#Constitutional Eligibility Requirements

[deadpresidents]

This is a sort of silly hypothetical, but I'm still curious:

Let's say that a president serves 2 terms, but for whatever reason wants to be on a ticket again. Could he run as someone's vice president after his own terms?

If he could, and that ticket won, what would happen if the president died? I'm pretty sure that a president can technically serve up to 10 years, even under the 25th amendment, in the case of a presidential ascension after half of the previous president's term (like how Coolidge or L. Johnson could have run for second full terms but, say, T. Roosevelt or Truman couldn't've [post 25th amendment].)

If a president died less than 2 years in and his vice president already had 2 terms served prior, would the office still go to the veep even if it would give him over 10 years as executive? Or would it go to the next person in the line of succession?

If a someone served two full terms as President, they would not be eligible to serve as Vice President.

The eligibility requirements for the Vice Presidency are exactly the same as those for the Presidency, so since they would be term-limited and unable to serve as President, they would also be unable to serve as Vice President. If someone is ineligible to serve as President for any reason, they are also ineligible to serve as Vice President for that very same reason.

The only way a President could serve more than eight years is if they were Vice President and succeeded to the Presidency and there were less than two years left in the Presidential term that they were assuming. In that case, they could still run for President in their own right for two full terms. So the best two examples, post-22nd Amendment, would be LBJ and Gerald Ford. When LBJ succeeded JFK, there were less than two years left in JFK's unfinished term which had started on January 20, 1961. So, LBJ ran and was elected in his own right in 1964, and he could have run again in 1968 if he wanted to.

On the other hand, when Richard Nixon resigned in August 1974 and Gerald Ford succeeded him, there were still more than two years left in Nixon's unfinished term which began on January 20, 1973. Ford was able to run for a term in his own right in 1976. But if Ford had won the 1976 election, he would not have been able to run for another term in 1980 because he had served more than 2 years of Nixon's unfinished second term.

[mindfulmuse88]

Unbiased: Is it true that the SAVE Act will take away the right to vote for married women who have changed their last name?

Disclaimer: I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Everything is purely unbiased and factual. This is false, but we need some context here:

The SAVE Act, officially known as the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, was first introduced last year. Its main goal is to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship for individuals registering to vote in federal elections.

Currently, while only U.S. citizens are allowed to vote in federal elections, the Supreme Court precedent states that documentary proof is not required—it is sufficient to simply attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury. As a result, not all states require proof of citizenship when registering voters. However, if the SAVE Act is passed, this would change.

Under this proposed law, voters would need to provide proof of citizenship with a document that meets REAL ID requirements in order to have their voter registration application accepted for federal elections. This could include a passport or another government-issued ID, but if using a non-passport ID, the applicant would also need to present a birth certificate or a similar document, such as a naturalization certificate. It is important to note that this requirement applies only to federal elections—state election requirements may differ.

Concerns About Married Women and Name Changes

Since the bill’s introduction, concerns have been raised about how it might impact married women who have changed their last names. Some claim that the SAVE Act could effectively prevent married women from voting. However, the bill does not explicitly bar married women from voting.

The concern arises from the bill’s requirement that a birth certificate must include the applicant’s full name, date of birth, and place of birth. For a married woman who has legally changed her last name, her birth certificate will not reflect her new surname, which may create an issue when presenting a government-issued photo ID.

However, the bill does not explicitly state that the name on the birth certificate and the name on the government-issued ID must match exactly in order to be accepted. If discrepancies arise, applicants may need to provide additional documentation, such as a marriage certificate, to verify their name change. This aligns with existing government processes where name discrepancies can be resolved by presenting legal documentation.

Since the bill has not yet been passed, the exact implementation of these requirements remains unclear. However, it is important to emphasize that claims suggesting the bill outright bans married women from voting are false. Furthermore, a woman’s right to vote is protected by the U.S. Constitution under the 19th Amendment. For this right to be revoked, a new constitutional amendment would need to be passed, which is highly unlikely.

What Happens Next?

The bill previously passed the House of Representatives in the last congressional session, with support from five Democrats and 216 Republicans. However, since that session has ended, it must pass the House again before moving to the Senate, where it would need to overcome the filibuster before a final vote.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Eli Stokols and Adam Cancryn at Politico:

President Joe Biden on Friday declared that the Equal Rights Amendment is the law of the land, attempting to ratify a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in a last-ditch effort to protect women’s reproductive rights. But Biden’s assertion may amount to little more than an expression of his opinion, with the White House acknowledging that it has no immediate force of law — and wouldn’t order the nation’s archivist to formally add it to the Constitution. “I have supported the Equal Rights Amendment for more than 50 years, and I have long been clear that no one should be discriminated against based on their sex,” Biden said in a statement. “We, as a nation, must affirm and protect women’s full equality once and for all.”

The move, which states that Biden personally believes the ERA has cleared all the hurdles to ratification, would be unlikely to carry weight unless courts agree with him, a hurdle even White House officials conceded as they made the announcement. If successful, the long-shot gambit would provide a dramatic coda to the 50-year effort to get sex-based equality into the Constitution and bolster Biden’s policy record. In Biden’s final days before turning the Oval Office over to President-elect Donald Trump, whose Supreme Court appointees helped to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022, the statement on the ERA offered the departing president a final opportunity to push back at the laws that resulted from that decision in several states where lawmakers have restricted and even criminalized abortion procedures. The move shifts the spotlight to U.S. Archivist Colleen Shogan, who is responsible for publishing amendments to the Constitution — but has previously said that the ERA’s eligibility has expired, and now could not be added unless Congress acts. Congress, under the control of Republicans, is unlikely to do so.

