Pros And Cons Of The 22nd Amendment

Ever since April 8, 1913, a portion of US citizens, primarily Conservatives politicians and commentators, have had mixed feelings of the ratification of the 17th amendment. Before, elected members of each House in a state would vote for two senators that they felt best represented their state. Many questioned why the amendment was necessary while a majority defended its ratification. As a result, it’s been argued that this modification took away one of the major powers of the states and increased the national government’s power. Others have said that repealing the amendment would strip away the people’s rights and bring back the corruption that took place in pre-17th amendment elections. But removing and repealing the 17th amendment would finally return powers to the states, decrease corruption, force voters to become more interested in who they’re electing, give Senate the ability to do what they are intended to do, restore the checks and balances system, and restore Federalism. Arguments to remove the amendment outweigh ones that fight to keep it. Repeal it or not, there are still going to be issues. For instance, before the ratification of the 17th amendment, U.S. Senators bought their seats through bribes (Mighell). After 1913, corruption was still present, but it was more of an “underground” deal. It used to be between a candidate and a state legislature, today, it’s the candidate and numerous unknown funding sources (The Campaign). In other words, there were obviously

I chose to write about the 27th amendment, which states that members of Congress cannot increase their salary until after there has been an election of representatives. The 27th amendment is a wise policy that keeps members of Congress from misusing their power, and it is obvious that the framers who wrote the law believed people were, by nature, greedy, and therefore included a safeguard against greedy actions.

The 14th Amendment of the United States constitution guarantees that, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (U.S Constitution, Sec. 1). This amendment gives the citizens of the United States their basic human rights and the process that must be taken accounted for in any given court cases. No individual born in the United States should be stripped from their rights no matter the circumstances, for example the skin color, race, religious beliefs or sexuality preferences should interfere. The Constitution is a document that was signed on September 17, 1787 for the nation in order to solve any pre-occurring disagreements that were bound to happen soon (“Constitution Faqs”). The document establishes the rights that are given to all U.S citizens laying out their rights, the freedoms that they are granted, and the series of events that were to occur in the court of law. When the Constitution was signed into effect many people at that time period had a hard time adjusting to the new laws and regulations. Despite the new laws, many would still abide their own personal traditions and not follow the new established laws. This Mentality that many had would continue to happen for the next couple of decades to come. For example,

The 13th amendment abolished slavery and freed millions of African Americans. This was supposed to improve their lives and give them a new beginning. However, more than 30 years after the abolishment, their situation has not improved. Their right to vote was revoked in many southern states during the early 1890s. Less than 40% of black children were enrolled in schools in Georgia by 1880. Between 1880 and 1918, over 2400 African Americans were hanged. Africans had the lowest paying jobs and very few owned land. Jim Crow laws were established in many southern states to legalize segregation. Their situation was disastrous and wasn’t improving. Four respected spokespersons presented their ideas to fix this racial inequality crisis. The four courageous people who offered their alternatives were Ida B Wells, Booker T. Washington, Henry Turner and W.E.B Du Bois.

carried on afterward. The most prominent effect of these was the financial hit that local and state

Gun control is one of the most debated about topic today in America; between news outlet, the public, and politicians. As some politicians look to resolve the gun control issues, with banning them, imposing more restriction to sellers, buyers and owner; some people and politicians consider the second amendment to be relic and should be removed from the constitution. History has shown us time and time again even through all the violence and chaos in the world and America, that there is a reason for the creation of the second amendment. From history of America independence in 1776 to the ratification of the bill of right in 1791 the 2nd amendment still remains relevant form it creation, to modern times, and the protection of America’s future; for the freedom of its inhabitants and citizens. The once influential 20th century thinker George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Looking back into ancient history, the history of second amendment, recent and current history we can find clues that will support the relevance of the 2nd amendment. We will also define the second amendment and try to find solutions to our current problems from what our forefathers had say.

Making it so that no president could serve more than two terms, four years each. This did not leave much of an impact on the government or society, as, aside from FDR, no other president had gone beyond eight years. But, this unspoken term needed to be addressed as neither political party was keen about the other having the presidential party in said position for an undetermined amount of time. It is theorized that if certain presidents had kept going on for a third or fourth term, they could have seen out the full implementation of their policies instead of leaving it to their predecessors, but it is only a theory with no evidence is supporting the

The 24 Amendment allows citizens to vote in federal elections regardless to them paying poll taxes or any other taxes. This amendment also allows congress to invoke this article at any time if necessary, as long as they have approval from the Senate.

