Second Constitutional Convention of the United States

rom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Constitutional_Convention_of_the_United_States

The calling of a Second Constitutional Convention of the United States is a proposal made by some scholars and activists from across the political spectrum for the purpose of making substantive reforms to the United States Federal government by rewriting its Constitution.

Background

Since the initial 1787–88 debate over ratification of the Constitution, there have been sporadic calls for the convening of a second convention to modify and correct perceived shortcomings in the Federal system it established. Article V of the Constitution provides two methods for amending the nation's frame of government. The first method authorizes Congress, "whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary" (a two-thirds majority of those members present—assuming that a quorum exists at the time that the vote is cast—and not necessarily a two-thirds majority vote of the entire membership elected and serving in the two houses of Congress), to propose Constitutional amendments. The second method requires Congress, "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states" (presently 34), to "call a convention for proposing amendments".

In 1943, Alexander Hehmeyer, a lawyer for Chicago-based Marshall Field's department store as well as Time Inc., wrote A Time for Change (Farrar & Rinehart), in which he proposed a second Constitutional Convention to streamline the Federal Government. In the late 1960s, Senator Everett Dirksen called for a constitutional convention by appealing to state legislatures to summon one.

Three times in the 20th century, concerted efforts were undertaken by proponents of particular issues to secure the number of applications necessary to summon an Article V Convention. These included conventions to consider amendments to (1) provide for popular election of U.S. Senators; (2) permit the states to include factors other than equality of population in drawing state legislative district boundaries; and (3) to propose an amendment requiring the U.S. budget to be balanced under most circumstances. The campaign for a popularly elected Senate is frequently credited with "prodding" the Senate to join the House of Representatives in proposing what became the Seventeenth Amendment to the states in 1912, while the latter two campaigns came very close to meeting the two-thirds threshold in the 1960s and 1980s, respectively. In 2013, the number of states calling for a convention to consider a balanced budget amendment was believed to be either 33 or 20, and the tally may depend on rulings about whether past state applications have been rescinded. In 1983, Missouri applied; in 2013, Ohio applied.

In January 1975, Congressman Jerry Pettis, Republican from California, introduced a concurrent resolution (94th H.Con.Res.28) calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. In it, Pettis proposed that each state would be entitled to send as many delegates to the convention as it had Senators and Representatives in Congress and that such delegates would be selected in the manner designated by the legislature of each state. Being a concurrent rather than a joint resolution, the legislation would not have—had it been adopted by both the House and Senate—triggered a national Article V convention. Rather, it would have conveyed the sentiments of Congress that one be called. On August 5, 1977, Representative Norman F. Lent, Republican from New York, introduced a similar concurrent resolution (95th H.Con.Res.340). Both were referred to the House Judiciary Committee. No further action on either was taken. 

A report in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 2011 described the movement for a convention as gaining "traction" in public debate, and wrote that "concern over a seemingly dysfunctional climate in Washington and issues ranging from the national debt to the overwhelming influence of money in politics have spawned calls for fundamental change in the document that guides the nation's government." For several years, state lawmakers approved no Article V Convention calls at all, and even went so far as to adopt resolutions rescinding their prior such calls. However, in 2011, legislators in Alabama, Louisiana, and North Dakota (in two instances) approved resolutions applying for an Article V Convention. All three of these states had adopted rescissions in 1988, 1990, and 2001, respectively, but then reversed course in 2011. The same was true in 2012 with New Hampshire lawmakers who had adopted a resolution to rescind previous convention applications as recently as 2010.

Columnist William Safire

 

A report by analyst David Gergen on CNN suggested that despite serious differences between left-leaning Occupy movements and the right-leaning Tea Party movements, there was considerable agreement on both sides that money plays "far too large a role in politics." Scholars such as Richard Labunski, Sanford Levinson, Lawrence Lessig, Glenn Reynolds, Larry Sabato, newspaper columnist William Safire, and activists such as John Booth of the Dallas movement RestoringFreedom.org have called for constitutional changes that would curb the dominant role of money in politics. Scholar Stein Ringen in his book Nation of Devils suggested that only a "total overhaul" of the constitution could fix the "years of accumulated damage and dysfunction," according to a report in the Economist in 2013. French journalist Jean-Philippe Immarigeon suggested in Harper's Magazine that the "nearly 230-year-old constitution stretched past the limits of its usefulness". A report in USA Today suggested that 17 of 34 states have petitioned Congress for a convention to deal with the issue of a balanced budget amendment. A report on CNN suggested that 30 state legislatures are considering resolutions either calling for a constitutional convention or else proposing changes to the Constitution. David O. Stewart suggested that possible topics for Constitutional amendments might include the elimination of the electoral college and switching to direct election of the president, a ban on procedures in the United States Senate which utilize a supermajority vote requirement as a means to prevent minorities or powerful Senators from blocking legislation, term limits for Senators and Representatives, and a balanced budget amendment.

Questions

Numerous questions surround the issue of how such an unprecedented convention might be conducted. There is no consensus on how such a convention may be organized, led, or who may be selected to be in such a body.

Because there has not been a constitutional convention since 1787, efforts have been clouded by unresolved legal questions: Do the calls for a convention have to happen at the same time? Can a convention be limited to just one topic? What if Congress simply refuses to call a convention? Scholars are split on all those issues.

