28th Amendment to the US constitution?
January 26, 2002 12:22 PM Subscribe
28th Amendment to the US constitution? The "Alliance for Marriage" seeks to amend the United States consitution to define Marriage as between a man and a woman only, which would make it a first constitutional amendment to abrogate rather than protect individual freedoms. Bottom of the page has a link to fax your congressperson if you so choose.
BTW - if this kind of bigotry actually makes it into the Constitution, I'm leaving.
posted by scarabic at 12:38 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by scarabic at 12:38 PM on January 26, 2002
Since this would never actually be ratified, I don't think anyone should write to their senators about this. Let them make the vote...and if they vote for it, next election, vote for another congressman.
posted by Doug at 12:49 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by Doug at 12:49 PM on January 26, 2002
I would suspect that this has about as much a chance of getting into the Constitution as I have of being a host on BET.
Threatening to amend the Constitution is the loud scream of those who know they're close to defeat. Funny how that flag-burning amendment never quite made it in there, huh?
Politicians of any ideological stripe are loath to mess with the Constitution. The last time a special-interest group amended the Constitution for its own political purposes, we got stuck with Prohibition, and you see how well that went. The Constitution's the ultimate law, and there's no way that anyone fucks with that sacred document (our secular religion being, of course, The Law of America) idly.
I do think it's humorous, however, that Mississippi waited until 1984 to ratify the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote.
posted by solistrato at 12:51 PM on January 26, 2002
Threatening to amend the Constitution is the loud scream of those who know they're close to defeat. Funny how that flag-burning amendment never quite made it in there, huh?
Politicians of any ideological stripe are loath to mess with the Constitution. The last time a special-interest group amended the Constitution for its own political purposes, we got stuck with Prohibition, and you see how well that went. The Constitution's the ultimate law, and there's no way that anyone fucks with that sacred document (our secular religion being, of course, The Law of America) idly.
I do think it's humorous, however, that Mississippi waited until 1984 to ratify the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote.
posted by solistrato at 12:51 PM on January 26, 2002
first constitutional amendment to abrogate rather than protect individual freedoms
Wouldn't that be the 18th amendment (Prohibition) ?
posted by jozxyqk at 12:57 PM on January 26, 2002
Wouldn't that be the 18th amendment (Prohibition) ?
posted by jozxyqk at 12:57 PM on January 26, 2002
I like the convenient 'one click political fax' idea. I wonder if it's patented.
posted by zpousman at 1:03 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by zpousman at 1:03 PM on January 26, 2002
Why don't we do what everyone wants. Move all the i'm-gonna-tell-you-how-to-live-and-think people to the east coast and all the it's-none-of-your-business-let-me-be people to the west coast and create two separate nations.
We really don't get along anyway. Hell, the neighbors to my left are trying to convert my neighbors to my right to Christianity. My neighbors on the right are Roman Catholic. Uh....?
posted by fleener at 1:06 PM on January 26, 2002
We really don't get along anyway. Hell, the neighbors to my left are trying to convert my neighbors to my right to Christianity. My neighbors on the right are Roman Catholic. Uh....?
posted by fleener at 1:06 PM on January 26, 2002
Thank god for the second amendment (no, that's not a troll). I think it the reason that even far greater stupidity does not go on in Washington.
posted by Mick at 1:06 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by Mick at 1:06 PM on January 26, 2002
The Constitution and bigotry have a long history, from "Indians not taxed" to Dred Scott. Of course, the only way to get rid of a bad amendment is with another amendment, as we found out with Prohibition. It took an amendment to do away with slavery, too, which is all over the original Constitution.
posted by gimonca at 1:06 PM on January 26, 2002
The reason certain people are getting hot and bothered over this is Article IV, Section 1: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the Public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." That is, if Vermont or Hawaii or whoever decided to recognize marriages regardless of the gender of the participants, other states would be constitutionally forced to recognize those marriages as well.
posted by gimonca at 1:06 PM on January 26, 2002
Yeah it'll never happen. But still, seen the last amendment lately? It really seems pretty light on the scales of history, not entirely keeping in the scope with the rest of the document. Hmm... sorry, it's just a pet peeve, but they are getting worse.
posted by Wood at 1:08 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by Wood at 1:08 PM on January 26, 2002
I don't know as they're very close to defeat, sjc. A Defense of Marriage (DOMA) bill was passed in congress five years ago, and 35 states (scroll down) have DOMA laws in effect, it seems. That basically means that those states don't have to recognize homosexual marriages (or "civil unions" in VT, I think) from other states. I'm not very knowledgeable about these things, gimona, but the bill claims to be "an exercise of Congress' power under the "Effect" clause of Article IV, section 1," so I guess it just goes to show there's always a loophole.
