1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress
This article repeals prohibition. Prohibition was not helping to lower the crime rate. In fact it was making crime more prevalent. By repealing the the 18th Amendment law makers were hoping to lower the rate again.
November 3, 2010
California Post
California Rejects Marijuana LegalizationBy MARC LACEY
OAKLAND — California voters rejected a ballot initiative on Tuesday that would have legalized marijuana for recreational use, but disappointed supporters of the measure lighted up anyway outside their campaign headquarters here and vowed to continue pushing for a day when cannabis is treated like tobacco and alcohol, not heroin and cocaine.
“There will be a few tears shed,” said Gregory Lyons, 63, a pastry chef who worked the phones throughout the day on Tuesday to rally support for the measure. “Demonizing a plant doesn’t make sense.”
Added Jeremy Daw, 30, who was puffing on a lengthy spliff as the returns came in: “I feel deflated.”
Across the country, voters in dozens of states weighed in not just on candidates but on all matter of issues large and small, more than 150 of them in all. In Rhode Island, voters decided not to change the name of the state, which is officially “Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.” Arizona put an end to affirmative action programs. Oklahoma made English its official language. There were municipal initiatives as well, including a zany one in Denver that called on the city to set up a “extraterrestrial affairs committee” to look into UFOs.
The marijuana initiative would have allowed licensed retailers to sell up to one ounce at a time, with no doctor’s note required, to those over the age of 21. Advocates of legalization argued that it was already easier for young people to get a marijuana cigarette than a cigarette or beer.
“They can get it more easily than alcohol, more easily than tobacco,” said Hanna Dershowitz, a lawyer and mother of two from Southern California who backed the cannabis initiative. “Drug dealers don’t ask for ID.”
Legalizing marijuana, advocates had argued, would have had the added benefit of generating tax revenue and helping reduce the violence caused by Mexican organizations that traffic in illegal drugs. “When was the last time Coors Lite did a drive-by shooting on Budweiser because they didn’t like their marketing?” asked Nate Bradley, a former police officer who supported the measure. But opponents carried the day with their argument that lifting the ban on marijuana would translate into increased usage of the drug. Already, a recent change in the law categorizes possession of small amounts as an infraction, the lowest level of offense.
And even some marijuana smokers did not like the idea of cannabis, long a symbol of the counterculture, being regulated. “I don’t want Anheuser-Busch handling pot or to have to buy Marlboro marijuana,” said Shaun Ramos, 29, who spent Tuesday morning sticking “No on Prop 19” posters on light posts in downtown Oakland, only to see them quickly removed by supporters of legalization. “This is all about corporate control.”
Tuesday’s legalization effort was not the first attempt to decriminalize cannabis. California voters had rejected a similar legalization effort in 1972 and over the last decade voters in Alaska, Colorado, Nevada and South Dakota had all said no to marijuana.
Medical marijuana initiatives have fared better, with more than a dozen states allowing cannabis for those who get permission from their doctors. But voters in South Dakota rejected a measure allowing medical marijuana in that state, and Arizona appeared poised to do the same. Voters in Oregon, where about 40,000 people legally use medical marijuana, rejected a measure to set up state-regulated dispensaries.
The vote on legalizing marijuana in California was closely watched, especially in Mexico, where the government is engaged in a violent battle with drug traffickers who grow marijuana and sneak the profitable herb in bales across the border.
Also in California, voters rejected a measure to suspend the state’s curbs on greenhouse gas emissions while the economy was in the doldrums. Largely financed by out-of-state oil companies, the initiative sought to tap into voters’ economic woes to roll back landmark environmental legislation approved in 2006 that called for the state to curb emissions by 15 percent by 2020.
“This the first time ever that there’s been such a huge referendum on climate change and clean energy policy,” said Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund. “This sends a clear message that people want a clean energy future.”
In Washington state, voters rejected an initiative creating the state’s first income tax, exclusively on individuals who earn more than $200,000. It was backed by Bill Gates Sr., father of the Microsoft founder who is the country’s richest man. In Massachusetts, voters endorsed wiping out the sales tax for alcohol, but rejected rolling back the 6.25 percent sales tax to 3 percent.
Three ballot measures in Colorado that would have cut the state income tax and sharply restricted government borrowing and property taxes for schools were overwhelmingly defeated. Voters also rejected an antiabortion amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would have conferred rights “to every human being from the beginning of the biological development.”
In Arizona and Oklahoma, voters approved measures aimed at preventing President Obama’s health care legislation from going into effect. Colorado voters rejected a similar measure.
This article is about the legalization of marijuana. Individuals often compare marijuana illegalization to prohibition, saying that if marijuana was made legal crime would decrease. And that legalization of marijuana would have the same effect as Amendment 21.
This video discusses the failure of prohibition.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Amendment 20
1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
This amendment discusses when work will begin in the Senate and in the Executive Branch after elections. It also discusess procedure if a president should die or resign while in office.
Barack Obama's Inauguration Speech
CNN.com
OBAMA: My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This article consists of President Obama's Inauguaration speech. Given on the 3rd day of January as specified at his Inauguaration.
The video consists of a poem read a Bill Clinton's inaugaration speech.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
This amendment discusses when work will begin in the Senate and in the Executive Branch after elections. It also discusess procedure if a president should die or resign while in office.
Barack Obama's Inauguration Speech
CNN.com
OBAMA: My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because we the people have remained faithful to the ideals of our forebears, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land — a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America — they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted — for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things — some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sanh.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This article consists of President Obama's Inauguaration speech. Given on the 3rd day of January as specified at his Inauguaration.
The video consists of a poem read a Bill Clinton's inaugaration speech.
Amendment 19
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Finally women have been given the right to vote!
Women and the 2008 Election. A New Majority
CNN.com
Much was made before the 2008 Presidential election of the potential impact of the African American or youth vote on the election. Pundits claimed that both voting blocks would "carry" the election for Barack Obama. But what about women voters? The truth is that they came out in full force for Obama.
Women strongly preferred Obama to McCain 56-43% whereas men split their vote 49% for Obama and 48% for McCain. Women have voted in larger numbers than men since 1980. In the 2004 Presidential race, nine million more women than men voted and when final results are tallied it is expected that we will see even more women voting in this past election. In addition, a study by the Women's Campaign Forum showed that women tripled the amount of their donations compared to the 2000 Presidential election.
Still, with all the impact that women clearly had on the Presidential election, why is it that the United States still ranks 70th in terms of women in elected office? Even with the hard fought campaigns of Hillary Clinton in the primary and Sarah Palin, women have achieved a relatively dismal amount of seats. Women comprise 52% of the population in the United States yet women only hold a quarter of elected offices. While some celebrated the fact that New Hampshire just became the first state to have a majority of women legislators in one of their chambers (the state Senate), the question to really ask is why are they the only ones? Congress is comprised of just 17% women (many cheered that this number went up in this election cycle from 16%) but that meager rise is disconcerting at best.
Women gained suffrage in 1920 through the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Today, women's representation in state legislatures ranges from the low end of 10% (South Carolina) to a high of 37% (New Hampshire and Vermont.)
Some might say, well, why is this important? The answer is twofold. First, research on state legislatures nationwide by C.S. Rosenthal has shown that women legislators are 50% more likely than male legislators to "build issue coalitions," "pull people together" and "get people involved." The study notes that 59% of women legislative committee chairs earn above average ratings for inclusivity and power-sharing. Second, women tend to have unique perspectives on issues such as child care, elder care and health care as frequently these issues, in many families, are falling still disproportionately to women.
So what is holding women back? Part of the problem is we need to encourage more women to run. Studies have shown that some women do not run due to the time commitments of both a campaign and seemingly endless fundraising once in office. These demands can often be difficult to juggle for women with young children. When I first ran for a local position in Lower Manhattan, I heard a few comments from women that shouldn't I really be staying at home as I had just given birth to my twins. Sadly these comments are all too common. In addition, negative campaigning has acted as a deterrent for many women who fear the onslaught of personal attacks that seem to go hand in hand with campaigns. Lastly, many of the elected positions mean lengthy travel with months away from home to either the state capitol or Washington, something that can be anathema to mothers with children or elderly parents at home.
How do we combat this? The best way to fight these obstacles is to fight them head on by organizing women to band together to encourage and support other women to run for office. We saw to great effect Obama's use of grassroots organizing, the internet and micro targeting of voters. Women in communities that want to increase the number of women representing them need to form grassroots level groups to help support qualified women candidates through fundraising and get out the vote networks. By helping women fundraise, we can minimize some of the time constraints that can unduly burden a candidate or elected official. PTA's, mother's groups, soccer and baseball leagues can be powerful tools in a campaign to help spread the word. Many states have groups that help women candidates fundraise, seek endorsements and learn to run a campaign. Most importantly, women need to harness the incredible advantage they have in terms of overall women voting, and support qualified women that are running for office.
We can learn a lot from the Obama campaign about how a candidate can emerge victorious based on an incremental ground swell of grassroots support among communities across the country. The apparatus and model is in place. Now we women have to mobilize it.
This article discusses the significant impact female voters made to the 2008 election.
This video is an animation put together to teach school children about women's sufferage.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Finally women have been given the right to vote!
