Prohibition, sexual harassment and world domination

The current focus is on sexual harassment and rape in traditionally male environments.  The military, universities, prisons, you know--everywhere.  A coworker asked the question "what makes men want to put that ....." you get the drift.  But it made me think.  And while most people seem to equate the whole men and their penis which controls them.  I can't help but think that that is not the answer.  If it really was just men being dragged around by their sexual natures with no ability to control themselves, we would have a very different culture.  I can't imagine humans being the dominate species if that was the driving force of our natures.
There are infamous dolphin rape gangs but scientists say we can't say that is true as we don't know if the females consented or if that behavior is aberrant or normal.  If human males were truly acting on instinct, then female consent would never have been needed and society would be completely different.
Why do people commit rape?"Can i commit a rape?"  Reality is, most of us don't want to hurt other people.  We don't want to hurt their feelings.  We don't want to cause them pain.  We don't like the feelings that come with stealing the peace-of-mind and feelings of safety from another person.
If you watch a lot of TV, you will hear repeatedly that rape is not about sex, and that people prone to rape that have been castrated either physically or chemically are prone to stabbing as it has the same up-close-and-personal type of action against the other person.


The temperance movement (which had a high Venn diagram-type cross-over with the suffragettes and was probably the same women that are called feminists, only 100 years before, felt that  prohibition was the answer as alcohol was the cause of male misbehavior.  To live, women needed a husband or a male employer to have a place to live and food to eat.  It was not illegal to beat your wife or children or your female employees (or male employees or child employees for that matter).  A drunk was more likely to beat or rape or in other ways act out.  Rather than blame the men, the 'demon drink" was blamed.  Therefore, if no more alcohol, no more beatings and rapes and other forms of control and domination.
But where does that need to compete/drive to control/desire to dominate actually come from?  I recently heard an NPR article about the new attempts to aim the campaign ads at women by removing the facts and issues and focusing on grabbing at the emotional strings that control women because "THAT IS HOW WOMEN THINK"  (I'm probably foaming at the mouth right now)  Is that a stereotypical statement?  Are all women really that alike?  I don't like it when women say things like all men are dogs or all men are cavemen and have never heard anyone say that Blah-blah-blah is how all men think.  In other words, I don't think testosterone is causing men to rape and pillage.  In fact, men are not all alike .  Most of those things we consider to be male or female are learned, society teaches them, and most of us humans just fall into line.  "girls need to be submissive, real women are emotional and caring and not at all analytical, women are mothers because it is there inborn nature to be soft and nurturing, men are hunter, protectors, dominant and violent because that was needed to fight off the men of the other tribes"
Reality check #1---women are mothers because that is the word we gave the people with uteruses (uteri?) that gave birth.  Reality check #2, the only reason one sex needs to be submissive is to get along with the other sex that is thinking that it is dominant (learned behavior, not inborn or there wouldn't be so many people of both sexes having such a hard time with that)  Reality check #3,  men have to be dominant to protect women from other men that have to be dominant (really?  is that not circular enough to make your head spin?)  Reality check #3  women are weak; minded, bodied, spirited, add your area, there is no evidence that this is true, but plenty of women that have proven it is not, minded--think Rosalyn Sussman Yalow,  Madame Curie,Irène Joliot-Curie, Barbara McClintock, Rita Levi-Montalcini, bodied(would it be shocking to know that when this is googled, half the returned hits include the words sexiest or hottest?)--Dr. Jan Todd, Babe Zaharias, Lisa Leslie, Llyn Padarn,  Spiritual--Mother Theresa, Emily Dickinson,Jane Addams,Tawakkol Abdel-Salam Karman, Tamara Siuda, Ida B. Robinson, Ellen Gould White, and just plain powerful--Emperor Wu (not empress as she didn't want anyone thinking she was anyone's subordinate) Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, Hillary Clinton, Aung San Suu Kyi,  Gudit, Trieu Thi Trinh, Boudicca, Ahhotep I.   (if you don't recognize them all, look them up, women have been doing more than birthing babies, housekeeping and making men happy for a very long time.
So that reality check was the lead in to what is actually behind the myth of why men are dominant and therefore women must be submissive.

Will,(got to love wikipedia) in philosophy, refers to a property of the mind, and an attribute of acts intentionally committed. Actions made according to a person's will are called “willing” or “voluntary” and sometimes pejoratively “willful” or “at will”. In general, "will" does not refer to one particular or most preferred desire but rather to the general capacity to have such desires and act decisively based on them, according to whatever criteria the willing agent applies. The will is in turn important within philosophy because a person's will is one of the most distinct parts of their mind, along with reason and understanding. Will is especially important in ethics because it must be present for people to act deliberately.

Dominance and submission is a set of behaviors, customs and rituals involving the giving by one individual to another individual of control over them ...  this implies that the submissive voluntarily gave over their will to another, but frequently in history this giving is at the behest of the religion and/or laws of the land.  In hindsight, most of us have no problem with seeing that slavery was wrong (still is, but no longer legal in this country).  But while the first feminists were getting us the right to vote and trying to "stay the powers of demon rum"  they were being ruled by a religion that told them to submit.  The book by Alice Walker "Possessing the secret of Joy" described very well how the little bit of power that is given to women over women but under the domination of the men can make us our daughter's worst enemy.  The book, (read it, beautiful and tragic and in her style which is like staring at a haunting painting while listening to the wind) the highest women in the tribe are also the ones that perform the female circumcision, and they do it to make the girls marriageable, and clean and acceptable.  Even when they know that it makes sex a nightmare and childbirth a life-threatening event, they continue.  And they are no different than our own society.  We would rather call our daughters sluts and whores when they do what teenagers do than educate them on how to be safe.  We discourage careers that compete with male applicants and train our female children to do laundry and wash dishes and clean house while our sons watch TV.  
So men are raised to believe that their will is more important than the will of women.  That boys are better than girls at everything that matters.  That it is alright to expect someone of the opposite sex to take care of them, their laundry, cooking, cleaning, raise their kids, make them happy, and if the woman is not happy with that, there is something wrong with her.  Wrong with her.  But if she expects a man to make her happy she is a nag, a princess, a bitch, a tease, or "not a real woman".  