[cheek: insert tongue] Oh, and here's some fun reading that might answer some of your questions about same-sex marriage. [cheek: remove tongue]
posted by whatnotever at 1:18 PM on January 26, 2002
[cheek: insert tongue] Oh, and here's some fun reading that might answer some of your questions about same-sex marriage. [cheek: remove tongue]
posted by whatnotever at 1:18 PM on January 26, 2002
Sorry, gimonca
posted by whatnotever at 1:20 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by whatnotever at 1:20 PM on January 26, 2002
Amendment XXVII
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
I understand Wood's peeve, and I think I'm adopting it as my own. That is lame.
posted by joemaller at 1:23 PM on January 26, 2002
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
I understand Wood's peeve, and I think I'm adopting it as my own. That is lame.
posted by joemaller at 1:23 PM on January 26, 2002
11 - 27
A few of these seem pretty boring (see 20), but easily three are as important as the bill of rights. Term limits might be considered very important. The prohibition experiment just seems like an embarrassing mistake.
Doesn't seem surprising that over time we have fewer major important changes - actually, that could be considered a good sign.
which would make it a first constitutional amendment to abrogate rather than protect individual freedoms.
this is a really good point (tho' of course jozxyqk is right, the 18 / 21 debacle explored that territory first).
posted by mdn at 1:36 PM on January 26, 2002
A few of these seem pretty boring (see 20), but easily three are as important as the bill of rights. Term limits might be considered very important. The prohibition experiment just seems like an embarrassing mistake.
Doesn't seem surprising that over time we have fewer major important changes - actually, that could be considered a good sign.
which would make it a first constitutional amendment to abrogate rather than protect individual freedoms.
this is a really good point (tho' of course jozxyqk is right, the 18 / 21 debacle explored that territory first).
posted by mdn at 1:36 PM on January 26, 2002
I think a big part of this is not to oppose gay marriages, but to stifle gay couples from adopting children and raising them homosexual. Personally, I don't think you can "raise" a child homosexual. If that's they way you're gonna be, I think a big part of it was in you when you were born. Your parents can't "make" you hetrosexual or "make" you homosexual.
posted by tomorama at 1:37 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by tomorama at 1:37 PM on January 26, 2002
I do think it's humorous, however, that Mississippi waited until 1984 to ratify the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote.
Shoot, they didn't abolish slavery until they ratified the 13th Amendment in 1995, so that's pretty prompt by their standards.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:39 PM on January 26, 2002
Shoot, they didn't abolish slavery until they ratified the 13th Amendment in 1995, so that's pretty prompt by their standards.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:39 PM on January 26, 2002
Hmm. I've hummed the main guitar riff in "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For," if not a solo. Bet you have too. It's kinda melodic, if you can't remember at the moment.
Easy to feel superior, isn't it, especially when the United States is one of the few nations on Earth which has failed to ever elect a female national chief executive or pass the ERA in the 1970s? (For comparison, even Third World nations such as Bangledesh have.) Might as well harp on some tiny part of the whole, rather than look at what's eating at all of the whole. It's easier to deal with the cognitive dissonance that way.
posted by raysmj at 1:53 PM on January 26, 2002
Easy to feel superior, isn't it, especially when the United States is one of the few nations on Earth which has failed to ever elect a female national chief executive or pass the ERA in the 1970s? (For comparison, even Third World nations such as Bangledesh have.) Might as well harp on some tiny part of the whole, rather than look at what's eating at all of the whole. It's easier to deal with the cognitive dissonance that way.
posted by raysmj at 1:53 PM on January 26, 2002
woops. What the hell? wrong quote, from another article somewhere far, far away. A pasting accident. Meant this.
I do think it's humorous, however, that Mississippi waited until 1984 to ratify the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote.
posted by raysmj at 2:02 PM on January 26, 2002
I do think it's humorous, however, that Mississippi waited until 1984 to ratify the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote.
posted by raysmj at 2:02 PM on January 26, 2002
I was afraid I just didn't get it, raysmj.