— report in the Indianapolis Star, 2011

Precedent

While there is no precedent for such a convention, scholars have noted that the original 1787 Convention, itself, was the first precedent, as it had only been authorized to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to draw up an entirely new frame of government. According to The New York Times, the action by the Founding Fathers set up a precedent that could be used today. But, since 1787, there has not been an overall constitutional convention. Instead, each time the amendment process has been initiated since 1789, it has been initiated by Congress. All 33 amendments submitted to the states for ratification originated there. The convention option, which Alexander Hamilton (writing in The Federalist No. 85) believed would serve as a barrier "against the encroachments of the national authority", has yet to be successfully invoked, although not for lack of activity in the states. 

Scope of a possible convention

There have been calls for a second convention based on a single issue such as the Balanced Budget Amendment. According to one count, 17 of 34 states have petitioned Congress for a "convention to propose a balanced budget amendment." But Congress has been reluctant to "impose limitations on its spending and borrowing and taxing powers", according to anti-tax activist David Biddulph. Law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen suggested that such a convention would have the "power to propose anything it sees fit" and that calls for a convention to focus on only one issue "may not be valid", according to this view. According to Paulsen's count, 33 states have called for a general convention, although some of these calls have been pending "since the 19th century."

According to a New York Times report, different groups would be nervous that a convention summoned to address only one issue might propose a wholesale revision of the entire Constitution, possibly limiting "provisions they hold dear." Such groups include the American Civil Liberties Union, the John Birch Society, the National Organization for Women, the Gun Owners Clubs of America and conservative advocate Phyllis Schlafly. Accordingly, they are opposed to the idea of a second convention. Lawrence Lessig countered that the requirement of having 38 states ratify any proposed revision—three-quarters of all state legislatures—meant that any extreme proposals would be blocked, since either 13 red or 13 blue states could block such a measure.

Language

Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe noted that the language in the current Constitution about how to implement a second one is "dangerously vague", and that there is a possibility that the same interests that have corrupted Washington's politics may have a hand in efforts to rewrite it. Politicians and scholars who are reluctant to have a second constitutional convention may insist that all 34 state petitions to Congress must have an identical wording or otherwise the petitions would be considered invalid. It shall also be necessary for one state to initially create a resolution and subsequently pass; and then this same resolution, which passes, must circulate among the several states and be approved by the necessary two thirds before a convention would be held. In other words, one document would be drawn up and passed by the states that would state the rules governing such a convention. The Founding Fathers allowed for such flexibility within the U.S. Constitution.

Particular views

Lawrence Lessig

Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig has argued that a movement to urge state legislatures to call for a constitutional Convention was the best possibility to achieve substantive reform:

But somebody at the convention said that "what if Congress is the problem—what do we do then?" So they set up an alternative path ... that states can call on Congress to call a Convention. The convention, then, proposes the amendments, and those amendments have to pass by three fourths of the states. So, either way, thirty eight states have to ratify an amendment, but the sources of those amendments are different. One is inside, one is outside.

— Lawrence Lessig, 2011

Lessig argued that the ordinary means of politics were not feasible to solve the problem affecting the United States government because the incentives corrupting politicians are so powerful. Lessig believes a convention is needed in view of Supreme Court decisions to eliminate most limits on campaign contributions. He quoted congressperson Jim Cooper from Tennessee who remarked that Congress had become a "Farm League for K Street" in the sense that congresspersons were focused on lucrative careers as lobbyists after serving in the Congress, and not on serving the public interest. He proposed that such a convention be populated by a random drawing of citizens' names as a way to keep special interests out of the process.

Sanford Levinson

Constitutional scholar and University of Texas Law School professor Sanford Levinson wrote Our Undemocratic Constitution: Where the Constitution Goes Wrong and called for a "wholesale revision of our nation's founding document." Levinson wrote:

We ought to think about it almost literally every day, and then ask, 'Well, to what extent is government organized to realize the noble visions of the preamble?' That the preamble begins, 'We the people.' It's a notion of a people that can engage in self-determination.

— Sanford Levinson, 2006

Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds, in a keynote speech at Harvard Law School, said the movement for a new convention was a reflection of having in many ways "the worst political class in our country's history."

Political scientist Larry Sabato believes a second convention is necessary since "piecemeal amendments" have not been working. Sabato argued that America needs a "grand meeting of clever and high-minded people to draw up a new, improved constitution better suited to the 21st century."

Author Scott Turow sees risks with a possible convention but believes it may be the only possible way to undo how campaign money has undermined the "one-man one-vote" premise.

Few new constitutions are modeled along the lines of the U.S. one, according to a study by David Law of Washington University. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg views the United States Constitution as more of a relic of the 18th century rather than as a model for new constitutions, and she suggested in 2014 that a nation seeking a new constitution might find a better model by examining the Constitution of South Africa (1997), the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) and the European Convention on Human Rights (1950):

I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

— Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 2012

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) to the United States Constitution sets a limit on the number of times an individual is eligible for election to the office of President of the United States, and also sets additional eligibility conditions for presidents who succeed to the unexpired terms of their predecessors.

Prior to the ratification of the amendment, the president had not been subject to term limits, but George Washington had established a two-term tradition that many other presidents had followed. In the 1940 presidential election and the 1944 presidential election, Franklin D. Roosevelt became the first president to win a third term and then later a fourth term, giving rise to concerns about the potential issues involved with a president serving an unlimited number of terms. Congress approved the Twenty-second Amendment on March 24, 1947, and submitted it to the state legislatures for ratification. That process was completed on February 27, 1951, after the amendment had been ratified by the requisite 36 of the then-48 states (as neither Alaska nor Hawaii had been admitted as states), and its provisions came into force on that date.

