser said. "That is slavery."

CIS' Jessica Vaughan is appalled at the giant shrug with which today's federal government greets these burgeoning atrocities.

"The Biden-Harris administration refuses to acknowledge that they are enabling this entirely predictable criminal and exploitive result of their policies," Vaughan said.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"They prefer to see themselves as saviors of the migrants, even if their policies are literally enslaving some of the migrants to the cartels and smugglers. If there are some horrible crimes that happen, well they 'fix' them by awarding the victims with a U or T visa, and their conscience is laundered."

Joe Biden's soft-on-slavery policies surely have Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, rotating in his casket.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM DEROY MURDOCK

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Deroy Murdock: Biden opposes the slavery of 1619-1865. So why does he enable the slavery of 2021?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"We're finally now getting to the point where we're going to be addressing the original sin of this country, 400 years old," candidate Joe Biden told Wisconsin voters in September 2020, " slavery and all the vestiges of it."

# data[].attributes.headline
Amendment 23: This amendment gives Washington, D.C., three members in the electoral college. (D.C. 3!/ D.C. 23!) Ratified on March 29, 1961. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Amendment 23: This amendment gives Washington, D.C., three members in the electoral college. (D.C. 3!/ D.C. 23!) Ratified on March 29, 1961. 

# data[].attributes.body
By: Katie Robbins

Enables residents of the District of Columbia to vote for president and Vice President.

Residents of D.C., still do not have full representation in Congress.

The number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the district would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than least populous state.

In layperson's terms, the Amendment means that residents of the District are able to vote for President and Vice President.

President and Vice President shall meet in the district and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
Facts of the case

Since the beginning of the 20th century, the State of Georgia used a county unit system for counting votes in primary elections. Under this system, the candidate who received the highest number of votes in a county would receive all of that county's unit votes. The overall winning candidate would then have to receive a majority of the county unit votes statewide. This system ended up giving rural counties a majority of the unit votes, even though rural counties made up only about a third of the population as of the 1960s.

In 1962, James O'Hear Sanders, a voter in Georgia's most populous county, brought suit against several representatives of the Georgia State Democratic Executive Committee and the Secretary of State of Georgia. Sanders claimed that the county unit system violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Seventeenth Amendment. As a voter within one of the urban counties, Sanders claimed his vote had less of an influence on the nomination of candidates than that of a rural voter. A special three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia agreed with Sanders and held that the county unit system violated the Equal Protection Clause. However, the district court did not outlaw the county unit system entirely. The State appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.

# data[].attributes.body
This is how amendment 23 came to be and what citizens has to do for the amendment to be ratified.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi3iIG2ru3zAhU4knIEHcyzCk8QwqsBegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dm0iQ3KiFEIc&usg=AOvVaw2Dd4Glzct5um_82TpL8983

# data[].attributes.headline
Amendment 9: Rights Not Listed are Retained by the People, “Nine, keeps you fine.” Ratified on December 15, 1791

# data[].attributes.subject
Amendment 9: Rights Not Listed are Retained by the People, “Nine, keeps you fine.” Ratified on December 15, 1791

# data[].attributes.body
Keep citizens safe

Ensure inalienable rights

Used in trial by comparing rights

Safety throughout all procedures

Rights for everyone

# data[].attributes.body
https://volokh.com/2013/07/04/a-real-live-third-amendment-case/

# data[].attributes.body
Amendment 27: Congressional pay

Ratified on may 7, 1992

limits em’

# data[].attributes.headline
Tenth Amendment: Undelegated Powers Reserved to the States and the People(Ben 10 fight for states’ rights), date December 15, 1791

# data[].attributes.subject
Tenth Amendment: Undelegated Powers Reserved to the States and the People(Ben 10 fight for states’ rights), date December 15, 1791

# data[].attributes.headline
Amendment 12: election of president and Vice President (separate elections for guy #1 and #2) The date is June 15, 1804.

