Ever wondered if you live close to a potential nuclear target?Even if you live in a small town or rural area... don't think you are safe. Not all strategic targets are in heavily populated areas. Find out if your county is close to ground zero.
This is an article that I had to share once I came across it.
While i’m not saying I’m pro or against anyone running for President of the USA right now. I just want to state that it’s really messed up that this has been proven FACT and it is still okay for Hillary to run.
It just seems like something is off in America, and something needs to be done to fix it.
Here’s the original article source
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.
Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services. Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing.
The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States.
Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed.
The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.
Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today.
It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States.
Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.
I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.
Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence?
The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security.
So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook
A Marathon gas station clerk in Canton, Ohio found himself in a gunfight with three armed robbers last night.
Despite the odds being stacked against him, it was the would be robbers that ended up on the losing end of the fight.
The clerk struck two of the suspects. All three suspects were able to flee the scene, but the two suspects who were shot were found nearby and taken to an area hospital, where they both died.
The third suspect managed to escape unharmed and is being sought by police. If he is caught, it is likely he will be charged with the murder of his two deceased accomplices.
The clerk was shot once in the leg and is being treated for non life threatening injuries at an area hospital.
Unless there is more to the story than is being reported, the clerk should not face any charges for killing the two men. They have been identified as Antonio Garcia and Ronnie Lawson. Both men were in their early 20′s.
Seventeen fake cellphone towers were discovered across the U.S. last week, according to a report in Popular Science.
Rather than offering you cellphone service, the towers appear to be connecting to nearby phones, bypassing their encryption, and either tapping calls or reading texts.
Les Goldsmith, the CEO of ESD America, used ESD’s CryptoPhone 500 to detect 17 bogus cellphone towers. ESD is a leading American defense and law enforcement technology provider based in Las Vegas.
With most phones, these fake communication towers are undetectable. But not for the CryptoPhone 500, a customized Android device that is disguised as a Samsung Galaxy S III but has highly advanced encryption.
Goldsmith told Popular Science: ” Interceptor use in the U.S. is much higher than people had anticipated. One of our customers took a road trip from Florida to North Carolina and he found eight different interceptors on that trip. We even found one at South Point Casino in Las Vegas.”
The towers were found in July, but the report implied that there may have been more out there.
Although it is unclear who owns the towers, ESD found that several of them were located near U.S. military bases.
“Whose interceptor is it? Who are they, that’s listening to calls around military bases? Is it just the U.S. military, or are they foreign governments doing it? The point is: we don’t really know whose they are,” Goldsmith said to Popular Science.
It’s probably not the NSA — that agency can tap all it wants without the need for bogus towers, VentureBeat reported:
Not the NSA, cloud security firm SilverSky CTO/SVP Andrew Jaquith told us. “The NSA doesn’t need a fake tower,” he said. “They can just go to the carrier” to tap your line.
ComputerWorld points out that the fake towers give themselves away by crushing down the performance of your phone from 4G to 2G while the intercept is taking place. So if you see your phone operating on a slow download signal while you’re near a military base … maybe make that call from somewhere else.
In an amazing coincidence, police departments in a handful of U.S. cities have been operating “Stingray” or “Hailstorm” towers, which — you guessed it — conduct surveillance on mobile phone activity. They do that by jamming mobile phone signals, forcing phones to drop down from 4G and 3G network bands to the older, more insecure 2G band
The owner of a New York gun shop says he was given 24 hours to comply with a “request” from the New York State Police to turn over records of all customers who have purchased “bullet button” AR-15 rifles since the passage of the hastily-passed SAFE Act in 2013.
Joseph F. Palumbo, owner of the Albion Gun Shop in Albion, New York, told TheBlaze on Wednesday he had no choice but to turn over roughly 165 customer records last week. Now, both he and his customers are concerned that “door-to-door confiscation” or “warrantless searches” could come next.
An AR-15 with a “bullet button” modification makes it so the rifle’s magazine is not detachable without a special tool. Though the legality of bullet button semi-automatic rifles appears to murky under the SAFE Act’s unclear definition of a “detachable” magazine, Palumbo said he was only recently informed in “vague” terms that the weapons he sold are not compliant under the law.