In fact, I think it was better with the mistake. There's certainly no way to refute it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:22 PM on January 26, 2002
In fact, I think it was better with the mistake. There's certainly no way to refute it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:22 PM on January 26, 2002
I don't think that people should get tax breaks for being married, in general. Get rid of that, and the issue is purely moral. Popular conception of what marriage means has changed a lot over time anyway, and it will continue to change. Let people of opposite or both sexes express their dedication in whatever kind of ceremony they want, let them call it marriage, and otherwise treat them the same as everybody else (in legal terms).
posted by bingo at 2:24 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by bingo at 2:24 PM on January 26, 2002
I failed to mention another important legal aspect of marriage: the consequences for divorce. People of any sex who get married would of course have to honor the state laws about alimony, child support, etc., or have a prenuptial agreement.
posted by bingo at 2:35 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by bingo at 2:35 PM on January 26, 2002
I understand Wood's point about the 27th Amendment being lame, but it can't really be claimed that is lameness represents a decline in the quality of amendments. The 27th Amendment actually passed Congress in the 1800s, but was never ratified by enough states. In the 1980s, the states were upset about something Congress was doing (I forget exactly what), so they started ratifying the amendment en masse, basically to spite Congress. Once enough state legislatures ratified it, the national archivist of all people declared that it was part of the Constitution in the early 1990s. Congress was unhappy, but even they recognized that opposing it would be political suicide.
I've always wondered if the precedent set with the 27th amendment would allow state legislatures to change their votes and ratify the ERA without it having to go through Congress again. Anyone have any theories?
posted by boltman at 2:44 PM on January 26, 2002
I've always wondered if the precedent set with the 27th amendment would allow state legislatures to change their votes and ratify the ERA without it having to go through Congress again. Anyone have any theories?
posted by boltman at 2:44 PM on January 26, 2002
mr_crash_davis: Thanks! That one so irked me I was hurrying through. In any case, what astounded me later was seeing that a whopping 35 states have defense of marriage acts. Not one or two, but 35. Can anyone honestly say this new amendment hasn't a snowball's chance of passing?
Honestly. Everyone thought the ERA would sail through at first, y'know, and for a while there it looked as if the conventional wisdom was correct. The the nation's long-overlooked shadow side made an apperance, brought out by a counter-movement headed by Washington U./Harvard grad Phyllis Schafly. She was appealing to something latent out there, and had plenty of assistance, as well as financial backing, as well as complacent liberals of the sort who would rather blame, oh, Mississippi or hold another self-congratulatory conference before admitting that there's a larger problem here.
posted by raysmj at 2:50 PM on January 26, 2002
Honestly. Everyone thought the ERA would sail through at first, y'know, and for a while there it looked as if the conventional wisdom was correct. The the nation's long-overlooked shadow side made an apperance, brought out by a counter-movement headed by Washington U./Harvard grad Phyllis Schafly. She was appealing to something latent out there, and had plenty of assistance, as well as financial backing, as well as complacent liberals of the sort who would rather blame, oh, Mississippi or hold another self-congratulatory conference before admitting that there's a larger problem here.
posted by raysmj at 2:50 PM on January 26, 2002
Nope, boltman. See Amendments Not Ratified: Beginning with the proposed Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has customarily included a provision requiring ratification within seven years from the time of the submission to the States. That seven-year provision was included in the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment, and it did expire, but in a huge fight the deadline was extended to 1982. It still failed ratification with nearly 3 extra years, and now, while I suppose Congress could revisit the issue again and overrule its own wording, thus allowing more states to pass ratification, that's exceedingly unlikely.
posted by dhartung at 2:55 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by dhartung at 2:55 PM on January 26, 2002
Oh, the other six that are out there, passed by Congress, but not yet ratified by the states, include:
* an amendment requiring one representative for every 30,000 persons, leading to a 9500-member House (superseded by later organizations capping it at 435!);
* an amendment abrogating citizenship for accepting "titles of nobility and honor" from foreign governments (this one is actually the basis of a whole class of conspiracy theories regarding the Constitution);
* an amendment submitted in 1861 that would have blocked federal laws interfering with slavery;
* an amendment allowing federal regulation of child labor;
* equal rights; and
* DC voting rights same as states (2 senators, 1 rep).
