Australia in 1901 how was life for fourteen year olds in Australia in 1901?

Why is 1999 an important date?

Constitution of the United States sets forth the nation's fundamental laws. It establishes the form of the national government and defines the rights and liberties of the American people. It also lists the aims of the government and the methods of achieving them. The Constitution was written to organize a strong national government for the American states. Previously, the nation's leaders had established a national government under the Articles of Confederation (see ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION). But the Articles granted independence to each state. They lacked the authority to make the states work together to solve national problems. After the states won independence in the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), they faced the problems of peacetime government. The states had to enforce law and order, collect taxes, pay a large public debt, and regulate trade among themselves. They also had to deal with Indian tribes and negotiate with other governments. Leading statesmen, such as George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, began to discuss the creation of a strong national government under a new constitution. Hamilton helped bring about a national convention that met in Philadelphia in 1787 to revise the Articles of Confederation. But a majority of the delegates at the convention decided instead to write a new plan of government-the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution established not merely a league of states but a government that exercised its authority directly over all citizens. The Constitution also defined clearly the powers of the national government. In addition, it established protection for the rights of the states and of every individual. The supreme law of the land The Constitution consists of a preamble, 7 articles, and 27 amendments. It sets up a federal system by dividing powers between the national and state governments. It also establishes a balanced national government by dividing authority among three independent branches-the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. The executive branch enforces the law, the legislative branch makes the law, and the judicial branch interprets the law. The executive branch of the national government is usually represented by the president, the legislative branch by Congress, and the judicial branch by the Supreme Court. This division of the government into three branches is known as the separation of powers. Each branch can use its powers to check and balance (exercise control over) the other two. See UNITED STATES, GOVERNMENT OF THE (Separation of powers). Federal powers listed in the Constitution include the right to collect taxes, declare war, and regulate trade. In addition to these delegated, or expressed, powers (those listed in the Constitution), the national government has implied powers (those reasonably suggested by the Constitution). The implied powers enable the government to respond to the changing needs of the nation. For example, Congress had no delegated power to print paper money. But such a power is implied in the delegated powers of borrowing and coining money. There are some powers that the Constitution does not give to the national government or forbid to the states. These reserved powers belong to the people or to the states. State powers include the right to legislate on divorce, marriage, and public schools. Powers reserved for the people include the right to own property and to be tried by a jury. In some cases, the national and state governments have concurrent powers-that is, both levels of government may act. The national government has supreme authority in case of a conflict. The Supreme Court has the final authority to explain the Constitution. It can set aside any law-federal, state, or local-that conflicts with any part of the Constitution. The need for the Constitution The government established by the Articles of Confederation was not strong enough to govern the new nation. For example, it lacked an executive branch and a system of national courts. It could not regulate trade between the states or tax the states or their citizens. In addition, it could not maintain its own army. The government was little more than an assembly of the representatives of 13 independent states. Before almost any measure could be adopted, it had to be approved by at least 9 of the states. In 1783, after the Revolutionary War, the nation entered a period of unstable commercial and political conditions. Alexander Hamilton and his supporters would have had little success in their campaign for a new constitution if conditions had been better. Some historians have painted the troubles of the new republic in much too gloomy colors. But little doubt remains that the situation became steadily worse after 1783. Each state acted almost like an independent country. Each ran its own affairs exactly as it saw fit, with little concern for the needs of the republic. The states circulated a dozen different currencies, most of which had little value. Neighboring states taxed each other's goods. The United Kingdom refused to reopen the channels of trade that the colonies had depended on for their economic well-being. The state legislatures refused to pay the debts they had assumed during the Revolutionary War. Many states passed laws that enabled debtors to escape paying their obligations. Worst of all, some people began to think once again of taking up arms in order to solve their problems. In western Massachusetts in 1786, hundreds of farmers under Captain Daniel Shays rebelled against the state government in Boston. State troops finally put down Shays's Rebellion (see SHAYS'S REBELLION). George Washington and other leaders wondered whether the colonies had rebelled against the United Kingdom in vain. They felt it was time to end these troubles and bring peace and order by forming a new national government. This new government would have to be strong enough to gain obedience at home and respect abroad. Representatives from five states met in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1786. They proposed that the states appoint commissioners to meet in Philadelphia and consider revising the Articles of Confederation (see ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION). Congress agreed to the proposal and suggested that each state select delegates to a constitutional convention. The Constitutional Convention The convention was supposed to open on May 14, 1787. But few of the 55 delegates had arrived in Philadelphia by that date. Finally, on May 25, the convention formally opened in Independence Hall. Twelve states had responded to the call for the convention. Rhode Island refused to send delegates because it did not want the national government to interfere with its affairs. Of the 55 delegates, 39 signed the United States Constitution on Sept. 17, 1787. One of the signers was John Dickinson of Delaware, who left the convention but asked another delegate, George Read, to sign for him. William Jackson of Philadelphia, a former major in the Revolutionary War who was chosen to serve as the convention secretary, witnessed the signatures. The delegates included some of the most experienced and patriotic men in the new republic. George Washington served as president of the convention. Benjamin Franklin, at the age of 81, attended as a representative of Pennsylvania. The brilliant Alexander Hamilton represented New York. James Madison of Virginia received the title of "Father of the Constitution" with his speeches, negotiations, and attempts at compromise. Madison told the delegates they were considering a plan that "would decide forever the fate of republican government." He kept a record of the delegates' debates and decisions. Other men who had much to do with writing the new Constitution included John Dickinson, Gouverneur Morris, Edmund Randolph, Roger Sherman, James Wilson, and George Wythe. Morris was given the task of putting all the convention's resolutions and decisions into polished form. Morris actually "wrote" the Constitution. The original copy of the document is preserved in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C. Several important figures of the time did not attend the convention. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were absent on other government duties. Samuel Adams and John Jay failed to be appointed delegates from their states. Patrick Henry refused to serve after his appointment because he opposed granting any more power to the national government. Three leading members of the convention--Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, and Edmund Randolph-refused to sign the Constitution because they disagreed with parts of it. The background of the Constitution. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention relied greatly on past experience as they worked to create a new government. They recalled many important events in the development of constitutional government. These included the granting of Magna Carta, an English constitutional document, in 1215 and the meeting of the Jamestown representative assembly in 1619 (see MAGNA CARTA). Some of the American Colonies also served as examples of constitutional forms of government. While colonial governments had weaknesses, they had progressed beyond other governments of their time in achieving liberty under law. All American states established constitutional governments after they declared their independence from the United Kingdom in 1776. In 1777, John Jay of New York had helped write a constitution for his state. John Adams of Massachusetts had helped write the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780. Delegates to the convention in Philadelphia used many ideas and words from the constitutions of these and other states. The delegates also drew on their own experiences. Franklin had proposed a plan at the Albany Congress of 1754 to unify the colonies under a central government (see ALBANY CONGRESS). Washington remembered his own problems during the war when, as commander in chief, he had to work with the frequently divided Continental Congress. Almost every delegate to the convention had served as a soldier or administrator of the government. They often disagreed on details but were united in wanting the new government to be strong enough to rule the nation. They also wanted it to respect the liberties of the states and of the people. The compromises. The task of creating a new government was not easily accomplished. Disputes among the delegates nearly ended the convention on several occasions. For example, delegates from the large states disagreed with those from the small states about representation in the national legislature. The larger states favored the Virginia Plan, under which population would determine the number of representatives a state could send to the legislature. The small states supported the New Jersey Plan, which proposed that all the states would have an equal number of representatives. The Connecticut delegates suggested a compromise that settled the problem. Their plan provided for equal representation in the Senate, along with representation in proportion to population in the House of Representatives. This proposal became known as the Connecticut Compromise or the Great Compromise. Compromises also settled conflicts over the issue of slavery. The delegates from the Northern states wanted Congress to have the power to forbid the foreign slave trade. Most Southern delegates did not wish Congress to have this power. A compromise decided that Congress would not be allowed to regulate the foreign slave trade until 1808. Another compromise involved the question of how to count slaves in determining how many members of Congress a state could have. Slaves were not considered citizens, and so the convention agreed that only three-fifths of a state's slaves could be counted. The delegates agreed that each state should hold a special convention to discuss and vote on the Constitution. They also decided that as soon as nine states had ratified (approved) the Constitution, the Constitution would take effect and they could begin to organize the new government. Ratifying the Constitution Less than three months after the Constitution was signed, Delaware became the first state to ratify it, on Dec. 7, 1787. New Hampshire was the ninth state, putting the Constitution into effect on June 21, 1788. But the Founding Fathers could not be sure that the Constitution would be generally accepted until the important states of New York and Virginia had ratified it. Powerful organized opposition to the Constitution had developed in these two states and in others. Such people as Elbridge Gerry, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and George Mason spoke out against ratification. Critics objected that a bill of rights had not been included, that the president had too much independence, and that the Senate was too aristocratic. They also thought Congress had too many powers and the national government had too much authority. Friends of the Constitution rallied support for ratification. They became known as Federalists. Their opponents were called Anti-Federalists. The two groups promoted their causes in newspapers, in pamphlets, and in debates in the ratifying conventions (see ANTI-FEDERALISTS; FEDERALIST, THE; FEDERALIST PARTY). The groups developed into the first American political parties. Virginia ratified the Constitution on June 25, 1788, and New York did so on July 26. Early in January 1789, all the ratifying states except New York selected presidential electors in their legislatures or by a direct vote of the people. On February 4, the electors named George Washington as the first president of the United States. The first Congress under the Constitution met in New York City on March 4. Washington was inaugurated on April 30. North Carolina and Rhode Island refused to approve the Constitution and take part in the new government until Congress agreed to add a bill of rights. The Bill of Rights The Federalists might never have obtained ratification in several important states if they had not promised to support amendments to the Constitution. These amendments were written to protect individual liberties against possible unjust rule by the national government. Most state constitutions that were adopted during the Revolution had included a clear declaration of the rights of all people. Most Americans believed that no constitution could be considered complete without such a declaration. George Mason of Virginia was responsible for the first and most famous American bill of rights, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776. He and Patrick Henry might have prevented ratification of the Constitution in Virginia if the Federalists had not agreed to their demands for amendments. James Madison led the new Congress in proposing amendments. He suggested 15 amendments, and the Congress accepted 12 of them to be submitted for approval by the states under the amending process outlined in the Fifth Article of the Constitution. By Dec. 15, 1791, enough states had approved 10 of the 12 amendments to make them a permanent addition to the Constitution. These amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. One of the two unapproved amendments dealt with the size of the House of Representatives. It would have changed representation from no more than one representative for every 30,000 people to one for every 50,000 people. The other unapproved amendment provided that whenever Congress changed the salaries of its members, the change could not take effect until after the next election of representatives had been held. This amendment was ratified in 1992. See BILL OF RIGHTS. The development of the Constitution Through the years, the Constitution has developed to meet changing needs. James Madison declared, "In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce." The Constitution was designed to serve the interests of the people-rich and poor, Northerners and Southerners, farmers, workers, and business people. The Anti-Federalists accepted defeat when the Constitution was adopted and set about to win power under its rules. Their action set a style for American politics that has never changed. Americans sometimes feel dissatisfied with the policies of those who govern. But few Americans have condemned the constitutional system or demanded a second constitutional convention. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention believed strongly in the rule of the majority, but they wanted to protect minorities against any unjustness by the majority. They achieved this goal by separating and balancing the powers of government. Other basic constitutional aims included respect for the rights of individuals and states, rule by the people, separation of church and state, and supremacy of the national government. Amendments are additions to the Constitution. Today, there are 27 amendments. An amendment may be proposed by two-thirds of each house of Congress, or by a national convention called by Congress in response to requests by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It becomes part of the Constitution after being ratified either by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions in three-fourths of the states. Congress decides which form of ratification should be used and how much time the states have to consider each amendment. In many cases, Congress has chosen a seven-year period for such consideration. The process of amending the Constitution was designed to be difficult, so that the nation would have to think carefully about any proposed changes before adopting them. Laws have added to the meaning of the Constitution. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew they could not write laws for every possible situation. Therefore, they gave Congress the right to pass all laws that were "necessary and proper" to carry out powers granted by the Constitution to the president, Congress, and federal courts. Congress has passed laws to establish such administrative organizations as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Postal Service. Congress has also passed laws to regulate interstate commerce, thereby controlling many aspects of the economy. Court decisions. Federal and state judges apply the Constitution in many court cases. The Supreme Court has the final authority in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution in any specific case. The court has the power of judicial review-that is, it can declare a law unconstitutional. The court has this power largely because of the decision of Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803 (see MARBURY V. MADISON). Since that time, the court has ruled that all or parts of more than 125 federal laws and over 1,000 state laws were unconstitutional. The court can also overrule itself, and it has done so about 200 times. Presidential actions. Strong presidents have used their authority to expand the simple words of the Second Article of the Constitution into a source of great presidential power. Such presidents include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Washington, for example, made the president the leading figure in foreign affairs. Lincoln used the powers set forth in the article to free slaves during the American Civil War (1861-1865). Customs have made the Constitution flexible and have added to the powers of the national government. For example, the president's Cabinet developed from the words in the Second Article that permit the chief executive to "require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices. ..." State and party actions. The Constitution provides for a general method of electing a president. It does not mention political parties. But state laws and political-party practices have changed the constitutional system of voting into the exciting campaigns and elections that take place today. The Constitution has continued to develop in response to the demands of an ever-growing society through all these methods. Yet the spirit and wording of the Constitution have remained constant. People of each generation have applied its provisions to their own problems in ways that seem reasonable to them. The British statesman William E. Gladstone described the Constitution as "the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man." In a world of change and struggle, the American people have no more precious possession than this great document. Contributor: Bruce Allen Murphy, Ph.D., Fred Morgan Kirby Professor of Civil Rights, Lafayette College. Questions Why were the Articles of Confederation of 1781 inadequate for governing the United States? What compromises were made in forming the Constitution? What were some major objections against the newly formed Constitution? How did controversy over the Constitution result in creating the first American political parties? In what two states was there especially powerful organized opposition to ratifying the Constitution? What government body has the final authority in interpreting the Constitution? What were some of the reasons for including a bill of rights in the Constitution? What are delegated powers? Implied powers? Reserved powers? Concurrent powers? Additional resources Amar, Akhil R. America's Constitution. Random Hse., 2005. Fradin, Dennis B. The Founders: The 39 Stories Behind the U.S. Constitution. Walker, 2005. Younger readers. Leebrick, Kristal. The United States Constitution. Bridgestone, 2002. Younger readers. Levy, Leonard W., and Karst, K. L., eds. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. 2nd ed. 6 vols. Macmillan Lib. Reference, 2000. Maddex, Robert L. The U.S. Constitution A to Z. CQ Pr., 2002. Vile, John. The Constitutional Convention of 1787. 2 vols. ABC-CLIO, 2005. Constitution of the United States/The Constitution The text of the Constitution follows. All words are given their modern spelling and capitalization. Brackets-[ ]-indicate parts that have been changed or set aside by amendments. Notes follow some sections to explain the meaning of certain passages or describe how certain passages have worked in practice. The notes were written by Bruce Allen Murphy. Preamble We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Article I The legislative branch Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. Notes: The first three articles of the Constitution divide the powers of the United States government among three separate branches: (1) the legislative branch, represented by Congress; (2) the executive branch, represented by the president; and (3) the judicial branch, represented by the Supreme Court. This division, called the separation of powers, is designed to prevent any branch of the government from becoming too powerful. Article I says that only Congress has the power to make laws. Congress cannot give these powers to any other body. Through the years, however, Congress has created various federal agencies to make regulations and put its policies into practice. Such agencies include the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Power Commission, and the Commission on Civil Rights. The two-house Congress was one of the most important compromises of the Constitutional Convention. The small states at the convention supported the New Jersey plan, under which each state would have had the same number of representatives. The large states at the convention wanted the Virginia plan, which provided representation based on population. As a compromise, one house was chosen according to each plan. The House of Representatives Section 2 (1). The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. Notes: Members of the House of Representatives are elected to two-year terms. If a person is eligible to vote for the "most numerous branch" of his or her state legislature, he or she is also eligible to vote for members of Congress. The "most numerous branch" is the house that has the most members. All states except Nebraska have a two-house state legislature. The question of who can vote for state legislators is entirely up to the state, subject to the restrictions of the Constitution and federal law. The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments forbid the states to deny or restrict a citizen's right to vote because of race, sex, or failure to pay a tax; or age if the person is at least 18 years old. Section 2 (2). No person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen. Notes: Each state decides for itself the requirements for legal residence, subject to constitutional limits. Most representatives live not only in the state but also in the district from which they are chosen. Section 2 (3). Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, [which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons]. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative; [and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose 3, Massachusetts 8, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations 1, Connecticut 5, New York 6, New Jersey 4, Pennsylvania 8, Delaware 1, Maryland 6, Virginia 10, North Carolina 5, South Carolina 5, and Georgia 3]. Notes: The effect of this paragraph has been greatly changed, both by amendments and by new conditions. It now provides only three things: (1) the number of representatives given to each state shall be based on its population; (2) Congress must see that the people of the United States are counted every 10 years; and (3) each state gets at least one representative. The Founding Fathers probably considered the words "and direct taxes" to apply to poll and property taxes. The 16th Amendment gives Congress the right to tax a person according to the size of his or her income, rather than to tax a person according to the population of the state in which the person happens to live. In the reference to "three-fifths of all other persons," the "other persons" meant black slaves. Since there are no longer any slaves, this part of the paragraph no longer has any meaning. The average House district has well over half a million people, so the requirement that there shall be no more than one representative for every 30,000 people no longer has any practical force. In 1929, Congress fixed the total number of representatives at 435. Section 2 (4). When vacancies happen in the representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. Notes: If a vacancy occurs in a House seat, the state governor must call a special election to fill it. However, if the next regularly scheduled election is to be held soon, the governor may allow the seat to remain empty rather than call a special election. Section 2 (5). The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment. Notes: The House chooses an officer called the speaker to lead meetings (see SPEAKER). The House alone has the power to bring impeachment charges against an official. The Senate tries impeachment cases. See IMPEACHMENT. The Senate Section 3 (1). The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, [chosen by the legislature thereof,] for six years; and each senator shall have one vote. Notes: The Constitution at first provided that each state legislature should pick two senators. The 17th Amendment changed this rule by allowing the voters of each state to choose their own senators. Section 3 (2). Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one-third may be chosen every second year; [and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies]. Notes: Senators are elected to six-year terms. Every two years, one-third of the senators are elected and two-thirds are holdovers. This arrangement makes the Senate a continuing body, unlike the House, whose entire membership is elected every two years. The 17th Amendment changed the method of filling vacancies. The governor chooses a senator until the people elect one. Section 3 (3). No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen. Notes: In 1806, Henry Clay of Kentucky was appointed to fill an unexpired term in the Senate. He was only 29, a few months younger than the minimum age, but no one challenged the appointment. In 1793, Albert Gallatin was elected to the Senate from Pennsylvania. He was removed from office when the Senate ruled that he had not yet been a citizen for nine years. Section 3 (4). The vice president of the United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. Notes: The vice president serves as president of the Senate, but votes only when a tie vote occurs. The vice president's power to break ties can be important. In 1789, for example, Vice President John Adams cast the vote that decided the president could remove Cabinet members without Senate approval. Section 3 (5). The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a president pro tempore, in the absence of the vice president, or when he shall exercise the office of president of the United States. Notes: The Senate elects an officer called the president pro tempore to lead meetings when the vice president is absent. Section 3 (6). The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the president of the United States is tried, the chief justice shall preside: and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present. Notes: The provision that the chief justice, rather than the vice president, shall preside over the Senate when a president is on trial probably grows out of the fact that a conviction would make the vice president the president. The phrase "on oath or affirmation" means that senators are placed under oath when trying impeachment cases, just as jurors are in a regular court trial. Section 3 (7). Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. Notes: If an impeached person is found guilty, he or she can be removed from office and forbidden to hold federal office again. The Senate cannot impose any other punishment, but the person may also be tried in regular courts. The Senate has convicted only seven people, all of them judges. These men were removed from office. Organization of Congress Section 4 (1). The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, [except as to the places of choosing senators]. Notes: As long as state legislatures chose the senators, it would not do to let Congress fix the place of choosing. This would have amounted to giving Congress the power to tell each state where to locate its capital. The words of the Constitution "except as to the places of choosing senators" were set aside by the 17th Amendment. Section 4 (2). The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, [and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,] unless they shall by law appoint a different day. Notes: In Europe, monarchs could keep parliaments from meeting, sometimes for many years, simply by not calling them together. This is the reason for the requirement that the Congress of the United States must meet at least once a year. The 20th Amendment changed the date of the opening day of the session to January 3, unless Congress sets another date by law. Section 5 (1). Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each house may provide. Notes: Each house determines if its members are legally qualified and have been elected fairly. In judging the qualifications of its members, each house may consider only the age, citizenship, and residence requirements set forth in the Constitution. In acting on motions to expel a member, however, either house of Congress may consider other matters bearing on that member's fitness for office. A quorum is a group large enough to carry on business. Discussion and debate can go on whether a quorum is present or not, as long as a quorum comes in to vote. Section 5 (2). Each house may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member. Notes: Either house can expel one of its members by a two-thirds vote. Each house makes its own rules. For example, the House of Representatives puts strict time limits on debate to speed up business. It is much more difficult to end debate in the Senate. A senator may speak as long as he or she wishes. Senators use this privilege to make long speeches called filibusters to delay Senate action. The Senate, however, may vote for cloture, a motion to end debate. On most matters, cloture requires a vote of 60 senators, or three-fifths of the total Senate membership. See CLOTURE. Section 5 (3). Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question shall, at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal. Notes: The House Journal and the Senate Journal are published at the end of each session of Congress. They list all the bills and resolutions considered during the session, as well as every vote. All messages from the president to Congress also are included. The journals are considered the official documents for the proceedings of Congress. Section 5 (4). Neither house, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two houses shall be sitting. Section 6 (1). The senators and representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either house, they shall not be questioned in any other place. Notes: The privilege of immunity (freedom from arrest) while going to and from congressional business has little importance today. Members of Congress, like anyone else, may be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to prison. Congressional immunity from charges of libel and slander remains important. Libel is an untrue written statement that damages a person's reputation. Slander is a spoken statement that does so. Immunity under the speech and debate clause means that members of Congress may say whatever they wish in connection with congressional business without fear of being sued. This immunity extends to anything said by members during debate, in an official report, or while voting. Section 6 (2). No senator or representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office. Notes: These provisions keep members of Congress from creating jobs to which they can later be appointed, from raising salaries of jobs they hope to hold in the future, or from holding office in the other branches of government while they are in Congress. Section 7 (1). All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. Notes: Tax bills must originate in the House. The tradition that tax laws should originate in the lower house of the legislature came from England. There, the lower house-the House of Commons-is more likely to reflect the people's wishes because the people elect its members. They do not elect the upper house, the House of Lords. In the United States, this rule has little importance because the people elect both the Senate and the House. In addition, the Senate can amend a tax bill to such an extent that it rewrites the whole measure. Section 7 (2). Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the president of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the president within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law. Notes: A bill passed by Congress goes to the president for the president's signature. If the president disapproves the bill, it must be returned to Congress with a statement of the objections within 10 days, not including Sundays. This action is called a veto. Congress can pass a law over the president's veto by a two-thirds vote of each house of those members present. The president can also let a bill become law without signing it merely by letting 10 days pass. But a bill sent to the president during the last 10 days of a session of Congress cannot become law unless it is signed. If a bill the president dislikes reaches the president near the end of a session, the bill may simply be held unsigned. This practice is known as a pocket veto. In 1996, Congress enacted a law designed to add to the veto powers established by the Constitution. This law, which went into effect in 1997, gave the president the power to veto certain parts of bills passed by Congress. These parts included some spending items and tax breaks. The power to veto individual items in bills is often called a line-item veto. In 1998, however, the Supreme Court ruled that the power created by the 1996 law was unconstitutional. See VETO. Section 7 (3). Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the president of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill. Powers granted to Congress The Congress shall have power: Section 8 (1): To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Notes: Duties are taxes on goods coming into the United States. Excises are taxes on sales, use, or production, and sometimes on business procedures or privileges. For example, corporation taxes, cigarette taxes, and amusement taxes are excises. Imposts is a general tax term that includes both duties and excises. Section 8 (2): To borrow money on the credit of the United States; Section 8 (3): To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes; Notes: This section, called the commerce clause, gives Congress some of its most important powers. The Supreme Court has interpreted commerce to mean not only trade but also all kinds of commercial activity. Commerce "among the several states" is usually called interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has ruled that interstate commerce includes not only transactions across state boundaries but also any activity that affects commerce in more than one state. The court has interpreted the word regulate to mean encourage, promote, protect, prohibit, or restrain. As a result, Congress can pass laws and provide funds to improve waterways, to enforce air safety measures, and to forbid interstate shipment of certain goods. It can regulate the movement of people, of trains, of stocks and bonds, and even of television signals. Congress has made it a federal crime to flee across state lines from state or local police. It also has forbidden people who operate interstate facilities or who serve interstate passengers to treat customers unfairly because of race. See INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Section 8 (4): To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States; Section 8 (5): To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; Notes: From this section, along with the section that allows the Congress to regulate commerce and to borrow money, Congress gets its right to charter national banks and to establish the Federal Reserve System. See FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM. Section 8 (6): To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; Notes: Securities are government bonds. Section 8 (7): To establish post offices and post roads; Section 8 (8): To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; Notes: Photographs and films may also be copyrighted under this rule (see COPYRIGHT; PATENT). Section 8 (9): To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; Notes: Examples of federal courts "inferior to the Supreme Court" include the U.S. district courts and the U.S. courts of appeals. Section 8 (10): To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; Notes: Congress, rather than the states, has jurisdiction over crimes committed at sea. Section 8 (11): To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; Notes: Only Congress can declare war. However, the president, as commander in chief, has engaged the United States in wars without a declaration by Congress. Undeclared wars include the Korean War (1950-1953), the Vietnam War (1957-1975), the Persian Gulf War of 1991, and the Iraq War, which began in 2003. Letters of marque and reprisal are documents that authorize private vessels to attack enemy shipping. Section 8 (12): To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; Section 8 (13): To provide and maintain a navy; Section 8 (14): To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; Section 8 (15): To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; Notes: Congress has given the president power to decide when a state of invasion or insurrection (uprising) exists. At such times, the president can call out the National Guard. Section 8 (16): To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Notes: The federal government helps the states maintain the militia, also known as the National Guard. Until 1916, the states controlled the militia entirely. That year, the National Defense Act provided for federal funding of the guard and for drafting the guard into national service under certain circumstances. Section 8 (17): To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;-And Notes: This section makes Congress the legislative body not only for the District of Columbia, but also for federal property on which forts and other federal works or buildings are located. Section 8 (18): To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. Notes: This section is known as the "necessary and proper" clause or the elastic clause. It allows Congress to deal with many matters that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but are suggested by powers granted to Congress in Article I. As times have changed, Congress has been able to pass needed laws with few amendments to the Constitution. This flexibility helps explain why the Constitution is one of the oldest written constitutions. Powers forbidden to Congress Section 9 (1). The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. Notes: This paragraph refers to the slave trade. Dealers in slaves, as well as some slaveholders, wanted to make sure that Congress could not stop anyone from bringing African slaves into the country before the year 1808. That year, Congress did ban the importing of slaves into the United States. Section 9 (2). The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it. Notes: A writ of habeas corpus is a legal order that commands people who have a person in custody to bring the person into court. They must explain in court why the person is being restrained. If their explanation is unsatisfactory, the judge can order the prisoner released. See HABEAS CORPUS. Section 9 (3). No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. Notes: A bill of attainder is an act passed by a legislature to punish a person without trial. An ex post facto law is one that provides punishment for an act that was not illegal when the act was committed. See ATTAINDER; EX POST FACTO. Section 9 (4). No capitation, [or other direct,] tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. Notes: A capitation is a tax that is collected equally from everyone. A capitation is also called a head tax or a poll tax. The Supreme Court held that this section of the Constitution prohibits an income tax. The 16th Amendment set aside the court's decision. Section 9 (5). No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. Notes: In this sentence, exported means sent to other states or to foreign countries. The Southern States feared that the new government would tax their exports and that their economies would suffer as a result. This sentence forbids such a tax. However, Congress can prohibit shipment of certain items or regulate the conditions of their shipment. Section 9 (6). No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another. Notes: Congress cannot make laws concerning trade that favor one state over another. Ships going from one state to another need not pay taxes to do so. Section 9 (7). No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time. Notes: Government money cannot be spent without the consent of Congress. Congress must issue a financial statement from time to time. Congress authorizes money for most government programs in lump sums because too much time would be needed to authorize each item separately. Section 9 (8). No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatsoever, from any king, prince, or foreign state. Notes: Congress cannot give anyone a title of nobility, such as countess or duke. Federal officials may not accept a gift, office, payment, or title from a foreign country without the consent of Congress. Powers forbidden to the states Section 10 (1). No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. Section 10 (2). No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States, and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress. Notes: Without the consent of Congress, a state cannot tax goods entering or leaving the state except for small fees to cover the cost of inspection. Profits from a tax on interstate commerce go to the federal government. Section 10 (3). No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Notes: Only the federal government has the power to make treaties and to carry out measures for national defense. Article II The executive branch Section 1 (1). The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows: Section 1 (2). Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector. Notes: This section establishes the Electoral College, a group of people chosen by the voters of each state to elect the president and vice president (see ELECTORAL COLLEGE). Section 1 (3). [The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the president of the Senate. The president of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for president; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the president. But in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the vice president.] Notes: The 12th Amendment changed this procedure for electing the president and vice president. Section 1 (4). The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States. Section 1 (5). No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Section 1 (6). In case of the removal of the president from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the vice president, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the president and vice president, declaring what officer shall then act as president, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a president shall be elected. Notes: On Aug. 9, 1974, President Richard M. Nixon resigned as chief executive and was succeeded by Vice President Gerald R. Ford. Until then, only death had ever cut short the term of a president of the United States. The 25th Amendment provides that the vice president succeed to the presidency if the president becomes disabled, and specifies the conditions applying to that succession. See PRESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION. Section 1 (7). The president shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them. Notes: The Constitution made it possible for a poor person to become president by providing a salary for that office. The president's salary cannot be raised or lowered during his or her term of office. The chief executive may not receive any other pay from the federal government or the states. Section 1 (8). Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Notes: The Constitution does not say who shall administer the oath to the newly elected president. President George Washington was sworn in by Robert R. Livingston, then a state official in New York. After that, it became customary for the chief justice of the United States to administer the oath. Calvin Coolidge was sworn in by his father, a justice of the peace, at his home in Vermont. Coolidge took the oath again before Justice Adolph A. Hoehling of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Section 2 (1). The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment. Notes: The president's powers as commander in chief are far-reaching. But even in wartime, the president must obey the law. Section 2 (2). He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. Notes: The framers of the Constitution intended that in some matters the Senate should serve as an advisory body for the president. The president can make treaties and appoint various government officials. But two-thirds of the senators present must approve before a treaty is confirmed. Also, high appointments require approval of more than half the senators present. Section 2 (3). The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. Notes: This means that when the Senate is not in session, the president can make temporary appointments to offices which require Senate confirmation. Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States. Notes: The president gives a State of the Union message to Congress each year. Presidents George Washington and John Adams delivered their messages in person. For more than 100 years after that, most presidents sent a written message, which was read in Congress. President Woodrow Wilson delivered his State of the Union messages in person, as did President Franklin D. Roosevelt and all presidents after Roosevelt. The president's messages often have great influence on public opinion, and thus on Congress. Famous messages to Congress include the Monroe Doctrine and President Wilson's "Fourteen Points." During the 1800's, presidents often called Congress into session. Today, Congress is in session most of the time. No president has ever had to adjourn a session of Congress. The responsibility to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" puts the president at the head of law enforcement for the national government. Every federal official, civilian or military, gets his or her authority from the president. Section 4. The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Article III The judicial branch Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. Notes: The Constitution makes every effort to keep the courts independent of both the legislature and the president. The guarantee that judges shall hold office during "good behavior" means that, unless they are impeached and convicted, they can hold office for life. This protects judges from any threat of dismissal by the president. The rule that a judge's salary may not be reduced protects the judge against pressure from Congress, which could otherwise threaten to fix the salary so low that the judge could be forced to resign. See COURT; SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Section 2 (1). The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;-to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;-to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;-to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;-to controversies between two or more states; [between a state and citizens of another state;] between citizens of different states;-between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, [citizens or subjects]. Notes: The right of the federal courts to handle "cases arising under this Constitution" is the basis of the Supreme Court's right to declare laws of Congress unconstitutional. This right of "judicial review" was established by Chief Justice John Marshall's historic decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). See MARBURY V. MADISON. The 11th Amendment to the Constitution set aside the phrase between a state and citizens of another state. A citizen of one state cannot sue another state in a federal court. Section 2 (2). In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. Notes: The statement that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting the representatives of foreign countries and in cases to which a state is one of the parties means that cases of this kind go directly to the Supreme Court. In other kinds of cases, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction. This means that the cases are tried first in a lower court and may come up to the Supreme Court for review if Congress authorizes an appeal. Congress cannot take away or modify the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, it can take away the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, or it can fix the conditions one must meet to present an appeal. Section 2 (3). The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed. Section 3 (1). Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Notes: No person can be convicted of treason against the United States unless he or she confesses in open court, or unless two witnesses testify that he or she has committed a treasonable act. Talking or thinking about committing a treasonable act is not treason. See TREASON. Section 3 (2). The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. Notes: The phrase no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood means that the family of a traitor does not share the guilt. Formerly, an offender's family could also be punished. Article IV Relation of the states to each other Notes: Much of this article was taken word for word from the old Articles of Confederation. Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Notes: This section requires the states to honor one another's laws, records, and court rulings. The rule prevents a person from avoiding justice by leaving a state. Section 2 (1). The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Notes: This means that citizens traveling from state to state are entitled to all the privileges and immunities that automatically go to citizens of those states. Some privileges, such as the right to vote, do not automatically go with citizenship, but require a period of residence and perhaps other qualifications. The word citizen in this provision does not include corporations. Section 2 (2). A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. Notes: If a person commits a crime in one state and flees to another, the governor of the state in which the crime was committed can demand that the fugitive be handed over. Returning an accused person is called extradition. A few governors have refused to extradite, perhaps because the crime was committed many years ago, or because they believed the accused would not get a fair trial. It is not clear how the federal government could enforce this section. See EXTRADITION. Section 2 (3). [No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.] Notes: A "person held to service or labor" was a slave or an indentured servant (a person bound by contract to serve someone for several years). No one is now bound to servitude in the United States, so this part of the Constitution no longer has any force, being overruled by the 13th Amendment. Federal-state relations Section 3 (1). New states may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress. Notes: New states cannot be formed by dividing or joining existing states without the consent of the state legislatures and Congress. During the Civil War (1861-1865), Virginia fought for the Confederacy, but people in the state's western part supported the Union. After West Virginia split from Virginia, Congress accepted the new state on the ground that Virginia had rebelled. Section 3 (2). The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state. Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. Notes: This section requires the federal government to make sure that every state has a "republican form of government." A republican government is one in which the people elect representatives to govern. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress, not the courts, must decide whether a state government is republican. According to the court, if Congress admits a state's senators and representatives, that action indicates that Congress considers the state's government republican. The legislature or governor of a state can request federal aid in dealing with riots or other violence. During the Pullman strike of 1894, federal troops were sent to Illinois even though the governor said he did not want them (see PULLMAN STRIKE). Article V Amending the Constitution The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided [that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and] that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. Notes: Amendments may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress or by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of the states. A national convention has never been called, in part because there are no established procedures for operating such a meeting and because of fear that such a convention could result in vast and possibly dangerous changes. To become part of the Constitution, amendments must be ratified (approved) by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states or by conventions in three-fourths of the states. Notes: The framers of the Constitution purposely made it hard to put through an amendment. Congress has considered more than 9,000 amendments, but it has passed only 33 and submitted them to the states. Of these, 27 have been ratified. Only one amendment, the 21st, was ratified by state conventions. All the others were ratified by state legislatures. The Constitution sets no time limit during which the states must ratify a proposed amendment. Ratification of the 27th Amendment took 203 years, longer by far than that of any other amendment. The amendment was first proposed in 1789 and did not become part of the Constitution until 1992. Nevertheless, the courts have held that amendments must be ratified within a "reasonable time" and that Congress decides what is reasonable. Since the early 1900's, most amendments have included a requirement that ratification be obtained within seven years. Article VI National debts Section 1 (1). All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. Notes: This section promises that all debts and obligations made by the United States before the adoption of the Constitution will be honored. Supremacy of the national government Section 1 (2). This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Notes: This section, known as the supremacy clause, has been called the linchpin of the Constitution-that is, the part that keeps the entire structure from falling apart. It means simply that when state laws conflict with national laws, the national laws are superior. It also means that, to be valid, a national law must follow the Constitution. Section 1 (3). The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Notes: This section requires both federal and state officials to give supreme allegiance to the Constitution of the United States rather than to any state constitution. The section also forbids any religious test for holding federal office. The 14th Amendment applies the same rule to state and local governments. Article VII Ratifying the Constitution The ratification of the conventions of nine states, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the states so ratifying the same. Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names, George Washington-President and deputy from Virginia Delaware: George Read; Gunning Bedford, Jr.; John Dickinson; Richard Bassett; Jacob Broom. Maryland: James McHenry; Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer; Daniel Carroll. Virginia: John Blair; James Madison, Jr. North Carolina: William Blount; Richard Dobbs Spaight; Hugh Williamson. South Carolina: John Rutledge; Charles Cotesworth Pinckney; Charles Pinckney; Pierce Butler. Georgia: William Few; Abraham Baldwin. New Hampshire: John Langdon; Nicholas Gilman. Massachusetts: Nathaniel Gorham; Rufus King. Connecticut: William Samuel Johnson; Roger Sherman. New York: Alexander Hamilton. New Jersey: William Livingston; David Brearley; William Paterson; Jonathan Dayton. Pennsylvania: Benjamin Franklin; Thomas Mifflin; Robert Morris; George Clymer; Thomas FitzSimons; Jared Ingersoll; James Wilson; Gouverneur Morris. Constitution of the United States/The Bill of Rights The first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, were proposed on Sept. 25, 1789. They were ratified on Dec. 15, 1791. They were adopted because some states refused to approve the Constitution unless a bill of rights was added. The amendments protect individuals from various unjust acts of government. Originally, the amendments applied only to the federal government. But the 14th Amendment declares that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law." The Supreme Court has interpreted those words to mean that most of the Bill of Rights applies to the states as well. See BILL OF RIGHTS. Amendment 1: Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Notes: Many countries have made one religion the established (official) church and supported it with government funds. This amendment forbids Congress to set up or in any way provide for an established church. It has been interpreted to forbid government endorsement of, or aid to, religious doctrines. In addition, Congress may not pass laws limiting worship, speech, or the press, or preventing people from meeting peacefully. Congress also may not keep people from asking the government for relief from unfair treatment. All the rights protected by this amendment have limits. For example, the guarantee of freedom of religion does not mean that the government must allow all religious practices. In the 1800's, some Mormons believed it was a man's religious duty to have more than one wife. The Supreme Court ruled that Mormons had to obey the laws forbidding that practice. See FREEDOM OF RELIGION; FREEDOM OF SPEECH; FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. Amendment 2: Right to bear arms A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Notes: This amendment has been interpreted in two ways. Some people believe it gives ordinary citizens the right to possess firearms. Others believe it only gives each state the right to maintain its own militia. Amendment 3: Housing of soldiers No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Notes: This amendment grew out of an old complaint against the British, who had forced people to take soldiers into their homes. Amendment 4: Search and arrest warrants The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Notes: This measure does not forbid legal authorities to search, to seize goods, or to arrest people. It simply requires that in most cases the authorities obtain a search or arrest warrant from a judge by showing the need for it. If a warrant cannot be obtained, the search or arrest is permitted only if the state's need for evidence outweighs the individual's right to privacy. In addition, the search or arrest may not be carried out in an unreasonable manner. See SEARCH WARRANT. Amendment 5: Rights in criminal cases No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Notes: A capital crime is one punishable by death. An infamous crime is one punishable by death or imprisonment. This amendment guarantees that no one has to stand trial for such a federal crime unless he or she has been indicted (accused) by a grand jury. A grand jury is a special group of people selected to decide whether there is enough evidence against a person to hold a trial. A person cannot be put in double jeopardy (tried twice) for the same offense by the same government. But a person may be tried a second time if a jury cannot agree on a verdict, if a mistrial is declared for some other reason, or if the person requests a new trial. The amendment also guarantees that people cannot be forced to testify against themselves. The statement that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property "without due process of law" expresses one of the most important rules of the Constitution. The same words are in the 14th Amendment as restrictions on the power of the states. The phrase expresses the idea that a person's life, liberty, and property are not subject to the uncontrolled power of the government. This idea can be traced to Magna Carta, which provided that the king could not imprison or harm a person "except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." Due process is a vague rule, and the Supreme Court has applied it to widely different cases. At one time, the court used the due-process rule to strike down laws that prevented people from using their property as they wished. In 1857, for example, the court overturned the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in certain U.S. territories. The court said the compromise unjustly prevented slave owners from taking slaves-their property-into the territories. Today, the courts use the rule to strike down laws that interfere with personal liberty. See DUE PROCESS OF LAW. The amendment also forbids the government to take a person's property for public use without fair payment. The government's right to take property for public use is called eminent domain. Governments use it to acquire land for highways, schools, and other public facilities. See FIFTH AMENDMENT. Amendment 6: Rights to a fair trial In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Notes: A person accused of crime must have a prompt, public trial by an open-minded jury. The requirement for a speedy and public trial grew out of the fact that some political trials in England had been delayed for years and then were held in secret. Accused persons must be informed of the charges against them and must be allowed to meet the witnesses against them face to face. Otherwise, innocent individuals may be punished if a court allows the testimony of unknown witnesses to be used as evidence. This amendment guarantees that persons on trial can face and cross-examine those who have accused them. They may be able to show that their accusers lied or made a mistake. Finally, accused individuals must have a lawyer to defend them if they want one. Amendment 7: Rights in civil cases In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of a trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Notes: The framers of the Constitution considered the right to jury trial extremely important. In the Sixth Amendment, they provided for jury trials in criminal cases. In the Seventh Amendment, they provided for such trials in civil suits where the amount contested exceeds $20. The amendment applies only to civil cases in federal courts. But because of a great decline in the value of the dollar over the years, it now applies to almost all such cases. Most states also call for jury trials in civil cases. Amendment 8: Bails, fines, and punishments Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Notes: Bails, fines, and punishments must be fair and humane. In the case of Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that capital punishment, as it was then imposed, violated this amendment. The court held that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment because it was not applied fairly and uniformly. Many states then adopted new laws designed to meet the court's objections. The court has ruled that the death penalty may be imposed if certain standards are applied to guard against its arbitrary use. See CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Amendment 9: Rights retained by the people The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Notes: Some people feared that the listing of some rights in the Bill of Rights would be interpreted to mean that other rights not listed were not protected. This amendment was adopted to prevent such an interpretation. Amendment 10: Powers retained by the states and the people The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. Notes: This amendment was adopted to reassure people that the national government would not swallow up the states. It confirms that the states or the people retain all powers not given to the national