Wednesday, December 27, 2023

US Jobs Report November 2023

By BLS 12/8/23 

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf 

The monthly jobs report shows jobs added in 2021, 2022 and 2023. by month.

199000 in November 2023

150000 in October 2023

336000 in Septemver 2023

187000 in August 2023

187000 in July 2023

185000 in June 2023 rev dn 24000

314000 in May 2023 rev dn 25000

253000 in April 2023

236000 in March 2023

311000 in February 2023

517000 in January 2023

223000 in December 2022

263000 in November 2022

261000 in October 2022

263000 in September 2022

315000 in August 2022

528000 in July 2022

372000 in June 2022

390000 in May 2022

428000 in April 2022

431000 in March 2022

678000 in February 2022

467000 in January 2022

199000 in December 2021

210000 in November 2021

531000 in October 2021

194000 in September 2021

235000 in August 2021

943000 in July 2021

850000 in June 2021

559,000 in May 2021

278,000 in April 2021 

785,000 in March 2021

379,000 in February 2021

49,000 in January 2021

11,844700 total

-49,000 rev total

Revised Total  11596700

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 199,000 in November 2023 and the unemployment rate moved to 3.7%. The number of unemployed persons moved to 5.3 million.

Health care jobs increased by 77,000 in November and has recovered since February 2020.

Social Assistance jobs increased by 16,000 in November.

Government jobs increased by 49.000 in November.  

Government Jobs are up since February 2020

Construction jobs did not increase in November.

Leisure and hospitality jobs increased by 40,000 in November. Jobs were down by 140,000 since February 2020

Professional and business services did not increase in November and is above February 2020 levels by 1,000,000 jobs.

Manufacturing jobs decrease by 28000 in November.

Transportation and Warehouse jobs lost 5,000 jobs in November.

Information jobs increased by 10.000 in November.

Retail jobs lost 38000 in November.  Retail jobs are down by 188,000 since February 2020

Financial jobs did not increase  in November.  Employment in financial activities is 200,000 jobs above its February 2020 level..

Other Services jobs did not increase in November.

Wholesale jobs did not increase in November.

Mining, Oil and Gas Extraction Jobs did not increase in November.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pd 

In February 2020 the US Jobs Deficit was 9.5 million.  US Unemployment by industry had deficits from February 2020.

                    2020                       2021

Industry      June   Sept   Oct     Feb    Apr    May   Aug   Dec

Hospitality  2.2M  1.6M  1.4M  1.5M 1.4M   1.3M  -1.1m -1m

Prof & Bus 632K  385K  215K+596k+738k +821k+1.1m +1m

Mfg            481K  353K  270K  178k   56k    17k     0k       0k

Construct   238K  201K  150K  11k   +8k   +40k   +40k   +59k

Mining       110K   93K    87K    62k  +73k  +80k   +96k   +102

Healthcare 508K  524K  460K  306k  250k  223k  -37k   +0k

Public Sch 582K  504K  575K  306k  306k  308k  -555k -555k

Pvt Schls   255K  172K  148K  148k  148k  115k  +115k +115k

SocialAsst 236K  204K  204K  152k  126k  126k   -53k    -40k

Media/Info 193K  108K  122K  122k  122k  122k  +117k +101k

Tran Whse 94K  +75K +149K+584k +674k+709k +759k +751k

Wholesale 192K  159K  158K  113k  1 57k   41k     -3k   +0k

Other Svc  297K  189K  169K   317k 317k  317k   -317k  -300k

Retail         303K  202K  140K  104k  284k+159k  -208k  -200k

Totals        6.3M   4.6M   4.9M  3.8M  2.9M 2.6M  -1.34k - 0k

Industries with deficits as of 2/28/23 included Hospitality, Public Schools, Retail and Other Services.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The Employment Situation-August 2021 (bls.gov)

Comments

The US Jobs deficit was 9.5 million in January 2021. This is the shortfall between jobs held in February 2020.

Over 10 million illegal immigrants entered the US since January 2021. I expect they will take government welfare in addition to jobs where they can be supervised by bi-lingual illegals in jobs that don’t require English and drug cartel jobs. Over 2 million legal immigrants arrive each year and 2 million US students graduate each year.