Women and the 2008 Election. A New Majority
CNN.com
Much was made before the 2008 Presidential election of the potential impact of the African American or youth vote on the election. Pundits claimed that both voting blocks would "carry" the election for Barack Obama. But what about women voters? The truth is that they came out in full force for Obama.
Women strongly preferred Obama to McCain 56-43% whereas men split their vote 49% for Obama and 48% for McCain. Women have voted in larger numbers than men since 1980. In the 2004 Presidential race, nine million more women than men voted and when final results are tallied it is expected that we will see even more women voting in this past election. In addition, a study by the Women's Campaign Forum showed that women tripled the amount of their donations compared to the 2000 Presidential election.
Still, with all the impact that women clearly had on the Presidential election, why is it that the United States still ranks 70th in terms of women in elected office? Even with the hard fought campaigns of Hillary Clinton in the primary and Sarah Palin, women have achieved a relatively dismal amount of seats. Women comprise 52% of the population in the United States yet women only hold a quarter of elected offices. While some celebrated the fact that New Hampshire just became the first state to have a majority of women legislators in one of their chambers (the state Senate), the question to really ask is why are they the only ones? Congress is comprised of just 17% women (many cheered that this number went up in this election cycle from 16%) but that meager rise is disconcerting at best.
Women gained suffrage in 1920 through the ratification of the 19th Amendment. Today, women's representation in state legislatures ranges from the low end of 10% (South Carolina) to a high of 37% (New Hampshire and Vermont.)
Some might say, well, why is this important? The answer is twofold. First, research on state legislatures nationwide by C.S. Rosenthal has shown that women legislators are 50% more likely than male legislators to "build issue coalitions," "pull people together" and "get people involved." The study notes that 59% of women legislative committee chairs earn above average ratings for inclusivity and power-sharing. Second, women tend to have unique perspectives on issues such as child care, elder care and health care as frequently these issues, in many families, are falling still disproportionately to women.
So what is holding women back? Part of the problem is we need to encourage more women to run. Studies have shown that some women do not run due to the time commitments of both a campaign and seemingly endless fundraising once in office. These demands can often be difficult to juggle for women with young children. When I first ran for a local position in Lower Manhattan, I heard a few comments from women that shouldn't I really be staying at home as I had just given birth to my twins. Sadly these comments are all too common. In addition, negative campaigning has acted as a deterrent for many women who fear the onslaught of personal attacks that seem to go hand in hand with campaigns. Lastly, many of the elected positions mean lengthy travel with months away from home to either the state capitol or Washington, something that can be anathema to mothers with children or elderly parents at home.
How do we combat this? The best way to fight these obstacles is to fight them head on by organizing women to band together to encourage and support other women to run for office. We saw to great effect Obama's use of grassroots organizing, the internet and micro targeting of voters. Women in communities that want to increase the number of women representing them need to form grassroots level groups to help support qualified women candidates through fundraising and get out the vote networks. By helping women fundraise, we can minimize some of the time constraints that can unduly burden a candidate or elected official. PTA's, mother's groups, soccer and baseball leagues can be powerful tools in a campaign to help spread the word. Many states have groups that help women candidates fundraise, seek endorsements and learn to run a campaign. Most importantly, women need to harness the incredible advantage they have in terms of overall women voting, and support qualified women that are running for office.
We can learn a lot from the Obama campaign about how a candidate can emerge victorious based on an incremental ground swell of grassroots support among communities across the country. The apparatus and model is in place. Now we women have to mobilize it.
This article discusses the significant impact female voters made to the 2008 election.
This video is an animation put together to teach school children about women's sufferage.
Amendment 18
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Alcohol was now illegal in the United States. Prohibition was the start of organized crime.
‘Four Loko’ to ban or not to ban?
UMKC E-NEWS
By Mark Linville (mlinville@unews.com), on November 29th, 2010
An FDA warning has put alcoholic beverage Four Loko in the spotlight of controversy. Pictured left is a can of Four Loko. On the right, for comparison purpose, is a 12 fl oz can of Coca-Cola.
In recent months, an energy drink containing 12 percent alcohol, began selling in the Kansas City Metro.
The drink, called Four Loko, has become very popular for young party goers nationwide.
Four Loko debuted in 2008 and is distributed by Phusion Projects, LLC.
The drink is a malt beverage that contains four active ingredients: Caffeine, alcohol, guanine, and taurine.
Each can of Four Loko contains 23.5 ounces of liquid, double the amount of a regular can of beer.
Regardless of how popular it is, Four Loko became the subject of controversy as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began reviewing the drink, along with several others.
On Nov. 17, the FDA released warning letters to four U.S. brewing companies whose drinks they found harmful.
The FDA warned Charge Beverage Corp, which makes Core High Gravity HG, New Century Brewing Company, LLC, makers of Moonshot, United Brands Company, which brews Joose and Max energy drinks and of course Phusion Projects.
The reason for the warning comes from scientific studies and observations conducted by toxicology, neuropharmacology, emergency medicine and epidemiology experts.
“There is evidence that the combinations of caffeine and alcohol in these products pose a public health concern,” said Principal Deputy Commissioner Joshua M. Sharfstein in an official FDA news release.
The combination of alcohol, which acts as a depressant to the body, and caffeine, a body stimulate, creates an imbalance of body functions and can impair one’s judgment and sensory functions.
“The FDA said peer-reviewed studies suggest that the consumption of beverages containing added caffeine and alcohol is associated with risky behaviors that may lead to hazardous and life-threatening situations,” an FDA news release said.
The FDA also found the four brewing companies to be in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which restricts what companies can include in brewing recipes.
The warning letters were issued to the companies, who were given 15 days to reformulate their product or take measures to comply with of the FFDCA.
“If the FDA believes that the violation continues to exist, the agency may persue an enforcement action that could include seizure of the products or an injunction to prevent the firm from continuing to produce the product until the violation has be corrected,” an FDA news release said.
On Nov. 16, the FDA received an unofficial announcement that Phusion Products plans to reformulate their product by removing the caffeine content from Four Loko.
“The FDA views this announcement as a positive step,” FDA news release stated. “[The] FDA plans to work that Phusion Projects and other manufacturers to assure their products meet safe standards.”
An additional news release states since the FDA issued the warning letters, to the four companies including Phusion Projects, the agency confirmed all four companies have ceased production of the drinks in question.
The release said “Phusion Projects has advised the FDA that it has ceased producing caffeinated alcoholic beverages, is no longer shipping such products, and expects to have all of its caffeinated alcoholic beverages off retail store shelves by December 13. Phusion Projects is the maker of Four Loko.”
In wake of the FDA warnings, many state governments across the country began to ban Four Loko and other drinks believed to be harmful.
In the state of Kansas, officials have decided to remove the drink from store shelves and prevent any distribution in the state.
According to an article published by The Kansan, the Kansas Department of Revenue has deemed all flavors of Four Loko, Four Maxed, Joose, and Max energy drinks illegal for sale or distribution.
According to the article, Spokeswomen Freda Warfield of the Kansas Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) stated that once Phusion Projects reformulates their product, then the banning of Four Loko will be reviewed by the ABC.
Although there were no official reports of banning or actions found regarding Missouri; there have been mixed views of the drink’s future.
Spokesman for the Missouri Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control Mike O’Donnell said “Banning Four Loko would be difficult to do because it is not a controlled substance.” In an interview with “KOMU-TV8” in Columbia, Mo.
“We’re in a different situation than various other states in that they have a particular commission that can ban these substances,” O’Donnell said. “However, we could have to wait until there is action taken by the legislature.”
Several, stores in Kansas City sell Four Loko. It is unknown if they have been notified by Phusion Projects to stop selling the drink.
At UMKC, the drink has become popular among students.
Junior Danielle Young said she likes Four Loko.
“I thought it was tasty and fun,” Young said. “But I can tell it could probably get out of hand quickly if not handled responsibly.”
Senior Charlie Tidwell said he has never tried Four Loko
“I’ve had vodka red bull though, and those don’t do anything for me. I get no effect from the combination of alcohol and caffeine,” Tidwell said.
A UMKC fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE), banned the drink. SAE decided to ban Four Loko due the reported effects of consuming the beverage.
“Our executive council saw this as an opportunity to be a leader on campus and within our community,” Chapter President Andrew Daniels said.
Twenty dollars per can is the penalty for possesion for those who violate the fraternal ban. “Personally, I am proud of the chapter for making this decision,” Daniels said.
Since this article was writted Four Loko has officially been banned in Missouri. Many question whether or not this action crosses the line into Prohibition.
This video is an excert from the movie Some Like It Hot. This film is about two gentlemen on the run after winessing a murder covering up prohibition crimes.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
Alcohol was now illegal in the United States. Prohibition was the start of organized crime.
‘Four Loko’ to ban or not to ban?
UMKC E-NEWS
By Mark Linville (mlinville@unews.com), on November 29th, 2010
An FDA warning has put alcoholic beverage Four Loko in the spotlight of controversy. Pictured left is a can of Four Loko. On the right, for comparison purpose, is a 12 fl oz can of Coca-Cola.
In recent months, an energy drink containing 12 percent alcohol, began selling in the Kansas City Metro.
The drink, called Four Loko, has become very popular for young party goers nationwide.
Four Loko debuted in 2008 and is distributed by Phusion Projects, LLC.
The drink is a malt beverage that contains four active ingredients: Caffeine, alcohol, guanine, and taurine.