government. For example, the states have authority over such matters as marriage and divorce. But the Constitution says the federal government can make any laws "necessary and proper" to carry out its specific powers. This rule makes it hard to determine the exact rights of states. Amendment 11: Lawsuits against states (This amendment was proposed on March 4, 1794, and ratified on Feb. 7, 1795. However, the amendment was not proclaimed until 1798 because of delays that occurred in certifying the ratification.) The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. Notes: This amendment makes it impossible for a citizen of one state to sue another state in federal court. The amendment resulted from the 1793 case of Chisholm v. Georgia, in which a man from South Carolina sued the state of Georgia over an inheritance. Georgia argued that it could not be sued in federal court, but the Supreme Court ruled that the state could be. Georgia then led a movement to adopt this amendment. However, individuals can still sue state authorities in federal court for depriving them of their constitutional rights. Amendment 12: Election of the president and vice president (This amendment was proposed on Dec. 9, 1803, and ratified on July 27, 1804.) The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for president and vice president, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as president, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as vice president, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as president, and of all persons voted for as vice president, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the president of the Senate; the president of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of votes for president, shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as president, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the president. But in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a president whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, [before the fourth day of March next following,] then the vice president shall act as president, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the president. The person having the greatest number of votes as vice president, shall be the vice president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the vice president; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of president shall be eligible to that of vice president of the United States. Notes: This amendment provides that members of the Electoral College, called electors, vote for one person as president and for another as vice president. The amendment resulted from the election of 1800. At that time, each elector voted for two men, not saying which he wanted for president. The man who received the most votes became president, and the runner-up became vice president. Thomas Jefferson, the presidential candidate, and Aaron Burr, the vice presidential candidate, received the same number of votes. The tie threw the election into the House of Representatives. The House chose Jefferson but took so long that people feared it would fail to choose before Inauguration Day. The House has chosen one other president-John Quincy Adams in 1825. Amendment 13: Abolition of slavery (This amendment was proposed on Jan. 31, 1865, and ratified on Dec. 6, 1865.) Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Notes: President Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 had declared slaves free in the Confederate States still in rebellion. This amendment completed the abolition of slavery in the United States. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Amendment 14: Civil rights (This amendment was proposed on June 13, 1866, and ratified on July 9, 1868.) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Notes: The principal purpose of this amendment was to make former slaves citizens of both the United States and the state in which they lived. The amendment also forbids the states to deny equal rights to any person. The terms of the amendment clarify how citizenship is acquired. State citizenship is a by-product of national citizenship. By living in a state, every U.S. citizen automatically becomes a citizen of that state as well. All persons naturalized (granted citizenship) according to law are U.S. citizens. People born in the United States are also citizens regardless of the nationality of their parents, unless they are diplomatic representatives of another country or enemies during a wartime occupation. Such cases are exceptions because the parents are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. The amendment does not grant citizenship to Indians on reservations, but Congress passed a law that did so. The phrase "due process of law" has been ruled to forbid the states to violate most rights protected by the Bill of Rights. It has also been interpreted as protecting other rights by its own force. The statement that a state cannot deny anyone "equal protection of the laws" has provided the basis for many Supreme Court rulings on civil rights. For example, the court has outlawed segregation in public schools. The judges declared that "equal protection" means a state must make sure all children, regardless of race, have an equal opportunity for education. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, [excluding Indians not taxed]. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for president and vice president of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Notes: This section proposes a penalty for states which refuse to give the vote in federal elections to all adult male citizens. States which restrict voting can have their representation in Congress cut down. This penalty has never been used. The section has been set aside by the 19th and 26th amendments. Section 3. No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Notes: This section's purpose was to keep federal officers who joined the Confederacy from becoming federal officers again. Congress could vote to overlook such a record. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss of emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Notes: This section ensured that the Union's Civil War debt would be paid, but voided all war debts run up by the Confederacy. The section also said that former slaveowners would not be paid for slaves who were freed. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Amendment 15: Black suffrage (This amendment was proposed on Feb. 26, 1869, and ratified on Feb. 3, 1870.) Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Notes: Blacks who had been slaves became citizens under the terms of the 14th Amendment. The 15th Amendment does not specifically say that all blacks must be allowed to vote. The states are free to set qualifications for voters. But a voter cannot be denied the ballot because of race. Attempts by some states to do this indirectly have been struck down by Supreme Court decisions, federal and state laws, and the 24th Amendment. See FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT; GRANDFATHER CLAUSE; VOTING. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Amendment 16: Income taxes (This amendment was proposed on July 12, 1909, and ratified on Feb. 3, 1913.) The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. Notes: In 1894, Congress passed an income tax law, but the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional. This amendment authorized Congress to levy such a tax. Amendment 17: Direct election of senators (This amendment was proposed on May 13, 1912, and ratified on April 8, 1913.) (1) The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two senators from each state, elected by the people thereof for six years; and each senator shall have one vote. The electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislatures. (2) When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct. (3) This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution. Notes: This amendment takes the power of electing senators from the state legislatures and gives it to the people of the states. Amendment 18: Prohibition of liquor (This amendment was proposed on Dec. 18, 1917, and ratified on Jan. 16, 1919.) Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. Section 2. The Congress and the several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress. Notes: This is the prohibition amendment, which forbade people to make, sell, or transport liquor. It was widely ignored by the people and was repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. Amendment 19: Woman suffrage (This amendment was proposed on June 4, 1919, and ratified on Aug. 18, 1920.) Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Notes: Amendments giving women the right to vote were introduced in Congress one after another for more than 40 years before this one was finally passed. Amendment 20: Terms of the president and Congress (This amendment was proposed on March 2, 1932, and ratified on Jan. 23, 1933.) Section 1. The terms of the president and vice president shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of senators and representatives at noon on the third day of January, of the year in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin. Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the third day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day. Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the president, the president elect shall have died, the vice president elect shall become president. If a president shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the president elect shall have failed to qualify, then the vice president elect shall act as president until a president shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a president elect nor a vice president elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as president, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a president or vice president shall have qualified. Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a president whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a vice president whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them. Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article. Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission. Notes: This lame duck amendment moves the date that newly elected presidents and members of Congress take office closer to election time. A lame duck is an official who continues to serve though not reelected. Before the amendment came into force, defeated members of Congress continued to hold office for four months. See LAME DUCK AMENDMENT. Amendment 21: Repeal of prohibition (This amendment was proposed on Feb. 20, 1933, and ratified on Dec. 5, 1933.) Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed. Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress. Notes: This amendment repeals the 18th Amendment. Section 2 promises federal help to "dry" states in enforcing their own laws. Amendment 22: Limitation of presidents to two terms (This amendment was proposed on March 24, 1947, and ratified on Feb. 27, 1951.) Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice, and no person who has held the office of president, or acted as president, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected president shall be elected to the office of the president more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of president when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of president, or acting as president, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of president or acting as president during the remainder of such term. Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the day of its submission to the states by the Congress. Notes: This amendment provides that no person can be elected president more than twice. Nobody who has served for more than two years of someone else's term can be elected more than once. A president can hold office for no more than 10 years. The amendment was supported by those who thought Franklin D. Roosevelt should not serve four terms. No other president had run for election to more than two consecutive terms. Amendment 23: Suffrage in the District of Columbia (This amendment was proposed on June 16, 1960, and ratified on March 29, 1961.) Section 1. The district constituting the seat of government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of president and vice president equal to the whole number of senators and representatives in Congress to which the district would be entitled if it were a state, but in no event more than the least populous state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the states, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of president and vice president, to be electors appointed by a state; and they shall meet in the district and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Notes: This amendment allows citizens of the District of Columbia to vote in presidential elections. However, they cannot vote for members of Congress. Amendment 24: Poll taxes (This amendment was proposed on Aug. 27, 1962, and ratified on Jan. 23, 1964.) Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for president or vice president, for electors for president or vice president, or for senator or representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Notes: This amendment forbids making voters pay a poll tax before they can vote in a national election. A poll tax, also called a head tax, is a tax collected equally from everyone. Some states once used such taxes to keep poor people and blacks from voting. The term poll tax does not mean a tax on voting. It comes from the old English word poll, meaning head. See POLL TAX. Amendment 25: Presidential disability and succession (This amendment was proposed on July 6, 1965, and ratified on Feb. 10, 1967.) Section 1. In case of the removal of the president from office or of his death or resignation, the vice president shall become president. Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the vice president, the president shall nominate a vice president who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress. Notes: This section provides for filling a vacancy in the vice presidency. In 1973, Gerald R. Ford became the first person chosen vice president under this provision. He was nominated by President Richard M. Nixon after Vice President Spiro T. Agnew resigned. In 1974, Nixon resigned and Ford became president. Nelson A. Rockefeller then became vice president under the new procedure. For the first time, the nation had both a president and vice president who had not been elected to their office. Before this amendment came into force, vacancies in the vice presidency remained unfilled until the next election. Section 3. Whenever the president transmits to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the vice president as acting president. Notes: This section provides that the vice president succeeds to the presidency if the president becomes disabled. Vice President George H. W. Bush became the first acting president. He officially held the position for eight hours on July 13, 1985, when President Ronald Reagan had cancer surgery. Section 4. Whenever the vice president and majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president. Thereafter, when the president transmits to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both houses that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the vice president shall continue to discharge the same as acting president; otherwise, the president shall resume the powers and duties of his office. Amendment 26: Suffrage for 18-year-olds (This amendment was proposed on March 23, 1971, and ratified on July 1, 1971.) Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Notes: This amendment grants the vote to citizens 18 years of age or older. Passed during the Vietnam War, it reflected the opinion of many people of the time that young men who are old enough to be drafted into the armed forces should be able to vote for or against officials who lead the nation into war. Amendment 27: Congressional salaries (This amendment was proposed on Sept. 25, 1789, and ratified on May 7, 1992.) No law varying the compensation for the services of the senators and representatives shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened. Notes: This amendment prevents Congress from passing immediate salary increases for itself. It requires that salary changes passed by Congress cannot take effect until after the next congressional election. It had been passed in 1789 and sent to the states for ratification. The amendment had no time limit for ratification. It became part of the Constitution in 1992, after Michigan became the 38th state to ratify it. ---- end of article ----