[...] The ERA would bar sex-based discrimination, including constraints on abortion, by states. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) argued last month in a New York Times op-ed, while urging Biden to formally direct the national archivist to add the ERA to the Constitution, that the amendment has met all the requirements for certification. It passed two-thirds of Congress in 1972 and, after sitting dormant for decades, was finally ratified by three-quarters of the states in 2020. But Donald Trump’s Justice Department said at the time that ratification took too long and the states missed the deadline. That’s a position Shogan supported in a statement last December. Biden disagrees, yet declined to force the issue by going as far as Gillibrand had requested and ordering the archivist to take action.

“On January 27, 2020, the Commonwealth of Virginia became the 38th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment,” Biden’s statement said. “The American Bar Association (ABA) has recognized that the Equal Rights Amendment has cleared all necessary hurdles to be formally added to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment. I agree with the ABA and with leading legal constitutional scholars that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part of our Constitution.” His statement concluded: “It is long past time to recognize the will of the American people. In keeping with my oath and duty to Constitution and country, I affirm what I believe and what three-fourths of the states have ratified: the 28th Amendment is the law of the land, guaranteeing all Americans equal rights and protections under the law regardless of their sex.” The declaration is likely to win praise from advocates who have long pushed for the ERA’s recognition. But the move, coming just three days before Biden leaves office, raised questions about why a president who the White House said has long harbored this opinion did not act sooner.

President Biden declared today that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is the law of the land to become the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, but doesn’t order the national archivist to formally approve its addition.

See Also:

NPR: Biden says the Equal Rights Amendment is law. What happens next is unclear

AP: Biden says the Equal Rights Amendment should be considered ratified

[nerdygaymormon]

It's not just trans people being targeted

President Trump has banned transgender people from serving in the Armed Forces. His government is currently trying to define ‘transgender’ out of existence and erode protections for transgender students and workers, and weaken access to gender-affirming health care most transgender people already struggled to access.

For queer people who see political leaders weaponizing the law against transgender people and think it won't affect you because you're not trans, don't fool yourself.

He and his allies have been very clear what they want to do in his second term. They want to remove federal regulations, rules, and other policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and to assert that federal civil rights statutes don’t cover anti-LGBTQ discrimination either.

They take the position that the Constitution entitles employers to discriminate against LGBTQ people based on their religious beliefs, no matter that there are state nondiscrimination laws.

The Trump administration also wants to permit faith-based organizations which contract with the government to use taxpayer funds to carry out vital government programs, such as adoption, disaster assistance, care for unaccompanied refugee minors, and much more, to use religious eligibility criteria to exclude LGBTQ people from participating in those programs.

This could strip LGBTQ people of protections against discrimination in many contexts, including employment, housing, education, health care, and a range of federal government programs.

Idaho has passed a law they're hoping will get debated at the Supreme Court with the hope it will be used as a way to overturn marriage equality for queer people.

All of this will convey the message to school districts, landlords, employers, health care providers, and others that discrimination against LGBTQ people is lawful and embolden more discrimination.

Even the progress that has been made against HIV/AIDS is being targeted. According to the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the AIDS pandemic can be eliminated by 2030. This will require leaders boost resources and protect human rights. Rather than working towards this worthy goal, they want to turn the clock back.

During his first term, President Trump tried to cut funding for HIV research, tried to cut a billion dollars from global AIDS programs, tried to stop Medicaid expansion for uninsured people, and tried to eliminate funding for AIDS education and training centers.

This time around, they want to cut programs that deliver low-cost medication to those who can't afford it. They want to kick people with HIV out of the military. RFK Jr, the nominee to run Health and Human Services, has said he wants to fire people working on HIV research, and he's spread false rumors that AIDS isn't caused by HIV but by the "homosexual lifestyle."

There is a case before the Supreme Court that would allow employers to prevent their employees from accessing treatment like PrEP through their health insurance plans. And why? Because it primarily saves the lives of queer people.

The Republicans have been trying for years to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, which would give insurance companies the gift of being able to once again deny coverage to anyone who has a pre-existing condition, such as HIV/AIDS.

We're all in this together. They see trans people as the easiest target, but all queer people are being targeted.

[mariacallous]

The death of the US government's Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is starting to result in disconnection of internet service for Americans with low incomes. On Friday, Charter Communications reported a net loss of 154,000 internet subscribers that it said was mostly driven by customers canceling after losing the federal discount. About 100,000 of those subscribers were reportedly getting the discount, which in some cases made internet service free to the consumer.

The $30 monthly broadband discounts provided by the ACP ended in May after Congress failed to allocate more funding. The Biden administration requested $6 billion to fund the ACP through December 2024, but Republicans called the program “wasteful.”

Republican lawmakers' main complaint was that most of the ACP money went to households that already had broadband before the subsidy was created. Federal Communications Commission chair Jessica Rosenworcel warned that killing the discounts would reduce internet access, saying an FCC survey found that 77 percent of participating households would change their plan or drop internet service entirely once the discounts expired.