There are literally countless amendments that have been proposed in Congress but never passed. But these six are out there and a couple of them could come around and bite us in the butt one day. ;-)
The two amendments that seem to occupy the minds of Congresscritters the last umpty years are the Balanced Budget Amendment, a Partial Veto for the President Amendment (allowing scratching out of words Congress passed), and most recently, an amendment requiring supermajorities to pass tax increases. Incidentally, apart from Congress, the states themselves can also introduce amendments by calling for a Constitutional Convention, and as of 1982, 31 had done so in support of the balanced budget amendment; that number has declined as a few states rescinded. One of the open questions is how flexible such a convention might be and how far its purview could extend; but a number of years ago (1980s?) Congress passed an advisory resolution or some such setting up rules, or at least a rules process, for such a convention -- they'd want to strictly limit it, in general.
posted by dhartung at 3:10 PM on January 26, 2002
* an amendment requiring one representative for every 30,000 persons, leading to a 9500-member House (superseded by later organizations capping it at 435!);
* an amendment abrogating citizenship for accepting "titles of nobility and honor" from foreign governments (this one is actually the basis of a whole class of conspiracy theories regarding the Constitution);
* an amendment submitted in 1861 that would have blocked federal laws interfering with slavery;
* an amendment allowing federal regulation of child labor;
* equal rights; and
* DC voting rights same as states (2 senators, 1 rep).
There are literally countless amendments that have been proposed in Congress but never passed. But these six are out there and a couple of them could come around and bite us in the butt one day. ;-)
The two amendments that seem to occupy the minds of Congresscritters the last umpty years are the Balanced Budget Amendment, a Partial Veto for the President Amendment (allowing scratching out of words Congress passed), and most recently, an amendment requiring supermajorities to pass tax increases. Incidentally, apart from Congress, the states themselves can also introduce amendments by calling for a Constitutional Convention, and as of 1982, 31 had done so in support of the balanced budget amendment; that number has declined as a few states rescinded. One of the open questions is how flexible such a convention might be and how far its purview could extend; but a number of years ago (1980s?) Congress passed an advisory resolution or some such setting up rules, or at least a rules process, for such a convention -- they'd want to strictly limit it, in general.
posted by dhartung at 3:10 PM on January 26, 2002
Haha, that's pretty funny about the 27th amendment. I wonder why they've been adding the 7 year thing though, I mean if congress really wanted to add something to the constitution they might want to give more states a chance to 'have their say' at any point in the future.
And I wonder, could a state 'undo' their ratificatoin vote if it haddn't made it through and the political winds shift in the state?
I guess we'll just have to ask lawrence lessing.
posted by delmoi at 3:17 PM on January 26, 2002
And I wonder, could a state 'undo' their ratificatoin vote if it haddn't made it through and the political winds shift in the state?
I guess we'll just have to ask lawrence lessing.
posted by delmoi at 3:17 PM on January 26, 2002
I'm surprised I didn't see that before about the original proposal of the 27th. I'm still going to blame its actual inclusion on the latest ratifications. Besides, I bet that in 1789 the payroll for the legislatures was a much more significant part of the national budget.
posted by Wood at 3:56 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by Wood at 3:56 PM on January 26, 2002
Wood, you may find this interesting.
Yearly Congressional salaries:
1789: $1,500.
1817: $2,000.
1855: $3,000.
1865: $5,000.
1871: $7,500.
1874: $5,000.
1907: $7,500.
1925: $10,000.
1932: $9,000.
1933: $8,500.
1934: $ 9,000, then $9,500.
1935: $10,000
1947: $12,500.
1955: $22,500.
1965: $30,000.
1969: $42,500.
1975: $44,600.
1977: $57,500.
1979: $60,663.
1983: $69,800.
1984: $72,600.
1985: $75,100.
1987: $77,400, then $89,500.
1990: $96,600 - House, $98,400 - Senate.
1991: $125,100 - House; $101,900 then $125,100 - Senate.
1992: $129,500.
1993: $133,600
1998: $136,700.
2000: $141,300.
2001: $145,100.
2002: $150,000.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:31 PM on January 26, 2002
Yearly Congressional salaries:
1789: $1,500.
1817: $2,000.
1855: $3,000.