Why was unemployment endemic during the interwar period?

This is my dissertation answering exactly that question, i got a first for it so i think it should answer it comprehensively.High levels of unemployment throughout the interwar period[1] persisted during periods of deflation in the early 1920s, as would be expected, but also through times of economic prosperity towards the second half of the 1930s. Therefore much debate resides around the subject and the causing factors. To understand the problem further, regard to the scale must be scrutinized.It becomes apparent in my readings that only an estimate on total unemployment throughout the period can be given, different historians have provided very different statistics regarding the level. Benjamin and Kochin offer their estimates. (Fig 1.1) Their unemployment figure for 1921-1929 is consistently above ten per cent, and then proceeds to rapidly rise 1929-1932 and then fall steadily, but it never reaches very much below ten per cent through until 1939. Conversely Feinstein offers an unemployment rate of 8.4 per cent for the period 1923-1929 [2] - a visibly lower rate than that of Benjamin and Kochin for the same period.YEARFig 1.1Reasons for the fluctuations in statistics for this period stem from the way in which they were compiled. None were taken for the entire labour force, insured figures are said to overstate the problem, and so only speculation occurs. Furthermore accurate comparisons to before the First World War prove impossible as statistics then were attained from trade unions which only covered a few industries; the same applies internationally. But however viewed the rate is at a level to conclude that a persistently high unemployment rate was a deficiency of the interwar period. The major peak in the early 1930s coincides with the major domestic and world recession, reaching in excess of the most conservative estimates, tallied at close to fifteen per cent, and on this graph at over twenty per cent. The smaller peak of 1926 which interrupts the negative trend experienced after 1921 can be attributed to the coal lock- out and the general strike. The earlier peak seems to coincide with Broadberry's study, which highlights the fall in hours for the working week coupled with the over-appreciated exchange rate to be some possible reasons as to why unemployment occurred. Conversely Booth and Glynn disagree with the precision of Broadberry's claims, which will be discussed later.The purpose of this short thesis is to present and analyse the considerations of both the a) contemporary authors- referring to writings during, shortly prior to, and very shortly after the interwar period and b) modern authors- referring to the writings of the years thereafter, on the subject of unemployment, or specifically the causes thereof. Having looked at the arguments to date, a consideration of the possibility of the presence of an efficiency wage during this period will be presented. A brief explanation of the main terminology and complexities that arise when studying the phenomena provide a good starting point for analysis of the debate.Many economists and indeed historians have different and sometimes conflicting views regarding the nature of the problem and its possible solutions. Throughout this study I will refer to the possible problems and causes of both voluntary and involuntary unemployment. Involuntary unemployment is that which arises through no choice of the employable body. Voluntary unemployment is that which occurs as a result of choice; the employable body chooses to not work for one or many of a number of reasons. The area of voluntary unemployment needs iterating due to its disputed nature and indeed questionable extent. The relevance to some works which will be analysed later, especially that of Benjamin and Kochin claim that voluntary unemployment was a very real problem during the period, however Eichengreen later provided research that is widely accepted to disprove the extent of their claims.Another important factor when considering the conclusions drawn throughout this thesis is the extent of econometric data available; we have very few points of reference from which to draw conclusions, usually only one figure per annum for each data set.IA major observation of the period is the geographical distribution of unemployment, the brunt of which was felt in smaller towns, usually reliant on one or a few of the staple industries. The decline in employment in these areas had knock-on effects which were endured by most of the local population. The 'outer' regions (North West England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) of Britain experienced the higher rates of unemployment. The 'inner' regions (South & Eastern England) experienced a relatively lower rate. It is from this point we can see that the distribution of unemployment was very swayed. Many communities became downtrodden and depressed, as the most hardcore levels of employment ever experienced by Great Britain erupted.Original ideas that Britain could not cope with the growing rate of unemployment were dismissed before the First World War by Beveridge[3] and so led thought to focus on the problems of specific industries and regions. Contemporary observers argued that, to a large extent, the problem of unemployment was structural in nature. By the eve of the First World War Britain had built up a huge dependency on the outside world for raw materials and due to this, reliability on a sound monetary and political climate. It is a problem of this dependency that led contemporary economists to observe this as a weakness, as indeed any dependency is. (It should be further noted that the advantage of world competition is apparent; evidence suggests that most competing countries, on the whole, have progressed as a result of competition). However it is these international problems that were stated to have huge negative implications on Britain's unemployment, indeed G. Cassel states: "It is certainly not necessary to search for more remote explanations of the widespread and protracted unemployment which has for some years proved such a great calamity to Great Britain."[4] He basis this statement on the argument that the disorganization of the world's trade was to blame; triggered by the failure to restore sound monetary conditions after the war and the unwise policies of suppression and exhaustion which took the place of real peace. His explanation provides a good starting point for our discussion. A look at the international 'trading-field' during this period shows a general fall in world income and high rates of unemployment, especially prevalent across Europe and toward the middle of the period the USA, two of the prime trading areas for Britain. The countries which used to sell produce to Central Europe found their buying capacity reduced as markets were squeezed, demand fell and widespread unemployment prevailed. It was due to the nature of these markets that lead to a very uneven distribution of unemployment in Britain. Export markets, found on the coastal regions of Britain, and those towns supplying their exports found themselves trending water as competition increased and world prices fell. The industries that endured the main brunt are generally categorized as the staple industries; the backbone of British trade. They included coal, textiles, iron and steel, shipbuilding and engineering, and other related industries. It was in these industries where the unemployment rate was two to three times the national average, but they were not the sole areas of unemployment, building amongst others was also affected.However Astor draws conclusions in the same publication as Cassel, stating that there was no cause for concern in regards to the unemployment level in Britain. He states that the abnormal unemployment experienced in the few years prior to his writings suggested to him that unemployment was neither chronic nor inevitable. Perhaps we could assume a slight rewording for modern literature in regards to his comment that unemployment was avoidable. I am sure when questioned Astor would allow that a natural rate of unemployment is always inevitable in a competitive market, due to the very nature of time lags within the labour market. The writings in this year (1925) emphasize that a large reliance for the economic wellbeing of Britain lay in her foreign markets, and any sustainability and expansion thereof. Not only in terms of the growth of industry abroad and the filling up of less densely populated areas of the world, but also in the rise of material standards of poorer nations abroad, thus creating greater demand. Assuming the conclusions made by Astor that the problem was neither chronic nor inevitable to be correct then it appears that something unforeseeable happened over the following years that proved a stigma for Britain.In light of Cassel's view expressed above, we are introduced into one of his possible solutions to the high rates of unemployment, which by modern political ethics proved most comical. He declared it a 'necessity' for Europe as a whole to create new markets and secure new sources of supplies from other resource-rich parts of the world. He exclaimed: "This is work which must always go on as long as such districts exist and as long as the white race still possesses a power of expansion."[5] We can safely ignore this solution of encroachment to any rising unemployment issues on moral grounds alone, but it should be duly noted that at the time this was not seen as an impossible solution. A further look at more plausible ideas can help us through the problem further.The conclusions of the contemporary debate, especially those written earlier in the period, appear to focus much more on the problems on a micro-level rather than viewing the problem as a whole. A short study of the coal industry allows speculation towards some of the quandaries of the time. It was an industry of huge scale, with one-fifth of total production going to export. Figures from 1923[6] state over one million persons were employed in the industry, and indeed it was felt by some contemporary theorists during the period that the way of fixing the problems in Britain was to start with the restructuring of the coal industry. Hence the reason for my focus is apparent. The increase of production in the industry through the opening of new coal-fields and collieries, rather than the expansion of the old pits proved to be the very downfall of the industry for the rest of the interwar period. New enterprises often incorporated new technology; the bar was constantly being raised, and so led Clay (1929) to place emphasis on the war, and post-war boom as giving a new lease of life to mines that would, had it not been for the war, have been forced to close. This caused a reduction in efficiency amongst the industry as a whole which, he claims, can only be viewed as a negative aspect. It was the scarcity and high cost of coal, that on the surface one would assume to aide the industry that culminated in a growth of competition. The high prices compelled former customers to seek alternatives, and subsequently an expansion of competing supplies, which included brown coal, hydro-electric power schemes and also oil. One cannot really place too much blame on the coal industries haste towards change, after all the occupation of the Ruhr by France and Belgium did mislead British activity in the early part of the period, alongside rapid over expansion throughout the war.Was it this expansion of coal that lead to the demise of the ship building industry in Britain? If one is to concur with Clay (1929) then we can probably deduce a 'yes' answer. The ship-building industry lost a major amount of its trade due to the expansion of the oil industry throughout this period, and was only really on the road to recovery as the heavy industries expanded again for the few years prior to the Second World War. The results; a rate of unemployment in areas with a high amount of ship building were second to none. A consideration of the nature of the ship-building offers a very obvious conclusions as to why these areas were to suffer most; it would take a substantial number of men to build one large ship, but once that contract expires there were then a substantial number of men unemployed until another was found. Sadly a thorough discussion of industry is beyond this short piece, and so it is away from this taste of microeconomic aspects of the problem from which we must turn. Nevertheless a whole host of more general complications offer themselves, brought to light in contemporary and modern literature alike.IIDiscourse in the mid 1970's[7] led Benjamin and Kochin to present evidence to provide an explanation of one-third to one-half of total unemployment during the period. Their estimate, if not overly zealous, stems from research that asserts that "The persistently high rate of unemployment in interwar Britain was due, in a large part not to deficient aggregate demand, but to high unemployment benefits relative to wages."[8] According to their assertion Britain's generous unemployment payments were, to a large extent, a basis for blame; the benefit rates were high enough to provide a genuine alternative to wages. However their figure is contested in Eichengreen (1987) who claims that, using data from 'The New Survey of London Life and Labour'- a survey conducted during the interwar period post 1928, that the figure was nearer one fifth. It is at this early point the need to stress my concern with both sets of figures.Firstly, on the surface alone, Benjamin and Kochin's upper limit of fifty percent of total unemployment being due to involuntary unemployment appears very high.Unemployment in interwar Britain encompassed two different phenomena: One side of the equation saw a smaller number of persons, mainly those older, and thus less able to move from job to job, being part of the long-term unemployed. The other offers a movement, a constant churning of labour, where unemployment would last only a short duration and was transient in nature, of which they claim the insurance system was in part, due to the ease of obtaining payments, to blame. The long-term unemployed, whilst fewer in number still took up a substantial amount of the days lost throughout the period. A careful consideration of a typical working man in the period would offer a stereotypical view of a hard working individual who feels the need, either instilled within him, or a societal expectation, to provide for his family. Of course there were exceptions. I am acceptant that amongst any society 'free loaders' will exist. Indeed, Michael Richards, the sullen, despondent character introduced to us by Eichengreen in a later study provides an example of what he claims to be the 'involuntarily' unemployed.[9] However, we can assert that this caricature of a sullen despondent man could eventually become part of the 'voluntarily' unemployed in the long-run, due to the eventual unwillingness of a man in his situation to bother seeking employment any longer. Further consideration into the second half of the 1930s when prosperity in the staple trades improved, provides evidence that men in such situations became completely detached from working society, eventually choosing to no longer seek employment. Hence were these the voluntary unemployed Benjamin and Kochin were referring to, or was it those who could survive by adopting such things as short-time working? Probably the latter, but the previous analysis of a transition from being part of the involuntary and eventually becoming the voluntary unemployed, displayed in my thoughts on a character like that of Michael Richards, could aide their figures further.During the interwar period short periods of unemployment could be combined and were, under the generous benefit system, classified as a continuous episode of unemployment. This type of employment went on during the period in such industries as textiles, mining and metals, possibly augmented by the insurance system[10]. The 'oxo' system was used to alternate days of work, (where 'O'= a day of employment and 'X'= a day of unemployment) between the workforce, and it is very much open to debate as to what extent the insurance system aided this system which had already been in use before the Great War. The reasons for this type of unemployment must be deeper rooted, a problem of industries, and an inadequacy of demand, not a consequence of this type of action, although it does significantly affect the figures of unemployment.In addition to this a consideration of the extra leisure time gained from unemployment, weighed against the level of benefits should be noted as a factor to assist Benjamin and Kochin's belief that so many would actively choose not to work. It should be mentioned also at this stage that the fall in working hours experienced in 1919, which Broadberry and Dowie both highlight, would only go to further reinforce their assertion, which will be discussed later.Secondly I find problem with the geographical and therefore economic region from which Eichengreen draws his long-term conclusions. The original survey's sample is representative of a sample of those living in the Greater London area. This caught my immediate attention and was duly mentioned within the article, however I feel due to the regional distribution of unemployment throughout the British Isle's that his study is one of geographical discrepancy. It is important to consider the localised aspects rather than the subject of Great Britain as a whole. With this I assert that the morale of an unemployed worker in London cannot be compared to that of a depressed individual dwelling in a depressed mining town in northern England where more were unemployed than not, or indeed that of a ship builder waiting for a contract by the river Clyde. The areas of the South East & London were of relative prosperity and relatively low unemployment levels during the period,[11] and I therefore discredit the accuracy of Eichengreen's claim