Each can of Four Loko contains 23.5 ounces of liquid, double the amount of a regular can of beer.
Regardless of how popular it is, Four Loko became the subject of controversy as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) began reviewing the drink, along with several others.
On Nov. 17, the FDA released warning letters to four U.S. brewing companies whose drinks they found harmful.
The FDA warned Charge Beverage Corp, which makes Core High Gravity HG, New Century Brewing Company, LLC, makers of Moonshot, United Brands Company, which brews Joose and Max energy drinks and of course Phusion Projects.
The reason for the warning comes from scientific studies and observations conducted by toxicology, neuropharmacology, emergency medicine and epidemiology experts.
“There is evidence that the combinations of caffeine and alcohol in these products pose a public health concern,” said Principal Deputy Commissioner Joshua M. Sharfstein in an official FDA news release.
The combination of alcohol, which acts as a depressant to the body, and caffeine, a body stimulate, creates an imbalance of body functions and can impair one’s judgment and sensory functions.
“The FDA said peer-reviewed studies suggest that the consumption of beverages containing added caffeine and alcohol is associated with risky behaviors that may lead to hazardous and life-threatening situations,” an FDA news release said.
The FDA also found the four brewing companies to be in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), which restricts what companies can include in brewing recipes.
The warning letters were issued to the companies, who were given 15 days to reformulate their product or take measures to comply with of the FFDCA.
“If the FDA believes that the violation continues to exist, the agency may persue an enforcement action that could include seizure of the products or an injunction to prevent the firm from continuing to produce the product until the violation has be corrected,” an FDA news release said.
On Nov. 16, the FDA received an unofficial announcement that Phusion Products plans to reformulate their product by removing the caffeine content from Four Loko.
“The FDA views this announcement as a positive step,” FDA news release stated. “[The] FDA plans to work that Phusion Projects and other manufacturers to assure their products meet safe standards.”
An additional news release states since the FDA issued the warning letters, to the four companies including Phusion Projects, the agency confirmed all four companies have ceased production of the drinks in question.
The release said “Phusion Projects has advised the FDA that it has ceased producing caffeinated alcoholic beverages, is no longer shipping such products, and expects to have all of its caffeinated alcoholic beverages off retail store shelves by December 13. Phusion Projects is the maker of Four Loko.”
In wake of the FDA warnings, many state governments across the country began to ban Four Loko and other drinks believed to be harmful.
In the state of Kansas, officials have decided to remove the drink from store shelves and prevent any distribution in the state.
According to an article published by The Kansan, the Kansas Department of Revenue has deemed all flavors of Four Loko, Four Maxed, Joose, and Max energy drinks illegal for sale or distribution.
According to the article, Spokeswomen Freda Warfield of the Kansas Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) stated that once Phusion Projects reformulates their product, then the banning of Four Loko will be reviewed by the ABC.
Although there were no official reports of banning or actions found regarding Missouri; there have been mixed views of the drink’s future.
Spokesman for the Missouri Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control Mike O’Donnell said “Banning Four Loko would be difficult to do because it is not a controlled substance.” In an interview with “KOMU-TV8” in Columbia, Mo.
“We’re in a different situation than various other states in that they have a particular commission that can ban these substances,” O’Donnell said. “However, we could have to wait until there is action taken by the legislature.”
Several, stores in Kansas City sell Four Loko. It is unknown if they have been notified by Phusion Projects to stop selling the drink.
At UMKC, the drink has become popular among students.
Junior Danielle Young said she likes Four Loko.
“I thought it was tasty and fun,” Young said. “But I can tell it could probably get out of hand quickly if not handled responsibly.”
Senior Charlie Tidwell said he has never tried Four Loko
“I’ve had vodka red bull though, and those don’t do anything for me. I get no effect from the combination of alcohol and caffeine,” Tidwell said.
A UMKC fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE), banned the drink. SAE decided to ban Four Loko due the reported effects of consuming the beverage.
“Our executive council saw this as an opportunity to be a leader on campus and within our community,” Chapter President Andrew Daniels said.
Twenty dollars per can is the penalty for possesion for those who violate the fraternal ban. “Personally, I am proud of the chapter for making this decision,” Daniels said.
Since this article was writted Four Loko has officially been banned in Missouri. Many question whether or not this action crosses the line into Prohibition.
This video is an excert from the movie Some Like It Hot. This film is about two gentlemen on the run after winessing a murder covering up prohibition crimes.
Amendment 17
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
This amendment discusses Senate election. Two Senators are elected in each state every six. If a vacancy shall occur the state shall deal with re-election procedure.
Possible primary battle in bid to take on McCaskill in '12
By: CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
Washington (CNN) - The National Republican Senatorial Committee says it isn't taking sides in any battle down the road for the party's Senate nomination in Missouri.
The primary winner there will take on freshman Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, who's up for reelection 2012.
A Republican party source confirms to CNN reports that Sen. John Cornyn, the NRSC chairman, spoke before Thanksgiving with former Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman about a possible bid for the Senate nomination. The source tells CNN that Steelman called Cornyn, rather than the other way around, and that Cornyn suggested to Steelman that if she thought she could mount a good campaign, then she should run.
Also considering a run for the GOP nomination is former Sen. Jim Talent, who lost to McCaskill by three percentage points in 2006.
"From the NRSC's perspective there are several potential candidates, including Jim Talent and Sarah Steelman, who could mount a winning campaign against Claire McCaskill," says NRSC Communications Director Brian Walsh, who adds that McCaskill's "support for the Obama agenda, including the health care bill and stimulus, has left her vulnerable heading into 2012 and we wouldn't be surprised if several well-qualified candidates ultimately step forward to challenge her. But our nominee will be chosen by Republican voters in Missouri."
President Barack Obama narrowly lost the state to Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, but Republican Rep. Roy Blunt defeated Democratic nominee Robin Carnahan, Missouri's secretary of state, by 13 points earlier this month in the battle for the state's open Senate seat.
Steelman, a favorite with many Tea Party activists, considered a run against Blunt for this year's Senate nomination, but dropped out of the hunt early in this past cycle.
This article discusses the Senate primary election in Missouri.
This video is about a senator who was forced to concede in his senate race do to scandal.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
This amendment discusses Senate election. Two Senators are elected in each state every six. If a vacancy shall occur the state shall deal with re-election procedure.
Possible primary battle in bid to take on McCaskill in '12
By: CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser
Washington (CNN) - The National Republican Senatorial Committee says it isn't taking sides in any battle down the road for the party's Senate nomination in Missouri.
The primary winner there will take on freshman Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, who's up for reelection 2012.
A Republican party source confirms to CNN reports that Sen. John Cornyn, the NRSC chairman, spoke before Thanksgiving with former Missouri Treasurer Sarah Steelman about a possible bid for the Senate nomination. The source tells CNN that Steelman called Cornyn, rather than the other way around, and that Cornyn suggested to Steelman that if she thought she could mount a good campaign, then she should run.
Also considering a run for the GOP nomination is former Sen. Jim Talent, who lost to McCaskill by three percentage points in 2006.
"From the NRSC's perspective there are several potential candidates, including Jim Talent and Sarah Steelman, who could mount a winning campaign against Claire McCaskill," says NRSC Communications Director Brian Walsh, who adds that McCaskill's "support for the Obama agenda, including the health care bill and stimulus, has left her vulnerable heading into 2012 and we wouldn't be surprised if several well-qualified candidates ultimately step forward to challenge her. But our nominee will be chosen by Republican voters in Missouri."
President Barack Obama narrowly lost the state to Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, but Republican Rep. Roy Blunt defeated Democratic nominee Robin Carnahan, Missouri's secretary of state, by 13 points earlier this month in the battle for the state's open Senate seat.
Steelman, a favorite with many Tea Party activists, considered a run against Blunt for this year's Senate nomination, but dropped out of the hunt early in this past cycle.
This article discusses the Senate primary election in Missouri.
This video is about a senator who was forced to concede in his senate race do to scandal.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Amendment 16
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
This amendment states that the United States government has the power to collect income tax, no matter how an individual recieves their income.
CNN Poll: Only one-third favor tax cut extension for wealthy
By: CNN Political Unit
Washington (CNN) - Only a third of all Americans think Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for families regardless of how much money they make, according to a new national poll.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday also indicates a vast majority of the public is in favor of allowing openly gay people to serve in the U.S. military. Both issues are high on the agenda for federal lawmakers who have returned to the nation's capitol this week for the lame duck session of Congress.
Forty-nine percent of people questioned in the poll say the tax cuts should be extended for families making less than $250,000 a year, with another 15 percent saying the cuts should not be extended for anyone. That leaves 35 percent who favor an extension of the tax cuts for all Americans regardless of how much money they make.
The tax cuts were passed into law in first years of the presidency of George W. Bush. They are set to expire at the end of this year, unless a new bill is passed by Congress. The issue became a raging battle between Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capitol and on the campaign trail across the country the past three months. The White House and many, but not all, congressional Democrats want to keep such tax cuts in place for those in the middle class but roll them back for the wealthiest Americans. Republicans say the tax cuts should be kept in place for everyone.
"Among the general public, Republicans and Democrats agree that the tax cuts should be extended, but they differ on who should benefit," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Two-thirds of Democrats think that the tax cuts should be limited to families making less than $250,000. Fifty percent of Republicans think the tax cuts should be extended regardless of income."