Charter's Q2 2024 earnings report provides some of the first evidence of users dropping internet service after losing the discount. "Second quarter residential Internet customers decreased by 154,000, largely driven by the end of the FCC's Affordable Connectivity Program subsidies in the second quarter, compared to an increase of 70,000 during the second quarter of 2023," Charter said.

Across all ISPs, there were 23 million US households enrolled in the ACP. Research released in January 2024 found that Charter was serving more than 4 million ACP recipients, and that up to 300,000 of those Charter customers would be "at risk" of dropping internet service if the discounts expired. Given that ACP recipients must meet low-income eligibility requirements, losing the discounts could put a strain on their overall finances even if they choose to keep paying for internet service.

“The Real Question Is the Customers’ Ability to Pay”

Charter, which offers service under the brand name Spectrum, has 28.3 million residential internet customers in 41 states. The company's earnings report said Charter made retention offers to customers that previously received an ACP subsidy. The customer loss apparently would have been higher if not for those offers.

Light Reading reported that Charter attributed about 100,000 of the 154,000 customer losses to the ACP shutdown. Charter said it retained most of its ACP subscribers so far, but that low-income households might not be able to continue paying for internet service without a new subsidy for much longer:

"We've retained the vast majority of ACP customers so far," Charter CEO Chris Winfrey said on [Friday's] earnings call, pointing to low-cost internet programs and the offer of a free mobile line designed to keep those customers in the fold. "The real question is the customers' ability to pay—not just now, but over time."

The ACP lasted only a couple of years. The FCC implemented the $30 monthly benefit in early 2022, replacing a previous $50 monthly subsidy from the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program that started enrolling users in May 2021.

Separately, the FCC Lifeline program that provides $9.25 monthly discounts is in jeopardy after a court ruling last week. Lifeline is paid for by the Universal Service Fund, which was the subject of a constitutional challenge.

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that Universal Service fees on phone bills are a "misbegotten tax" that violate the Constitution. But in similar cases, the Sixth and Eleventh circuit appeals courts ruled that the fund is constitutional. The circuit split increases the chances that the Supreme Court will take up the case.

[memories-of-ancients]

Early American Presidential Elections Were Way Different Than They Are Today

It's election season again, boy it sure is. I can tell because I now get daily texts from Joe Biden asking for money which is interesting because I never gave him my phone number and Trump has been sending me enough ads through the mail that it clutters my mail box if I don't empty it more than once a week. So in celebration of this great competition between two philosopher kings and elder statesmen I wish to detail how different presidential elections were in the opening decades of the United States compared to today. And I can tell you, elections back then were totally different, almost unrecognizeable.

First, most people could not vote. Early American elections were not democratic by any means. Of course women couldn't vote, so automatically half the population was ineligible by that fact alone. Also men who belonged to a minority groups couldn't vote. However, if you were a white man, odds were you were still ineligible to vote. All of the states had wealth and property requirements for voting, which made it so that the only men who were eligible to vote were wealthy white males. As a result, until the 1830's only around 2-3% perhaps 5% at most of all people were eligible to vote.

Secondly, you did not directly vote for the president at all. Presidents were not even listed on ballots. When you went to vote, you voted for your state's electors, the presidents weren't even listed on the ballot. In George Washington's diary entry for Jan 7th, 1789 he wrote that he voted for "Doctor Blackburn and Colonel Stuart", who were the electors he voted for in his district. The following is a surviving ticket from the 1789 Maryland Presidential election held by the Smithsonian ...

This was of course if you lived in a state where popular vote was used in presidential elections. According to the US Constitution it's up to the states to determine how electors are chosen. At the time many electors were chosen by state legislatures, or appointed by state governors. In the very first election (1789), only Maryland and Virginia used popular vote to choose electors. Incredibly New York failed to appoint electors altogether! In the next election, (1792), Massachusetts and Pennsylvania tagged on. Gradually other states did the same until by 1830 most states used popular vote to decide elections. The results are goofy looking popular vote maps like this (election of 1796), the gray areas being places where popular vote was not used, or there were not enough wealthy white men to vote.

Today we still use the Electoral College to elect the president, although there is a pretense of direct elections. When voting for president you are actually still voting for your state's electors, but it's generally agreed and expected that if your state's majority votes for a certain candidate, the electors will likewise vote for that candidate. And of course popular vote is used in every state to choose electors, for a state to do otherwise would be a national scandal even though it would be technically constitutional.

Finally, president and vice president were not on the same ticket. Today, for example, if you voted for Joe Biden, you are also voting for Kamala Harris as vice president. Until the passage of the 12th Amendment in 1804 the way it worked was the candidate who was runner up became vice president. So today if we used the same system, Joe Biden would be president, and Donald Trump would be vice president. Likewise in the previous administration, Donald Trump would be president, and Hillary Clinton would be vice president. I suggest we repeal the 12th Amendment.