The amendment prohibits any individual who has been elected president twice from being elected again. Under the amendment, an individual who fills an unexpired presidential term lasting greater than two years is also prohibited from winning election as president more than once. Scholars debate whether the amendment prohibits affected individuals from succeeding to the presidency under any circumstances or whether it only applies to presidential elections.

Text

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 date of its submission to the states by the Congress.

Background

Notwithstanding that the Twenty-second Amendment was clearly a reaction to Franklin D. Roosevelt's election to an unprecedented four terms as president, the notion of presidential term limits has long been debated in American politics. Delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 considered the issue extensively (alongside broader questions, such as who would elect the president, and the president's role). Many—including Alexander Hamilton and James Madison—supported a lifetime appointment for presidents, while others favored fixed terms appointments. Virginia's George Mason denounced the life-tenure proposal as tantamount to establishment of an elective monarchy. An early draft of the United States Constitution provided that the President was restricted to a single seven-year term. Ultimately, the Framers approved four-year terms with no restriction on the amount of time a person could serve as president.

Though dismissed by the Constitutional Convention, the concept of term limits for U.S. presidents took hold during the presidencies of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. As his second term entered its final year in 1796, George Washington was exhausted from years of public service, and his health had begun to decline. He was also bothered by the unrelenting attacks from his political opponents, which had escalated after the signing of the Jay Treaty, and believed that he had accomplished his major goals as president. For these reasons, he decided not to stand for reelection to a third term, a decision he announced to the nation through a Farewell Address in September 1796. Eleven years later, as Thomas Jefferson neared the half-way point of his second term, he wrote,

If some termination to the services of the chief magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally for years, will in fact, become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance.

Since Washington made his historic announcement, numerous academics and public figures have looked at his decision to retire after two terms, and have, according to political scientist Bruce Peabody, "argued he had established a two-term tradition that served as a vital check against any one person, or the presidency as a whole, accumulating too much power". Numerous amendments aimed toward changing informal precedent into constitutional law were proposed in Congress during the early to mid-19th century, but none passed. Three of the next four presidents after Jefferson—James Madison, James Monroe, and Andrew Jackson—served two terms, and each one adhered to the two-term principle; Martin Van Buren was the only president between Jackson and Abraham Lincoln to be nominated for a second term, although he lost the 1840 election, and so only served one term. Before the Civil War the seceding States drafted the Constitution of the Confederate States of America which in most respects was similar to the United States Constitution, but one change was limiting the President to a single six-year term.

Ulysses S. Grant is shown surrendering to James A. Garfield after losing the 1880 Republican presidential nomination to him, in this satirical Puck cartoon.

 

In spite of the strong two-term tradition, a few presidents prior to Franklin Roosevelt did attempt to secure a third term. Following Ulysses S. Grant's reelection victory in 1872, there were serious discussions within Republican political circles about the possibility of his running again in 1876. Interest in a third term for Grant evaporated however, in the light of negative public opinion and opposition from members of Congress, and Grant left the presidency in 1877, after two terms. Even so, as the 1880 election approached, he sought nomination for a (non-consecutive) third term at the 1880 Republican National Convention, but narrowly lost to James Garfield, who would go on to win the 1880 election.

Theodore Roosevelt succeeded to the presidency on September 14, 1901, following William McKinley's assassination (194 days into his second term), and was subsequently elected to a full term in 1904. While he declined to seek a third (second full) term in 1908, Roosevelt did seek one four years later, in the election of 1912, where he lost to Woodrow Wilson. Wilson himself, despite his ill health following a serious stroke, aspired to a third term. Many of Wilson's advisers tried to convince him that his health precluded another campaign, but Wilson nonetheless asked that his name be placed in nomination for the presidency at the 1920 Democratic National Convention. Democratic Party leaders were unwilling to support Wilson, however, and the nomination eventually went to James M. Cox, who lost to Warren G. Harding. Wilson again contemplated running for a (nonconsecutive) third term in 1924, devising a strategy for his comeback, but again lacked any support; he died in February of that year.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, elected to four terms, was president from 1933 until his death in 1945.

 

Franklin D. Roosevelt spent the months leading up to the 1940 Democratic National Convention refusing to state whether he would seek a third term. His Vice President, John Nance Garner, along with Postmaster General James Farley, announced their candidacies for the Democratic nomination. When the convention came, Roosevelt sent a message to the convention, saying he would run only if drafted, saying delegates were free to vote for whomever they pleased. This message was interpreted to mean he was willing to be drafted, and he subsequently was renominated on the convention's first ballot. Later, during the 1940 presidential election, Roosevelt won a decisive victory over Republican Wendell Willkie, becoming the first, and to date only, person to exceed eight years in office. Roosevelt's decision to seek a third term dominated the election campaign. Willkie ran against the open-ended presidential tenure, while Democrats cited the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent.

Four years later, Roosevelt faced Republican Thomas E. Dewey in the 1944 election. Near the end of the campaign, Thomas Dewey announced his support of a constitutional amendment that would limit future presidents to two terms. According to Dewey, "four terms, or sixteen years (a direct reference to the president's tenure in office four years hence), is the most dangerous threat to our freedom ever proposed." He also discreetly raised the issue of the president's age. Roosevelt, however, was able to exude enough energy and charisma to retain the confidence of the American public, who reelected him to a fourth term.