The survey also indicates that 56 percent say that tax cuts and deficit reduction can be accomplished at the same time, with just over four in ten saying they disagree.
"Deficit reduction is important to many legislators, but most Americans probably think it should not stand in the way of lower taxes," adds Holland.
Another battle on Capitol Hill concerns the "don't ask, don't tell" law, which bans openly gay troops for serving in the military. A possible vote on repealing the measure is being debated by lawmakers.
According to the poll, more than seven in ten Americans think that people who are openly gay or lesbian should be allowed to serve in the military, with 23 percent opposed.
"On issues like this, there is usually a generation gap, with younger Americans much more supportive of gays and lesbians than older Americans," Holland said. "But on this question, roughly seven in ten in every age bracket favors openly gay and lesbian people being allowed to serve in the military."
Health care is unlikely to re-emerge while the Democrats control both sides of Capitol Hill, but it will probably do so next year, when the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives and reduce the Democrats' majority in the Senate.
The poll indicates the public continues to be split right down the middle on whether the health care bill passed into law earlier this year should be repealed: Forty-nine percent say it should; 48 percent say no. Of that 48 percent, 24 percent think that Congress should make additional changes to increase the government's involvement in the nation's health care system; 24 percent just want to leave well enough alone.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted November 11-14, with 1,014 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
– CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report
This article discusses the income tax cuts granted for the wealthy by President Bush. Income tax takes a large portion of incomes, promised to reduce income tax can be smart politics.
This cartoon is propoganda about income tax formed during WWII.
This amendment states that the United States government has the power to collect income tax, no matter how an individual recieves their income.
CNN Poll: Only one-third favor tax cut extension for wealthy
By: CNN Political Unit
Washington (CNN) - Only a third of all Americans think Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for families regardless of how much money they make, according to a new national poll.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday also indicates a vast majority of the public is in favor of allowing openly gay people to serve in the U.S. military. Both issues are high on the agenda for federal lawmakers who have returned to the nation's capitol this week for the lame duck session of Congress.
Forty-nine percent of people questioned in the poll say the tax cuts should be extended for families making less than $250,000 a year, with another 15 percent saying the cuts should not be extended for anyone. That leaves 35 percent who favor an extension of the tax cuts for all Americans regardless of how much money they make.
The tax cuts were passed into law in first years of the presidency of George W. Bush. They are set to expire at the end of this year, unless a new bill is passed by Congress. The issue became a raging battle between Democrats and Republicans in the nation's capitol and on the campaign trail across the country the past three months. The White House and many, but not all, congressional Democrats want to keep such tax cuts in place for those in the middle class but roll them back for the wealthiest Americans. Republicans say the tax cuts should be kept in place for everyone.
"Among the general public, Republicans and Democrats agree that the tax cuts should be extended, but they differ on who should benefit," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "Two-thirds of Democrats think that the tax cuts should be limited to families making less than $250,000. Fifty percent of Republicans think the tax cuts should be extended regardless of income."
The survey also indicates that 56 percent say that tax cuts and deficit reduction can be accomplished at the same time, with just over four in ten saying they disagree.
"Deficit reduction is important to many legislators, but most Americans probably think it should not stand in the way of lower taxes," adds Holland.
Another battle on Capitol Hill concerns the "don't ask, don't tell" law, which bans openly gay troops for serving in the military. A possible vote on repealing the measure is being debated by lawmakers.
According to the poll, more than seven in ten Americans think that people who are openly gay or lesbian should be allowed to serve in the military, with 23 percent opposed.
"On issues like this, there is usually a generation gap, with younger Americans much more supportive of gays and lesbians than older Americans," Holland said. "But on this question, roughly seven in ten in every age bracket favors openly gay and lesbian people being allowed to serve in the military."
Health care is unlikely to re-emerge while the Democrats control both sides of Capitol Hill, but it will probably do so next year, when the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives and reduce the Democrats' majority in the Senate.
The poll indicates the public continues to be split right down the middle on whether the health care bill passed into law earlier this year should be repealed: Forty-nine percent say it should; 48 percent say no. Of that 48 percent, 24 percent think that Congress should make additional changes to increase the government's involvement in the nation's health care system; 24 percent just want to leave well enough alone.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted November 11-14, with 1,014 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's overall sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.
– CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report
This article discusses the income tax cuts granted for the wealthy by President Bush. Income tax takes a large portion of incomes, promised to reduce income tax can be smart politics.
This cartoon is propoganda about income tax formed during WWII.
Amendment 15
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
While this amendment made great strides in the progression of American history by allowing African Americans to vote to me it is most astounding because it does not give women the right to vote.
One Million Black Votes Didn't Count in the 2000 Presidential Election
CNN.com
It's not too hard to get your vote lost -- if some politicians want it to be lost
by Greg Palast
In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. "Spoiled votes" is the technical term. The pile of ballots left to rot has a distinctly dark hue: About 1 million of them -- half of the rejected ballots -- were cast by African Americans although black voters make up only 12 percent of the electorate.
This year, it could get worse.
These ugly racial statistics are hidden away in the mathematical thickets of the appendices to official reports coming out of the investigation of ballot-box monkey business in Florida from the last go-'round.
How do you spoil 2 million ballots? Not by leaving them out of the fridge too long. A stray mark, a jammed machine, a punch card punched twice will do it. It's easy to lose your vote, especially when some politicians want your vote lost.
While investigating the 2000 ballot count in Florida for BBC Television, I saw firsthand how the spoilage game was played -- with black voters the predetermined losers.
Florida's Gadsden County has the highest percentage of black voters in the state -- and the highest spoilage rate. One in 8 votes cast there in 2000 was never counted. Many voters wrote in "Al Gore." Optical reading machines rejected these because "Al" is a "stray mark."
By contrast, in neighboring Tallahassee, the capital, vote spoilage was nearly zip; every vote counted. The difference? In Tallahassee's white-majority county, voters placed their ballots directly into optical scanners. If they added a stray mark, they received another ballot with instructions to correct it.
In other words, in the white county, make a mistake and get another ballot; in the black county, make a mistake, your ballot is tossed.
The U.S. Civil Rights Commission looked into the smelly pile of spoiled ballots and concluded that, of the 179,855 ballots invalidated by Florida officials, 53 percent were cast by black voters. In Florida, a black citizen was 10 times as likely to have a vote rejected as a white voter.
But let's not get smug about Florida's Jim Crow spoilage rate. Civil Rights Commissioner Christopher Edley, recently appointed dean of Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley, took the Florida study nationwide. His team discovered the uncomfortable fact that Florida is typical of the nation.
Philip Klinkner, the statistician working on the Edley investigations, concluded, "It appears that about half of all ballots spoiled in the U.S.A. -- about 1 million votes -- were cast by nonwhite voters."
This "no count," as the Civil Rights Commission calls it, is no accident. In Florida, for example, I discovered that technicians had warned Gov. Jeb Bush's office well in advance of November 2000 of the racial bend in the vote- count procedures.
Herein lies the problem. An apartheid vote-counting system is far from politically neutral. Given that more than 90 percent of the black electorate votes Democratic, had all the "spoiled" votes been tallied, Gore would have taken Florida in a walk, not to mention fattening his popular vote total nationwide. It's not surprising that the First Brother's team, informed of impending rejection of black ballots, looked away and whistled.
The ballot-box blackout is not the monopoly of one party. Cook County, Ill., has one of the nation's worst spoilage rates. That's not surprising. Boss Daley's Democratic machine, now his son's, survives by systematic disenfranchisement of Chicago's black vote.
How can we fix it? First, let's shed the convenient excuses for vote spoilage, such as a lack of voter education. One television network stated as fact that Florida's black voters, newly registered and lacking education, had difficulty with their ballots. In other words, blacks are too dumb to vote.
This convenient racist excuse is dead wrong. After that disaster in Gadsden, Fla., public outcry forced the government to change that black county's procedures to match that of white counties. The result: near zero spoilage in the 2002 election. Ballot design, machines and procedure, says statistician Klinkner, control spoilage.
In other words, the vote counters, not the voters, are to blame. Politicians who choose the type of ballot and the method of counting have long fine-tuned the spoilage rate to their liking.
It is about to get worse. The ill-named "Help America Vote Act," signed by President Bush in 2002, is pushing computerization of the ballot box.
California decertified some of Diebold Corp.'s digital ballot boxes in response to fears that hackers could pick our next president. But the known danger of black-box voting is that computers, even with their software secure, are vulnerable to low-tech spoilage games: polls opening late, locked-in votes, votes lost in the ether.
And once again, the history of computer-voting glitches has a decidedly racial bias. Florida's Broward Couty grandly shifted to touch-screen voting in 2002. In white precincts, all seemed to go well. In black precincts, hundreds of African Americans showed up at polls with machines down and votes that simply disappeared. Going digital won't fix the problem. Canada and Sweden vote on paper ballots with little spoilage and without suspicious counts.
In America, a simple fix based on paper balloting is resisted because, unfortunately, too many politicians who understand the racial bias in the vote-spoilage game are its beneficiaries, with little incentive to find those missing 1 million black voters' ballots.
This article discusses how the votes of African Americans are still being neglected in modern times.
