Lost in Translation

Fifteenth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxv The Fifteenth Amendment adds teeth to the Fourteenth Amendment. Recall from the 14th Amendment that citizenship was granted to all persons born in the US (e.g. granted freed slaves citizenship) but then redefined the way that representatives were calculated to each state by subtracting from that state's total representation the percentage of adult males 21 years of age who were denied the vote for reasons other than criminal behavior. This, in effect, reduced the representation of the southern states in Congress by dropping the count of the freed slaves from 3/5 to 0 - assuming the southern states did not grant the right to vote to the freed slaves. I suppose they thought that would be sufficient to nudge the southern states into compliance. Well, just to make certain, the 15th amendment was passed in 1870 (two years after the 14th) to explicitly grant the right to vote to the freed slaves, or at least to the freed male slaves 21 or older. Women's suffrage will come later - in 1920 - when we get to the 19th Amendment. Additional Commentary https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-15/section-1–2/abolition-of-suffrage-qualifications-on-basis-of-race

This is especially sad since, as I am demonstrating in this thread, the Constitution is neither a large document nor a difficult to read document. There is no reason that this should not be a required reading for high school graduation.

It has. Some so-called "sanctuary cities" are trying to extend the right to vote to non-citizens, and many people are objecting to attempts to enforce that only citizens vote by blocking bills for voter ID requirements. So many elected officials are willfully ignorant of the Constitution. It's shameful.

Which one, the 13th or 14th?

Fourteenth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv The Fourteenth Amendment extended the right to vote to the freed slaves and clarified how to count the population for the purpose of calculating representation in Congress. Let's go through this by section. This just states that all persons born or naturalized in the US are citizens of the US. In other words, it's not possible to be born here yet not be a citizen here. This eliminates the argument that freed slaves are not citizens. This says that representation shall be based upon the total population of persons in each state, minus the Indians not taxed and any male inhabitants 21 years of age or more who are denied the right to vote for any reason except for crime or rebellion. In other words, if a state denies its male citizens 21 years of age the right to vote for any reason except participation in criminal or rebellious behavior then that state will lose representation in proportion to the number of people it denies the right to vote. This basically states that anyone who (prior to the Civil War) had sworn an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States and then subsequently fought on behalf of the South against the United States is ineligible to hold office (civilian or military) within the United States without a 2/3rd overriding vote of both houses of Congress. In other words, the US will honor its debts but will NOT honor the debts of the Confederacy of Southern States. Congress can do what it needs to do to enforce this $%*#. I'll let this sink in for a bit. Feel free to comment or ask questions.

Thirteenth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiii The Thirteenth Amendment was passed in 1865, the year that the American Civil War ended. This amendment forever abolished slavery and other forms of involuntary servitude (except as lawful punishment for crime) within the US and her territories.

I'm not aware of a desire to change the twelfth amendment. Are you referring to the push to remove the electoral college?

Twelfth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii If this section sounds familiar then that is not an accident. The Twelfth Amendment is a change to Article 2, section 1 of the constitution and describes the process by which states choose the President and Vice President. So we see here that the electors cast two ballots, one for President and one for Vice President. These votes are counted in the Senate. The majority winner shall be President or Vice President. If there is no majority the the House of Representatives shall chose the President from among the top three winners and the Senate shall choose the Vice President from among the top two winners. The main change here is the addition of separate votes for President and Vice President to eliminate ambiguity in the event of a tie, which is exactly what happened in 1800. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-12

Eleventh Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxi It does not "altogether bar suits against states in the federal courts", rather "it barred suits against states based on the status of the party plaintiff". In other words, the eleventh amendment prevents a person from bringing suit against a state to which they are not a citizen. For example, it prevents a citizen of Georgia from bringing suit against any state except Georgia. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-11/state-sovereign-immunity This amendment came about of Chisholm v. Georgia, 1793, wherein Alexander Chisholm of North Carolina successfully sued the state of Georgia over debts owed from the American Revolutionary War. The 11th Amendment came about as a direct result of this suit and reflects the dissenting opinion of Supreme Court Justice Iredell, that states, being sovereign, cannot be sued in civil court without their consent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chisholm_v._Georgia

Tenth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment The tenth amendment is deceptively simple. Let's break it down. The above is saying that the US Federal Government has only the powers that are expressly given it by the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the individual states or to the people themselves. This is an upside-down view of government, one where the government is below the people and not vice-versa. The US was always intended to favor individuals first, then states, and lastly the central government. It is good to remember this, since it is the foundation of the liberties and freedoms that Americans enjoy. And that, my friends, is the end of the Bill of Rights. I'll take a bit of a break then return in a day or two with the remainder of the amendments. Feel free to comment on anything written to date. I always appreciate your feedback.