[holy-politics-batman]

How Peter Duton has consistently Voted in parliament

Spoiler: He hates you Not everything is terrible, but holy shit it gets bad and a lot of it is bad (Source at the bottom)

Voted for:

A citizenship test

A plebiscite on the carbon pricing mechanism (Remove the tax on carbon)

A same-sex marriage plebiscite (plebiscite means to get rid of)

An Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC)

Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014

Charging postgraduate research students fees

Civil celebrants having the right to refuse to marry same-sex couples

Compensating victims of overseas terrorism since the September 11 attack

Decreasing availability of welfare payments

Deregulating undergraduate university fees (Removing any restrictions on the amount that universities can charge students for tuition)

Drug testing welfare recipients

Getting rid of Sunday and public holiday penalty rates

Greater control over items brought into immigration detention centres

Having a referendum on whether to create an Indigenous Voice to Parliament (To be fair he also did recently have a trantrum because he didn't want to stand infrount of the Aboriginal flag, so)

Increasing eligibility requirements for Australian citizenship

Government administered paid parental leave

Increasing indexation of HECS-HELP debts (HECS-HELP is basically student loans)

Increasing state and territory environmental approval powers

Increasing the cost of humanities degrees (Humanities include: History, Geography, Philosophy, Religion, Citizenship, Economics, Business, ect)

Increasing the price of subsidised medicine

Prioritising religious freedom

Privatising government-owned assets

Putting welfare payments onto cashless debit cards (or indue cards) on a temporary basis as a trial

Recognising local government in the Constitution

Reducing the corporate tax rate

Senate electoral reform

Stopping people who arrive by boat from ever coming to Australia

Temporary Exclusion Orders

Temporary protection visas

The territories being able to legalise euthanasia

Turning back asylum boats when possible

A combined Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia

Banning mobiles and other devices in immigration detention

Increasing scrutiny of unions

Implementing refugee and protection conventions

Putting welfare payments onto cashless debit cards (or indue cards) on an ongoing basis

Privatising certain government services

Voluntary student union fees

Increasing funding for road infrastructure

Increasing the initial tax rate for working holiday makers to 19%

Increasing the Medicare Levy to pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme

Making more water from Murray-Darling Basin available to use

The Coalition's new schools funding policy ("Gonski 2.0")

The Intervention in the Northern Territory

Voted against:

A carbon price

A minerals resource rent tax

A Royal Commission into Violence and Abuse against People with Disability

A transition plan for coal workers

Banning pay secrecy clauses

Capping gas prices

Carbon farming

Considering legislation to create a federal anti-corruption commission (procedural)

Considering motions on Gaza (2023-24) (procedural)

Criminalising wage theft

Decreasing the private health insurance rebate

Doctor-initiated medical transfers for asylum seekers

Ending illegal logging

Ending immigration detention on Manus Island

Extending government benefits to same-sex couples

Federal action on public housing

Federal government action on animal & plant extinctions

Increasing availability of abortion drugs

Increasing consumer protections

Increasing funding for university education

Increasing housing affordability

Increasing investment in renewable energy

Increasing legal protections for LGBTI people

Increasing marine conservation

Increasing penalties for breach of data

Increasing political transparency

Increasing protection of Australia's fresh water

Increasing restrictions on gambling

Increasing scrutiny of asylum seeker management

Increasing support for the Australian film and TV industry

Increasing support for the Australian shipping industry

Increasing the diversity of media ownership

Increasing trade unions' powers in the workplace

Increasing transparency of big business by making information public

Market-led approaches to protecting biodiversity

Net zero emissions by 2035

Re-approving/ re-registering agvet chemicals (Agvet chemicals protect crops and livestock)

Removing children from immigration detention

Reproductive bodily autonomy

Requiring every native title claimant to sign land use agreements

Restricting donations to political parties

Restricting foreign ownership

Same-sex marriage equality

Stem cell research

Stopping tax avoidance or aggressive tax minimisation

The Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA)

The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

The Paris Climate Agreement

Tobacco plain packaging

Transgender rights

Treating the COVID vaccine rollout as a matter of urgency

Mix

Reducing tax concessions for high socio-economic status

Increasing competition in bulk wheat export

Mostly Yes

Speeding things along in Parliament (procedural)

Unconventional gas mining

A character test for Australian visas

Increasing or removing the Government debt limit

Regional processing of asylum seekers

Mostly No

Increasing the age pension

Net zero emissions by 2050

Suspending the rules to allow a vote to happen (procedural)

Vehicle efficiency standards

Increasing support for rural and regional Australia

Letting all MPs or Senators speak in Parliament (procedural)

Source

https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/dickson/peter_dutton

[contemplatingoutlander]

This is such an important article, the above link is a gift 🎁 link so that anyone can read the entire article, even if they don't subscribe to The New York Times. Here are some highlights:

Two prominent conservative law professors have concluded that Donald J. Trump is ineligible to be president under a provision of the Constitution that bars people who have engaged in an insurrection from holding government office. The professors are active members of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group, and proponents of originalism, the method of interpretation that seeks to determine the Constitution’s original meaning. The professors — William Baude of the University of Chicago and Michael Stokes Paulsen of the University of St. Thomas — studied the question for more than a year and detailed their findings in a long article to be published next year in The University of Pennsylvania Law Review. [...] He summarized the article’s conclusion: “Donald Trump cannot be president — cannot run for president, cannot become president, cannot hold office — unless two-thirds of Congress decides to grant him amnesty for his conduct on Jan. 6.” [...] The provision in question is Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War, it bars those who had taken an oath “to support the Constitution of the United States” from holding office if they then “shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.” [...] The article concluded that essentially all of that evidence pointed in the same direction: “toward a broad understanding of what constitutes insurrection and rebellion and a remarkably, almost extraordinarily, broad understanding of what types of conduct constitute engaging in, assisting, or giving aid or comfort to such movements.” It added, “The bottom line is that Donald Trump both ‘engaged in’ ‘insurrection or rebellion’ and gave ‘aid or comfort’ to others engaging in such conduct, within the original meaning of those terms as employed in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.” [...] The provision’s language is automatic, the article said, establishing a qualification for holding office no different in principle from the Constitution’s requirement that only people who are at least 35 years old are eligible to be president. “Section 3’s disqualification rule may and must be followed — applied, honored, obeyed, enforced, carried out — by anyone whose job it is to figure out whether someone is legally qualified to office,” the authors wrote. That includes election administrators, the article said. Professor Calabresi said those administrators must act. “Trump is ineligible to be on the ballot, and each of the 50 state secretaries of state has an obligation to print ballots without his name on them,” he said, adding that they may be sued for refusing to do so. [color/emphasis added]

Let's hope that election administrators across the US read this article and begin to set in motion the mechanism to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on ballots across the U.S., in case he does get the GOP nomination.