# data[].attributes.subject
Amendment 12: election of president and Vice President (separate elections for guy #1 and #2) The date is June 15, 1804.

# data[].attributes.body
The electors can vote for president and Vice President separately.

The greatest number of votes for president becomes the president.

The greatest number of votes for Vice President is Vice President.

When choosing a president the votes are taken by each state and everyone’s votes in one state comes to one based on the majority.

The Vice President can act like the president in case something bad happens to the president.

# data[].attributes.body
News: Does the Texas abortion law defy the Constitution?

The Texas abortion law went into effect after the Supreme Court denied to put the law on hold. Many people are protesting against the law. They say that it’s “an assault against reproductive rights. This is because most women don’t even know they’re pregnant before they can’t get an abortion any more. Others say that Texas should be allowed to make such laws because of the 10 tenth amendment and that the federal government should stay out of it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Democrats in Colorado sounded the alarm over a Texas law banning most abortions that took effect Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on an emergency appeal to put the law on hold.

The law, signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott in May, prohibits abortions once medical professionals can detect cardiac activity, usually around six weeks and before most women know they're pregnant. It's the most restrictive law concerning abortion enacted in the United States since the court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion.

"This is an all-out assault on our reproductive rights," tweeted U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Denver Democrat and co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus.

"So let's be very clear here. Congress MUST fight this ban and enshrine abortion access into federal law."

Democratic U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet said in a tweet that letting the Texas law go into effect was "a direct threat to women's rights not only in Texas, but across the country." He added: "I will never stop fighting for reproductive justice for every single person."

Later Wednesday morning, Bennet, who is seeking a third term in next year's election, called on the Supreme Court to "issue a stay immediately" and tweeted a link to a bill he introduced earlier this year that would guarantee the right to an abortion.

"I'm fighting for the Women's Health Protection Act so all women, regardless of where they live, can access abortion care and we can enshrine access to reproductive care into law, once and for all," he said.

Colorado Republicans, including candidates challenging Bennet, indicated their support for the law.

"It's a beautiful day in Texas," tweeted Colorado GOP chair Kristi Burton Brown, who cut her political teeth promoting an unsuccessful state ballot initiative that would have banned abortion entirely.

Erik Aadland, one of three Republicans actively campaigning for Bennet's U.S. Senate seat, told Colorado Politics that he believes Texas should be able to establish its own abortion rules and wants the federal government to stay out of it.

"I support Texas's (and that of any State's for that matter) right to adjudicate abortion at the State level in alignment with the will of their constituency," Aadland wrote in a text message. "I want the Federal government out of the issue altogether and I am absolutely against any Federal funding of abortion."

Peter Yu, a former GOP congressional candidate who recently converted his Senate exploratory committee into a full-fledged campaign, said in an email that the Texas law "effectively banning abortion after six weeks is in line with the 10th amendment of the Constitution."

Said Yu: "As a candidate running for office at the federal level, I believe the federal government should be a government of 'limited and enumerated powers' and abortion exceeds the national government's enumerated powers. Abortion should be handled at the state level, as this exceeds federal powers.

"Texas, according to the 10th amendment, has the full right to set its own state laws. Whether I agree or disagree with an enacted law, it falls within the Constitutional framework of our country. In addition, as a candidate running to represent Colorado, it is my priority to focus on the issues affecting the residents of Colorado, not of Texas."

El Paso County Republican Eli Bremer, a former GOP official and Olympian, said in a text message to Colorado Politics that he wasn't comfortable commenting because it wasn't clear whether the high court was simply waiting for another case that could establish a clearer precedent to reach its docket.

"Of course the Dems want to politicize it," Bremer added, referring to the court's inaction, "but this look(s) technical unless I'm missing something."

Democratic officials weren't reticent to weigh in.