It is illegal to purchase or sell semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines in New York following the passage of the SAFE Act. Rifles obtained before the gun control law was passed are required to be registered with the state government. The law also limits all magazine capacity to 10 rounds, regardless of when they were made or purchased.
Palumbo claimed he was told by an undercover officer that police first considered raiding his business with an armed SWAT Team to retrieve the records. The lead investigator, however, opted to take a more peaceful approach, he said.
Palumbo told TheBlaze he’s not entirely sure why law enforcement officials suddenly became focused on his business. He said there have been rumors that his gun shop came under scrutiny after police received an anonymous complaint via the NY SAFE “Tipline” that promises a $500 reward to anyone who provides information leading to an arrest under the gun control law. He also said he’s heard rumors that an anti-gun group could be responsible.
After he was initially informed by the undercover officer that the state police wanted the customer records related to the modified AR-15 rifles, Palumbo said police didn’t want to return to his gun shop and requested that the list be sent via email. He said he reluctantly complied because his hands were tied due to the restrictive provisions found in the SAFE Act and he realized a SWAT team could raid his store and confiscate all of his inventory.
Palumbo said the SAFE Act gives police unprecedented authority to investigate cases involving so-called “assault weapons.”
A New York state trooper allegedly called back after receiving the customer list and requested phone numbers as well, information which Palumbo said he doesn’t have.
“They did not tell us anything else,” he told TheBlaze. “I have a lot of customers concerned that the cops are going to come kick their doors down or conduct warrantless searches. … It’s something I am worried about, it’s something my attorney is worried about, it’s something my customers are worried about.”
Palumbo told TheBlaze that he consulted a hotline set up by the state police in 2013 about the legality of AR-15 rifles with the bullet button modification under the SAFE Act. He said he was told that the guns should be OK, but they never gave him a definitive answer.
The gun store owner has since hired a “very good” attorney specializing in the Second Amendment and hopes to resolve the matter in a timely fashion. Palumbo said he doesn’t want to have to spend large amounts of money to sue New York state over the incident, but he is “more than prepared” to do so if that’s what it takes to protect his customers and business.
“Obviously in New York, our state is totally screwed up,” he added. “You are constantly on eggshells — not even just with this incident. Every time you turn around and there’s a shooting, every time there’s a gun-related incident, you sit back and think, ‘Oh gosh, what are the going to ban next?’”
As the Niagara Falls Reporter notes, a recent gun-related arrest in Orleans County — the same county where the Albion Gun Shop is located — could also help explain the police’s sudden interest in the shop’s customer records.
read the rest of the article by clicking below:
I just LOVE seeing people like this!
Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis of Maryland didn’t mince words when describing his support of the Second Amendment and what gun rights mean to him.
Here are some of the sheriff’s comments,
“I made a vow and a commitment,” Lewis said. “As long as I am sheriff of this county, I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of the right to bear arms.”
“[W]e do not need to strip law abiding citizens of their Second Amendment right to bear arms. That I get upset over. I really do.”
“As sheriff, I WILL NOT allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of the right to bear arms.”
“I can tell you this,” Lewis said, “if they attempt to do that, it will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.”
Well, I think Sheriff Lewis’ stance is pretty clear on the issue.
Dozens, if not hundreds, of elected sheriffs across the country have come out in support of private gun rights over the last 2 years. Elected sheriffs seem to be much more amiable to gun rights than appointed police chiefs.
It’s almost surreal now to listen to Obama’s 2009 Cairo speech praising Islam and stressing what America can learn from it.
We came across this article and had to share it….
The United States has an enormous prison problem. A more-than-2.4-million-prisoner-sized problem, to be precise, locked up in the archipelago of federal penitentiaries, state corrections facilities, and local jailhouses that form the nation’s thriving prison-industrial complex. Since 1980, the number of incarcerated citizens in the US has more than quadrupled, an unprecedented rise that can attributed to four decades of tough-on-crime oneupmanship, and a draconian war on drugs.
Today, more than one out of every 100 Americans is behind bars, and the US has the largest prison population in the world, both in terms of the actual number of inmates and as a percentage of the total population. The numbers are staggering: The US incarceration rate is nearly 3.5 times higher than that of Mexico, a country that has spent the last decade in the throes of an actual drug war, and between five and ten times higher than those seen in Western Europe. There are more people locked up in the US than in China. In fact, the US is home to nearly a quarter of the world’s prisoners, despite accounting for just 5 percent of the overall global population.