[beardedmrbean]

Republicans in Congress led by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment to impose term limits for members of Congress.

The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and U.S. House members to three two-year terms. The two-page resolution states that after the amendment is passed by Congress and ratified by the states, the amendment would go into effect “within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress.”

The resolution proposes that after a member of the U.S. House has served three terms, they aren’t eligible to be reelected to the House. After a U.S. senator has served two terms, they are no longer eligible to be elected or appointed to the U.S. Senate.

“Term limits are critical to fixing what’s wrong with Washington, D.C.,” Cruz, who was just reelected to this third term in the Senate, said. “The Founding Fathers envisioned a government of citizen legislators who would serve for a few years and return home, not a government run by a small group of special interests and lifelong, permanently entrenched politicians who prey upon the brokenness of Washington to govern in a manner that is totally unaccountable to the American people. Term limits bring about long-overdue accountability. I urge my colleagues to advance this amendment to the states so that it may be quickly ratified and become a constitutional amendment.”

Cosponsoring the joint resolution with Cruz are Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, Rick Scott of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Todd Young of Indiana, Steve Daines of Montana, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Katie Britt of Alabama and Jim Banks of Indiana.

US Rep. Ralph Norman, R-SC, introduced the companion resolution in the US House. “Elected office should represent a short-term privilege of public service, not a career choice,” Norman said. “Those of us in Congress ought to serve for a reasonable period of time and then return home to live under the laws we enacted.”

Sen. Cruz previously introduced resolutions to propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits in 2017, 2019, 2021, and 2023.

Cruz has also proposed ending so-called birthright citizenship by amending the Constitution, The Center Square reported.

Amending the US Constitution is no simple endeavor.

It requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate. The president has no constitutional role in the process. The amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states, 38 out of 50.

The Constitution may also be amended through a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the state legislatures. This has never happened. All 27 amendments to the Constitution were passed by Congress and ratified by the states. The last amendment to the Constitution was made in 1992.

Backup link

[vomitdodger]

This is interesting if you like debate, take an active interest in true constitutionality issues and mental gymnastics. About a six min vid. Discusses whether Harris is eligible for presidency based on the constitutional requirements. Not that I think it will make a difference. Discussion centers around what is a “natural born citizen” and “subject to the jurisdiction within”. Point being Harris was born on US soil while her non-US citizen parents had expired stays.

I’ve tried to find a definite answer for about two days and no such luck.

Points of considerations:

The Supreme Court has never officially ruled on this. There is much academic inference but it’s never ruled on a case/scenario like this.

The founding fathers original intent of “natural born citizens” was what most people would think…born to US citizens…not an anchor baby (Harris). Note they included the specific word “natural”.

Citizenship was later clarified to children of citizens born overseas…basically. Example: Ted Cruz born in Canada and McCain born in Panama Canal zone. Both considered “natural born citizens” so eligible to run.

Anchor baby’s are often referred to as “birthright citizens”. This is comrade Haley. Difference is her parents were in the US legally although not yet naturalized. Harris’ parents were neither…they stayed past their defined term. This is really key.

Most academics and some court rulings have made or attempted to make the terms “natural born” and “birthright” interchangeable. Others have said..not so fast…go back to original intent…they are not the same for constitutional legalities.

Truly a constitutional scholar/legal issue that would only be officially settled by the SCOTUS. Again not that it will likely make a difference anytime soon, if at all.

If you try to find info disregard anything in the last year or so…it’s clearly a setup for future Harris runs. Disregard fact checkers and the usual media. Disregard any source that simple lists the 3 presidential requirements as worthless, low IQ input.

I also suspect there’s heavy media censorship of arguments against Harris’ scenario. Most articles simply list those 3 basic requirements without any constitutional scholar authority….so again low IQ, meaningless input to influence the masses with repetition. Which is exactly what the media does.

[empiredesimparte]

Statement by HIH, Imperial Prince Henri de Francesim, Head of the Household of the Imperial Prince, at the press conference on the Marriage of King Philippe to Queen Viviana II of Ionian Union

👉🏻 Follow Philippe's wedding on the blog of my friend @funkyllama

Frenchmen, Frenchwomen, and also to you, subjects of Queen Viviana II and King Consort Philippe, Greetings. It is with great honor that I address you today to clarify the current situation concerning the order of succession to the imperial throne of Francesim, in light of the recent marriage of His Imperial Highness Prince Philippe, now King Consort Philippe, with Her Illustrious Majesty, Queen Viviana II of the Ionian Union.