Not everyone in the United States agreed with the Nineteenth Amendment being passed. Two months after the Federal Government declared that the Amendment had been incorporated to the Constitution in August of 1920, Oscar Lesser “sued to stop two women [Cecilia Street Waters and Mary D. Randolph] to vote in Baltimore, Maryland. Lesser “believed the Maryland Constitution limited the suffrage to men”. He said that Maryland had refused to vote regarding the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, and should not be subject to its application.. In 1922, Leser v. Garnett, was argued before the United States Supreme Court. The plaintiffs of the case argued that the Nineteenth Amendment was not passed constitutionally. They claimed there were “three principal grounds” to their argument, which were: that the power to amend the Constitution did not cover this amendment "because of its character"; that several states that had ratified the amendment despite the fact that their state constitutions prohibited women from voting; and that, in particular, the ratifications of the states of Tennessee and West Virginia were were invalid because they were adopted without following the rules of legislative procedure in place in those states”. In a unanimous decision, the court ruled that the amendment was passed constitutionally. In their decision, the court responded to each of the three arguments. Lesser’s first argument claimed that if Amendment’s are added without the State’s consent, it

The framers of the constitution did many things that limited the power of the president by creating impeachment, checks and balances, executive privilege, and allowing the legislature to declare war. However they gave the president too much power because they allow the president to court packing, they allow him to announce important events to the public, and allowing presidents to issue many executive orders. A president must be at least thirty five years old, a natural born citizen, and live in the United states (U.S.) for at least 14 years. The president is allowed to serve four year terms when he or she is elected.

The Fifteenth Amendment granted black men to vote. Put emphasis on men because at this time women still couldn't vote.This amendment would not be fully followed until almost a century. What the government did was that they made a literacy test so difficult that no slave could pass because they had no education. So no blacks could vote really for a long time. So to loop their loophole that made a rule called the Grandfather Clause. This made if your grandfather could vote you did not have to take the literacy test. So every white person's grandfather could vote since they lived in england. So this rule did not apply to blacks since their grandfathers were black and could not vote. One of the main reasons that they made this rule is because

In the political world today there are so many different opinions about several different topics. The topics that I will address to you will be, should the 22nd Amendment be repealed and also should the foreign born be allowed to run for president. In both topics you may have your pros and cons, but I am strongly against the both of them because I feel that the Constitution should not be taken advantage of. Government should not be allowed to manipulate the Constitution to suit his or her needs. While making adjustments to the Constitution to allow different things to take place for convenience doesn 't leave any form respect of the Constitution. There should be a line drawn to keep this from happening for years to come on these issues

American people are use to being able to vote for a new president especially if the one that is in office is not doing a good job for the people. I like the way it is because when we limit it to only two terms it helps bring in qualified people with new views and that may have a different outlook on how things are being handled in the White House. Conflict will arise either way you choose to go and personally I think that if it isn’t broke why try to fix it. We as voters enjoy exercising our right to vote, but I strongly feel that the government has the right to put who it wants in office no matter what. So, presidents having limits on how long they can run is our savior because sometimes you can vote and vote and your voice remain unheard.

The twenty second amendment of the Constitution of United States states that, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.” I fully support this amendment and believe that it has helped our country many times. As the book says in Chapter 6, “Popular wisdom has it that second-termers are therefore lame duck(pg.111)”, I feel that this is a very true statement.

It was passed by Congress in 1947 on March 21 and was ratified on Feb. 27, 1951 almost four years later. Not too long ago, many presidents had actually considered running for more than two terms. Ulysses. Grant, Grover Cleveland, and Theodore Roosevelt unsuccessfully tried to and only Franklin Roosevelt succeeded. He won a third and fourth term. A few years later, Congress took into consideration a proposal to limit presidency to two terms. The 22nd amendment was debated, passed, and ratified without much drama. I would change this amendment because with proper background searches, voting, and careful consideration I think it’d be very wise to have the availability to keep a president in office for more than two terms if citizens agree to it. I think that there should be a limit but not at exactly two terms. I believe that it should be up to the people voting to decide who is president and for how long they want to keep that person their president, especially if they’re doing well in office. You can find the amendment process in the two ways that amendments are proposed. Amendments can be proposed by Congress if at least 2/3 of the members of both the House of Representatives (290) and the senate (67) vote for it. Step 1 in amending the constitution is that two-thirds of both houses of Congress pass a constitutional amendment. This sends the amendment to the states for ratification. Three-fourths of