This song is about poll taxes. After the 15th amendment was passed white southerners were looking for other ways to keep African Americans from voting. One way in which they did this was by implementation of the poll tax.
While this amendment made great strides in the progression of American history by allowing African Americans to vote to me it is most astounding because it does not give women the right to vote.
One Million Black Votes Didn't Count in the 2000 Presidential Election
CNN.com
It's not too hard to get your vote lost -- if some politicians want it to be lost
by Greg Palast
In the 2000 presidential election, 1.9 million Americans cast ballots that no one counted. "Spoiled votes" is the technical term. The pile of ballots left to rot has a distinctly dark hue: About 1 million of them -- half of the rejected ballots -- were cast by African Americans although black voters make up only 12 percent of the electorate.
This year, it could get worse.
These ugly racial statistics are hidden away in the mathematical thickets of the appendices to official reports coming out of the investigation of ballot-box monkey business in Florida from the last go-'round.
How do you spoil 2 million ballots? Not by leaving them out of the fridge too long. A stray mark, a jammed machine, a punch card punched twice will do it. It's easy to lose your vote, especially when some politicians want your vote lost.
While investigating the 2000 ballot count in Florida for BBC Television, I saw firsthand how the spoilage game was played -- with black voters the predetermined losers.
Florida's Gadsden County has the highest percentage of black voters in the state -- and the highest spoilage rate. One in 8 votes cast there in 2000 was never counted. Many voters wrote in "Al Gore." Optical reading machines rejected these because "Al" is a "stray mark."
By contrast, in neighboring Tallahassee, the capital, vote spoilage was nearly zip; every vote counted. The difference? In Tallahassee's white-majority county, voters placed their ballots directly into optical scanners. If they added a stray mark, they received another ballot with instructions to correct it.
In other words, in the white county, make a mistake and get another ballot; in the black county, make a mistake, your ballot is tossed.
The U.S. Civil Rights Commission looked into the smelly pile of spoiled ballots and concluded that, of the 179,855 ballots invalidated by Florida officials, 53 percent were cast by black voters. In Florida, a black citizen was 10 times as likely to have a vote rejected as a white voter.
But let's not get smug about Florida's Jim Crow spoilage rate. Civil Rights Commissioner Christopher Edley, recently appointed dean of Boalt Hall School of Law at UC Berkeley, took the Florida study nationwide. His team discovered the uncomfortable fact that Florida is typical of the nation.
Philip Klinkner, the statistician working on the Edley investigations, concluded, "It appears that about half of all ballots spoiled in the U.S.A. -- about 1 million votes -- were cast by nonwhite voters."
This "no count," as the Civil Rights Commission calls it, is no accident. In Florida, for example, I discovered that technicians had warned Gov. Jeb Bush's office well in advance of November 2000 of the racial bend in the vote- count procedures.
Herein lies the problem. An apartheid vote-counting system is far from politically neutral. Given that more than 90 percent of the black electorate votes Democratic, had all the "spoiled" votes been tallied, Gore would have taken Florida in a walk, not to mention fattening his popular vote total nationwide. It's not surprising that the First Brother's team, informed of impending rejection of black ballots, looked away and whistled.
The ballot-box blackout is not the monopoly of one party. Cook County, Ill., has one of the nation's worst spoilage rates. That's not surprising. Boss Daley's Democratic machine, now his son's, survives by systematic disenfranchisement of Chicago's black vote.
How can we fix it? First, let's shed the convenient excuses for vote spoilage, such as a lack of voter education. One television network stated as fact that Florida's black voters, newly registered and lacking education, had difficulty with their ballots. In other words, blacks are too dumb to vote.
This convenient racist excuse is dead wrong. After that disaster in Gadsden, Fla., public outcry forced the government to change that black county's procedures to match that of white counties. The result: near zero spoilage in the 2002 election. Ballot design, machines and procedure, says statistician Klinkner, control spoilage.
In other words, the vote counters, not the voters, are to blame. Politicians who choose the type of ballot and the method of counting have long fine-tuned the spoilage rate to their liking.
It is about to get worse. The ill-named "Help America Vote Act," signed by President Bush in 2002, is pushing computerization of the ballot box.
California decertified some of Diebold Corp.'s digital ballot boxes in response to fears that hackers could pick our next president. But the known danger of black-box voting is that computers, even with their software secure, are vulnerable to low-tech spoilage games: polls opening late, locked-in votes, votes lost in the ether.
And once again, the history of computer-voting glitches has a decidedly racial bias. Florida's Broward Couty grandly shifted to touch-screen voting in 2002. In white precincts, all seemed to go well. In black precincts, hundreds of African Americans showed up at polls with machines down and votes that simply disappeared. Going digital won't fix the problem. Canada and Sweden vote on paper ballots with little spoilage and without suspicious counts.
In America, a simple fix based on paper balloting is resisted because, unfortunately, too many politicians who understand the racial bias in the vote-spoilage game are its beneficiaries, with little incentive to find those missing 1 million black voters' ballots.
This article discusses how the votes of African Americans are still being neglected in modern times.
This song is about poll taxes. After the 15th amendment was passed white southerners were looking for other ways to keep African Americans from voting. One way in which they did this was by implementation of the poll tax.
Amendment 14
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The first amendment is very lengthy. The amendment gives newly freed African Americans citizenship. It also prohibits any individuals who served in the rebellion or provided aid to the rebellion from holding office in the US government or in the US military.
The Immigration Crisis: Rhetoric To Repeal Birthright Citizenship Intensifies
By Lee A. Daniels
Two prominent Senators in the last week have said they believe the Senate should consider revoking the automatic right of American citizenship granted all children born in the United States – including children of undocumented immigrants.
Senators Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, and Jon Kyl, of Arizona, both Republicans, said they support the Senate holding hearings on the matter because the right of automatic citizenship has been abused by undocumented immigrants and is a significant part of the problem of illegal immigration.
Revoking the birthright citizenship provision of the Constitution – which is lodged in the post-Civil War 14th Amendment to the Constitution – would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate, followed by approval of three-fourths, or 38, of the states.
If the idea ever moves beyond the talking stage in Congress, it would undoubtedly provoke debate the institution has seen since that over the enactment of the civil rights acts of the 1960s. And, if a proposed amendment passed there, it would embroil the country in controversy for years, as each state legislature considered the measure.
Few observers expect the idea to be seriously considered in either House of Congress.
But the Graham and Kyl statements are a sign the most bitter debate over illegal immigration is intensifying in the wake of a federal court ruling last Thursday [2] blocking the implementation of key provisions of controversial immigration enforcement law on the grounds that it interfered with the federal government’s authority over immigration enforcement.
Arizona officials have already sought an expedited ruling on that decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals insane Francisco, and, whatever that higher court, rules, there’s no doubt the Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of the case.
Some advocates for tougher federal efforts contend that eliminating birthright citizenship is essential to curbing illegal immigration. They say that the 14th Amendment provision was actually meant to protect African Americans born into slavery in this country before the Civil War from being denied citizenship rights by the states of the Old Confederacy. They assert that now that provision motivates many undocumented immigrants to come to the U.S. to have children – because those children then automatically become U.S. citizens and, as such “anchor” their undocumented parents in the country as well.
But critics of the idea point out that the Supreme Court has continually ruled that the birthright-citizenship provision applies to all children born in the U.S.
Others, such as conservative Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, President Bush’s former chief speechwriter, have gone further, declaring the idea a violation of American principles.
In a brief column last Friday, Gerson wrote “The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ for a reason,” pointing out their intent to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision.
Gerson continued, “They purposely chose a standard of citizenship – birth – that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don’t have to please a majority, you just have to be born here.”
This article discusses the 14th amendment and its effect on America today. Children born of illegal immigrants who are living in America are given American citizen ship. It is a sticky piece of today's immigration problems.
Queen Latifah is singing a song from the movie Hairspray. Hairspray is a story about rights being denied to African American citizens in the 1960s. It remeinds me of the 14th Amendment because even though the African Americans were given citizenship it was just the first step in a long battle.
The first amendment is very lengthy. The amendment gives newly freed African Americans citizenship. It also prohibits any individuals who served in the rebellion or provided aid to the rebellion from holding office in the US government or in the US military.
The Immigration Crisis: Rhetoric To Repeal Birthright Citizenship Intensifies
By Lee A. Daniels
Two prominent Senators in the last week have said they believe the Senate should consider revoking the automatic right of American citizenship granted all children born in the United States – including children of undocumented immigrants.
Senators Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, and Jon Kyl, of Arizona, both Republicans, said they support the Senate holding hearings on the matter because the right of automatic citizenship has been abused by undocumented immigrants and is a significant part of the problem of illegal immigration.
Revoking the birthright citizenship provision of the Constitution – which is lodged in the post-Civil War 14th Amendment to the Constitution – would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate, followed by approval of three-fourths, or 38, of the states.
If the idea ever moves beyond the talking stage in Congress, it would undoubtedly provoke debate the institution has seen since that over the enactment of the civil rights acts of the 1960s. And, if a proposed amendment passed there, it would embroil the country in controversy for years, as each state legislature considered the measure.
Few observers expect the idea to be seriously considered in either House of Congress.