First of all, I cannot help but express, as a father, the immense pride I feel for my son, Philippe. He has always shown great sensitivity to international challenges, and I am certain that, alongside Queen Viviana II, our nations will continue to prosper together. By virtue of the constitutional prerogatives and fundamental laws of the Empire, it is decreed that the lineage stemming from our house, represented by our son and his descendants, is eligible for the hereditary succession to the Imperial Crown of Francesim. Should it come to pass that His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Napoléon V, finds himself without direct offspring, the Emperor may, in accordance with imperial laws, adopt a legitimate heir from our lineage, to ensure the continuity of the dynasty and the stability of the Empire. It is evident that adoption would only be considered in exceptional circumstances. We sincerely hope that His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Napoléon V, will be able to produce a direct heir, thus ensuring the continuity of the lineage. Nevertheless, should the necessity arise, we will do what is required for the good of the Empire and our peoples. In the event of adoption by the Emperor, both parties will agree that the adoption would not compromise the sovereign interests of the Ionian Union, while ensuring the stability and continuity of the imperial dynasty of Francesim. Meanwhile, King Consort Philippe and his descendants are, of course, an integral part of the Imperial Family of Francesim. Thank you for your attention.

⚜ Traduction française

Françaises, Français, mais aussi, à vous, sujets de la reine Viviana II et du roi consort Philippe, Salut. C'est avec un grand honneur que je m'adresse à vous aujourd'hui pour clarifier la situation actuelle concernant l'ordre de succession au trône impérial de Francesim, à la lumière du récent mariage de Son Altesse Impériale le prince Philippe, désormais le roi consort Philippe, avec Son Illustre Majesté, la reine Viviana II de l'Union Ionienne. Tout d'abord, je ne peux m'empêcher d'exprimer, en tant que père, la fierté immense que je ressens envers mon fils, Philippe. Il a toujours montré une grande sensibilité aux défis internationaux, et je suis certain que, aux côtés de la reine Viviana II, nos nations ne cesseront de prospérer ensemble. En vertu des prérogatives constitutionnelles et des lois fondamentales de l'Empire, il est décrété que la lignée issue de notre maison, représentée par notre fils et ses descendants, est appelée à l'hérédité de la Couronne impériale de Francesim. Si, par le cours des événements, Sa Majesté Impériale l'Empereur Napoléon V venait à se trouver sans postérité directe, l'Empereur pourra, conformément aux lois impériales, adopter un héritier légitime issu de notre lignée, afin d'assurer la continuité de la dynastie et la stabilité de l'Empire. Il est évident que l'adoption ne serait envisagée que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles. Nous espérons de tout cœur que Sa Majesté Impériale, l'Empereur Napoléon V, pourra produire un héritier direct, assurant ainsi la continuité de la lignée. Néanmoins, si la nécessité devait se présenter, nous ferons ce qui est requis pour le bien de l'Empire et de nos peuples. En cas d'adoption par l'Empereur, les deux parties s'accorderont sur le fait que l'adoption ne compromettrait pas les intérêts souverains de l'Union Ionienne, tout en assurant la stabilité et la continuité de la dynastie impériale de Francesim. En attendant, le roi consort Philippe ainsi que ses descendants font, évidemment, partie intégrante de la famille impériale de Francesim. Je vous remercie pour votre attention.

[wayfarer-exchange]

Rules

As a participant of the Wayfarer Creative Exchange, you agree to the following:

Create a piece of finished fanwork in your chosen medium, within stated deadlines, for a randomly chosen recipient. Participants will not be matched in pairs.

All gifts will focus primarily on the recipient's MC. Do your best to create a gift that fits your giftee's MC.

Receive your gifted fanwork with grace; these are not commissions, and we encourage participation from creators of all skill levels and creative styles. Please also remember to acknowledge your gift with at least a "like"/"kudos" or equivalent - though we strongly encourage reblogs/comments and discussion/direct feedback!

Communicate with your assigned Host, providing wips at check-ins, and amend your work if requested.

If for any reason you cannot complete your gift or need to drop out of the Exchange, communicate this to your host as soon as possible so that we can arrange a pinch hitter.

Remain anonymous until gifts are exchanged; if you have a question for your giftee, use anonymous asks or direct it to your assigned Host correspondent.

Works will not be eligible for gifting until they have been reviewed and approval by the Hosts. Please do not post them before this time, or before the Reveal Day.

Finished works will be uploaded by the creator on Reveal Day to either Tumblr or Ao3 and tag both the official exchange blog and your giftee (or, in the case of Ao3, submitted to the Ao3 Exchange Collection as a gift for your giftee.)

Guidelines

General guidelines for all works, including treats

Sexually explicit works and those containing gore are not to be submitted. Canon-typical violence is allowed.

Whitewashing, overt stereotyping, and other racist depictions will not be tolerated; you will be asked to amend your work, and may (depending on the severity) be barred from future exchanges.

Similarly, homophobic, transphobic, and aphobic depictions will not be tolerated.

Art theft and plagiarism will not be tolerated.

Art

Art created as a gift for this exchange must be complete. We define "complete" as a minimum of clean, finished lineart (or its equivalent in your style)

If you are a traditional artist, you must submit your completed gift in the form of a high quality scan in order to ensure your gift is of reasonable quality and legibility.

Writing

The minimum word count for this exchange is 1000 words. Please also do your best to edit your fic to the best of your ability.

Written gifts must be a standalone piece. This work cannot be part of a series/chaptered work.