The US Labor Force Participation Rate 2021-2023

62.8 November 2023

62.7 October 2023

62.8 September 2023

62.8 August 2023

62.6 July 2023

62.6 June 2023

62.6 May 2023

62.6 April 2023

62.6 March 2023

62.5 February 2023

62.4 January 2023

60.1 December 2022

62.1 November

62.2 October

62.3 September

62.4 August

62.1 July

62.2 June

62.3 May

62.2 April

62.4 March

62.3 February

62.2 January 2022

61.9 December 2021

61.8 November

61.6 October

61.6 September 

61.7 August 

61.7 July

61.6 June

61.6 May

61.7 April

61.5 March

61.4 February

61.4 January 2021

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/labor-force-participation-rate

US Layoffs by Year

2023  194000

2022   93000

2021  10353000

Total 10640000

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brianbushard/2023/06/30/nearly-194000-laid-off-in-2023-so-far-as-us-layoffs-surge/?sh=3a3a2ce5777c

https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2022/article/job-openings-and-quits-reach-record-highs-i

Jobs 2021-2023

Jobs restored 11633700

Job Lay-offs   10640000

Jobs created     993700

Comments

The 11633700 Jobs restored are off-set by the 10640000 Job Lay-offs to have 993700 Jobs created in 2021 to 2023.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

Wednesday, December 6, 2023

8 Landmark Supreme Court Cases That Were Overturned 12/6/23

U.S. Supreme Court justices have generally deferred to precedent, but there have been notable exceptions.

BY: DAVE ROOS

PUBLISHED: OCTOBER 11, 2022 

Table of Contents

  1. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)
  2. Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
  3. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
  4. Betts v. Brady (1942)
  5. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
  6. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
  7. Baker v. Nelson (1972)
  8. Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992)

It’s extremely rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn one of its own decisions. Of the more than 25,500 decisions handed down by the Supreme Court since its creation in 1789, it has only reversed course 146 times, less than one-half of one percent.

That’s because the legal concept of precedent has played such a central role in common law systems for “at least 1,000 years,” says David Schultz, law professor at the University of Minnesota Law School. “Precedent says that ‘like cases should be decided alike.’ It appeals to our notions of justice and fairness.”

Judges tend to defer to precedent because it encourages uniformity, predictability and consistency in the legal system, and historically the Supreme Court only overturned decisions when the original solution proved “unworkable,” or when the conditions on the ground had changed dramatically.

“Classically, you didn’t overturn precedent just because you thought that a previous Supreme Court got it wrong,” says Schultz, author of Constitutional Precedent in U.S. Supreme Court Reasoning. But that historic deference to precedent has decreased over the past century.

The following are some of the most pivotal and high-profile Supreme Court cases that were later overturned.

1. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918)

Schultz says that some of the first major reversals on the Supreme Court happened during the New Deal period, when Franklin D. Roosevelt and Congress passed sweeping economic and social reforms. One of those laws was the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938), which outlawed child labor nationwide. Prior to 1938, each state determined its own child labor laws.

When the Supreme Court heard Hammer v. Dagenhart in 1918, there was no nationwide ban on child labor, but there was a federal law that prohibited the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor. A business owner in North Carolina sued the government because he wanted to employ his 14-year-old son and that prevented him from shipping his products over state lines.

In Hammer, the justices ruled for the business owner, invalidating the federal law and protecting North Carolina’s right to set its own child labor laws. “[Hammer v Dagenhart] was a pretty notorious case out there in terms of precedent,” says Shultz.

But decades later, when the Supreme Court heard a very similar case, United States v. Darby (1941), the justices openly questioned the rationale of the 1918 Court.

“The distinction on which [the 1918] decision was rested… a distinction which was novel when made and unsupported by any provision of the Constitution, has long since been abandoned,” wrote Justice Harlan Fiske Stone.

Why did the Supreme Court change course?

“Some of it was about Court personnel changing, some of it was about the Depression, and some of it was about the 1936 election that produced a landslide for FDR,” says Schultz. “The court got the message. The American people wanted more federal intervention.”

2. Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)

FIRST-GRADE STUDENTS IN BALTIMORE SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE AMERICAN FLAG IN JUNE 1955. CREDIT: RICHARD STACKS/BALTIMORE SUN/TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE VIA GETTY IMAGES

In 1940, there was impassioned debate about whether the U.S. should join the fight against Nazi Germany. In this anxious atmosphere, the Supreme Court heard the case of Lillian and William Gobitis, two children from Pennsylvania who were expelled from school when they refused to salute the flag. The Gobitis family were Jehovah’s Witnesses and their religion prohibited it.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices ruled 8-1 against the Gobitis family, saying that "national cohesion" was "inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values," and that national unity was "the basis of national security." Religious expression, in other words, took a back seat to patriotism.

But just two years later, after the U.S. was at war with both Germany and Japan, the Supreme Court issued the opposite ruling in a nearly identical case.

In West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), more Jehovah’s Witnesses were expelled from school after they refused to salute the flag. But this time, the justices ruled 6-3 for the family’s right to freely express their religious beliefs.

“That’s a pretty dramatic reversal,” says Schultz. “The court issued what was an incredibly unpopular opinion during a war—that you can’t require people to salute the flag. But it was also one of the most beautifully written opinions I’ve ever read.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Robert Jackson wrote, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Schultz wonders if the rapid about-face had something to do with the atrocities committed by Germany based on religious persecution. “Maybe that’s what shakes up the Court, the realization that we can’t be Nazi Germany.”

3. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

THE CHILDREN INVOLVED IN THE LANDMARK CIVIL RIGHTS LAWSUIT BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, WHICH CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOL SEGREGATION.

In terms of decisions that changed the landscape of American life, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) tops the list. Brown famously overturned the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, in which a very different Supreme Court blessed the segregationist doctrine of “separate but equal” as constitutional.

When the Court heard Brown, it was armed with decades of social sciences research proving the damaging effects of segregation on Black schools and Black students. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled that the doctrine of “separate but equal” was in clear violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority,” wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren in his landmark opinion. “Any language in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.”

4. Betts v. Brady (1942)

When Smith Betts was arrested for robbery in Maryland, he didn’t have any money to pay for a lawyer, so he asked the court to provide one. Under Maryland law, criminal courts only had to provide counsel for “indigent” defendants in cases of rape or murder, not robbery. Betts, forced to defend himself in court, lost his trial and was sentenced to eight years in jail.

Betts appealed to the Supreme Court that the 6th Amendment and the 14th Amendment guaranteed him a right to a fair trial, and that Maryland’s decision not to provide him with a defense lawyer was unconstitutional. The Court disagreed, ruling 6-3 that there is no such “right” to counsel in all criminal cases.

Justice Hugo Black was in the minority that sided with Betts, and in his dissenting opinion in 1942 stated that defendants unable to pay for a lawyer are more likely to be convicted even if they’re innocent, concluding that “[t]he right to counsel in a criminal proceeding is ‘fundamental.’”

More than 20 years later, Justice Black got a second chance to address the issue. The facts of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) were almost identical to Betts with another indigent defendant denied counsel in a robbery case. This time, the justices ruled unanimously that the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial absolutely included the right to counsel for those who couldn’t afford their own. Justice Black wrote the opinion, poking holes in the reasoning of Betts:

“The fact is that, in deciding as it did—that ‘appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial’—the Court in Betts v. Brady made an abrupt break with its own well-considered precedents. In returning to these old precedents… we but restore constitutional principles established to achieve a fair system of justice.”

5. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

In the early 1980s, several U.S. states criminalized homosexuality, making it a crime for two men to have consensual sex in the privacy of their home. In Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), a Georgia man challenged the constitutionality of the state’s “anti-sodomy” law as violating his privacy and fundamental rights.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that “[t]he Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy,” and that precedents set by previous Supreme Court decisions concerning marriage and family—like the 1967 case of Loving v. Virginia, which invalidated state laws against interracial marriage—had nothing to do with this case.

