Mediaboss Marketing

Twenty-second Amendment, amendment (1951) to the Constitution of the United States effectively limiting to two the number of terms a president of the United States may serve. It was one of 273 recommendations to the U.S. Congress by the Hoover Commission, created by Pres. Harry S. Truman, to reorganize and reform the federal government. It was formally proposed by the U.S. Congress on March 24, 1947, and was ratified on Feb. 27, 1951.

Britannica Quiz

U.S. Presidential Elections Quiz

Which day of the week are U.S. presidential elections held? Who was George Washingtons running mate? Test your knowledge of U.S. presidential elections with this quiz.

The Constitution did not stipulate any limit on presidential termsindeed, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 69: That magistrate is to be elected for four years; and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence. (Hamilton also argued, in Federalist 71, in favour of a life term for the president of the United States.) George Washington, the countrys first president, opted to retire after two terms, setting a de facto informal law that was respected by the countrys first 31 presidents that there should be rotation in office after two terms for the office of the presidency.

There is no clear indication that the decision to pursue the amendment was triggered by any single event or abuse of power. Indeed, throughout U.S. history, few presidents ever expressed the desire to serve more than the traditional two terms. Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in 1880, but he was denied his partys nomination. Theodore Roosevelt sought a third term in 1912 but lost (it would have been his second elected term).

In the 1930s, however, the national and global context brought forth an interruption to this two-term precedent.

In the midst of the Great Depression, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt had won election in 1932 and reelection in 1936. In 1940, as Europe was engulfed in a war that threatened to draw in the United States and without a clear Democratic successor who could consolidate the New Deal, Roosevelt, who had earlier indicated misgivings about a third term, agreed to break Washingtons precedent. A general disinclination to change leadership amid crisis probably weighed heavily on the minds of votersmuch more so than the perceived deep-seated opposition to a third term for a presidentand Roosevelt romped to victory in 1940 and again in 1944.

Following on the heels of the establishment of the Hoover Commission and with Republicans winning a majority in Congress after the 1946 elections, they introduced an amendment to limit the president to two terms. The amendment caps the service of a president at 10 years. If a person succeeds to the office of president without election and serves less than two years, he may run for two full terms; otherwise, a person succeeding to office of president can serve no more than a single elected term. Although there have been some calls for repeal of the amendment, because it disallows voters to democratically elect the president of their choice, it has proved uncontroversial over the years. Nevertheless, presidents who win a second term in office are often referred to as lame ducks, and the race to succeed them often begins even before their inauguration to a second term.

The full text of the Amendment is:

Section 1No 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 2This 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.

See the original post here:
Twenty-second Amendment | United States Constitution ...

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. (KGET) Second Amendment Sports is being sued for $2.5 million for allegedly failing to pay minimum and overtime wages as well as not allowing rest or meal breaks as provided for under state law.

The gun shop that operated in Bakersfield until its sale in December had the financial ability to pay such compensation, but willfully, knowingly, recklessly, and/or intentionally failed to do so, according to the lawsuit. It says the shop violated state Labor Code by not allowing a meal break of at least 30 minutes for a work period in excess of five hours, or a 10-minute rest break for every four hours worked.

Additionally, the lawsuit says Second Amendment Sports didnt pay compensation owed to employees who resigned, and provided inaccurate wage statements.

Employers in the state of California violate employment and labor laws every day, says the suit filed on behalf of former employees by the Lex Opus firm in Santa Ana. Current employees are often afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation.

Former employees are fearful of bringing actions because they believe their former employers may damage their future endeavors through negative references and/or other means. The nature of this action allows for the protection of current and former employees rights without fear for retaliation or damage.

The suit seeks a trial by jury and at least $2.5 million in damages.

Attorneys with Belden Blaine Raytis, LLP, representing Second Amendment Sports, could not immediately be reached for comment.

The next hearing in the suit, filed nearly a year ago, is scheduled Feb. 17.

See more here:
Second Amendment Sports sued for $2.5 million over alleged failure to pay minimum and overtime wages - KGET 17

Whenever the issue of firearms ownership is brought up, those on both sides dig in and there is little way to truly find compromise. Supporters of the Second Amendment often already complain that their rights have been eroded. While theSecond Amendmentmay read, Congress shall make no law the truth is that there has been legislation that limits firearms ownership including the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.

Meanwhile on the other side of the issue, gun control advocates have called for greater efforts to conduct background checks. Earlier this year Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) introducedHouse Resolution 127Sabika Sheikh Firearms Licensing and Registration Act, which called for at least twenty-four hours of training with every firearm an individual owns, require a psychological evaluation to obtain a license and even require owners of antique firearms to have such a license.

While it is unlikely Lees bill will be met with much support, there have been calls for a national gun registry. However, Second Amendment supporters, who naturally would oppose such a registry, may have an unlikely ally in privacy advocates.

A new study conducted by researchers at Brown University has found that an encrypted gun registry would bridge the divide on this issue. It suggests that it would make it more difficult for those legally barred from owning firearms from acquiring one, and also make it easier for law enforcement to trace firearms much in the way that automobiles can be tracked.

The study was led by Browns Seny Kamara, who began the work after staffers from U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) reached out in 2018.

How successful such a national database would be all depends on whether every county in the country signs on, something Kamaraadmitted to Wired magazine couldbe a tall order.