that his figure based on this evidence, would be the upper bound, due to the nature of the long-term aspects of the transition from involuntary to voluntary unemployment as mentioned in reference to Michael Richards above. I am aware that the incidence of voluntary unemployment within a tight labour market, compared to that of an area experiencing mass unemployment is high due to people being more willing to circulate between jobs as Eichengreen claims. His figure would hold in the first half of the period and may indeed offer an 'upper bound' as he claims, yet the need to stress the long-term effects of unemployment, eventually leading a potential employee to be voluntary unemployed should be duly noted, and consideration to a possibly higher upper bound in light of this for the few years of the interwar period. Even in light of this I believe Eichengreen's figure to be closer to the truth; largely owing to the distribution of age range in London at the time; a disproportionate number of twenty to forty-five year olds resided in London, and were therefore most likely to move from job to job, with a short period of unemployment between each.The main evidence to support Benjamin and Kochin's claim is concentrated by Eichengreen to be two-fold: Primarily he attacks their figures that suggest that the less generous benefit system given to juveniles was responsible for the lower rate of unemployment that they experienced. Unemployment amongst juveniles for that period was 5.0 per cent during the period 1924-29, compared to that of 14.6 per cent endured by the total average working population. He claims that in using statistics from the Employment Exchange, as Benjamin and Kochin's evidence do, tainted results will occur. Only those whom had made the 20-30 weekly contributions required to qualify to receive benefits had a compelling incentive to register their books at an Employment Exchange. He does however stress that some of the ineligible workforce may have used the Employment Exchange's placement programme but draws data presented by Roker and Scott[12] to suggest that "such a tendency was slight"[13]. Furthermore an argument on the same lines is used by Eichengreen to argue against Benjamin and Kochin's explanation for the sharp fall in the unemployment rate amongst women in 1931 after Parliament adopted the Anomalies Regulations[14]. This fall is interpreted by Benjamin and Kochin as the impact of the scheme working to stop voluntary unemployment. However the counter arguments recently after the release of the paper led them to concede that the system may not have reduced unemployment[15]. The second fault identified by Eichengreen derives from Benjamin and Kochin's use of regression analysis. Discrepancies over the adequacy of their data occur due to the difficulty of credibly testing models of individual choice using aggregate statistics. Owing to this Eichengreen offers his own investigation.Data collated from 3000 males in a survey of working-class households undertaken in London during 1929-30 provide conclusions using detailed information about the earnings and employment status, age and number of dependants, and also family circumstance. Due to its detailed complexity the survey offers viable conclusions. Eichengreen divides the adult males studied in the report into a) Household heads and b) Non-Heads. He deduced that no real impact was felt if the benefit to wage ratio changed for household heads, but a significant positive correlation was experienced amongst non-heads. The conclusions state that a fall in unemployment of between 1.2 per cent and 1.8 per cent for the population of London would have transpired if the benefit to wage ratio fell to the level experienced in 1913. His counterfactual figures offer no real change for household heads, but a significant change for non-heads. But as these non-heads only accounted for twenty-three per cent of the sample the general figure was not reduced substantially. In light of his own investigation Eichengreen speculates that; "It would appear that Benjamin and Kochin's army of the voluntary unemployed was essentially a squadron of secondary workers.[16]"As we have already seen the mass unemployment experienced in the interwar period was also one of a serious relief system. It was the first time a serious relief system was introduced in Britain, prior to its introduction long-term unemployment would lead to a serious fall in health amongst the general population. It was indeed observed by J Astor in The Third Winter of Unemployment that "The progressive deterioration which inevitably attaches itself to the condition of being maintained without work, of which fears were entertained, is not yet evident on any extensive scale"[17]. A different story to that mentioned later by Eichengreen (see footnote 9) who states Michael Richards blamed his poor health as the reason why many a foreman had turned him away. Eichengreen's caricature seems like a more plausible idea even though this is contrary to reports made by the Ministry of Health[18]. Reports claimed that the observations of poorer health in areas of high unemployment were invalid; asserting these types of people already had a history of poor health. Plausibility for Astor's observation if not a little early on in the interwar period (1922) and also that of the Ministry of Health are challenged in modern studies. Harris[19] (1988) used observations from physiological documents on nutrition and stature to examine the effects of malnutrition amongst children between the years 1923 and 1938. He concluded after using the information gathered that there were falls in their stature, a widely accepted measure of nutrition, in relation to the unemployment rate in a wide variety, but not all middle income towns. His conclusion for poor areas offered results that allow us to infer no real change in the stature of the children. He advises that due to their nutrition already being at a low standard by national terms that the benefits were high enough to satisfy all of the families' nutritional needs, but not their psychological requirements in areas where nutritional standards before the period were already very low. This lead Harris to further suggest that the reason why these contemporary thinkers disregarded the problem was that it had no real effect on poorer areas, but rather on those 'middle-income' towns.However poverty-surveys attributed the problem of hardship to be one mainly associated with unemployment, so where was the benefit system, which many households were receiving, slipping up? Hatton[20] asserts that sixty-six per cent of households in Southampton in 1931 and a forty per cent rate in London 1929/30 were below the poverty line. He concludes that the benefit system allowed that a family of four with benefits of 28s and no other resources would have been in desperate poverty, but if the male breadwinner had spent six months out of the year employed the family would still have been above the human needs poverty line. This would support claims that the long-term unemployed suffered the most during the period, furthermore reinforcing the plausibility of Eichengreen's character; Michael Richards, which I claim earlier, would have eventually contributed to an increase in the number of voluntary unemployed.One agenda that became apparent amongst contemporary historians was the distribution of how relief was provided. They called for the centralisation of the relief system. Indeed Astor (1923) claims "A depression, due less perhaps than any previous depression in modern times to local causes, is left to a considerable extent to local authorities to relieve"[21]. This would go some way to explain some of the early suffering and considerable suffering in certain regions, where funds were just not made available, and furthermore the regional depression experienced. Resort to the Poor law was undesirable[22]. Due to this Astor claims that it was undesirable to force already distressed males into using it. From his remarks we can assume further psychological distress amongst males from such policy if his changes were not met. He further points out that the restriction of assistance to especially distressed localities should be lifted. The lifting of any of these types of restrictions would only aide the distribution of wealth amongst the population, a problem that perhaps a more intuitive government would have assumed at an earlier date.IIIMany arguments to support the view that unemployment was of an involuntary nature have prevailed since the period itself. It is here we will begin to investigateBeveridge (1944) expressed the view that the problem was not one of cyclical fluctuations, or the disorganisation of the labour market but a demand-side problem; a problem of involuntary unemployment only. "It is clear that between the two wars any unsatisfied demand for labour was trifling in quantity and transient in duration. Even the year 1937 remained for most industries a time with many times as many unemployed men as vacant jobs.[23]" Immediate thought would question the mobility of labour; would a more mobile workforce have allowed those living in depressed towns to change industry and furthermore help solve the problem? It is noted that there was hardly any unsatisfied demand between the wars, that it was not a cause of friction in the labour market. However we can deduce that perhaps friction was present. Geographical immobility of labour was present, and if one agrees with Eichengreen's claims that friction was caused by workers claiming benefits, then we can see evidence of such occurrences. It should also be further noted that his work only points towards the recorded unemployed. Furthermore geographical immobility and also a skills gap within the workforce could explain some of the deficiency in demand earlier in the period. Had the workforce have had increased mobility, especially geographically then perhaps acceleration out of the problem would have occurred at a quicker rate. Having better skilled workers available when making selection would increase productivity further, and thus reduced costs for employers, further increasing their competitiveness. Astute government intervention, although not instant due to time lags, would have assisted the problem further; a comparison to modern-day labour flexibility would demonstrate this in action. Once again, the typically Keynesian claims that a deficiency of demand was the sole cause of the problem is disputed, which leads me to remind that the period experienced both involuntary and voluntary unemployment.The real wage debate offers a very wide scope of speculation. The main arguments surround the causes of the high real wage rate, however little discourse has found a fully plausible reason as to why the real wage rate did not fall in the face of rising unemployment, that is to say why was there a disequilibrium? To further understand we must analyse what aspects have an effect on the real wage: The reduction of the real wage rate is possible from two different angles. Firstly it can be attacked with a reduction of the nominal wage or conversely from an increase in the general price level (RPI). Or more simply the real wage is the wage relative to prices.Indeed the debate has lead to apparently conclusive information. The disaggregation of real wages away from the equilibrium rate led Beenstock & Warburton to conclude that three-quarters of jobs in the period 1929-31 were lost due to the real wage rate being too high.Throughout 1919 especially, and also to a lesser extent during 1920, a sharp reduction in the average working week was experienced in Britain. A general agreement that the decline in hours experienced during this short period was tallied at thirteen per cent; that is to say a reduction from fifty-four to forty-seven hours per week. Feinstein, Mathews & Dowie agree, although it is Broadberry's study which proves must lucrative, as an explanation as to why this happened is offered.A reduction of hours, it is claimed, was a result of a 'build-up' of frustrated consumer demand throughout the Great War, which in turn led to workers requesting more leisure time rather than higher wages. His declaration, although he claims conclusive, is very much open to debate, as are most possible explanations for a high unemployment rate throughout this period. A rise in small savings, as a result of shortages and controls during the Great War, is attributed by Broadberry as the deciding factor when workers made their decisions for negotiation. This reduction in hours coincided with the fall in price levels which, triggered by the government's policy to restore the gold standard at pre-war parity, which piloted an increase in the real wage rate, a role many economists would agree bears great significance in increasing the unemployment rate. I am acceptant of all of his points, except for his explanation of why the reduction of hours occurred.Evidence is drawn from a study by Morgan[24] stating three types of small savings occurred; deposits in Post Office and Trustee Savings Banks; securities purchased through these banks and also War Savings certificates. However it is not the evidence that these savings did occur that causes concern, but more an analysis of who would have been saving during the war. It certainly would not have a major impact on those poorer families, whom would have had a much higher propensity to spend close to all of their monies than those of middle and higher income families. I postulate that much of these types of savings would have occurred in these latter cases, indeed Glynn and Booth assert the composition of working-class savings would have mainly been directed towards 'funeral clubs' and industrial insurance companies. Perhaps then Broadberry's analysis has a flaw. Those on higher income brackets would surely not be employed in the staple industries, but more likely merchants, bankers and those jobs requiring a higher standard of education and or brain power. They did partake in negotiations with unions, but their bias could not sway general real wage statistics so violently so as to make them appear high for Great Britain as a whole. Furthermore a small increase in savings would not necessarily confirm a general will for a reduction in the working week. Perhaps in light of victory a sense of liberation swept across the country, the general consensus of pride and indestructibility that was felt across the country could be reflected in a congregating of the labour force to agree to fight for better conditions for themselves and their families. A bloody massacre such as that experienced in the years 1914-19 would surely reinforce the family bond; perhaps then realising they wish to spend more time together and with friends. Alternatively the technological improvements that had occurred prior to the war and that continued throughout, may have allowed the decline in hours at an earlier stage, but the war effort intervened, not allowing the labour force to push for a shortening of the working week until the war ended. Whatever one's hypothesis, there are many feasible explanations. It is once again the grouping together of differences that statistics overlook which raise cause for concern. Furthermore Broadberry's explanation would only suggest why the real wage rate was high for a few years after the initial fall in hours, and not its continuation throughout the period.Many contemporary observers experienced the rise of trade unions; they watched their power fuse together from a local to national basis, thanks in part to the recommendations of the Whitley Committee in 1917, which resulted in the formation of the Joint Industrial Councils. Negotiations were no longer decentralized, as agreements were reached on a collective basis. The interwar period was one of unrest; worker disputes culminated in strike action both by industry and eventually as a whole. The unions recognised their power by bringing entire collieries and suchlike to a standstill, demanding their requirements be met.The problem of a disproportionately high wage rate is by no means a new theory. Henry Clay (1929), a contemporary economist, and also slightly later A. Pigou blamed the increased strength of trade unions throughout the previous few years as the problem. They placed emphasis toward the extent to which wages were governed by traditional custom rather than the current economic climate. Furthermore emphasis was based by the two on the insurance levels of the period and how these were affected due to this increase in union power. Pigou (1944) highlighted the 'new situation' of an insurance level close to the real wage as being a reason for increased unemployment, yet his comments came much later than Clay, whom in 1929 stated; "To-day trade union negotiators can afford to take the risk that a wage-rate on which they insist will cause un-employment, because their constituents will be provided for by the national relief scheme"[25] The union negotiators no longer possessed as much concern for the outcomes of pushing for a higher real wage in light of an insurance system that proved more generous than any had previously moreover the insurance system meant workers had a level of subsistence to fall back on if wage rates were set too high. He claimed this was a deciding factor, but unlike Benjamin and Kochin's view, which was an issue of choice, the fall in the employment rate was both involuntary; a problem caused in part by union negotiators. Why didn't the union negotiators account for the unemployment rate amongst their workers then? The answer is apparent when viewing the poor wage rates of those employed in the industries with an already high unemployment rate. To request miners, or skilled steel workers and engineers to accept a wage cut, was to "invite opposition"[26]. It could not be expected that these workers would accept a lower wage-rate than those of equal or lesser skill in more profitable or sheltered industries. Furthermore a look at the reaction of the coal industry to an increase in hours worked and a reduction of wage rate only seemed to make the prospect of the skilled workers changing their decision dismal. Those economically uneducated workers observing from outside the industry were to adopt a negative impression of the coal industry, yet the greater elasticity of their goods may have possessed a decidedly different outcome for their industry.A further look at the over-appreciation of sterling in the hope of returning to the gold standard proved to be a downfall of policy makers. The fundamental idea would suggest competitiveness was saturated by an overvaluation of sterling. An over-valuation of sterling implies that the cost of buying British goods was more expensive abroad than would have been if the valuation of Sterling was less. Thus exports from Britain become more expensive to those buying abroad, and the price of imports for British purchasers fell. The industries working for the home market, protected in one way or another from foreign competition were able to keep up their prices, thus covering their costs which had not been adjusted to the level of prices of world gold. On the other hand the export industries had to bring their prices down to the world level, while costs for them remained at the inflated paper level at which they stood when the gold standard was fully restored. This handicap was only worsened by the deflation endured by Britain, when compared to the inflation felt by her competitors.