While he effectively quelled rumors of his poor health during the campaign, Roosevelt's health was in reality deteriorating. On April 12, 1945, only 82 days after his fourth inauguration, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died. He was succeeded by Vice President Harry Truman. In the midterm elections 18 months later, Republicans took control of both the House and the Senate. As many of them had campaigned on the issue of presidential tenure, declaring their support for a constitutional amendment that would limit how long a person could serve as president, the issue was given top priority in the 80th Congress when it convened in January 1947.

Proposal and ratification

Proposal in Congress

The House of Representatives took quick action, approving a proposed constitutional amendment (House Joint Resolution 27) setting a limit of two four-year terms for future presidents. Introduced by Earl C. Michener, the measure passed 285–121, with support from 47 Democrats, on February 6, 1947. Meanwhile, the Senate developed its own proposed amendment, which initially differed from the House proposal by requiring that the amendment be submitted to state ratifying conventions for ratification, rather than to the state legislatures, and by prohibiting any person who had served more than 365 days in each of two terms from further presidential service. Both these provisions were removed when the full Senate took up the bill, but a new provision was, however, added. Put forward by Robert A. Taft, it clarified procedures governing the number of times a vice president who succeeded to the presidency might be elected to office. The amended proposal was passed 59–23, with 16 Democrats in favor, on March 12.

Several days later, the House agreed to the Senate's revisions, and on March 24, 1947, the constitutional amendment imposing term limitations on future Presidents was submitted to the states for ratification. The ratification process for the 22nd Amendment was completed on February 27, 1951, 3 years, 343 days after it was sent to the states.

Ratification by the states

A map of how the states voted on the Twenty-second Amendment

 

The Twenty-Second Amendment in the National Archives

 

Once submitted to the states, the 22nd Amendment was ratified by:

1. Maine (March 31, 1947)
2. Michigan (March 31, 1947)
3. Iowa (April 1, 1947)
4. Kansas (April 1, 1947)
5. New Hampshire (April 1, 1947)
6. Delaware (April 2, 1947)
7. Illinois (April 3, 1947)
8. Oregon (April 3, 1947)
9. Colorado (April 12, 1947)
10. California (April 15, 1947)
11. New Jersey (April 15, 1947)
12. Vermont (April 15, 1947)
13. Ohio (April 16, 1947)
14. Wisconsin (April 16, 1947)
15. Pennsylvania (April 29, 1947)
16. Connecticut (May 21, 1947)
17. Missouri (May 22, 1947)
18. Nebraska (May 23, 1947)
19. Virginia (January 28, 1948)
20. Mississippi (February 12, 1948)
21. New York (March 9, 1948)
22. South Dakota (January 21, 1949)
23. North Dakota (February 25, 1949)
24. Louisiana (May 17, 1950)
25. Montana (January 25, 1951)
26. Indiana (January 29, 1951)
27. Idaho (January 30, 1951)
28. New Mexico (February 12, 1951)
29. Wyoming (February 12, 1951)
30. Arkansas (February 15, 1951)
31. Georgia (February 17, 1951)
32. Tennessee (February 20, 1951)
33. Texas (February 22, 1951)
34. Utah (February 26, 1951)
35. Nevada (February 26, 1951)
36. Minnesota (February 27, 1951)
    Ratification was completed when the Minnesota Legislature ratified the amendment. On March 1, 1951, the Administrator of General Services, Jess Larson, issued a certificate proclaiming the 22nd Amendment duly ratified and part of the Constitution. The amendment was subsequently ratified by:
37. North Carolina (February 28, 1951)
38. South Carolina (March 13, 1951)
39. Maryland (March 14, 1951)
40. Florida (April 16, 1951)
41. Alabama (May 4, 1951)

Conversely, two states—Oklahoma and Massachusetts—rejected the amendment, while five (Arizona, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Washington, and West Virginia) took no action.

Affected individuals

The 22nd Amendment's two-term limit did not apply (due to the grandfather clause in Section 1) to Harry S. Truman, because he was the incumbent president at the time it was proposed by Congress. Truman, who had served nearly all of Franklin D. Roosevelt's unexpired fourth term and who was elected to a full term in 1948, was thus eligible to seek re-election in 1952. However, with his job approval rating floundering at around 27%, and after a poor performance in the 1952 New Hampshire primary, Truman chose not to seek his party's nomination. He theoretically also would have been eligible in later elections.

Since coming into force in 1951, the amendment has applied to six presidents who have been elected twice: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. 

It could have impacted two who entered office intra-term due to their predecessor's death or resignation: Lyndon B. Johnson and Gerald Ford. Johnson became president in November 1963, following the assassination of John F. Kennedy, served out the final 1 year and 59 days of Kennedy's term, and was elected to a full four-year term in 1964. Four years later, he briefly ran for a second full term, but withdrew from the race during the party primaries. Had Johnson served a second full term – through January 20, 1973 – the total length of his presidency would have been 9 years and 59 days; as it happened, Johnson died two days after this date. Gerald Ford, who became president in August 1974 following the resignation of Richard Nixon, served the final 2 years and 164 days of Nixon's term, and attempted to win a full four-year term in 1976, but was defeated by Jimmy Carter. Johnson was eligible to be elected to two full terms in his own right, as he had served less than two years of Kennedy's unexpired term, whereas Ford was eligible to be elected to only one full term, as he had served more than two years of Nixon's unexpired term.

