The People's U.S. Constitution: Amendments XI - XIII
Posted: Tuesday, December 02, 2008
by Jeff Brown
Inner Projection
Amendment XI: Judicial Limits. Ratified 2/7/1795.
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Many a state was fretting that Article III would leave them open to lawsuits, so the Eleventh Amendment was born. Even though the federal told the states not to worry because they had sovereign immunity (a state or nation not to be sued without consent) along came Chisholm v. Georgia (1793) in which the Court OK'd the request for Georgia to pay a Revolutionary War debt. What was the Court's excuse? You guessed it. That sovereignty only applied to the federal government.
So even though some of the framers and the Court often told the people not to worry about rights and amendments regarding the protecting of those rights ("Oh, it's OK, Mr. And Mrs. Citizen, we've got your collective back" Framers and Court et. al.), it becomes more and more clear why so many citizens were screaming and clamoring for the specific protection of their rights. But of course, we don't have to worry about protecting our rights today, do we? For we all know that Big Brother has our best intentions in mind at all times, right? Right.
OK, so how much does the 11th Amendment actually protect states rights?
Number one, it doesn't protect states from being sued by the U.S. government in a federal court, so get that out of your heads, states. And the Court has also decided that the 14th and 15th Amendments allow it to hold states accountable for violating certain rights. But then again . . . The Court, in recent years, has not allowed citizens to sue states for patent infringement, age discrimination, and violation of fair labor standards. So now we go back to prioritization of rights: state vs. individual. What gives? Well, because we've gotten so big as a country, it's actually becoming more and more difficult for the federal government to bring lawsuits on the behalf of citizens. Consider that if during a particular session the Supreme Court is hearing cases regarding such things as the right to bear arms, the death penalty for child rape, and Guantanamo Bay prisoner rights, hearing about your case on age discrimination probably won't happen. Maybe if the the number of justices was increased ten fold individual citizens would get their just dessert. But what do I know, I'm just Joe Average citizen. Not my call.
And this all leads to the ideal Constitution and the practical Constitution and the separation of fact and fiction. There's the fiction of what is ideal but the fact of the imperfection of applying that ideal with fallible, agenda laden individuals to a changing, shifting world.
Enough said.
Amendment XII: Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
Got all that? There's a lot here but we're not going to spend a lot of time discussing.
It's pretty simple. This amendment says that the president and vice president will be elected on separate ballots as opposed to the single ballot suggested under Article II. Or stated in another way, the electors vote for a President and for a Vice President rather than two choices for President and he or she who comes in second gets the VP.
But why? Well, so that the top two people won't be from opposing parties and end up being Pres. and VP like that which happened in 1796 to Jefferson (Democratic-Republican) and Adams (Federalist).
Just imagine today something like an Obama / McCain presidency. Would either want to be VP to the other? I think not. They may put on political airs and confess to the workability of their plight to David Letterman and Jay Leno and the general public, but it would certainly be far from the truth.
Or how bout this scenario? McCain and Palin tie and Palin doesn't withdraw from the race allowing McCain to take the presidency, so the House of Representatives vote and Palin becomes president. The problems here are manifold, especially if you're not a true Palin supporter. So how do we fix all this?
Viola! the Twelfth Amendment. Fixed . . . Kind of.
Way back then, some argued that the 12 th Amendment would encourage presidential candidates to seek a person of "moderate talents" for vice president. Those seriously opposed to Palin running would certainly see the wisdom behind this statement.
There's some other stuff in here about the VP counting all the votes before a joint session of Congress, what happens if a president isn't chosen by the beginning of a new term or if no vice presidential candidate has a majority of the votes, and yada, yada, yada.
I guess that if you're interested in this minutia you can go back and read it or if you're a member of Congress and you need to know the rules; otherwise, me and the rest of the party are moving on.
Amendment XIII: Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865.
1. 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 .
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This is certainly not a living amendment or one that is referred to, to make current law. However, it is one of the most important, for it begins in earnest to uphold the ideal for the persecuted, for the minority that "All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
This was certainly a controversial topic, so much so that the framers said it couldn't be touched until 1808 or some time after the ratification of the Constitution so this new country could at least get up on its feet before it took this issue head on.
As a side note, when one thinks of the freeing of the slaves Lincoln's image comes to mind. However, it would be false to think that Lincoln was not prejudice or that his Emancipation Proclamation was enacted only to free the slaves, for he was a politician after all.
Lincoln was like most in the U.S. at the time, a racist. How could he not be? It was the prevalent mindset of the time. Just as today one would be hard pressed not to see overt expression of the inferiority of a particular race as wrong and politically incorrect. Yet one day while on a riverboat, Lincoln saw a slave shackled to the boat, and it had a profound effect on his sense of the slave's humanity.
But Lincoln did try to keep the states together by supporting the Corwin Amendment which if ratified would not allow Congress to outlaw slavery. Even his Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was more of a war-ending impetus package than a kind jesture to slaves, for even though it did free slaves in the South-something no member of the Southern Confederate States would ever agree to do-it planted the idea of freedom more solidly in the minds of the slaves (a disruptive notion) and the North's intentions in the minds of the whites.
This Article has been viewed 236 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
No comments yet.We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.