Treats

Treats have more relaxed guidelines, are not assigned by the hosts, and are created on an entirely voluntary/at-will basis by participants for one another. We highly encourage them!

Although guidelines for treats are more relaxed, please still do your best to create an accurate depiction of the MC you're treating!

Treats do not have to meet the same standards of completion as gifted works: drabbles and sketches are great! Treats also do not require host approval before posting/sharing. (Please do @ us and your recipient though, it helps us ensure we reblog everything made for the exchange!)

Treats may be posted at any time during the event, and do not have to wait for reveal day.

Other stuff

Spoiler policy: We encourage participation from new fans and old fans alike! As such, please try to ensure that any gifts or treats you create do not constitute a spoiler for their recipient. Participants will be encouraged to note on their reference sheet if they have not played the entirety of the current public build. The main exchange blog is not guaranteed to be entirely spoiler-free for the public build - proceed with caution. Please keep all alpha build spoilers to yourselves.

Generative AI policy: Generative AI falls under our definition of art theft and plagiarism. The Wayfarer Creative Exchange exists to celebrate the creativity of the Wayfarer community, and as such explicitly disallows the use of generative AI. If we have a reasonable suspicion that a participant is using generative AI to create their gift, that participant will be required to show proof of creation.

[mindfulmuse88]

Unbiased: Is it true that President Trump is ending the death penalty moratorium so it can be used for undocumented immigrants?

Disclaimer: I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Everything is purely factual and unbiased. This information is as of 2/15/25. First, yes, President Trump ended the federal death penalty moratorium, which had been imposed by President Biden. However, his administration has not stated that this decision was made to target illegal immigrants.

That said, this move should not come as a surprise. Trump was the first president since 2003 to resume federal executions during his first term, carrying out death sentences for individuals who had been on death row for years. In contrast, when Biden took office, he paused federal executions, and in his final weeks before leaving office, he commuted the death sentences of all but three inmates.

So, while it is true that Trump lifted the pause on executions put in place by Biden, this action aligns with his previous policies rather than being explicitly aimed at undocumented immigrants.

Confusion Over Florida's Proposed Immigration Law

Some of the confusion surrounding this issue comes from a new immigration proposal being considered by Florida legislators this week. This proposal would require that undocumented immigrants convicted of capital offenses automatically receive the death penalty.

Currently, anyone convicted of a capital offense in Florida is eligible for the death penalty, but the sentence is not automatic—judges can choose between death or life without parole. If passed, this proposal would eliminate that discretion for undocumented immigrants, making the death penalty mandatory in these cases. Additionally, the bill includes provisions requiring that illegal immigrants found to be gang members receive the maximum sentence for their crimes.

Potential Legal Challenges

However, it’s important to note that mandatory death sentences have been ruled unconstitutional. In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled in Woodson v. North Carolina that automatic death penalties violate the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. In that case, North Carolina had passed a law making the death penalty mandatory for all first-degree murder convictions, but the Supreme Court struck it down.

This raises questions about whether Florida’s proposal would hold up in court if passed. For it to be upheld, the Supreme Court would either have to overturn Woodson or rule that the Eighth Amendment does not apply to non-citizens. The same legal hurdles would exist at the federal level if the U.S. government attempted to enforce automatic death sentences for illegal immigrants. As it stands, the Eighth Amendment does apply to non-citizens.

Ultimately, whether this proposal becomes law—and whether it withstands constitutional scrutiny—remains uncertain.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Trudy Ring at The Advocate:

A federal court has permanently blocked Florida from enforcing its ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors and restrictions on the care for trans adults.

“Transgender opponents are of course free to hold their beliefs,” Judge Robert Hinkle of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida wrote in his ruling, issued Tuesday. “But they are not free to discriminate against transgender individuals just for being transgender. In time, discrimination against transgender individuals will diminish, just as racism and misogyny have diminished. To paraphrase a civil-rights advocate from an earlier time, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. “In the meantime, the federal courts have a role to play in upholding the Constitution and laws. The State of Florida can regulate as needed but cannot flatly deny transgender individuals safe and effective medical treatment — treatment with medications routinely provided to others with the state’s full approval so long as the purpose is not to support the patient’s transgender identity.” Hinkle also asserted, “Gender identity is real.” He had temporarily blocked the law last year. When hearing the case in December, he had ripped into Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for spreading lies about trans care for young people.

[...]

His ruling in the case of Doe v. Ladapo found that Florida Senate Bill 254 and the related Boards of Medicine rules were motivated by disapproval of transgender people and violate the equal protection rights of transgender individuals and parents of transgender minors in Florida. Florida was the first state to pass a law restricting access to health care for transgender adults. The ban on this care for minors was first enacted in March 2023 through the adoption of rules by the Florida Board of Medicine and Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine, at the urging of DeSantis, Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, and the Florida Department of Health. SB 254, which was passed by the legislature, signed by the governor, and took effect in May 2023, wrote the ban into state law, subject to a narrow continued-use exception for minors who had started treatment before the ban. SB 254 also created felony criminal and civil penalties for Florida medical providers. Later, SB 254 added severe restrictions that effectively blocked access to essential medical care for trans adults and minors who would be eligible for the continued-use exception, including requiring that care be provided exclusively by physicians, barring telehealth, and requiring patients to complete unique, onerous, and misleading consent forms.