Interaction with the Twelfth Amendment

As worded, the primary focus of the 22nd Amendment is on limiting individuals twice elected to the presidency from being elected again. Due to this, several issues could be raised regarding the amendment's meaning and application, especially in relation to the 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, which states, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". While it is clear that under the 12th Amendment the original constitutional qualifications of age, citizenship, and residency apply to both the president and vice president, it is unclear whether someone who is ineligible to be elected president could be elected vice president. Because of this apparent ambiguity, there may be a loophole in the 22nd Amendment whereby a two-term former-president could be elected vice president and then succeed to the presidency as a result of the incumbent's death, resignation, or removal from office (or even succeed to the presidency from some other stated office in the presidential line of succession).

Some argue that the 22nd Amendment and 12th Amendment bar any two-term president from later serving as vice president as well as from succeeding to the presidency from any point in the presidential line of succession. Others contend that the original intent of the 12th Amendment concerns qualification for service (age, residence, and citizenship), while the 22nd Amendment, concerns qualifications for election, and thus (strictly applying the text) a former two-term president is still eligible to serve as vice president (neither amendment restricts the number of times an individual can be elected to the vice presidency), and then succeed to the presidency to serve out the balance of the term (though prohibited from running for election to an additional term).

The practical applicability of this distinction has not been tested, as no former president has ever sought the vice presidency. In 1980, former president Gerald Ford was mentioned as a possible vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential nominee Ronald Reagan, and there were some negotiations between the two camps, but nothing ever came of the idea. During Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign, she jokingly said that she had considered naming her husband Bill Clinton as her vice presidential running mate, but had been advised it would be unconstitutional. Most likely, the constitutional question raised will remain unanswered unless the situation actually occurs.

Attempts at repeal

Over the years, several presidents have voiced their antipathy toward the amendment. After leaving office, Harry Truman variously described it as: "bad", "stupid", and "one of the worst that has been put into the Constitution, except for the Prohibition Amendment". In January 1989, during an interview with Tom Brokaw a few days prior to leaving office, Ronald Reagan stated his intention to push for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment, calling it "an infringement on the democratic rights of the people." In a November 2000 interview with Rolling Stone, out-going President Bill Clinton suggested that, given longer life expectancy, perhaps the 22nd Amendment should be altered so as to limit presidents to two consecutive terms. On multiple occasions since taking office in 2017, President Donald Trump has questioned presidential term limits and in public remarks has jokingly talked about violating the 22nd Amendment. For instance, during an April 2019 White House event for the Wounded Warrior Project, he said that he would remain president "at least for 10 or 14 years."

The first efforts in Congress to repeal the 22nd Amendment were undertaken in 1956, only five years after the amendment's ratification. According to the Congressional Research Service, over the ensuing half-century (through 2008) 54 joint resolutions seeking to repeal the two-term presidential election limit were introduced (primarily in the House); none were given serious consideration. Between 1997 and 2013, José E. Serrano (D-NY) introduced nine resolutions (one per Congress, all unsuccessful) to repeal the amendment. Repeal has also been supported by senior congressmen such as Barney Frank and David Dreier and Senators Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid.

Philosophy of sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_sex

Philosophy of sex is an aspect of applied philosophy involved with the study of sex and love. It includes both ethics of phenomena such as prostitution, rape, sexual harassment, sexual identity, the age of consent, homosexuality, and conceptual analysis of concepts such as "what is sex?" It also includes questions of sexuality and sexual identity and the ontological status of gender. Leading contemporary philosophers of sex include Alan Soble and Judith Butler.

Contemporary philosophy of sex is sometimes informed by Western feminism. Issues raised by feminists regarding gender differences, sexual politics, and the nature of sexual identity are important questions in the philosophy of sex.

• What is the function of sex?
• What is romantic love?
• Is there an essential characteristic that makes an act sexual?
• Are some sexual acts good and others bad? According to what criteria? Alternatively, can consensual sexual acts be immoral, or are they outside the realm of ethics?
• What is the relationship between sex and biological reproduction? Can one exist without the other?
• Are sexual identities rooted in some fundamental ontological difference (such as biology)?
• Is sexuality a function of gender or biological sex?

 

 

History of the philosophy of sex

Throughout much of the history of Western philosophy, questions of sex and sexuality have been considered only within the general subject of ethics. There have, however, been deviations from this pattern out of which emerge a tradition of speaking of sexual issues in their own right. 

The Society for the Philosophy of Sex and Love is a professional group within the membership of the American Philosophical Association.

Sexual desire

Moral evaluations of sexual activity are determined by judgments on the nature of the sexual impulse. In this light, philosophies fall into two camps:

A negative understanding of sexuality, such as from Immanuel Kant, believes that sexuality undermines values, and challenges our moral treatment of other persons. Sex, says Kant, "makes of the loved person an Object of appetite". In this understanding, sex is often advised only for the purpose of procreation. Sometimes sexual celibacy is considered to lead to the best, or most moral life.

A positive understanding of sexuality – such as from Russell Vannoy, Irving Singer – sees sexual activity as pleasing the self and the other at the same time. 