People in different parts of the country are going to feel differently about it, so the idea was to design something like a national gun registry that could potentially be voluntary, Kamara explained.

Rather than being a true national registry, this would work as a series of non-centralized data bases, all of which would be encrypted to maintain privacyyet could be accessible to law enforcement via a physical authentication token. Such a key would ensure that officials could gain access while the general public could notand because it is encrypted, in theory it would be inaccessible to hackers.

The study did not look into a plethora of issues, such as how it would handle private sales, what information would be contained in the registry or even how data could be shared across a decentralized network. For one thing what happens if a firearm is sold or transferred to another user in a different database? How would that be tracked?

While ablockchainthat is used inbitcoin and other cryptocurrenciescould potentially play a role, it is meant to allow the transfer of digital money without disclosing the user. In this case the user and associated physical firearm is what is registered. If that firearm is sold, stolen or otherwise changes hands without updating the database the information is completely useless!

All of those facts make it obvious to see that the National Rifle Association and other groups that support the Second Amendment would remain opposed to the database. It would only servelaw abidingindividuals and put a burden on gun shops and dealers to report the transactions of the sales.

However, at this point the Brown study wasnt so much to develop an encrypted network but rather to even determine if was possible. About the best possible takeaway on this is that at least Sen. Wyden was exploring the feasibility of the technology and not writing actual legislation.

Far too often, lawmakers write bills without having a good grasp of technology, especially when it comes to encryption, Wyden toldWiredin a statement. My view has always been that making good public policy depends on knowing what is possible on the technical side. So when I had the idea to create a new kind of secure gun registry, I was hoping Professor Kamara could give me a gut check on whether this was a harebrained idea or not.

Peter Suciu is a Michigan-based writer who has contributed to more than four dozen magazines, newspapers and websites. He regularly writes about military small arms, and is the author of several books on military headgear includingA Gallery of Military Headdress, which is available on Amazon.com.

Image: Reuters.

Read the original:
Encrypted Gun Registry: How to Preserve the Second Amendment? - The National Interest

EL PASO, Texas (KTSM) Protecting the Second Amendment in Texas was one of Gov. Greg Abbotts priorities mentioned during his State of the State address Monday night.

Local gun owners said theyre on board to maintain those rights, while some state officials want more gun reform to be done.

Some Texans, including El Pasoans, agree with the governor and want to see their gun rights protected no matter what. Some added that its important for those who do own guns to receive proper training.

Its important to everybody. Whether you realize or not, it really is important to you, Michael McIntyre, manager of Gun Central in Central El Paso, said.

McIntyre agrees with Abbotts address about protecting the Second Amendment right in Texas.

Politicians from the federal level to the local level have shouted: Heck yes, the government is coming to get your guns. We wont let that happen in Texas, Abbott said Monday night.

Any time any government has ever gotten a registry of the people who own guns, the next step was to take the guns away, and then the next step was to enslave the people, McIntyre shared. So weve seen that through history many times. I think he wants to make sure that doesnt happen in Texas at least, and I think there will be other states that follow suit.

State Rep. Cesar Blanco addressed the governors stance on gun control, and said he wants to see more sensible gun safety reform, especially after the Aug. 3 mass shooting in El Paso.

He touted that last session, he signed 10 pro-Second Amendment pieces of legislation. Id like to see the 10 that make communities like El Paso safe, Blanco stated. So youre going to have disagreements on public policy, but I think this is a matter of life and death. After the shooting, weve got to work toward better and more sensible gun safety reforms in the Texas legislation.

McIntyre said hes confident in Abbott to protect gun rights, but also urges all gun owners to practice safe gun operations, handling and storage.

The (fewer) mishaps we have as a gun community, the less likely itll be for people to point fingers at us. Of course, always fight for your rights. Why would you give up any right? It just seems counterintuitive to give up rights that youve had for so long, McIntyre shared.

McIntyre said the shop offers classes every Saturday for those interested in receiving a license to carry.

The rest is here:
Local gun owners respond to governors stance on protecting gun rights - KTSM 9 News

Anne Orso of rural Viola said she was adamantly against the resolution. Its divisive; please focus on issues that unite the community.

Supervisor Mary Henry, who represents District 17, said most of the correspondence she received was opposing the proposed referendum. Henry said she strongly opposed the referendum, and the Board needs to spend time bringing the community together.

Dodie Whitaker of Viroqua said that as a woman of color, she and her friends and family see the area as a safe haven. Whitaker said shes a pacifist, but she supports the right of gun owners to have guns. She said she opposed the resolution for safety reasons, adding that she would like to see efforts focused on mental health and economic issues.

Paul Buhr of rural Viroqua also opposed the resolution. I see no reason to further divide us with this un-Constitutional measure, he said.

Cori Wilson of Ontario said she supported the proposed county resolution. She said she owns a gun and respects and appreciates the gun laws as they are currently written. Wilson said she encouraged people to look at H.R.127 thats now before Congress. She said the resolution is restrictive. Im surprised no one is concerned about restrictions to our rights.

Jared Lasky of rural Westby also spoke in favor of the resolution, saying the right to bear arms is not a suggestion but a directive.

Read more here:
Vernon County residents weigh in on Second Amendment resolution; Board to vote Feb. 2 - La Crosse Tribune