Skip to main content

Los Angeles Times
December 6, 1933

Roosevelt Calls on Nation to Ban Bootlegger--Saloon's Return; Huge Liquor Imports Authorized

Washington, Dec. 5. (Exclusive) National prohibition ended this afternoon at 3:32 o'clock when a convention in Utah formally ratified the Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution, and thus repealed the Eighteenth Amendment.

What's this about? It's a reminder the U.S. Constitution can be amended.

If we were going to ratify a Twenty-eighth Amendment today, what should it address? Should we finally enshrine the sanctity of The Vote in our Constitution? Should we standardize and make uniform how votes are cast and tallied? Basically the idea would be that the system becomes secure, even though it's not secret. Right now, if you buy something online, your credit card number gets scrambled en route to the merchant. The protocols and algorithms used to do so are publicly known and openly and fully documented, but it doesn't do would-be identity thieves any good because those techniques are rock solid. No reason a voting system would have to be different.

Think about this though, if we lose The Vote to private interests, doesn't that mean the loss of the Free World? Yes, it does. Transparent elections and the Free World are one and the same thing. Globalism doesn’t have to be a bad thing, so long as we have open/accurate elections steering its direction.

Originally posted to John De Herrera on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:37 PM PDT.

Poll

Our Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution should:

27%10 votes
24%9 votes
2%1 votes
0%0 votes
16%6 votes
2%1 votes
5%2 votes
8%3 votes
13%5 votes

| 37 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  just a public service announcement (6+ / 0-)

    as i get things back together. where was i? oh yeah, Macbeth. final scenes up next....

    Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

    by john de herrera on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM PDT

  •  Where's the option (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    laurak, john de herrera

    for an amendment to ban prohibition?

    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace -6.63, -6.97

    by amRadioHed on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:47:05 PM PDT

  •  I think the article V amendment (0+ / 0-)

    would be dangerous in our current political environment. Imagine the damage that could be done by the media and special interests. Think of the ads Rove could come up with scaring citizens to vote against something like the Bill of Rights.

    We need to clean up media consolidation and get the money out of politics first before we allow the current constitution to be thrown out entirely.

    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace -6.63, -6.97

    by amRadioHed on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:53:19 PM PDT

    •  the damage "that could be done...." (0+ / 0-)

      is that something like the damage that's been happening for the last decade?

      the Article V Convention cannot do anything except open up a national dialogue. in doing so the congress must respond.

      Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

      by john de herrera on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 03:56:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  How about something simple (3+ / 0-)

    I'm all for an amendment that mandates paper ballots.

    Paper ballots work just fine, though optical scanning machines do speed up the process. Even with those machines, there is still a paper trail that can be fully audited.

    Mandatory routine spot audits would be nice, too. I've see whole municipalities not counted (at least initially) because of paper jams in optical scanning machines.

    •  it's open to the collective imagination: (2+ / 0-)

      mandate paper ballots? sure, that's one piece of the puzzle. i favor the design and implementation of our official u.s. voting unit.

      hey voting machine vendors, here's the specs, you build them just like this or we'll find another manufacturer to get the job done.

      Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

      by john de herrera on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:02:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even better (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        john de herrera

        Here's a policy area where one size really does fit all. We really don't need each county/parish in the country deciding what their ballots should look like.

        This is neither rocket science nor art class. Easy and boring is a good thing.

        •  not rocket science (0+ / 0-)

          or brain surgery. it's an equal protection issue. if you have fifty people in a room, and everyone is relying on the accuracy of one another, of course you'd standardize it. and while we're at it, let's make sure all our allies in the interests of the free world do the same. it's not rocket science.

          Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

          by john de herrera on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:22:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why does speed even matter? (0+ / 0-)

      I think the need for quick results is manufactured by the media. They might regret it if they get their instant numbers though, the slow trickle of results creates a lot of drama.

      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace -6.63, -6.97

      by amRadioHed on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:26:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's our instant gratification society (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amRadioHed

        We need to know the results like OMG yesterday.

        Remember 2000? We couldn't know the results soon enough (and of course that backfired).

        I think the real issue is that the American public who care want to know who won by bedtime (around midnight).

        Maybe the next amendment should be setting election day on a Saturday. It won't do much for church attendance, but voters will have the time to vote and the luxury to stay up until all of the votes are counted.

  •  Twenty-eighth Amendment should... (4+ / 0-)

    ...make explicit the right to privacy.  "Congress shall make no law infringing upon the privacy of individuals absent a clear demonstration of national emergency." Or something.  It should also include a clause that says in appropriately lofty language, "We're doing this because assholes like Scalia can't understand the clear language of the first ten amendments."

    My second choice would be to declare immediate relatives of presidents ineligible for the office of the presidency for a period of 20 years after the end of the term of the president to whom they are related.

    "Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing." -- Joseph Heller

    by Roddy McCorley on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:09:49 PM PDT

    •  excellent roddy (0+ / 0-)

      yeah, you get it. why is it that it's so simple to understand for the vast majority of people, except so complex to our modern-day intellectuals.

      Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

      by john de herrera on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:13:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Aye on the privacy bit (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      amRadioHed

      We like to scream about the right to privacy, but the word does not appear in the constitution. The right is "inferred from the penumbras" of related rights. This might be one of the very few times the Third Amendment is ever used in a Supreme Court ruling.

      On the other hand, privacy needs to be thoroughly defined. Otherwise, one could argue that every thing from domestic violence to growing pot inside is legal under the privacy clause if it is done inside one's own home.

      Example, Lawrence v. Texas struck down laws against sodomy because the state has no overriding interest in what happens in the bedroom. Of course, the same logic does not apply to a couple getting into a physical altercation.

      •  Well, the Founders.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amRadioHed

        ...I think, would be aghast that we were even having this conversation.  I don't know how you can look at the Constitution as a whole and conclude anything other than a right to privacy -- or unwarranted intrusion of the government upon the individual, if you'd prefer -- is clearly intended.  It's like that creaky old allegory about the blind men and the elephant.

        "Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing." -- Joseph Heller

        by Roddy McCorley on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:26:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Pot should be covered by the privacy clause. eom (0+ / 0-)

        We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace -6.63, -6.97

        by amRadioHed on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:29:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

          I have long said that I would accept an alcohol prohibition if pot were legal. How often do you hear of someone who is stoned causing problems? The people getting into fights and breaking sh** are the drunks.

          Regardless, for better or worse, pot is illegal and as such, the state does have an interest knowing whether or not you are growing it inside.

          Oddly, it is okay to brew untaxed beer in your home.

  •  Cross-Outs and Do-Overs? (0+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure that the best example of the fact that the Constitution can be amended is a reminder of a stupid ill-thought amendment that had to be repealed by another amendment.

    So here's to making the next amendment a really good one, worthy of marking up an important historical document.

    •  my personal favorite (0+ / 0-)

      is the amendment that mandates the Article V Convention at least once every twenty-five years.

      Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

      by john de herrera on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ... (0+ / 0-)

        At least once every twenty-five years the Congress shall convoke the Article V Convention. quick ratify that one, and the next--the twenty-ninth--can be about multiple matters. amendments can be about more than one thing. you'd imagine that sometimes more than one amendment might be neccessary in a generational circumstance.

        Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

        by john de herrera on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 05:01:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  my 28th amendment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    amRadioHed, john de herrera

    Military spending is capped at 10% of the total governmental budget. This includes all security and military research agencies.

    29th amendment

    nuclear weapons and autonomous military vehicles are outlawed.

    30th amendment

    private corporations are forbidden to operate or fund security services armed with automatic weapons

    31st amendment

    the US military is forbidden from operating overseas except by authorization of congress and a direct vote of the people. Reauthorization must be annual, or the troops come home within 90 days.

    32nd amendment

    contractors to the US military cannot carry weapons of any kind, excepting pocket knives

  •  no rights for fertilized ovums (0+ / 0-)

    We need to stop these proposed ballot measures in their tracks NOW. At least the one in Montana failed, but some Republican idiot in the Wisconsin Legislature wants to propose another stinkbomb to foul up the State Constitution.
    "Congress shall make no law respecting the question as to when human life begins, as regards the unproven claim human life begins at conception."

    I'm at the junction of short, nerdy, and oddly attractive.

    by Pan Zareta on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:02:41 PM PDT

    •  that's an issue, right? (0+ / 0-)

      women's rights over their person? that's what surprises me about more women being more conventionist. it's a cure all. open discussion is always is. it's common sense.

      Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

      by john de herrera on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:14:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  if you listen to the Bush Regime (0+ / 0-)

        er, Administration; women are too stupid to make their own decision. Plus not morally competent enough to know a right decision from a wrong decision. (As opposed to making the best decision for themselves)
        You've also heard of the proposed HHS rule change pertaining to contraception, right?  

        I'm at the junction of short, nerdy, and oddly attractive.

        by Pan Zareta on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:29:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Renovate and reorganize the delivery of news (0+ / 0-)

    services.

    Corporations can own the cable and broadcast stations/networks but they are required by law to offer xx hours a week to independent (of their corporate interest) news broadcasts. Applies to radio, broadcast TV, and cable TV.

    Corporate owners of 24 hour news stations are required by law to keep out of the editorial and political content areas that have 50% of the time.

    Existing watchdog groups like media matters combine with the FCC to monitor fairness.

    Newpapers and news magazines have sections that are free from interference by their corporate owners.

    The news staffs of these organizations are paid from a fixed percentage of income from the various stations and publications and a pool of income from taxpayers like the election section on the present tax forms.

    The fourth estate becomes independent of corporate influence and influence from the political parties. Each candidate is given set amounts of time in equal increments from the available media for their use during the campaigns.

    Staffing of the news delivery segments of TV, Radio and the press will be handled by a governmental agency staffed by the leading journalism schools and time will be fairly allocated across the political spectrum.

    It is imperative that we revamp the delivery of information that impacts our political life to remove the heavy hand of the corporatist who control the content.    

    Republicans 2 things to offer What to FEAR and Who to BLAME

    by aurabass on Tue Jul 22, 2008 at 07:58:44 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site