Putative perversions

Thomas Nagel proposes that only sexual interactions with mutual sexual arousal are natural to human sexuality. Perverted sexual encounters or events would be those in which this reciprocal arousal is absent, and in which a person remains fully a subject of the sexual experience or fully an object.

Consent

Main article: Informed consent

Rust Belt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt

 

Change in total number of manufacturing jobs in metropolitan areas, 1954–2002 (figures for New England are from 1958).

  >58% loss

  43–56% loss

  31–43.2% loss

  8.7–29.1% loss [United States average: 8.65% loss]

  7.5% loss – 54.4% gain

  >62% gain

Three metropolitan areas lost more than four fifths of their manufacturing jobs: Steubenville, Ohio, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, and Augusta, Maine.

 

Change in per capita personal income in metropolitan counties, 1980–2002, relative to the average for U.S. metropolitan areas.

  income above average, growth faster than average

  income above average, growth average or below average

  income above average but decreasing

  income below average, growth faster than average

  income below average, growth average or below average

  income below average and further decreasing

"Rust Belt" is a term for an informal region of the United States that experienced industrial decline starting around 1980. It is made up mostly of places in the Midwest and Great Lakes, though definitions vary. Rust refers to the deindustrialization, or economic decline, population loss, and urban decay due to the shrinking of its once-powerful industrial sector. The term gained popularity in the U.S. in the 1980s.

The Rust Belt begins in Central New York and traverses west through Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, ending in northern Illinois, eastern Iowa, and southeastern Wisconsin. New England was also hard hit by industrial decline during the same era. Industry has been declining in the region, which was previously known as the industrial heartland of America, since the mid-20th century due to a variety of economic factors, such as the transfer of manufacturing overseas, increased automation, and the decline of the US steel and coal industries. While some cities and towns have managed to adapt by shifting focus towards services and high-tech industries, others have not fared as well, witnessing rising poverty and declining populations.

Background

In the 20th century, local economies in these states specialized in large-scale manufacturing of finished medium to heavy industrial and consumer products, as well as the transportation and processing of the raw materials required for heavy industry. The area was referred to as the Manufacturing Belt, Factory Belt, or Steel Belt as distinct from the agricultural Midwestern states forming the so-called Corn Belt and Great Plains states that are often called the "bread-basket of America".

The flourishing of industrial manufacturing in the region was caused in part by the proximity to the Great Lakes waterways, and abundance of paved roads, water canals and railroads. After the transportation infrastructure linked the iron ore found in northern Minnesota, Wisconsin and Upper Michigan with the coal mined from Appalachian Mountains, the Steel Belt was born. Soon it developed into the Factory Belt with its great American manufacturing cities: Chicago, Buffalo, Detroit, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Toledo, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh among others. This region for decades served as a magnet for immigrants from Austria-Hungary, Poland and Russia who provided the industrial facilities with inexpensive labor.

Following several "boom" periods from the late-19th to the mid-20th century, cities in this area struggled to adapt to a variety of adverse economic and social conditions. From 1979 to 1982, the US Federal Reserve decided to raise the base interest rate in the United States to 19%. High interest rates attracted wealthy foreign "hot money" into US banks and caused the US dollar to appreciate. This made US products more expensive for foreigners to buy and also made imports much cheaper for Americans to purchase. The misaligned exchange rate was not rectified until 1986, by which time Japanese imports in particular had made rapid inroads into US markets. From 1987 to 1999, the US stock market went into stratospheric rise, and this continued to pull wealthy foreign money into US banks, which biased the exchange rate against manufactured goods. Related issues include the decline of the iron and steel industry, the movement of manufacturing to the southeastern states with their lower labor costs, the layoffs due to the rise of automation in industrial processes, the decreased need for labor in making steel products, new organizational methods such as just-in-time manufacturing which allowed factories to maintain production with fewer workers, the internationalization of American business, and the liberalization of foreign trade policies due to globalization. Cities struggling with these conditions shared several difficulties, including population loss, lack of education, declining tax revenues, high unemployment and crime, drugs, swelling welfare rolls, deficit spending, and poor municipal credit ratings.

Geography

As people migrate, they often coin new names for their destinations. Since the term "Rust Belt" pertains to a set of economic and social conditions rather than to an overall geographical region of the United States, the Rust Belt has no precise boundaries. The extent to which a community may have been described as a "Rust Belt city" depends at least as much on how great a role industrial manufacturing played in its local economy in the past and how it does now, as on perceptions of the economic viability and living standards of the present day.

News media occasionally refer to a patchwork of defunct centres of heavy industry and manufacturing across the Great Lakes and mid-western United States as the snow belt, the manufacturing belt, or the factory belt - because of their vibrant industrial economies in the past. This includes most of the cities of the Midwest as far west as the Mississippi River, including St. Louis, and many of those in the Great Lakes and Northern New York. At the center of this expanse lies an area stretching from northern Indiana and southern Michigan in the west to Upstate New York in the east, where local tax revenues as of 2004 relied more heavily on manufacturing than on any other sector.

Before World War II, the cities in the Rust Belt region were among the largest in the United States. However, by the twentieth century's end their population had fallen the most in the country.

History

The linking of the former Northwest Territory with the once-rapidly industrializing East Coast was affected through several large-scale infrastructural projects, most notably the Erie Canal in 1825, the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in 1830, the Allegheny Portage Railroad in 1834, and the consolidation of the New York Central after the American Civil War. A gate was thereby opened between a variety of burgeoning industries on the interior North American continent and the markets not only of the large Eastern cities, but of Western Europe as well.