But the data gets even more disturbing when broken down at the state level. A recent analysis by the Prison Policy Initiative shows that while states like Louisiana have undoubtedly led America’s march toward mass incarceration, no state or region has been immune to the prison boom. And each state is a global aberration, with incarceration rates that compare to those found in isolated dictatorships and countries recovering from civil war.
Read the rest of the article on Vice at MASS INCARCERATION IN AMERICA
It is helpful to examine how the American media subtly influences audiences toward tolerating oppression when they should be resisting it. Illustrating this point, two major cable news hosts devoted airtime toward denigrating citizen activists’ efforts to hold the government accountable.
The topic of discussion earlier this week on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor was the subject of filming police officers during on-the job duties. Or, as host Bill O’Reilly describes it, “spying on the police.”
Mr. O’Reilly and guest commentator Megyn Kelly proceeded to attempt to marginalize a group known as Cop Block (www.copblock.org), which has dedicated a great deal of effort toward seeking accountability among police officers through the use of cameras.
The two hosts showed nothing but contempt toward the concept of filming police and the individuals who spend effort to do it.
“There’s enough stress on police, without these clowns chasing them around,” Mr. O’Reilly sneered.
“You’re riding down the road, trying to do your job, suddenly, its like, Paul Bunyan is after me!!” Ms. Kelly mocked, in reference to a clip of an activist who had a beard.
The loud-mouthed host shared the objection to the Texas activist’s appearance, saying, “the guy with a beard, he looks like a biker.”
Mr. O’Reilly said lamented that cops “have to deal with idiots — all day” and that they shouldn’t “have a camera in their face.”
Read the rest of the story here –> http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/fox-news-filming-cops/
Residents of Greenville, North Carolina were alarmed this week after finding armed Department of Homeland Security officers out in full force in their community. Many residents were concerned, thinking there must be an imminent terrorist threat – after all, DHS is a federal agency that’s supposed to protect the country from terrorist threats, so why else would armed Department of Homeland Security agents be in their neighborhoods?
No Terrorist threat, just a Show of Federal Force
According to News Channel WNCT 9 in Greenville, North Carolina, the Department of Homeland Security was not in town because of any specific threat, but was instead letting the community know they were “in the area.”
DHS officials told the news station that they were patrolling the city “as part of their community outreach to let people know that they are in the area.” So here you have a federal agency, in essence, posing as a local police force, in what appears to be an attempt to desensitize the public to their presence.
DHS Raids Small Town in Massive Show of Force
Last week, residents of Livingston, Illinois were surprised to see agents from the Homeland Security, US Customs and Border Patrol and local police agencies swarm a local grade school. The peaceful town of 850 had never seen anything like this, with one resident telling the local news, “When all the armored trucks started showing up and everything it made me kind of nervous.”
The National Police Force
DHS is the third largest federal agency, right behind the department of Veterans Affairs and Defense, employing over 240,000 full-time workers. The agency has basically become a national police force, or a standing army, which has some in congress becoming increasingly concerned.
Last month a bipartisan bill to reform the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) acquisition management was passed through the House. If passed by the Senate, the bill will require DHS to improve discipline, accountability and transparency in acquisition program management – in part, because of the enormous amount of money the agency has spent on projects like militarizing local police forces.
Over the last couple of years, DHS has handed out billions of dollars’ worth of grants and high-grade military equipment to small and rural police forces throughout the United States. From providing local law enforcement teams with mine-resistant armored vehicles straight from the battlefields in Afghanistan, to sending state and local police teams military weaponry, equipment and drones, the rise in military purchases funded by DHS has spurred the militarization of our nation’s police forces.
Stockpiling large amounts of Ammunition
DHS, along with an alarming number of federal agencies, have been stockpiling massive amounts of ammunition. From open purchase orders for over 1.6 billion rounds of ammo for the Department of Homeland Security, to the Transportation Administration, U.S. Postal Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration all placing massive ammo orders, our federal agencies are buying an alarming amount of ammunition. What exactly are they preparing for?
Large-Scale Spying on Americans using DHS Fusion Centers.