1865: $5,000.
1871: $7,500.
1874: $5,000.
1907: $7,500.
1925: $10,000.
1932: $9,000.
1933: $8,500.
1934: $ 9,000, then $9,500.
1935: $10,000
1947: $12,500.
1955: $22,500.
1965: $30,000.
1969: $42,500.
1975: $44,600.
1977: $57,500.
1979: $60,663.
1983: $69,800.
1984: $72,600.
1985: $75,100.
1987: $77,400, then $89,500.
1990: $96,600 - House, $98,400 - Senate.
1991: $125,100 - House; $101,900 then $125,100 - Senate.
1992: $129,500.
1993: $133,600
1998: $136,700.
2000: $141,300.
2001: $145,100.
2002: $150,000.
Source: Congressional Research Service.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:31 PM on January 26, 2002
raysmj & whatnotever: Oh, I didn't mean that we should be complacent about this. I'm not thinking that it'll just magically disappear and we have nothing to worry about. Personally, I think people who actually worry about the catastrophic effects that gay marraige will have on our country have too much time on their hands/severe problems. And I think that this should be fought tooth and nail.
But there is a huge difference between 35 states passing DOMA laws - which can be challenged in our court system - and adding a Constitutional Amendment saying such a thing, which makes it The Law of the Land. That's why, for the most part, the amendments added from the Bill of Rights on have mostly been technical ones - limiting terms, changing how senators are elected, clarifying the terms of succession, etc. Because everyone recognizes that once you put in the Constitution, it's incontrovertible. And I am so not the kind of guy to put the Founding Fathers on a pedestal (damnable Masonic bastards!), but they were smart when it came to altering the Constitution, making it rather tough.
Now, granted, gay marraige is one of those "hot-button" issues. But if something as politically safe as flag burning can't make it into the Constitution, I'm reasonable assured that something as volatile as gay marraige won't be etched into the two tablets of our Supreme Law.
God, I sound like Roy Cohn in Angels in America.
mdn: prohibition experiment just seems like an embarrassing mistake.
Prohibition allowed the Mafia to metastatize from small cutthroat gangs into a national criminal empire. Not just "embarrassing", I'd say. Then again, as an indirect result of the 18th Amendment, Las Vegas was created. You take the good, you take the bad...
posted by solistrato at 5:21 PM on January 26, 2002
But there is a huge difference between 35 states passing DOMA laws - which can be challenged in our court system - and adding a Constitutional Amendment saying such a thing, which makes it The Law of the Land. That's why, for the most part, the amendments added from the Bill of Rights on have mostly been technical ones - limiting terms, changing how senators are elected, clarifying the terms of succession, etc. Because everyone recognizes that once you put in the Constitution, it's incontrovertible. And I am so not the kind of guy to put the Founding Fathers on a pedestal (damnable Masonic bastards!), but they were smart when it came to altering the Constitution, making it rather tough.
Now, granted, gay marraige is one of those "hot-button" issues. But if something as politically safe as flag burning can't make it into the Constitution, I'm reasonable assured that something as volatile as gay marraige won't be etched into the two tablets of our Supreme Law.
God, I sound like Roy Cohn in Angels in America.
mdn: prohibition experiment just seems like an embarrassing mistake.
Prohibition allowed the Mafia to metastatize from small cutthroat gangs into a national criminal empire. Not just "embarrassing", I'd say. Then again, as an indirect result of the 18th Amendment, Las Vegas was created. You take the good, you take the bad...
posted by solistrato at 5:21 PM on January 26, 2002
The first chart on this page seems to say that the US budget in its first 50 years was around 20 million a year versus almost 2,000,000 million today. So the total budget has increased by 100,000 versus only 100 times for Congressional salaries. Do they even beat out inflation?
posted by Wood at 5:25 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by Wood at 5:25 PM on January 26, 2002
I agree with bingo. Married people don't deserve special tax breaks or penalties. Get the government out of the business of legislating morality!
posted by hitsman at 5:40 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by hitsman at 5:40 PM on January 26, 2002
Federal government spending comprised 3% of the GDP in 1900 and 19% in 1999.
posted by hitsman at 6:05 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by hitsman at 6:05 PM on January 26, 2002
My only problem with gay marriage is that gay men will insist on even more opulent wedding gowns than straight women thus driving the cost of weddings still higher. It's all aconspiracy by the bridal industry, I tell you...
posted by jonmc at 6:12 PM on January 26, 2002
posted by jonmc at 6:12 PM on January 26, 2002
"This Nation was founded upon the belief that every human being is endowed by our Creator with certain 'unalienable rights.'"