Coal, iron ore and other raw materials were shipped in from surrounding regions which emerged as major ports on the Great Lakes and served as transportation hubs for the region with a proximity to railroad lines. Coming in the other direction were millions of European immigrants, who populated the cities along the Great Lakes shores with then-unprecedented speed. Chicago, famously, was a rural trading post in the 1840s but grew to be as big as Paris by the time of the 1893 Columbian Exposition.

Sectors of the US Economy as percent of GDP 1947–2009.

 

Early signs of the difficulty in the northern states were evident early in the 20th century, before the "boom years" were even over. Lowell, Massachusetts, once the centre of textile production in the United States, was described in the magazine Harper's as a "depressed industrial desert" as early as 1931, as its textile concerns were being uprooted and sent southward, primarily to the Carolinas. After the Great Depression, American entry into the Second World War effected a rapid return to economic growth, during which much of the industrial North reached its peak in population and industrial output.

The northern cities experienced changes that followed the end of the war, with the onset of the outward migration of residents to newer suburban communities, and the declining role of manufacturing in the American economy.

Deteriorating U.S. net international investment position (N.I.I.P.) has caused concern among economists over the effects of outsourcing and high U.S. trade deficits over the long-run.

 

Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs in tradeable goods has been an important issue in the region. One source has been globalization and the expansion of worldwide free trade agreements. Anti-globalization groups argue that trade with developing countries has resulted in stiff competition from countries such as China which pegs its currency to the dollar and has much lower prevailing wages, forcing domestic wages to drift downward. Some economists are concerned that long-run effects of high trade deficits and outsourcing are a cause of economic problems in the U.S. with high external debt (amount owed to foreign lenders) and a serious deterioration in the United States net international investment position (NIIP) (−24% of GDP).

Some economists contend that the U.S. is borrowing to fund consumption of imports while accumulating unsustainable amounts of debt. On June 26, 2009, Jeff Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, called for the United States to increase its manufacturing base employment to 20% of the workforce, commenting that the U.S. has outsourced too much in some areas and can no longer rely on the financial sector and consumer spending to drive demand.

A disused grain elevator in Buffalo, New York

 

Since the 1960s, the expansion of worldwide free trade agreements have been less favorable to U.S. workers. Imported goods such as steel cost much less to produce in Third World countries with cheap foreign labor (see steel crisis). Beginning with the recession of 1970–71, a new pattern of deindustrializing economy emerged. Competitive devaluation combined with each successive downturn saw traditional U.S. manufacturing workers experiencing lay-offs. In general, in the Factory Belt employment in the manufacturing sector declined by 32.9% between 1969 and 1996.

Wealth-producing primary and secondary sector jobs such as those in manufacturing and computer software were often replaced by much-lower-paying wealth-consuming jobs such as those in retail and government in the service sector when the economy recovered.

A gradual expansion of the U.S. trade deficit with China began in 1985. In the ensuing years the U.S. developed a massive trade deficit with the East Asian nations of China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. As a result, the traditional manufacturing workers in the region have experienced economic upheaval. This effect has devastated government budgets across the U.S. and increased corporate borrowing to fund retiree benefits. Some economists believe that GDP and employment can be dragged down by large long-run trade deficits.

A March 3, 2008 Wall Street Journal editorial claimed that, while Ohio lost 10,000 jobs in the past decade, Texas created 1.6 million new jobs. The editorial stated, "Ohio's most crippling handicap may be that its politicians—and thus its employers—are still in the grip of such industrial unions as the United Auto Workers." A September 13, 2008 opinion column by Phil Gramm and Mike Solon stated, "Yes, Michigan lost 83,000 auto manufacturing jobs during the past decade and a half, but more than 91,000 new auto manufacturing jobs sprung up in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas."

Outcomes

Francis Fukuyama considers the social and cultural consequences of deindustrialization and manufacturing decline that turned a former thriving Factory Belt into a Rust Belt as a part of a bigger transitional trend that he called the Great Disruption: "People associate the information age with the advent of the Internet in the 1990s, but the shift from the industrial era started more than a generation earlier, with the deindustrialization of the Rust Belt in the United States and comparable movements away from manufacturing in other industrialized countries. … The decline is readily measurable in statistics on crime, fatherless children, broken trust, reduced opportunities for and outcomes from education, and the like".

Problems associated with the Rust Belt persist even today, particularly around the eastern Great Lakes states, and many once-booming manufacturing metropolises dramatically slowed down. From 1970 to 2006, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh lost about 45% of their population and median household incomes fell: in Cleveland and Detroit by about 30%, in Buffalo by 20%, and Pittsburgh by 10%.

An abandoned Fisher auto body plant in Detroit

 

A steel plant in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Though the blast furnaces themselves remain intact, part of the property was sold in 2007 and turned into the Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem.

 

The Huber Breaker (in Ashley, Pennsylvania) was one of the largest anthracite coal breakers in North America. It was built in the 1930s; it closed in the 1970s.

 

It seemed that during the mid-1990s in several Rust Belt metro areas the negative growth was suspended as indicated by major statistical indicators: unemployment, wages, population change. However, during the first decade of the 21st century, a negative trend persisted: Detroit lost 25.7% of its population; Gary, Indiana – 22%; Youngstown, Ohio – 18.9%; Flint, Michigan – 18.7%; and Cleveland, Ohio – 14.5%.