State Rep. Yadira Caraveo, D-Thornton, a pediatrician and recently announced congressional candidate, tweeted: "Have you ever told a 14 year-old that her chronic stomach ache is actually a pregnancy? As her pediatrician, I can give her a choice in that moment - to become a mom, or not. Texas' #SB8 sets a dangerous precedent for the futures of girls across the U.S."

"Women have a non-negotiable right to their own reproductive choices," tweeted Democratic U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, who also cited the bill he and Bennet have signed on to as co-sponsors.

"We need to pass the Women's Health Protection Act immediately to codify Roe v Wade and ensure this right stays protected," Hickenlooper added.

Calling the law "a disturbing attack on the health of millions," U.S. Rep. Jason Crow, a Centennial Democrat, said in a tweet: "We cannot allow it to stand. I stand with the overwhelming majority of Americans in calling for protection of reproductive rights."
The Associated Press contributed to this story

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Colorado Democrats, Republicans draw lines as Texas abortion ban takes effect

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Democrats in Colorado sounded the alarm over a Texas law banning most abortions that took effect Wednesday after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule on an emergency appeal to put the law on hold. The law, signed by Republican Gov.

# data[].attributes.body
After J.F.K. was assasinated congress decided we need a way to insure we have a way to fill office with a death or disability of the president. Congress added the 25th admenment to the constitution because J.F.K. Vice President was in the arms motorcade when J.F.K. was assainated so the added the 25th admendment.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-democrats-consider-impeachment-25th-amendment-measures-n1253693

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - House Democrats plan to vote on a measure calling on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment against President Donald Trump and on an article of impeachment in the next two days.

Democrats introduced the impeachment article Monday charging Trump with "incitement of insurrection" in urging his supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol last week, as well as a resolution that calls on Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to the Constitution to remove him from office before Jan. 20.

The House will vote on the 25th Amendment measure as early as Tuesday and on the article of impeachment Wednesday - one week to the day after the deadly mayhem that has shaken Washington to the core and a week before the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden.

The impeachment measure, which has more than 200 Democratic co-sponsors, says Trump "gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government."

"He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of government," it says. "He thereby betrayed his trust as president, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."

Members announced the article and other resolutions during a brief House session at 11 a.m. ET.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., tried to pass a resolution prepared by Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., that calls on Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment. Hoyer needed unanimous consent to pass the measure, but Rep. Alex Mooney, R-W.Va., blocked it. Democrats will hold a floor vote on the measure Tuesday night.

"We are calling on the vice president to respond within 24 hours" of passage, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Sunday in a letter to Democrats announcing plans to introduce the 25th Amendment measure, added that Democrats would pursue impeachment legislation next.

Sources said Pence is unlikely to sign onto any push to invoke the 25th Amendment. "I don't think that's an option," one said.

The "incitement of insurrection" article of impeachment was then introduced by Raskin and Reps. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., and David Cicilline, D-R.I. The measure says Trump has "demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law."

"President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States," the resolution says.

It also cites Trump's Jan. 2 phone call urging Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to "find" enough votes to overturn the state's election results as part of his effort "to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 presidential election."

Raskin, Lieu and Cicilline said in a statement: "We cannot allow this unprecedented provocation to go unanswered. Everyone involved in this assault must be held accountable, beginning with the man most responsible for it - President Donald Trump. We cannot begin to heal the soul of this country without first delivering swift justice to all its enemies - foreign and domestic."

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., said she filed two articles of impeachment related to Wednesday's attack and Trump's call to Raffensperger.

Freshman Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo., also introduced a resolution "to expel members who voted to overturn the election and incited a white supremacist coup that has left people dead," she said in a tweet Sunday. "They have violated the 14th Amendment."

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Washington, D.C.'s Democratic nonvoting delegate in the House, also prepared a resolution that would censure Trump.

Hoyer's office said the House would consider articles of impeachment Wednesday morning.

Pelosi and other House Democratic leaders have not explicitly said which articles of impeachment the House will vote on. Democrats have overwhelmingly voiced support for the effort and for fast-tracking it in Trump's final days in office.