Ninth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/ninth_amendment In other words, the list of rights here are not the only rights of the people. That is to say that the people have additional rights beyond the finite list presented so far.

Notice the trend in the last few amendments: 4 - Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure 5 - Right of trial, protection against self-incrimination, no double-jeopardy 6 - Right to counsel, to face one's accusers 7 - Right of trial by jury 8 - Protection against excessive bail, cruel punishments Why do you think framers, and the original legislators in the first Congress felt the need to enumerate these rights? What was the world like, specifically what was a typical European government like, in 1791? This is an important question, since in many ways it feels like we are regressing as a people. We may still have the legal protections of the Bill of Rights, but socially we are losing them. 4 - Socially, are we free from unreasonable search and seizure? Does the media respect privacy? Does social media leave any stone unturned? 5 - Socially, are we free from self-incrimination? Does the media distinguish between private conversation among friends and public speech? 6 - Socially, do we have the right to face our accusers or do we let anonymous accusations destroy careers? 7 - Socially, do we wait for the facts before passing judgement or do we judge first when it is politically expedient? 8 - Socially, do we match the punishment to the crime, or do we allow one teenage indiscretion to destroy a man? Have we lost our way? Are we in decline?

Eighth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/eighth_amendment

Another fun fact: $20 is 1791 was equal to $20 in 1910. https://www.officialdata.org/1791-dollars-in-1910?amount=20 Here is a table showing the relative value of a 1900 $20 for each decade since 1900. 1900: $20.00 1910: $22.62 1920: $47.62 1930: $39.76 1940: $33.33 1950: $57.38 1960: $70.48 1970: $92.38 1980: $196.19 1990: $311.19 2000: $410.00 2010: $519.18 Anyone still want to trust their future to the government?

Seventh Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/seventh_amendment Fun fact: $20 in 1791 is equivalent of $537 today. https://www.officialdata.org/1791-dollars-in-2018?amount=20

Sixth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment The Sixth Amendment continues to enumerate the rights of the people when accused of a crime. Here we see that the people have a right to a prompt and public trial, the right to counsel, the right to be informed of the accusations against them and the right to have their accusers brought before them. Secret courts, secret witnesses, secret accusations - these are not allowed, and are not a part of the American society.

For those who don't want to click, the link above points here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 Thanks for the information. This is very helpful.

Fifth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment How many times have you heard a suspect say "I plead the fifth" on a television procedural crime show? Well, this is it. The Fifth Amendment grants the right to trial, forbids being tried for the same offense twice ("double jeopardy"), protects against self incrimination for criminal offense, and protects against uncompensated seizure of private land for government use.

Fourth Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment As they say, "a man's home is his castle." The people have a right to be secure in their home and property. There shall be no "unreasonable" searches nor seizures, "reasonable" being defined as upon probable cause and with warrant specifying the exact place to be searched and items sought.

Third Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/third_amendment What more is there to say here? The Third Amendment is straightforward and has never been litigated before the Supreme Court.

I've heard that Yinyang is void, and due to the commutative principal of sound void is also Yinyang.

Second Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment The Second amendment is the freedom to bear arms. I think the commas in this sentence are a source of confusion, since commas can be translated as a parenthetical aside, as a an "or", and as as "and." The above essentially says the following: (I'll reword the original text for clarity) A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free state) and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Commentary on the Second Amendment https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2

I'm glad you mentioned contract since that is the issue. The law is compelling those of faith to enter into contracts that they do not want to enter. This is not the same as the ubiquitous "deli counter" where a customer walks in and is refused service. This is about a person being compelled to contract for labor to a ceremony that violates one's faith. You may not agree with one's faith but the First Amendment is clear that the government cannot write laws forcing one to violate their faith. Another example: in WWII there were conscientious objectors who refused to fight on basis of their religion. The world was at war against fascism and the US government allowed able bodied men who were drafted to not fight due to their religious belief. This is how important the First Amendment is. Now, 60+ years later the government is forcing those of faith to bake cakes and arrange flowers.

Another example: One is a florist and an orthodox Jew. As such one it not allowed to work on the Sabbath (sundown to sundown, Friday to Saturday). A couple enters the store and asks for flowers for their wedding. Part of the job includes delivery and arrangement. It ends up the wedding is on Saturday, during the Sabbath. In this example the florist is allowed to refuse service on religious grounds since day of the week is not a protected class. Both examples are equivalent in that they are expressions of religious faith, but in the former the florist can be sued and in the latter they cannot. If the couple in the latter example were same-sex then I don't know what would happen. As a society we need to get a handle on this. The Constitution is quite clear on the matter.

Essentially what we are saying here is that one cannot be a Christian AND a baker, or a Christian AND a florist, since at any time one could be asked to perform an action that runs counter to one's belief and subsequently sued. This is exactly what the First Amendment is supposed to protect against.