That would require a Creator.
posted by aaronshaf at 12:59 AM on January 27, 2002
That would require a Creator.
posted by aaronshaf at 12:59 AM on January 27, 2002
"I don't think that people should get tax breaks for being married, in general"
Actually most married couples pay more in taxes than 2 single people living together would.
Even the basic deduction favors single vs. married people.
posted by SuzySmith at 3:26 AM on January 27, 2002
Actually most married couples pay more in taxes than 2 single people living together would.
Even the basic deduction favors single vs. married people.
posted by SuzySmith at 3:26 AM on January 27, 2002
The last time a special-interest group amended the Constitution for its own political purposes, we got stuck with Prohibition, and you see how well that went. The Constitution's the ultimate law, and there's no way that anyone fucks with that sacred document (our secular religion being, of course, The Law of America) idly.
A couple of other corrections here. Interest groups have been behind a number of amendments, including not only Prohibition, but the 19th Amendment. Neither passed without mainstream support, but they were sparked by interest group lobbying or activity. And, just so's you'll know, being against liquor was once considered a progressive thing to be. You only need to consider how many abolitionists were also a part of the temperance movement, including Horace Greely, Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony.
Oh, and then there is Populist movement's role in the income tax law of 1894. But then you have to get into that whole bit about the Supreme Court's striking the law down, Bob Taft's later hope that putting the income tax up a proposed amendment (in 1913) would do away with the idea for good, only to be horribly mistaken, etc. Well, I just did go into it, but the link will tell you much more.
posted by raysmj at 3:29 AM on January 27, 2002
A couple of other corrections here. Interest groups have been behind a number of amendments, including not only Prohibition, but the 19th Amendment. Neither passed without mainstream support, but they were sparked by interest group lobbying or activity. And, just so's you'll know, being against liquor was once considered a progressive thing to be. You only need to consider how many abolitionists were also a part of the temperance movement, including Horace Greely, Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony.
Oh, and then there is Populist movement's role in the income tax law of 1894. But then you have to get into that whole bit about the Supreme Court's striking the law down, Bob Taft's later hope that putting the income tax up a proposed amendment (in 1913) would do away with the idea for good, only to be horribly mistaken, etc. Well, I just did go into it, but the link will tell you much more.
posted by raysmj at 3:29 AM on January 27, 2002
If they'd just ratify an ammendment that would abolish the institution of marriage altogether, that would end the argument for sure.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:34 AM on January 27, 2002
posted by ZachsMind at 7:34 AM on January 27, 2002
crash: the earliest the CPI has been guesstimated back to is 1820, when it was $13.28 per 1991 dollar. So give the 1817 salary of $2000 a 15x kicker and you get $30,000. Of course, in those days, it was a part-time job.
Now that amendment about the pay raise has an intriguing interaction with the decision several years back to grant an automatic cost-of-living bump to the Congressional salary, unless Congress specifically votes it down, which I believe they did last fall for 2002.
That bump also affects the Supreme Court and the Vice President, but the President's salary was set at $200,000. The bump was going to make the VP earn more than the President as of this year or some such, so before Bush came in they set the presidental salary at a flat $400,000. He still doesn't get a cost-of-living bump, though.
posted by dhartung at 7:45 AM on January 27, 2002
Now that amendment about the pay raise has an intriguing interaction with the decision several years back to grant an automatic cost-of-living bump to the Congressional salary, unless Congress specifically votes it down, which I believe they did last fall for 2002.
That bump also affects the Supreme Court and the Vice President, but the President's salary was set at $200,000. The bump was going to make the VP earn more than the President as of this year or some such, so before Bush came in they set the presidental salary at a flat $400,000. He still doesn't get a cost-of-living bump, though.
posted by dhartung at 7:45 AM on January 27, 2002
Interest groups have been behind a number of amendments, including not only Prohibition, but the 19th Amendment.
sure, any important change to the constitution had to be started by an interest group. The interesting point was that prohibition was the only one to abridge rather than extend rights. We made a law part of the constitution when it could hardly be enforced
And, just so's you'll know, being against liquor was once considered a progressive thing to be.