[...] DeSantis has vowed to appeal the ruling. “Through their elected representatives, the people of Florida acted to protect children in this state, and the Court was wrong to override their wishes,” said a statement from his office, as quoted by the Associated Press. “As we’ve seen here in Florida, the United Kingdom, and across Europe, there is no quality evidence to support the chemical and physical mutilation of children. These procedures do permanent, life-altering damage to children, and history will look back on this fad in horror.”

In Doe v. Ladapo, Judge Robert Hinkle permanently blocks Florida SB254 from taking effect. SB254 was a law that banned gender-affirming care for trans minors and put significant restrictions on gender-affirming care for trans adults. A win for common sense!

See Also:

LGBTQ Nation: Federal judge overturns Florida’s gender-affirming care ban in historic victory for trans rights

[datasoong47]

So, just before the Civil War began, when the Southern states were beginning to secede but before the war broke out, there was a last-ditch effort to stop secession with a proposed amendment to the Constitution called the Corwin Amendment:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State

Basically, forbidding any future amendment from affecting slavery, though it's dubious whether it would've been effective, as some scholars have argued that a later amendment could explicitly repeal that one. At any rate, it was only ratified by five states, far short of the 3/4 requirement for ratification, namely Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Illinois, in addition to the Restored Government of Virginia (a Union-backed rival government for Virginia, after Virginia seceded) whose ratification was legally dubious. Of those five, three - Ohio, Maryland, and Illinois - later rescinded their ratifications (it's questionable whether states have any Constitutional power to rescind ratifications, but that's another issue entirely). So, it was an utter failure. It's still technically eligible to be ratified, however, as the Constitution sets no time frame for ratifications of amendments

I just learned tonight reading the Wikipedia page on that amendment that there was a much more recent attempt at ratification

In 1963, more than a century after the Corwin Amendment was submitted to the state legislatures by Congress, a joint resolution to ratify it was introduced in the Texas House of Representatives by Dallas Republican Henry Stollenwerck.[30] His joint resolution was referred to the House's Committee on Constitutional Amendments on March 7, 1963, but received no further consideration

Of course it was a Republican. But, seriously, 100 years later? I mean, it would obviously be entirely symbolic, but even so, that's a pretty blatantly racist symbolic effort

[posttexasstressdisorder]

Democracy Docket

Marc Elias

Thursday, January 30

New York court revives state’s Voting Rights Act

An appeals court restored the New York Voting Rights Act (NYVRA) today, which expands voter protections, overturning a lower court's decision to strike it down. Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) said the decision "only reaffirms the protections intended in the NYVRA."

Hundreds of civil rights groups oppose Pam Bondi’s AG nomination

Over 300 civil rights groups sent a letter this week to U.S. senators urging them to vote against Pam Bondi’s confirmation to attorney general, citing her extensive anti-voting record and opposition to civil rights.

Bondi is not yet in charge of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), but 10 days into President Donald Trump’s second term, his administration is already remaking the nation's top law enforcement agency from top to bottom. In a new YouTube video, Marc breaks down the detrimental actions taken so far and the ones to come.

Kash Patel, Trump’s FBI director pick, refuses to say who won 2020 election

Kash Patel, Trump’s pick for FBI director, refused to say who won the 2020 election during his Senate confirmation hearing today. Bondi also refused to say Trump lost in 2020 during one of her hearings.

House Republicans introduce bill to repeal crucial voting rights law

Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Scott Perry (R-Pa.) introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to repeal the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), a crucial law expanding access to voting.

The NVRA, often known as the Motor Voter Act, requires a driver’s license application to simultaneously serve as a voter registration application. It also requires programs offering public assistance to provide voter registration services, mandates that states use a federal mail-in voting registration form and more.

National Sheriffs Association reveals fealty to Trump, not the law

The National Sheriffs Association and its members want to curry favor with the Trump administration and are poised to assist in the most illegal and inhumane promises, including “mass deportation" and silencing dissent, Democracy Docket contributor Jessica Pishko argues in a new piece.

Hearings coming up tomorrow

A Virginia court will hold a hearing in a lawsuit challenging Gov. Glenn Youngkin's (R) voter purge program. Pro-voting groups assert the program wrongfully removed eligible voters shortly before the elections. The Justice Department — now under Trump — dropped its lawsuit challenging the program.

A Utah court will hear a challenge to the state's congressional map. Voters argue that the map is a partisan gerrymander that favors Republicans, violating the state constitution.

THE OPPOSITION

Holding Trump Accountable

The latest on Democratic officials’ lawsuit challenging Trump’s funding freeze

Democratic officials in 22 states and Washington, D.C. sued the Trump administration Tuesday challenging the federal funding freeze, asking the judge for a temporary restraining order, which would pause the freeze while litigation is ongoing.

Yesterday, the administration rescinded the memo that announced the freeze of federal programs and grants. Shortly after, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted a contradictory statement on X, explaining that the funding freeze had not been rescinded, only the memo itself had been.

A federal judge in Rhode Island asked the Democratic officials to submit a proposed order for the specific relief they sought in the wake of the rescinded memo. He gave the DOJ 24 hours to respond to the proposed order, which was submitted at 6:15 p.m. last night. As of 5 p.m. today, the Justice Department hasn’t responded.

Eighth lawsuit filed against Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order

Santa Clara County, California officials sued the Trump administration today challenging his executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship. This marks the eighth lawsuit filed against this order.

This is a daily newsletter that provides a quick and easy rundown of the voting and democracy news of the day. For questions about your subscription or general support, visit our FAQ page here.