Hoyer said that he is not in favor of delaying sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate but rather that he wants them sent immediately.

According to a memo circulated by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., if the House impeaches Trump this week, the earliest the Senate could take up the articles would be Jan. 19, unless all 100 senators agree to come back early.

But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., is exploring a possible workaround - using the authority granted to the two Senate leaders in 2004 to reconvene the Senate in times of emergency, a senior Democratic aide said. That would allow for a potential impeachment trial to begin immediately after articles of impeachment are sent.

The move would still require McConnell's consent to proceed, as both the majority and the minority leaders would need to sign off on it.

House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., said Sunday on CNN that the House could delay sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate until after Biden's first 100 days in office, citing concerns that a trial could slow Biden's agenda.

Biden suggested Monday that there was another way forward. He told reporters in Delaware that he had spoken to House and Senate Democrats about the possibility that the trial would take half of the congressional day, allowing work to proceed on his agenda at the same time.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a top Trump ally, tweeted that he was "disappointed to hear the House is proceeding with a second impeachment given that there are only nine days left in a Trump presidency."

"It is past time for all of us to try to heal our country and move forward," Graham said, offering no alternative to hold Trump accountable.

Trump would be the first president to be impeached twice. In a Senate trial, he would not have the same legal team that helped him win acquittal on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress last year.

Jay Sekulow, who led Trump's legal battle against the special counsel investigation and the impeachment trial last year, is not involved in any legal advice for Trump at this time, people close to Sekulow said. White House counsel Pat Cipollone and lawyer Jane Raskin, who previously defended Trump during impeachment, are expected to be a part of any legal team.

Lawyer Alan Dershowitz, who was reported to have expressed interest in defending Trump again, said he has not been in contact with Trump or "anybody who would be in a position of authority," and he said he doubted that there would be time for a trial given the limited window before Biden takes office and Democrats take control of the Senate.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Lawmakers called back to D.C. to vote on Trump's impeachment, removal under 25th Amendment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - House Democrats plan to vote on a measure calling on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment against President Donald Trump and on an article of impeachment in the next two days. Democrats introduced the impeachment article Monday charging Trump with "incitement of insurrection" in urging his supporters to march on the U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
It was a case on state political parties requiring of presidential electors to pledge to vote for the party's nominees before being certified as electors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ray v. Blair | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Did the pledge requirement restrict the candidate’s freedom to vote for his choice of President thus making it violative of the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

# data[].attributes.body
Clue: Right 2 bear arms

# data[].attributes.body
- Allowed to be in possession of weapons

Very debated amongst the people

individual constitutional right for citizens

Under this amendment, the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession.

state's right to self-defense.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Second Amendment save: Homeowner kills intruder, saves sleeping children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Call it a real-life example of the Second Amendment’s importance: A 63-year-old Philadelphia man who shot and killed a home intruder not only saved his sleeping children from danger but also has motivated a nearby resident to buy a gun to protect her own house.

# data[].attributes.body
states can’t go head to head

Has happened between Florida and Georgia

If you lose land in a war you can’t sue the state

Another example in Massachusetts a man lost some of his land in the war then tried to sue the state

It’s stops people from going against the state

# data[].attributes.body
The fourth amendment added so police officers couldn’t search you or search your property without orders from a judge

# data[].attributes.headline
Henry casey Presidential  Disalbilaty and succession 

# data[].attributes.subject
Henry casey Presidential  Disalbilaty and succession 

# data[].attributes.body
The The 25th  admenment is if the president is unable To continue to fufill his job the vice president with take over as acting president. Date 02/10/1967( clue: 25-he died)

# data[].attributes.body
*in case of removal of president from office or his death or resignation the Vice President shall fill in a president.
*when ever there is a vacancy in the office of Vice President the president shall nominate a Vice President.
*a Vice President shall take office upon confirmation by majority vote from both houses in congress.
*if the new acting president Feels he or she is unable to carry out the job as president can send a written declaration to congress informing peg them of this disability.
*if the president is unable to carry out the duties of office but is unable to because of illness or unwilling can inform congress and his/her acting cannot can take a vote and declare the acting president disabled.