This is more complicated than you make it sound though. The two primary groups that fought for prohibition were the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and the Anti-Saloon League. In certain ways, their objectives were achieved even once prohibition was repealed.
Feminism was often combined with the temperance movement because women were expected not to drink, and so only saw the external negative effects, & had no empathy for the enjoyment. During prohibition, women were equally accepted in the speakeasies, and by the time of repeal had a little more empirical information.
And after repeal, statutes were put in place to avoid the old saloons from reviving; instead, bars and taverns without back rooms and dirty business deals going on opened, and welcomed all customers.
And we still don't drink as much as they did before the temperance movement, though the rate has been rising pretty steadily since the repeal of prohibition.
posted by mdn at 8:53 AM on January 27, 2002
sure, any important change to the constitution had to be started by an interest group. The interesting point was that prohibition was the only one to abridge rather than extend rights. We made a law part of the constitution when it could hardly be enforced
And, just so's you'll know, being against liquor was once considered a progressive thing to be.
This is more complicated than you make it sound though. The two primary groups that fought for prohibition were the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and the Anti-Saloon League. In certain ways, their objectives were achieved even once prohibition was repealed.
Feminism was often combined with the temperance movement because women were expected not to drink, and so only saw the external negative effects, & had no empathy for the enjoyment. During prohibition, women were equally accepted in the speakeasies, and by the time of repeal had a little more empirical information.
And after repeal, statutes were put in place to avoid the old saloons from reviving; instead, bars and taverns without back rooms and dirty business deals going on opened, and welcomed all customers.
And we still don't drink as much as they did before the temperance movement, though the rate has been rising pretty steadily since the repeal of prohibition.
posted by mdn at 8:53 AM on January 27, 2002
The flag-burning amendment lacked legs because nobody really feels that flag-burning is a threat. A despicable act, yes, but a broader menace to society, no.
Proponents of the marriage amendment feel, correctly or not, that gay marriage and "incidents of marriage" provisions are a direct threat to traditional family life -- in fact, that they might deliver the coup de grace to traditional family life hemmoraging for 35 years under various other assaults.
There position is valid (granting for the moment their premises) because many liberal reforms in family and sexual life, which at first appeared to minor or incidental, have, in fact, accumulated into some very siginficant social changes.
Birth control pills, for example, overcame significant initial opposition because they were pitched as a tool for married couples to control family size, an objective with which most people sympathized (even the Catholic Church and other anti-birth-control institutions concur with the ends of family controlling family size, just disagree on means).
Yet, relatively quickly, birth control pills became the means whereby people could engage in pre-marital and non-marital as a long-term lifestyle choice, without the burden or embarassment of pregnancy, and for quite a while now, pre-marital cohabitation has been absolutely institutionalized among all but the most religiously orthodox -- a completely mainstreamed practice sanctioned and permissible among professionals, managers, and all other sorts of people who have instantly lost their jobs and social status for engaging in such behavior in the not so distant past.
Similar unanticipated (or, unadvertised) effects can be seen with liberalized welfare laws (the explosion and then normalization of unwed parenthood in the lower classes), liberalized divorce laws, and so forth.
Social conservatives, thus, have every reason to oppose domestic partnership arrangements with every tool in their arsenal.
posted by MattD at 9:59 AM on January 27, 2002
Proponents of the marriage amendment feel, correctly or not, that gay marriage and "incidents of marriage" provisions are a direct threat to traditional family life -- in fact, that they might deliver the coup de grace to traditional family life hemmoraging for 35 years under various other assaults.
There position is valid (granting for the moment their premises) because many liberal reforms in family and sexual life, which at first appeared to minor or incidental, have, in fact, accumulated into some very siginficant social changes.
Birth control pills, for example, overcame significant initial opposition because they were pitched as a tool for married couples to control family size, an objective with which most people sympathized (even the Catholic Church and other anti-birth-control institutions concur with the ends of family controlling family size, just disagree on means).
Yet, relatively quickly, birth control pills became the means whereby people could engage in pre-marital and non-marital as a long-term lifestyle choice, without the burden or embarassment of pregnancy, and for quite a while now, pre-marital cohabitation has been absolutely institutionalized among all but the most religiously orthodox -- a completely mainstreamed practice sanctioned and permissible among professionals, managers, and all other sorts of people who have instantly lost their jobs and social status for engaging in such behavior in the not so distant past.