But the Graham and Kyl statements are a sign the most bitter debate over illegal immigration is intensifying in the wake of a federal court ruling last Thursday [2] blocking the implementation of key provisions of controversial immigration enforcement law on the grounds that it interfered with the federal government’s authority over immigration enforcement.
Arizona officials have already sought an expedited ruling on that decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals insane Francisco, and, whatever that higher court, rules, there’s no doubt the Supreme Court will be the final arbiter of the case.
Some advocates for tougher federal efforts contend that eliminating birthright citizenship is essential to curbing illegal immigration. They say that the 14th Amendment provision was actually meant to protect African Americans born into slavery in this country before the Civil War from being denied citizenship rights by the states of the Old Confederacy. They assert that now that provision motivates many undocumented immigrants to come to the U.S. to have children – because those children then automatically become U.S. citizens and, as such “anchor” their undocumented parents in the country as well.
But critics of the idea point out that the Supreme Court has continually ruled that the birthright-citizenship provision applies to all children born in the U.S.
Others, such as conservative Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, President Bush’s former chief speechwriter, have gone further, declaring the idea a violation of American principles.
In a brief column last Friday, Gerson wrote “The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ for a reason,” pointing out their intent to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision.
Gerson continued, “They purposely chose a standard of citizenship – birth – that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don’t have to please a majority, you just have to be born here.”
This article discusses the 14th amendment and its effect on America today. Children born of illegal immigrants who are living in America are given American citizen ship. It is a sticky piece of today's immigration problems.
Queen Latifah is singing a song from the movie Hairspray. Hairspray is a story about rights being denied to African American citizens in the 1960s. It remeinds me of the 14th Amendment because even though the African Americans were given citizenship it was just the first step in a long battle.
Amendment 13
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. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
This amendment declares the freedom of previously enslaved individuals.
Feds charge three Kansas City-area companies with labor trafficking
Kansas City Business Journal
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 1:22pm CDT - Last Modified: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 1:58pm CDT ...Three Kansas City-area companies and 12 individuals were indicted Wednesday by a federal grand jury for labor racketeering, forced labor trafficking, and immigration and other violations in 14 states, acting U.S. Attorney Matt Whitworth said.
The indictments fall under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Whitworth, acting U.S. attorney for the Western District of Missouri, said in a release.
The companies named in the indictment are Giant Labor Solutions LLC of Kansas City, Crystal Management Inc. of Mission and Five Star Cleaning LLC of Overland Park.
The 45-count indictment also names Abrorkhodja Askarkhodjaev, 30, who owns or controls the three companies, Nodir Yunusov, 22, and Rustamjon Shukurov, 21, all Uzbekistan citizens living in Mission; Ilkham Fazilov, 44, and Nodirbek Abdoollayev, 27, Uzbekistan citizens living in Kansas City; Viorel Simon, 27, and Alexandru Frumasache, 23, Moldova citizens living in Kansas City, Kan.; Kristin Dougherty, 49, of Ellisville, Mo.; Andrew Cole, 53, of St. Charles, Mo.; Abdukakhar Azizkhodjaev, 49, an Uzbekistan citizen living in Panama City, Fla.; and Sandjar Agzamov, 27, and Jakhongir Kakhkharov, 29, Uzbekistan citizens who recently left the United States and are living abroad.
“This RICO indictment alleges an extensive and profitable criminal enterprise in which hundreds of illegal aliens were employed at hotels and other businesses across the country,” Whitworth said in the release. “The defendants allegedly used false information to acquire fraudulent work visas for these foreign nationals. Many of their employees were allegedly victims of human trafficking who were coerced to work in violation of the terms of their visa without proper pay and under the threat of deportation. The defendants also required them to reside together in crowded, substandard and overpriced apartments.”
Many of the workers were employed at hotels in the Kansas City area and in Branson, Mo., Whitworth said.
The indictment alleges that since January 2001, Askarkhodjaev has been the leader of a criminal enterprise and directed the rest of the co-defendants in carrying out unlawful activities, including forced labor trafficking, identity theft, harboring illegal aliens, mail fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, transporting illegal aliens, visa fraud, extortion, interstate travel in aid of racketeering, wire fraud and inducing the illegal entry of foreign nationals.
The indictment also contains a forfeiture allegation, which would require the defendants to forfeit to the government all interest in any property involved in the alleged offenses and all property derived from the proceeds obtained from the alleged offenses, including a monetary judgment of at least $6 million, Whitworth said in the release.
Those found guilty of racketeering can be sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison, fined as much as $250,000 or both. According to federal statutes, those found guilty of forced labor trafficking, mail fraud, money laundering, extortion and wire fraud also may be subject to a sentence of as much as 20 years in federal prison without parole.
This article discusses modern day slavery in Kansas City. Regardless of its ethical problems and its illegally individuals still use slavery as a source of cheap labor. Slaves are still be trafficed in from other countries just as they were trafficed in from Africa at our countries founding.
This video includes songs sung by African American slaves as a way of communication.
This amendment declares the freedom of previously enslaved individuals.
Feds charge three Kansas City-area companies with labor trafficking
Kansas City Business Journal
Date: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 1:22pm CDT - Last Modified: Wednesday, May 27, 2009, 1:58pm CDT ...Three Kansas City-area companies and 12 individuals were indicted Wednesday by a federal grand jury for labor racketeering, forced labor trafficking, and immigration and other violations in 14 states, acting U.S. Attorney Matt Whitworth said.
The indictments fall under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Whitworth, acting U.S. attorney for the Western District of Missouri, said in a release.
The companies named in the indictment are Giant Labor Solutions LLC of Kansas City, Crystal Management Inc. of Mission and Five Star Cleaning LLC of Overland Park.
The 45-count indictment also names Abrorkhodja Askarkhodjaev, 30, who owns or controls the three companies, Nodir Yunusov, 22, and Rustamjon Shukurov, 21, all Uzbekistan citizens living in Mission; Ilkham Fazilov, 44, and Nodirbek Abdoollayev, 27, Uzbekistan citizens living in Kansas City; Viorel Simon, 27, and Alexandru Frumasache, 23, Moldova citizens living in Kansas City, Kan.; Kristin Dougherty, 49, of Ellisville, Mo.; Andrew Cole, 53, of St. Charles, Mo.; Abdukakhar Azizkhodjaev, 49, an Uzbekistan citizen living in Panama City, Fla.; and Sandjar Agzamov, 27, and Jakhongir Kakhkharov, 29, Uzbekistan citizens who recently left the United States and are living abroad.
“This RICO indictment alleges an extensive and profitable criminal enterprise in which hundreds of illegal aliens were employed at hotels and other businesses across the country,” Whitworth said in the release. “The defendants allegedly used false information to acquire fraudulent work visas for these foreign nationals. Many of their employees were allegedly victims of human trafficking who were coerced to work in violation of the terms of their visa without proper pay and under the threat of deportation. The defendants also required them to reside together in crowded, substandard and overpriced apartments.”
Many of the workers were employed at hotels in the Kansas City area and in Branson, Mo., Whitworth said.
The indictment alleges that since January 2001, Askarkhodjaev has been the leader of a criminal enterprise and directed the rest of the co-defendants in carrying out unlawful activities, including forced labor trafficking, identity theft, harboring illegal aliens, mail fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering, transporting illegal aliens, visa fraud, extortion, interstate travel in aid of racketeering, wire fraud and inducing the illegal entry of foreign nationals.
The indictment also contains a forfeiture allegation, which would require the defendants to forfeit to the government all interest in any property involved in the alleged offenses and all property derived from the proceeds obtained from the alleged offenses, including a monetary judgment of at least $6 million, Whitworth said in the release.
Those found guilty of racketeering can be sentenced to as much as 20 years in prison, fined as much as $250,000 or both. According to federal statutes, those found guilty of forced labor trafficking, mail fraud, money laundering, extortion and wire fraud also may be subject to a sentence of as much as 20 years in federal prison without parole.
This article discusses modern day slavery in Kansas City. Regardless of its ethical problems and its illegally individuals still use slavery as a source of cheap labor. Slaves are still be trafficed in from other countries just as they were trafficed in from Africa at our countries founding.
This video includes songs sung by African American slaves as a way of communication.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Amendment 12
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.
Before Amendment 12 the president and the vice-president both ran in the same election. The president was the winner and the vice president recieved second place. After this amendment president and vice president were different elections. Of course now the two positions run on the same ticket.
Obama Wins Election; McCain Loses as Bush Legacy Is Rejected
Doug Mills/The New York TimesSupporters of Senator Barack Obama cheered during a rally in Chicago on Tuesday as they heard that he won in Pennsylvania. More Photos >
Published: November 4, 2008
Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday, sweeping away the last racial barrier in American politics with ease as the country chose him as its first black chief executive.
Mr. Obama’s election amounted to a national catharsis — a repudiation of a historically unpopular Republican president and his economic and foreign policies, and an embrace of Mr. Obama’s call for a change in the direction and the tone of the country. But it was just as much a strikingly symbolic moment in the evolution of the nation’s fraught racial history, a breakthrough that would have seemed unthinkable just two years ago.
Mr. Obama, 47, a first-term Democratic senator from Illinois, defeated Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, a former prisoner of war who was making his second bid for the presidency.