# data[].attributes.body
Their where lots of agreements about the Vice be president votes so now electors bit separately for each.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
The police can’t search this man cause they don’t have a reason too

# data[].attributes.headline
Fourth amendment; Limitations on searches and seizures. 1791

# data[].attributes.subject
Fourth amendment; Limitations on searches and seizures. 1791

# data[].attributes.body
The victory of the president was ruined by a riot and people were mad about the results of the elected president but they couldn’t vote anymore so they rioted. Thy went against the 12th amendment because they didn’t vote for the president fairly.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Attorney Sidney Powell said the January 6 riot at the Capitol could have caused a delay which would have allowed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito time to stop the certification of Joe Biden's election victory-but that chance was lost when Nancy Pelosi reconvened Congress to complete the process.

Powell, an attorney who has filed numerous lawsuits in a failed bid to overturn former President Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, made the comments during an appearance on the conservative Stew Peters Show on Friday.

She said that as a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol that day, her team was seeking an emergency injunction to prevent the certification of Biden's win.

"We were filing a 12th Amendment constitutional challenge to the process that the Congress was about to use under the Electoral Act provisions that simply don't jive with the 12th Amendment to the United States Constitution," she said. "And Justice Alito was our circuit justice for that."

She added: "Louie Gohmert was the plaintiff in our lawsuit, and we were suing the vice president to follow the 12th Amendment as opposed to the Electoral College Act."

Powell said that GOP Republican leader Kevin McCarthy and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise opposed having House Speaker Nancy Pelosi join the case as an opposing party, which limited her involvement to filing an amicus brief.

"There had been inside goings-on in Congress whereby I believe it was Steve Scalise and McCarthy kept her from being an actual party," Powell said. "She wanted to work her way into the case as a party, but somehow politically that didn't happen."

Powell claimed that when Pelosi learned of the lawsuit, she hurriedly reconvened Congress to certify Biden's victory shortly after the attack on the Capitol.

"She got notice when we made our filing because she wanted to file an amicus brief," Powell said. "And everything broke loose and she really had to speed up reconvening Congress to get the vote going before Justice Alito might have issued an injunction to stop it all, which is what should have happened."

Powell's mention of Justice Alito prompted his name to trend on Twitter on Sunday.

Representatives for Powell, Alito, Pelosi, McCarthy and Scalise have been contacted for comment.
Update 9/28/21: This article updated Sidney Powell's remarks in relation to the events of January 6.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sidney Powell drags Justice Alito and Supreme Court into January 6 mess

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Attorney Sidney Powell said the January 6 riot at the Capitol could have caused a delay which would have allowed Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito time to stop the certification of Joe Biden's election victory-but that chance was lost when Nancy Pelosi reconvened Congress to complete the process.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, Punishments Ratified on December 15th, 1791 “No Hate on Eight”

# data[].attributes.subject
Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, Punishments Ratified on December 15th, 1791 “No Hate on Eight”

# data[].attributes.body
Guilty people cannot be punished in a cruel way.

Bail fines cannot be excessive and/or unreasonable.

Those who are guilty should be punished fairly based on their crime.

People can’t be sentenced to unusual amounts of jail time, such as 150 years, and can’t be fined an unreasonable amount, such as 2 million.

The government cannot inflict a cruel punishment, such as public humiliation, upon a guilty person.

# data[].attributes.body
Keira Rooney

24th Amendment, January 23, 1964 (24-Helps the poor!):

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 residents wanting their rights to vote, some protested and the people started thinking deeper into the means of voting and the right to choose.

# data[].attributes.body
The eighth amendment protects people from being harshly punished without reason, and prevents people from being given large amount of bail and/or fines that make it difficult for someone on the outside to pay.