2000–2018 population change in Rust Belt cities

City	Population change	2018 population	2000 population
Detroit, Michigan	−29.3%	672,662	951,270
Gary, Indiana	−26.7%	75,282	102,746
Flint, Michigan	−23.2%	95,943	124,943
Saginaw, Michigan	−21.8%	48,323	61,799
Youngstown, Ohio	−20.8%	64,958	82,026
Cleveland, Ohio	−19.8%	383,793	478,403
Dayton, Ohio	−15.4%	140,640	166,179
Niagara Falls, New York	−13.4%	48,144	55,593
St. Louis, Missouri	−13.0%	302,838	348,189
Decatur, Illinois	−12.9%	71,290	81,860
Canton, Ohio	−12.8%	70,458	80,806
Buffalo, New York	−12.4%	256,304	292,648
Toledo, Ohio	−12.3%	274,975	313,619
Charleston, West Virginia	−11.6%	47,215	53,421
Lakewood, Ohio	−11.6%	50,100	56,646
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania	−10.0%	301,048	334,563
Pontiac, Michigan	−9.9%	59,772	66,337
Springfield, Ohio	−9.3%	59,282	65,358
Akron, Ohio	−8.8%	198,006	217,074
Hammond, Indiana	−8.7%	75,795	83,048
Cincinnati, Ohio	−8.7%	302,605	331,285
Parma, Ohio	−8.1%	78,751	85,655
Lorain, Ohio	−6.7%	64,028	68,652
Chicago, Illinois	−6.6%	2,705,994	2,896,016
South Bend, Indiana	−5.5%	101,860	107,789

In the late-2000s, American manufacturing recovered faster from the Great Recession of 2008 than the other sectors of the economy, and a number of initiatives, both public and private, are encouraging the development of alternative fuel, nano and other technologies. Together with the neighboring Golden Horseshoe of Southern Ontario, Canada, the so-called Rust Belt still composes one of the world's major manufacturing regions.

Transformation

Since the 1980s, presidential candidates have devoted much of their time to the economic concerns of the Rust Belt region, which contains the populous swing states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan. Those states were also critical and decisive to Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 US Presidential Election.

Different strategies were proposed in order to reverse the fortunes of the former Factory Belt including building casinos and convention centers, retaining the so-called "creative class" through arts and downtown renewal, encouraging the "knowledge" economy type of entrepreneurship, etc. Lately, analysts suggested that industrial comeback might be the actual path for the future resurgence of the region. That includes growing new industrial base with a pool of skilled labor, rebuilding the infrastructure and infrasystems, creating R&D university-business partnerships, and close cooperation between central, state and local government and business.

New types of R&D-intensive nontraditional manufacturing have emerged recently in Rust Belt, such as biotechnology, the polymer industry, infotech, and nanotech. Infotech in particular creates a promising venue for the Rust Belt's revitalization. Among the successful recent examples is the Detroit Aircraft Corporation, which specializes in unmanned aerial systems integration, testing and aerial cinematography services.

In Pittsburgh, robotics research centres and companies such as National Robotics Engineering Center and Robotics Institute, Aethon Inc., American Robot Corporation, Automatika, Quantapoint, Blue Belt Technologies and Seegrid are creating state-of-the-art robotic technology applications. Akron, a former "Rubber Capital of the World" that lost 35,000 jobs after major tire and rubber manufacturers Goodrich, Firestone and General Tire closed their production lines, is now again well known around the world as a centre of polymer research with four hundred polymer-related manufacturing and distribution companies operating in the area. The turnaround was accomplished in part due to a partnership between Goodyear Tire & Rubber, which chose to stay, the University of Akron and the city mayor's office. The Akron Global Business Accelerator that jump-started a score of successful business ventures in Akron resides in the refurbished B.F. Goodrich tire factory.

Additive manufacturing, or 3D printing, creates another promising venue for the manufacturing resurgence. Such companies as MakerGear from Beachwood, Ohio, or ExOne Company from North Huntingdon, PA, are designing and manufacturing industrial and consumer products using 3-D imaging systems. Not long ago, the London-based Economist pointed towards a growing trend of reshoring, or inshoring, of manufacture when a growing number of American companies are moving their production facilities from overseas back home. Rust Belt states can ultimately benefit from this process of an international insourcing.

However, automation has led to the types of manufacturing that requires fewer workers even with advanced skills. That is why job gains in manufacture in Rust Belt have not been nearly enough to keep pace with lay-offs. As a result, middle class incomes and savings in the Rust Belt states continue to be negatively impacted.

Delving into the past and musing on the future of Rust Belt states, the Brookings Institution report suggests that the Great Lakes region has a sizable potential for transformation, citing already existing global trade networks, clean energy/low carbon capacity, developed innovation infrastructure and higher educational network.

International equivalents

The following regions, areas, and cities are known to have some similarities to the rust belt in the United States:

• Bergslagen, Sweden
• Donbass, Ukraine
• Nord-Pas-de-Calais, France
• Ruhr Area, Germany
• Silesian Voivodeship, Poland
• Shikoku, Japan
• Kymenlaakso, Finland
• Mindanao, Philippines
• Southern Ontario, Canada - does not include Toronto and Ottawa
• Northeast China – a former center of heavy industry that declined for other reasons
• Northern England – another former industrial center which began declining in the 1980s.