Mr. McCain offered a gracious concession speech at the Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix shortly after 11:15 p.m. Eastern time, quieting his booing supporters more than once when he mentioned Mr. Obama’s name. “Senator Obama has achieved a great thing for himself, and for his country,” he said, adding that he was sorry that Mr. Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who helped raise him during his teenage years, had not lived to see the day; she died on Sunday.
“These are difficult times for our country, and I pledged to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face,” Mr. McCain said. “I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our goodwill and earnest effort to find ways to come together.”
To the very end, Mr. McCain’s campaign was eclipsed by an opponent who was nothing short of a phenomenon, drawing huge crowds epitomized by the tens of thousands of people who turned out to hear Mr. Obama’s victory speech in Grant Park in Chicago.
Mr. McCain also fought the headwinds of a relentlessly hostile political environment, weighted down with the baggage left to him by President Bush and an economic collapse that took place in the middle of the general election campaign.
The day shimmered with history as voters began lining up before dark — hours before polls opened — to take part in the culmination of a campaign that, over the course of two years, commanded an extraordinary amount of attention from the American public.
As the returns became known, and Mr. Obama passed milestone after milestone, winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico — many Americans rolled into the streets to celebrate what many described, with perhaps overstated if understandable exhilaration, a new era in a country where just 143 years ago, Mr. Obama, as a black man, could have been owned as a slave.
For Republicans, especially the conservatives who have dominated the party for nearly three decades, the night represented a bitter setback and left them contemplating where they now stand in American politics.
Mr. Obama led his party in a decisive sweep of Congress, putting Democrats in control of both the House and the Senate — by overwhelming numbers — and the White House for the first time since 1995, when Bill Clinton was president. The president-elect and his expanded Democratic majority now faces the task of governing the country through a difficult period: the likelihood of a deep and prolonged recession.
The roster of defeated Republicans included some notable party moderates — including Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire and Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut— signaling that the Republican conference that convenes in Washington next January will not only be smaller, but more conservative.
Mr. Obama will come into office after an election in which he laid out a number of clear promises: to cut taxes for most Americans, to get the United States out of Iraq in a fast ifand? orderly fashion, and to expand health care. In a recognition of the difficult transition he faces, given the economic crisis, Mr. Obama is expected to begin filling White House jobs as early as this week.
The Democratic sweep took down some well-known Republican senators, including Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and John E. Sununu of New Hampshire. But Democrats failed to achieve the 60-seat majority required to prevent Republican filibusters.
Mr. Obama defeated Mr. McCain in Ohio, a central battleground in American politics, despite a huge effort that brought Mr. McCain and his running-mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, back there repeatedly. Ohio was a state Mr. Obama lost decisively to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in the Democratic primary.
Mr. McCain failed to take from Mr. Obama the two Democratic states that were at the top of his target list: New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. And in addition to Ohio, Democrats captured two other Republican states, Iowa and New Mexico.
Mr. Obama comes into office with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, his vice-presidential running mate. Even before the final results were called, there were indications that Mr. McCain’s advisers were in fact unhappy with their vice-presidential candidate, Ms. Palin, who was announced by Mr. McCain to an explosion of enthusiasm and interest by conservatives and since caused a series of embarrassments for Mr. McCain.
This article discusses the newest president election in which President Obama was elected. Obama and his vice president Biden ran on the same ticket. It also discusses the McCain's vice president choice of Palin could have led to his downfall.
This is a trailor for the movie Recount, which discusses the 2000 presidential election and the scandal that followed.
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.
Before Amendment 12 the president and the vice-president both ran in the same election. The president was the winner and the vice president recieved second place. After this amendment president and vice president were different elections. Of course now the two positions run on the same ticket.
Obama Wins Election; McCain Loses as Bush Legacy Is Rejected
Doug Mills/The New York TimesSupporters of Senator Barack Obama cheered during a rally in Chicago on Tuesday as they heard that he won in Pennsylvania. More Photos >
Published: November 4, 2008
Barack Hussein Obama was elected the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday, sweeping away the last racial barrier in American politics with ease as the country chose him as its first black chief executive.
Mr. Obama’s election amounted to a national catharsis — a repudiation of a historically unpopular Republican president and his economic and foreign policies, and an embrace of Mr. Obama’s call for a change in the direction and the tone of the country. But it was just as much a strikingly symbolic moment in the evolution of the nation’s fraught racial history, a breakthrough that would have seemed unthinkable just two years ago.
Mr. Obama, 47, a first-term Democratic senator from Illinois, defeated Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, a former prisoner of war who was making his second bid for the presidency.
Mr. McCain offered a gracious concession speech at the Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix shortly after 11:15 p.m. Eastern time, quieting his booing supporters more than once when he mentioned Mr. Obama’s name. “Senator Obama has achieved a great thing for himself, and for his country,” he said, adding that he was sorry that Mr. Obama’s grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who helped raise him during his teenage years, had not lived to see the day; she died on Sunday.
“These are difficult times for our country, and I pledged to him tonight to do all in my power to help him lead us through the many challenges we face,” Mr. McCain said. “I urge all Americans who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our goodwill and earnest effort to find ways to come together.”
To the very end, Mr. McCain’s campaign was eclipsed by an opponent who was nothing short of a phenomenon, drawing huge crowds epitomized by the tens of thousands of people who turned out to hear Mr. Obama’s victory speech in Grant Park in Chicago.
Mr. McCain also fought the headwinds of a relentlessly hostile political environment, weighted down with the baggage left to him by President Bush and an economic collapse that took place in the middle of the general election campaign.
The day shimmered with history as voters began lining up before dark — hours before polls opened — to take part in the culmination of a campaign that, over the course of two years, commanded an extraordinary amount of attention from the American public.
As the returns became known, and Mr. Obama passed milestone after milestone, winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico — many Americans rolled into the streets to celebrate what many described, with perhaps overstated if understandable exhilaration, a new era in a country where just 143 years ago, Mr. Obama, as a black man, could have been owned as a slave.
For Republicans, especially the conservatives who have dominated the party for nearly three decades, the night represented a bitter setback and left them contemplating where they now stand in American politics.
Mr. Obama led his party in a decisive sweep of Congress, putting Democrats in control of both the House and the Senate — by overwhelming numbers — and the White House for the first time since 1995, when Bill Clinton was president. The president-elect and his expanded Democratic majority now faces the task of governing the country through a difficult period: the likelihood of a deep and prolonged recession.
The roster of defeated Republicans included some notable party moderates — including Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire and Rep. Chris Shays of Connecticut— signaling that the Republican conference that convenes in Washington next January will not only be smaller, but more conservative.
Mr. Obama will come into office after an election in which he laid out a number of clear promises: to cut taxes for most Americans, to get the United States out of Iraq in a fast ifand? orderly fashion, and to expand health care. In a recognition of the difficult transition he faces, given the economic crisis, Mr. Obama is expected to begin filling White House jobs as early as this week.
The Democratic sweep took down some well-known Republican senators, including Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and John E. Sununu of New Hampshire. But Democrats failed to achieve the 60-seat majority required to prevent Republican filibusters.
Mr. Obama defeated Mr. McCain in Ohio, a central battleground in American politics, despite a huge effort that brought Mr. McCain and his running-mate, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, back there repeatedly. Ohio was a state Mr. Obama lost decisively to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in the Democratic primary.
Mr. McCain failed to take from Mr. Obama the two Democratic states that were at the top of his target list: New Hampshire and Pennsylvania. And in addition to Ohio, Democrats captured two other Republican states, Iowa and New Mexico.
Mr. Obama comes into office with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, his vice-presidential running mate. Even before the final results were called, there were indications that Mr. McCain’s advisers were in fact unhappy with their vice-presidential candidate, Ms. Palin, who was announced by Mr. McCain to an explosion of enthusiasm and interest by conservatives and since caused a series of embarrassments for Mr. McCain.
This article discusses the newest president election in which President Obama was elected. Obama and his vice president Biden ran on the same ticket. It also discusses the McCain's vice president choice of Palin could have led to his downfall.
This is a trailor for the movie Recount, which discusses the 2000 presidential election and the scandal that followed.
Amendment 11
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.
This amendment states that a citizen cannot sue a state in Supreme Court. I believe it is a good amendment to the Constitution. It helps to protect states rights and even the power between the national government and the states. Citizen can take up grievances with states in the state court system or the state can allow the trial with the Supreme Court.
This amendment states that a citizen cannot sue a state in Supreme Court. I believe it is a good amendment to the Constitution. It helps to protect states rights and even the power between the national government and the states. Citizen can take up grievances with states in the state court system or the state can allow the trial with the Supreme Court.
(The Michigan Citizen) Mother sues state for racketeering
Mon, 04/07/2005 - 23:55 — Editor
She says officials kidnapped her children
The truth about how the system operates is laid bare for all to see.
July 2, 2005
By Diane Bukowski
The Michigan Citizen
DETROIT Starletta Banks has not seen her three children, Darius, now 11, Danielle, now 7, and Darren, now 5, since the year 2000, but she says she is determined to have them come home again to her loving arms.
"It's been devastating," said Banks. "It's been hard holding jobs and eating and sleeping. You can't even imagine the Christmases and birthdays I've spent. When we get them back, whenever that is, it will be Christmas because I've gone on buying presents for them all this time."