Similar unanticipated (or, unadvertised) effects can be seen with liberalized welfare laws (the explosion and then normalization of unwed parenthood in the lower classes), liberalized divorce laws, and so forth.
Social conservatives, thus, have every reason to oppose domestic partnership arrangements with every tool in their arsenal.
posted by MattD at 9:59 AM on January 27, 2002
Even the basic deduction favors single vs. married people.
I really don't think this is true, at least in California, Washington, and Kansas (states where I've paid taxes). I don't have the evidence though...
posted by bingo at 10:18 AM on January 27, 2002
I really don't think this is true, at least in California, Washington, and Kansas (states where I've paid taxes). I don't have the evidence though...
posted by bingo at 10:18 AM on January 27, 2002
Check out the American Association for Single People, which "makes marital status discrimination its top priority". Looks pretty informative, actually.
posted by hitsman at 10:24 AM on January 27, 2002
posted by hitsman at 10:24 AM on January 27, 2002
mdn: Actually, heavy drinking increased after prohibition. The rest of the stats you mention are heavily disputed, with many accounts having it that drinking levels returned to their pre-Prohibition level in the 1960s. (The "prohibition did some good" list also usually includes a bit about a cirrhosis of the liver declining, when actually the rate had been declining before Prohibition).
Also, I only mentioned one feminist leader in my entire post, so I wasn't talking about that angle in particular. The issue, though, could easily become a progressive thing again, much as with tobacco policy and anti-pornography movements or sentiments, although there will likely never be Prohibition again. To give an example, did you see today's Doonesbury?
posted by raysmj at 10:31 AM on January 27, 2002
Also, I only mentioned one feminist leader in my entire post, so I wasn't talking about that angle in particular. The issue, though, could easily become a progressive thing again, much as with tobacco policy and anti-pornography movements or sentiments, although there will likely never be Prohibition again. To give an example, did you see today's Doonesbury?
posted by raysmj at 10:31 AM on January 27, 2002
More on the marriage tax issue. Apparently it's complicated.
posted by bingo at 10:33 AM on January 27, 2002
posted by bingo at 10:33 AM on January 27, 2002
The anti-gay marriage position seems to rely on an inverted argument about exemplarity: if gays get married, then heterosexuals won't. This doesn't make sense to me. (Personally, when it comes to role models, I'd take two gay men in a permanent relationship over any number of adulterous or divorced conservative politicians that come to mind.) One could just as well argue that the pro-gay marriage position is more authentically conservative than the anti- position, since it celebrates domesticity, monogamy, and the family--whereas the real upshot of the anti- position is that gays ought to be inconvenienced as much as possible from forming permanent attachments. Why that is socially desirable eludes me.
posted by thomas j wise at 12:03 PM on January 27, 2002
posted by thomas j wise at 12:03 PM on January 27, 2002
Yet, relatively quickly, birth control pills became the means whereby people could engage in pre-marital and non-marital as a long-term lifestyle choice, without the burden or embarassment of pregnancy, and for quite a while now, pre-marital cohabitation has been absolutely institutionalized among all but the most religiously orthodox...Similar unanticipated (or, unadvertised) effects can be seen with liberalized welfare laws (the explosion and then normalization of unwed parenthood in the lower classes), liberalized divorce laws, and so forth.
shouldn't birth control have made unwed parenthood *drop*? even if not, how does it *encourage* it? your conclusions are in no way based upon your premises.
posted by pikachulolita at 5:07 PM on January 27, 2002
shouldn't birth control have made unwed parenthood *drop*? even if not, how does it *encourage* it? your conclusions are in no way based upon your premises.
posted by pikachulolita at 5:07 PM on January 27, 2002
pikachulolita: I believe he's crediting liberalized welfare laws with the rise in unwed parenthood, not the Pill. If you parse the statement correctly, the final sentence compares the unanticipated effects of liberalized welfare laws with the unanticipated effects of the Pill as stated in the earlier sentence.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:36 PM on January 27, 2002
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:36 PM on January 27, 2002
« Older A really cool idea. | A Rose Is A Rose Is A Not A Good Name For Your... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Rastafari at 12:29 PM on January 26, 2002