[27] Keynes recognised the problem, and it has subsequently been reinforced by many modern economic historians.[28] The elevated real wage rate meant costs for industry were kept high, whilst prices abroad were low; Thus competitiveness was compromised: a serious concerns for the foundations of Britain during the period.IVOne short-term avenue of explanation toward the high real wage rate early on in the period may be viewed in consideration of the situation for the two years after the First World War, when their were high inflation levels experienced by Britain. Trade unions and their workers were used to demanding a real wage rate above the level needed at the beginning of the year when the negotiations were taking place in order to account for the rising inflation rate over the coming twelve months. This was due to the general way in which negotiations were undertaken, usually only once annually. Indeed this would be reinforced by Bowley (1925) who identified that in a situation where inflation was rising by two or three per cent a month, wages would tend to lag behind. Trade unionists would have been aware of this and negotiated with an estimate of the inflation in mind. Thus a false expectation of a high inflation rate would lead them to demand an increased nominal wage rate, and therefore an over inflated real wage rate would occur. However if this were true it would only explain a high real wage rate for a short period of time, possibly one or two years, as serious deflation struck soon afterward.An additional area for consideration stems from modern economic theory. Throughout the discourse I have noticed no mention of the model of efficiency wages offered by Shapiro & Stiglitz (1984) as a possible cause of wage rigidity and furthermore unemployment during the latter half of the interwar period. In brief the theory states efficiency, defined as a mixture of education and motivation, to be a key factor when employers set the wage rate to attract workers. In offering an 'efficiency wage', a wage higher than the market average, an employer aims to attract a better quality of worker.It becomes apparent that these offerings of a higher wage rate would not directly exist in the staple industries, where a huge pool of the unemployed were stationed, and wage rates were usually negotiated by unions, but rather in the more prosperous, non-unionised industries. The theory could help to explain, how the problem of the generallyhigh real wage rate, evident in the figures offered by Beenstock and also Broadberry, may have occurred. However the difficulty with this theory is evident in proving it to be more relevant to this period than any other. A thought experiment may help our understanding further.Consider; an employer within a prosperous industry during the interwar period is trying to attract a worker. There is a sea of unemployed, but few meet the criteria which he requires for the position he is aiming to fill. His way of attracting an employee is to offer a wage rate slightly higher than the market average for that industry. Assume the 'new' industry requires a certain level of skill amongst the positions he is trying to fill. These skills take time to acquire, and thus if there is a shortage of people with these skills then an excess demand for this type of labour will occur. Therefore the employer may be forced to attract potential employees with a higher than market average wage rate. Now other employers in the same field take note, and start raising the wage rate that they offer in order to attain the skilled employees also. This evidence would suggest a greater amount of money would then be in circulation in these areas and thus localised inflation may occur, driving the nominal wage rates in these local areas upwards, whilst their relative local real wage rate would remain similar. This would be due to the prices in that local area rising at a similar rate to the nominal income increments; the process of localised inflation explainable by the circular flow of income. These workers could explain to a small extent the disequilibrium of the real wage rate in this period. However further consideration into their effects on unionized work pay rates may result in further evidence.If, Henry Clay's[29] observations are true; that skilled workers in some industries were unwilling to accept a fall in their wage rate then there is good circumstantial evidence to suggest that the effects of efficiency wage theory could have had reaching impact into unionized wage bargaining. He claims that their reasons for declining a fall in their wage rate was due to observations they made of 'less-skilled' workers possibly earning higher wage rates than themselves, therefore culminating in a push by the workers for a wage rate of a similar fee. If indeed the wage rate of the 'less skilled' workers was an efficiency wage then we can see an effect on the unionized real wage rate during this period..It should however be noted that the extent to which this happened cannot be proved; it is in fact even in modern terms fairly difficult to prove with the use of statistical data to what extent this type of activity occurs, and also its true effect on the economy as a whole. A survey with the possibility of interviewing employers during the period would offer answers to questions enquiring to their wage setting habits. However I feel that it is worthy of discussion as it could play a role in trying to explain to a small extent why exactly real wage rates were higher than the market suggested.The argument for the use of efficiency wages could be further strengthened, but in the opposite direction, for those, who had, in the latter third of the interwar period become part of the long-term unemployed. These workers had, by this late stage, become poor substitutes for those which had managed to regularly find employment throughout the period. As a result of their undesirability a fall in the real wage rate to attract these long-term unemployed into employment was no longer attractive to a potential employer. As Hatton stated "These 'outsiders' did not effectively compete with the 'insiders' for jobs. Firms would have been reluctant to cut wage rates to employ outsiders for fear of losing the more productive insiders."[30] (The term 'outsiders' is referring to those who experienced long-term unemployment. The term 'insiders' refers to those who had not). Hence an employer would be offering an efficiency wage in this manner also. Akerlof and Yellen (1990) offer a version of efficiency wages in which they state higher wages encourage high morale, which increases worker productivity. Their version of an efficiency wage would also fit with this period. The rise of hourly labour productivity from a base index of 100 set in 1913 rising to 130 by the year 1937 would correspond with their theory of efficiency wages. So we can see an efficiency wage could be used at either end of the spectrum; to attract the best skilled workers to the job in some fields, and also to repel those poorer employees in others, keeping productivity high.VIt was the prospect of the Second World War that spelt the end of the legacy of mass unemployment. Stimulus for re-absorption of the labour force arrived in the form of rearmaments coupled with a move of many unemployed into the armed forces. The British government's tribulations had moved away from what appeared to be a new naturally high rate of unemployment and onto a much more important issue, war.In conclusion, the enigma of British interwar unemployment has provided very few certainties. The 'tour de force' of the British government in choosing to over-appreciate the economy proved problematic for key export dependant industries. The lack of competitiveness of the British firm throughout this period dominates, and when coupled with the deficiency of world demand proved that this period was to be the most troublesome for employment within Britain. The world depression in the 1930s only served to offer further hurdles after the already high rates of unemployment experienced in Great Britain throughout the 1920s. Modern debate picked up on the problems identified by contemporary observers. The problems transpired from industry, and the ever growing power of the trade unions. Was it the trade unions that proved the calamity for the high real wage rate, aided by a generous unemployment system as some would have us believe, or other factors? The lack of information from the period and focus of particular studies does little to help piece the jigsaw together, however a few certain conclusions can be drawn. The real wage rate was at a high level during the period, industry did lose out to foreign competitors, both due to their relatively high prices in light of new competition and also thanks to foreign protectionist policy. Suffering and unrest prevailed as some gave up the will to seek employment. Over-capacity, built up during the war, which left far too many people in declining industries, with little hope of acquiring employment elsewhere. We can categorize the main problems into two broad categories; voluntary unemployment and also involuntary unemployment. Both of which I feel have proved to prevail throughout the period. However I feel the level of voluntary unemployment could be higher than the twenty per cent offered by Eichengreen, but never reaching anywhere near the fifty per cent offered by Benjamin and Kochin.On a final note the theory of efficiency wages when applied to this period could answer some questions; the evidence of increasing hourly productivity rates, coupled with the regional disparities offers some plausibility for the theory to be a possibility.[1] The Interwar Period (1919-1939) - defined here by the end of the First World War and the beginning of the Second World War.[2] Figures taken from: C.H. Feinstein, National Income, Expenditure and Output of the United Kingdom 1855-1965, (Cambridge University Press 1972), Table 128.Fig 1.1 Figure taken from: D. Benjamin & L. Kochin, "Searching for an Explanation of Unemployment in Interwar Britain", The Journal of Political Economy (1979), 87: p444[3] For further information: W. H. Beveridge, Unemployment a Problem of Industry, (London, Longmans, Green and co., 1910) p235[4] G.Cassel, The Problem with Finding Employment, in: J.Astor, Is Unemployment Inevitable?, London, Macmillan & Co. Limited , 1925), p134[5] Ibid, p138[6] W. Thorneycroft, Future of the Coal Industry in Relation to Unemployment, in: J. Astor, Is Unemployment Inevitable?, (London, Macmillan & Co. Limited, London 1925), p228. Asserts the exact figure taken in March 1923 to be 1,095,789 persons employed in the coal industry, not including those men working at coke ovens, brickworks, or other industries carried on adjacent and ancillary to collieries by the same owner.[7] D. Benjamin & L. Kochin assert that their ideas stem from 'Feldstein' 1973, 'Hoelen and Horowitz' 1974, 'Grubel, Maki and Sax' 1975, and 'Maki and Spindler' 1975[8] D. Benjamin & L. Kochin, "Searching for an Explanation of Unemployment in Interwar Britain", The Journal of Political Economy (1979), 87: p474[9]Caption taken from: Barry Eichengreen, "Unemployment in Interwar Britain" Institute of Industrial Relations. Institute of Industrial Relations Working Paper Series. Paper iirwps-013-88, November 1988 :http://repositories.cdlib.org/iir/iirwps/iirwps-013-88/"It was the winter of 1935. Michael Richards had been without steady work for nearly five years. Initially confident of his ability to find another job, after months of frustration he grew sullen and despondent. At first, his 32 shillings a week in benefit had been enough, after rent and expenses, to put food on the table for his wife and three children. But after exhausting his entitlement to unemployment insurance benefit, Richards was forced to turn to the meager 22 shillings of means-tested relief provided by the Public Assistance Committee. Potatoes and turnips replaced meat on the table, and even that was in short supply. Smith's children seemed small compared to their classmates. He himself blamed inadequate diet for the hacking cough which had caused many a foreman to turn him away. The search for work being futile, he spent most of the day on the street commiserating with his mates"[10] N. Whiteside and S.Gillespie, "Deconstructing Unemployment: Developments in the British Economy in the Interwar Years", Economic History Review (1991), 44[11] Tim Hatton states the figure to be around eight percent as taken from The Ministry of Labour's statistics in: T. Hatton, Unemployment and the Labour Market in Interwar Britain,in R.Floud & D. McCloskey (eds.), The Economic History of Britain since 1700 2nd edn., Vol.II, p365[12] Roker and Scott (1926), p.64, in their study of boys in Bermondsey, found that only five percent of the school leavers surveyed obtained jobs through the Exchange.[13] B. Eichengreen, "Unemployment In Interwar Britain: Dole or Doldrums?", Oxford Economic Papers (1987), 39: p598[14] Ibid,. Eichengreen notes: The Anomalies Regulations required married women to have made fifteen weekly contributions since marriage and eight over the preceding six months, or to prove that they both were actively seeking employment and stood a good chance of acquiring work.[15] Benjamin and Kochin, "Unemployment and Unemployed benefits in 20th Century Britain: A reply to our critics" Journal of Political Economy (1982), 90: p416[16] B. Eichengreen, "Unemployment In Interwar Britain: Dole or Doldrums?", Oxford Economic Papers (1987), 39: p601[17] J. Astor, The Third Winter of Unemployment, (London: P.S King & Son Limited, 1922)[18] Information obtained from: Barry Eichengreen, "Unemployment in Interwar Britain" Institute of Industrial Relations. Institute of Industrial Relations Working Paper Series. Paper iirwps-013-88, November 1988 :http://repositories.cdlib.org/iir/iirwps/iirwps-013-88/[19] B. Harris, Unemployment, Insurance and Health in Interwar Britain, in: B. Eichengreen and T.J Hatton (eds), Interwar Unemployment in International Perspective, (Martinus Nijhoff , 1988) ,p.149-184[20] T, Hatton, Unemployment and the Labour Market in Interwar Britain, in: R, Floud. & D, McCloskey, (eds.), The Economic History of Britain since 1700 2nd edn., Vol.II, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974) pp. 336 -337. The poverty line used in these surveys from which he draws his data was established by Rowntree in 1899 which allowed, in addition to rent, a minimum expenditure on food, clothing and a few other essential items[21] J. Astor, The Third Winter of Unemployment, (London: P.S King & Son Limited, 1922): pp. 78[22] Ibid: pp. 80[23] W. Beveridge, Full Employment in a Free Society, (London: George Allen and Unwin Limited, 1944), pp. 89[24] E. Morgan, Studies in British Financial Policy, 1924-25, (Macmillan, 1952)[25] H. Clay, The Post-War Unemployment Problem, (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1929), p155[26] Ibid: p155[27]H. Clay, The Post-War Unemployment Problem, (London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1929: p. 148 Discussed further.[28] Further listings can be found in: N. H. Dimsdale, "Employment and Real Wages in the Interwar Period", National Institute Economic Review (1984): p103[29] H. Clay, The Post-War Unemployment Problem, Macmillan and Co., Limited, London (1929), p155[30] T, Hatton, Unemployment and the Labour Market in Interwar Britain, in: R, Floud. & D, McCloskey, (eds.), The Economic History of Britain since 1700 2nd edn., Vol.II, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974): pp. 383

Australia in 1901 how was life for fourteen year olds in Australia in 1901?

Add your answer:

What country did the idea of an assembly line start?

Famous 16 year olds?

Why is 1999 an important date?

Why was unemployment endemic during the interwar period?

Does Pixar or DreamWorks hire fourteen year olds?

What Animal Clinics let fourteen-year-olds volunteer?

Is it normal for fourteen year olds to be obsessed with sex?

Where in New Hyde Park Long Island will people hire fourteen year olds?

What is a bed time for fourteen year olds?

Will KFC hire fourteen year olds?

How much should you weigh if your fourteen?

What jobs hire fourteen year olds in Manassas VA?

What percentage of 15yr olds who smoke in Australia?

Can 13 year olds work as a babysitter in Australia?

Which American industrialist first used the assembly line to manufacture cars?

Name all the places that will hire a fourteen year old in The Woodlands Texas?

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company