What’s clear to Supreme Court observers like Schultz is that the justices in the early 1980s were influenced by the prevailing public opinions of their time, which were not supportive of L.G.B.T.Q. rights.

“The Court is supposed to be above politics and not affected by public opinion,” says Schultz. “But given the fact that Court members are appointed by presidents indirectly elected by the people, and confirmed by a Senate directly elected by the people, it would be naive to think that the Court is completely indifferent to public opinion.”

By the 2000s, both public opinion and the law had changed concerning gay rights. Most states had repealed their anti-sodomy laws and other countries had come out in support of gay rights. When the Supreme Court heard Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, the justices returned a very different verdict.

“[Gay and lesbian peoples’] right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.”

6. Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)

IN A 2010 DECISION, THE SUPREME COURT OVERTURNED PORTIONS OF THEIR PREVIOUS DECISIONS AND RULED THAT CAMPAIGN DONATIONS AND POLITICAL ADVERTISING WERE FORMS OF FREE SPEECH.

The Supreme Court has been asked several times to weigh in on the influence of money in politics, and it has flip-flopped on the issue of whether corporations should be allowed to endorse candidates just like individual citizens.

In 1990, the Court heard Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, in which the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a nonprofit corporation, wanted to use money from its general funds to support a candidate for state office. In that case, the justices ruled against the Chamber of Commerce by upholding a Michigan law that prohibited corporations from using their money to support or oppose political candidates.

Then, in 2003, the Court heard McConnell v. FEC (Federal Elections Commission) which challenged the validity of the so-called McCain-Feingold bill. That bill, also known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, put a ban on unrestricted “soft money” contributions from corporations, and restrictions on political ads funded by corporations within 60 days of an election.

Again, the justices ruled against the corporations in McConnellwriting that the government had a legitimate interest in preventing "both the actual corruption threatened by large financial contributions and... the appearance of corruption."

But then came Citizens United v. FEC (2010). In a controversial 5-4 decision, the justices overturned portions of their previous decisions and ruled that campaign donations and political advertising were forms of free speech, and the government should not be in the business of censoring free speech, regardless of who pays for it.

“When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“Corporations, like individuals, do not have monolithic views. On certain topics corporations may possess valuable expertise, leaving them the best equipped to point out errors or fallacies in speech of all sorts, including the speech of candidates and elected officials.”

7. Baker v. Nelson (1972)

JAMES MICHAEL "MIKE" MCCONNELL (AT LEFT) AND JACK BAKER (RIGHT) WERE TURNED AWAY WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR A MARRIAGE LICENSE IN MINNEAPOLIS IN 1970. THEIR CASE WAS REJECTED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN 1972. IN 2015, THE SUPREME COURT RULED IN FAVOR OF ANOTHER COUPLE IN SUPPORT OF GAY MARRIAGE.

In 1970, Jack Baker and Michael McConnell applied for a marriage license in their home city of Minneapolis but were turned away because they were a same-sex couple. They appealed their case to the Minnesota Supreme Court, but were told that marriage “is a union of man and woman,” an institution “as old as the book of Genesis.”

So the men appealed their case, Baker v. Nelson, all the way to the Supreme Court, which rejected their argument for the legalization of same-sex marriage in 1972 with a single-sentence order: “Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.”

Decades passed, and slowly attitudes about same-sex marriage changed. In 2003, Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, followed by California, New York, New Mexico and Oregon in 2004. Over the next decade, more states legalized same-sex marriage while others passed constitutional amendments “banning” the practice.

In 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Obergefell v. Hodges, which was brought by several same-sex couples who had been denied marriage licenses by state bans in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. Unlike 1972, when the Court saw no constitutional protections for same-sex couples, the justices came to the opposite conclusion in Obergefell.

“The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. “The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.”

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia called the decision “a threat to American democracy” and insisted that matters like same-sex marriage should be decided by the voters in individual states, and not “legislated” by the Supreme Court.

8. Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992)

NORMA MCCORVEY, BETTER KNOWN AS JANE ROE FROM THE 1973 SUPREME COURT DECISION, AND LAWYER GLORIA ALLRED RAISE THEIR HANDS AT A RALLY HELD OUTSIDE THE SUPREME COURT AFTER ATTENDED THE OPENING ARGUMENTS IN THE WEBSTER V. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES CASE, 1989.

There are few issues in America as divisive and passionately argued as abortion, pitting the “right to life” against a woman’s right to choose. The Supreme Court has weighed in several times on this contentious topic, most recently in 2022 with a landmark verdict that overturned decades of “settled law” on abortion rights.

In the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, the justices ruled in an 8-2 decision that a woman’s right to abortion falls within the “right to privacy” contained in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. In its ruling, the court laid out different standards for first, second and third-trimester pregnancies, allowing states to regulate abortion once a fetus reaches “viability.”

In the late 1980s, Pennsylvania and other states passed laws requiring women to get “informed consent” from a husband or a parent (if a minor) before receiving an abortion, and only after a 24-hour waiting period. Planned Parenthood sued, arguing that the state laws unconstitutionally infringed on the rights guaranteed by Roe.

In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the justices narrowly affirmed Roe 5-4 but allowed many of the state restrictions to stand. One of the main reasons why the Court didn’t strike down Roe entirely in 1992 was the concept of stare decisis, that a court should adhere to precedent in its decisions.

“Reliance becomes a very important principle in Casey,” says Schultz. “Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writes that even if we thought that Roe was wrongly decided, a generation of women have come of age relying upon Roe and the ability to control their reproductive future.”

Then came Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), in which the justices ruled 6-3 to overturn both Roe and Casey in a decision that openly rejected the legal precedent set by the previous cases.

Stare decisis, the doctrine on which Casey’s controlling opinion was based, does not compel unending adherence to Roe’s abuse of judicial authority,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences.”

Schultz says that in the early 2020s, the Court’s approach to precedent signaled “a pretty dramatic shift” from its historical stance. “It used to be all about reliance, consistency and uniformity, where the current Court is much more willing to say, ‘We think they were wrong and we’re going to reverse it.’” 

 

https://www.history.com/news/landmark-supreme-court-cases-overturned

Comments

The Supreme Court was destined to serving as a legislative body until Trump appointed Originalists to the Court.

The history of Supreme Court decisions reflects the court’s decisions as temporary and subject to reversal based on circumstances rooted in poilical expediency. The court needs to refer changes in law to the Congress.  

Norb Leahy Dunwoody GA Tes Paraty Leader

United States Constitution Amendments 12623


Amendments 1-10 | Amendments 11-27


Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."

AMENDMENT I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

AMENDMENT III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

AMENDMENT IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

AMENDMENT V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

AMENDMENT VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

AMENDMENT VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

AMENDMENT IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

AMENDMENT X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


AMENDMENT XI - Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by 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.

AMENDMENT XII - Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.

Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.

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 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.

*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.

AMENDMENT XIII - Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XIV - Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
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.

Section 2.
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.

Section 3.
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.

Section 4.
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.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

*Changed by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

AMENDMENT XV - Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.

Section 1.
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--

Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XVI - Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by 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.

AMENDMENT XVII - Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

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.

AMENDMENT XVIII - Passed by Congress December 18, 1917. Ratified January 16, 1919. Repealed by amendment 21.

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.

AMENDMENT XIX - Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.

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.

AMENDMENT XX - Passed by Congress March 2, 1932. Ratified January 23, 1933.

Note: Article I, section 4, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of this amendment. In addition, a portion of the 12th amendment was superseded by section 3.

Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3rd 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.

Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3rd day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 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 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.

Section 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.

Section 5.
Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 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.

AMENDMENT XXI - Passed by Congress February 20, 1933. Ratified December 5, 1933.

Section 1.
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 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.

Section 3.
This 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.

AMENDMENT XXII - Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.
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 to the States by the Congress.

AMENDMENT XXIII - Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.

Section 1.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:

A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXIV - Passed by Congress August 27, 1962. Ratified January 23, 1964.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXV - Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

AMENDMENT XXVI - Passed by Congress March 23, 1971. Ratified July 1, 1971.