Banks says her children were essentially kidnapped by Governor Jennifer Granholm, Attorney General Mike Cox, and various judges, administrators and doctors to be used as "cash cows" for the benefit of the state's child foster care system. That system is largely farmed out to private non-profit agencies who receive federal funds for each child. She says the alleged kidnappers have profited because they sit on the boards of agencies in that system.
On June 6, Banks filed suit in U.S. District Court under federal racketeering and civil rights statutes, demanding her children's return, and calling for an immediate investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into the alleged misuse of federal funds by the State of Michigan in hers and thousands of other foster care cases.
"I'm going to fight them with everything I've got, until my children are returned to me, and I want other families to join me," said Banks, who, so far, is representing herself in the case. Banks resides with her mother and father Barbara and Leo Banks, who are supporting her suit. The suit was inspired by a similar action in Los Angeles County that opened an investigation into 30,000 foster care cases there.
"Plaintiff was severely damaged and her family destroyed by the kidnap under color of law of her three children," reads Banks' complaint. "Defendants used the Michigan state foster care system as a `child for profit' machine, with eighty percent of their caseload contracted out to private agencies who are paid federal monies by the case. . . Defendants sat on the boards of agencies that received federal monies for the `care and custody' of children, while actively participating in, or making judicial decisions on cases involving child custody or termination of parental rights including plaintiff's case."
Banks' parental rights to her children were terminated by Wayne County Juvenile Court Judge Patricia Campbell in October, 2000, after a series of events that began two years earlier when Banks took Danielle, then an infant, to Henry Ford Hospital after she fell out of bed. (See "Attorney General Seeks to Take Children," Michigan Citizen Mar. 12-18, 2000.)
The baby sustained a skull fracture, but the hospital contended at the time that other X-rays showed evidence of old rib fractures. Subsequent studies, however, showed no such old fractures. The family now believes that Danielle's X-rays were initially mixed up with those of another infant.
At the time, the court took temporary custody of Banks' two children. Her third child was born later and also taken based solely on the accident with Danielle. The children were assigned to Orchard's Children's Services, where workers eventually recommended that they be returned to Banks after she successfully completed a parenting course at Black Family Development.
The workers said the children had been traumatized by their removal from their mother, repeatedly cried and asked for her, and were scared of being left alone.
However, after an Orchard's worker withdrew the recommendation for return, Campbell terminated Banks' rights, despite the fact that no charges of abuse or neglect had ever been brought against her. Banks' parents were later appointed as guardians, but that status was terminated in 2001 and the children were returned to foster care.
Banks appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ruled against her in July of 2002. The State Supreme Court has since refused to hear the case.
Banks contends that numerous state officials who participated in the termination of her parental rights also are members of non-profits connected with the foster care system, creating a blatant conflict of interest. They are cited as individual defendants in her case.
They include appeals court judge Kathleen Jansen, one of the three judges who denied her appeal, who sits on the Macomb County Child Abuse Neglect Information Council, and Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver, who chairs the "Governor's Task Force on Children's Justice and Family Independence Agency."
Although she was not the attending physician, Dr. Annamaria Church testified against Banks on behalf of Henry Ford Hospital. Besides heading the pediatric residency program at the DeVos Children's Hospital in Grand Rapids, she is also involved with the state's non- profit Children's Trust Fund, which doles out $70 million annually in funding to various non-profit child welfare agencies including foster care programs.
"My lawsuit showed every foster care case was tainted because officials in Los Angeles County failed to disclose their conflicts of interest," said Dr. Shirley Moore, National Director of Legislative Affairs for the American Family Rights Association.
In response to Moore's actions, as well as an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit and an expose by the Los Angeles Daily News, a judge ordered a review of foster care placements in that county.
"Up to half of the 75,000 children in the systems and adoptive homes were needlessly placed in a system that is often more dangerous than their own homes because the county receives $30,000 to $150,000 in state and federal revenues for each placement," wrote the Daily News.
Moore said the situation in Michigan is far worse, because officials at all levels up to the state are involved, and there is no recourse here except federal court.
Press representatives for Governor Granholm and the state's Human Services Department would not comment on Banks' action due to the pending litigation, and the attorney general's representative would not comment due to "attorney-client privilege." An attorney for Dr. Annamaria Church had not returned a call for comment by press time.
This is a case residing in the state court system. If the 11th Amendment was not in existence Banks may have tried to take this case to the federal court system.
I like this video because Law and Order is an entertaining example of law at the state level, where suits would take place if a citizen did decide to sue a state.
The truth about how the system operates is laid bare for all to see.
July 2, 2005
By Diane Bukowski
The Michigan Citizen
DETROIT Starletta Banks has not seen her three children, Darius, now 11, Danielle, now 7, and Darren, now 5, since the year 2000, but she says she is determined to have them come home again to her loving arms.
"It's been devastating," said Banks. "It's been hard holding jobs and eating and sleeping. You can't even imagine the Christmases and birthdays I've spent. When we get them back, whenever that is, it will be Christmas because I've gone on buying presents for them all this time."
Banks says her children were essentially kidnapped by Governor Jennifer Granholm, Attorney General Mike Cox, and various judges, administrators and doctors to be used as "cash cows" for the benefit of the state's child foster care system. That system is largely farmed out to private non-profit agencies who receive federal funds for each child. She says the alleged kidnappers have profited because they sit on the boards of agencies in that system.
On June 6, Banks filed suit in U.S. District Court under federal racketeering and civil rights statutes, demanding her children's return, and calling for an immediate investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice into the alleged misuse of federal funds by the State of Michigan in hers and thousands of other foster care cases.
"I'm going to fight them with everything I've got, until my children are returned to me, and I want other families to join me," said Banks, who, so far, is representing herself in the case. Banks resides with her mother and father Barbara and Leo Banks, who are supporting her suit. The suit was inspired by a similar action in Los Angeles County that opened an investigation into 30,000 foster care cases there.
"Plaintiff was severely damaged and her family destroyed by the kidnap under color of law of her three children," reads Banks' complaint. "Defendants used the Michigan state foster care system as a `child for profit' machine, with eighty percent of their caseload contracted out to private agencies who are paid federal monies by the case. . . Defendants sat on the boards of agencies that received federal monies for the `care and custody' of children, while actively participating in, or making judicial decisions on cases involving child custody or termination of parental rights including plaintiff's case."
Banks' parental rights to her children were terminated by Wayne County Juvenile Court Judge Patricia Campbell in October, 2000, after a series of events that began two years earlier when Banks took Danielle, then an infant, to Henry Ford Hospital after she fell out of bed. (See "Attorney General Seeks to Take Children," Michigan Citizen Mar. 12-18, 2000.)
The baby sustained a skull fracture, but the hospital contended at the time that other X-rays showed evidence of old rib fractures. Subsequent studies, however, showed no such old fractures. The family now believes that Danielle's X-rays were initially mixed up with those of another infant.
At the time, the court took temporary custody of Banks' two children. Her third child was born later and also taken based solely on the accident with Danielle. The children were assigned to Orchard's Children's Services, where workers eventually recommended that they be returned to Banks after she successfully completed a parenting course at Black Family Development.
The workers said the children had been traumatized by their removal from their mother, repeatedly cried and asked for her, and were scared of being left alone.
However, after an Orchard's worker withdrew the recommendation for return, Campbell terminated Banks' rights, despite the fact that no charges of abuse or neglect had ever been brought against her. Banks' parents were later appointed as guardians, but that status was terminated in 2001 and the children were returned to foster care.
Banks appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ruled against her in July of 2002. The State Supreme Court has since refused to hear the case.
Banks contends that numerous state officials who participated in the termination of her parental rights also are members of non-profits connected with the foster care system, creating a blatant conflict of interest. They are cited as individual defendants in her case.
They include appeals court judge Kathleen Jansen, one of the three judges who denied her appeal, who sits on the Macomb County Child Abuse Neglect Information Council, and Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Weaver, who chairs the "Governor's Task Force on Children's Justice and Family Independence Agency."
Although she was not the attending physician, Dr. Annamaria Church testified against Banks on behalf of Henry Ford Hospital. Besides heading the pediatric residency program at the DeVos Children's Hospital in Grand Rapids, she is also involved with the state's non- profit Children's Trust Fund, which doles out $70 million annually in funding to various non-profit child welfare agencies including foster care programs.
"My lawsuit showed every foster care case was tainted because officials in Los Angeles County failed to disclose their conflicts of interest," said Dr. Shirley Moore, National Director of Legislative Affairs for the American Family Rights Association.
In response to Moore's actions, as well as an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit and an expose by the Los Angeles Daily News, a judge ordered a review of foster care placements in that county.
"Up to half of the 75,000 children in the systems and adoptive homes were needlessly placed in a system that is often more dangerous than their own homes because the county receives $30,000 to $150,000 in state and federal revenues for each placement," wrote the Daily News.
Moore said the situation in Michigan is far worse, because officials at all levels up to the state are involved, and there is no recourse here except federal court.
Press representatives for Governor Granholm and the state's Human Services Department would not comment on Banks' action due to the pending litigation, and the attorney general's representative would not comment due to "attorney-client privilege." An attorney for Dr. Annamaria Church had not returned a call for comment by press time.
This is a case residing in the state court system. If the 11th Amendment was not in existence Banks may have tried to take this case to the federal court system.
I like this video because Law and Order is an entertaining example of law at the state level, where suits would take place if a citizen did decide to sue a state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)