Read the rest of the article here: Homeland Security Starting to Police American Towns: Community Outreach to Desensitize Public
The following is a press release from CAL-FFL,
Democrat-authored Assembly Bill 1964 will further criminalize the sale of handguns to law-abiding, background-checked Californians.
ROSEVILLE, CA (July 18, 2014) — In a Legislative Update issued earlier today, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that he has signed Assembly Bill 1964 (Dickinson), a measure that will eliminate the “single shot” exemption to California’s Roster of “not unsafe” handguns. AB 1964’s changes to section 32100 of the California Penal Code, which will go into effect on January 1, 2015, will make it virtually impossible for law-abiding residents of the Golden State to acquire a “non-Roster” handgun in common use for lawful purposes, like self-defense.
In an October 11, 2013, veto message for Assemblyman Dickinson’s previous handgun ban attempt, Brown said, “AB 169 would close a loophole in the single-shot exemption. That makes sense.”
“I wish I could say that we were shocked by the Governor’s irrational decision to sign AB 1964,” explained Brandon Combs, president of California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees(CAL-FFL). “Sadly, the status quo for elitist Sacramento politicians is to ignore the Constitution and act with blatant hostility towards our Second Amendment civil rights and sound public policy.”
“While we are certainly disappointed by Governor Brown’s support of AB 1964, we are also more committed than ever to fight every last attack on our right to keep and bear arms,” Combs concluded. “This is just one bill of many on our radar, and we encourage our friends in the firearms community to steel their resolve and focus on the upcoming battles in August when the Legislature reconvenes.”
To read CAL-FFL’s veto request and for more information about AB 1964, please visit http://www.calffl.org/2014/07/cal-ffl-asks-gov-brown-veto-handgun-ban-bill-ab-1964.
Gun rights supporters can oppose the remaining gun control bills by sending a letter to members of the California Legislature and Governor Brown at http://www.DemandRights.org.
California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees (CAL-FFL) is California’s most tenacious and complete advocacy group for Second Amendment and related rights, with over 100,000 individual supporters and members including firearm dealers, training professionals, shooting ranges, collectors, gun owners, and others who participate in the firearms ecosystem. CAL-FFL advances the interests of its members and the general public through direct lobbying, legal actions, education, and public outreach.
Brandon Combs, President
firstname.lastname@example.org | (888) 541-3040
This is a continuation of our post sharing the Bill of Rights.
Lawsuits against states
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.
February 7, 1795.
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.
June 15, 1804.
Superseded by Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment.
Abolition of slavery
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.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce these article by appropriate legislation.
December 6, 1865.
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.
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.
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.
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 or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
July 9, 1868.
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.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
February 3, 1870.
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.
February 3, 1913.
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 legislature.
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.
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.
April 8, 1913.
Prohibition of liquor
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.
January 16, 1919. Repealed by the Twenty-First, December 5, 1933.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any States on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
August 18, 1920.
Terms of office
Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years 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 3d 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.
January 23, 1933.
Repeal of Prohibition
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. The 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.
December 5, 1933.
Term Limits for the Presidency
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.
February 27, 1951.
Washington, D.C., suffrage
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.
March 29, 1961.
Abolition of poll taxes
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.
January 23, 1964.
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.
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.
Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a 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.
February 10, 1967.
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.
June 30, 1971.
Congressional pay raises
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.
May 7, 1992. (Note: Congress submitted the text of this amendment as part of the proposed Bill of Rights on September 27, 1789. The Amendment was not ratified together with the first ten Amendments.)
Original Source: USHistory.org
Too often it seems that we forget what our rights our as citizens of the United States of America. With everything that has been going on throughout the country it’s important that we pay attention to our unalienable rights to protect ourselves and prepare ourselves for anything.
Be sure to share this article with everyone you know so that they are aware of their rights as well. The more that we spread this, the more people will start to wake up.
Image Source: Wikipedia
Passed by Congress September 25, 1789.
Ratified December 15, 1791.
Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly
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.
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.
Quartering 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.
Search and arrest
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.
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 offence 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.
Right 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 defence.
Rights in civil cases
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of 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.
Bail, fines, punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
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.
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.
Please share this on Facebook, Twitter and any other social networks you use and make sure you tell your friends about this. It’s important that we are aware of our rights as citizens of the United States of America.