Note: Amendment 14, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 1 of the 26th amendment.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT XXVII - Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/education

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

 

US Constitutional Compliance

 

Many of us believe that our sovereign debt problems could have been avoided if we had ensured that our federal government remained in compliance with the US Constitution and the limits placed on the federal by the enumerated powers and 10th Amendment.

If we had resisted the federal government’s unconstitutional expansion of powers, 1/3rd of our landmass would be owned by the states, the federal courts would only be able to “opine” over federal issues and states would have had to deal with these issues with a balanced budget.

Resetting Constitutional powers will require some time to transition functions from the federal to the states. The federal government will need to continue to fund Social Security transition costs and pay down its debts.

If we are able to wrest the unconstitutional functions from the federal government, there would be no departments, agencies, programs, congressional committees or funds for Foreign Aid, Grants to States, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Health & Human Services, Education, Transportation, Energy, Labor, Interior or Commerce. There would be no HUD, EPA, USDA, TSA, FEMA, FDA, Federal Reserve, etc.

Loans held by Fannie Mae, Freddy Mac and Sallie Mae would be sold to the private sector. Education and Healthcare care should be repaired in the free market.

The Federal government would cede all federal lands to the states and transfer unconstitutional functions “to the States and the People” States and the People would have responsibility for education, labor, food inspection, environmental regulations, etc.

The Federal government would maintain military forces for defense, police the oceans, secure the borders, administer immigration policy, deal with other nations and operate the US mint and Patent Office.  They would maintain a federal court, a legislature consisting of a House and Senate and maintain the Executive branch.

The Federal government would need to pay down the national debt and begin to transition Social Security for the next generation to private accounts.

Interest rates would be set by the free market. Churches, charities and individuals would need to reassume their previous responsibility for the poor. This would require the repeal of many laws and regulations. Malpractice would be handled by local Medical Associations. The Civil Rights Act should be repealed. The US should return to being a free market meritocracy. We should quit the UN and IMF. Congress should take control of trade agreements and immigration and should read all bills and write their own regulations. Bills should not be bundled to allow bad law to ride on critical Bills.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

NTL Conservative Blog August 30 2015

 

Unconstitutional Mistakes

 

National Parks – The notion that the federal government is allowed by the Constitution to own 1/3 of the US landmass is preposterous. The Constitution limits the federal government to only that land it uses to fulfill its enumerated powers. This land needs to be returned to the States.

Campaign Finance – Big Money has influenced elective office from the beginning. Many of the founders were wealthy enough to devote time to founding the US. In recent years, voters have been cut out of the process by global corporations with their own agendas. But now Big Money doesn’t care what happens to the U.S. Consequently, we need to restrict campaign contributions to registered voters and only for those candidates who would appear on their ballot.

Unsound Money – The US dollar was sound leading up to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913. Congress’ responsibility for the money supply was given to the Federal Reserve, who also took setting interest rates away from the free market.  This imposed a “managed economy” to replace the “free market economy” the US was founded on. Money printing now needs to be restricted by Congress and interest rates should be returned to the free market as soon as possible.

Government Schools – These have failed on all fronts.  The government needs to withdraw from all control and funding of education on all fronts.

Social Security – This needs to be wound down and returned to the free market as soon as possible. If we had sent our 15% to our own self-directed IRAs, we would have a retirement account 3 times larger than our payments.

Healthcare – This belongs in the private sector.

Insurance – This belongs in the private sector.

Lending - This belongs in the private sector.

Environmental Quality – This belongs to the States and the People.

Urban Housing – This is not a federal matter or even a good idea.

Welfare for Non-citizens – This is fiscal suicide.

Trade Agreements – This belongs in the private sector, but the US government should be able to impose tariffs on imports and Impose total economic isolation on bad countries.

Counterproductive Regulations – These are regulations that are unnecessary or predatory.

Immigration – This used to be controlled by our need for labor, but continued far beyond that.  Now 93 million working-age US citizens are without jobs, because of excessive immigration and open borders.

Excessive Government Debt – This should not be allowed at any level of government.

Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader

NTL Conservative BlogJune 24 2015