If you were born with a uterus (or for the transgenders out there--should have been) you are a real woman.  There are no fake women anymore than there are fake men or fake horses or fake pastures.  The word has a meaning.  It does not include behavior, expectations, submission, roles, jobs, intelligence (or lack thereof)  in that meaning.

Who we each are, no matter what sex we were born, or race, or culture, or religion,  does not give us the right to dominate another person, nor does it make us have to submit to be acceptable.  There are no excuses for dominating other's against their will, neither drugs nor alcohol, being born male,  not mental illness, not cultural upbringing, not badly written laws or excessive money gives anyone a right to dominate another person.  The need to dominate, compete, win is an act of utter selfishness.  It implies that the person acting in that way thinks they are in some way superior to the people they are treating that way.  If they were 3 on the playground they would be stopped,  but they are grown, and they are bullies and they always find someone like them that will slap them on the back and tell them they are fine, they are great, and they deserve to treat others badly because they are strong and powerful.  

There have a been a number of men that wanted to be the king of the world.  Such ego, such an immense need for power.  What is missing from the people, and how do we fill that need without letting them abuse the people whose on egos and needs are more on scale with the less than 100 years we each have.  

Perhaps, the first step is to stop playing to them.  And stop training our own sons and daughters to fall into the same old patterns.  We all deserve to be happy as humans.

The state of Paranoia

Going on the internet, the first thing I see is a picture of an old-style revolver with a caption about gun-control.  Having read the 2nd amendment recently (previous blog made me do it) I see that it does state that a "well-regulated militia" is good.  Well-regulated screams gun-control.  The statement that is more often heard is "right to bear arms"  which to me says weapon, not gun, but the watch command for this particular amendment is the NRA and they are all about the guns.  The point being, not that I think the well-regulated militia should carry butterknives, but that the amendments doesn't really remove such things as atomic missiles and grenades and flamethrowers, so assault rifles are also still just arms.

This is where I'm going to take a weird turn, because of my personal paranoia---if something is well regulated--regulated by whom?  Simple question.  Most people think the obvious answer is the government, but the amendment was written just after the American Revolution with the intent of making sure that the people of the USA maintained the physical ability to protect itself from its own government in the event that government became corrupt and stopped truly being for the good of all the people.

A recent research article by some high-falutin school stated that the government that is usually called a democracy and is actually supposed to be an republic and is actually an Oligarchy and maybe always was--also.  Yikes, sounds scary, maybe fattening, maybe infectious.

(who doesn't love the internet)

• ol·i·gar·chy
• [ ólli gaàrkee ]

1. small governing group: a small group of people who together govern a nation or control an organization, often for their own purposes
2. entity ruled by oligarchy: a nation governed or an organization controlled by an oligarchy
3. government by small group: government or control by a small group of people.

"An oligarchy is a form of government in which most of the political power effectively rests with a small segment of society, typically the people who have the most wealth, military strength, ruthlessness or political influence. The word "oligarchy" from the Greek words olígos, which means "few," and archo, which means "to rule". Some political theorists have argued that all societies are inevitably oligarchies, regardless of their supposed political system."

Well, no arguments on that research, looks pretty obvious.  

So, about the paranoia and the "arms".  Should we all be without them?  Should we all have them?  If they pry your gun from your dead, cold fingers, will all of the regular folks be searching great-grandma's barn for a pitchfork?  
Will we all start inventorying the sports, camping and yard equipment for possible ways to protect ourselves from our own government gone awry?  
Do regular people really do that?

Below is a list I stole from the internet of revolutionary war patriots.  It is interesting in that most of those names are pretty well-known and became rather powerful after the war.   But were they regular people before the revolution? (the following is a long list of revolutionary guys and a female or two with comments about their pre-revolutionary station in life. Read it or skip it, and we will go on.

Adams, John - Second President of the United States, 2x vice-president, before the revolution he was from modest means but very well-educated. (ok, ideaslistic leader--that's cool)

Adams, Samuel - American Revolutionary--while now known for his great beer, he was the son of a prosperous brewer with political tendencies--I do like the beer) Allen, Ethan - American Revolutionary War patriot, hero, and politician.  (militia, more of a regular guy leader than a born-to-lead oligarch.)  Got to love those guys from Vermont. Arnold, Benedict - American General who defected from the American to the British side--originally his father was a successful businessman, then bad luck and ETOH took him down, so high roots, with a hard row, and while a general, became a spy and traitor.   Or was perhaps just a pragmatic politician waiting for his chance) Dickinson, John - American Statesman and member of the Pennsylvania Assembly. A child with a privileged upbringing and private education, no shock to find him leading. Draper, Mary - Woman who helped soldiers during The American Revolution  (OK, I'm impressed, but never heard of her when studying the American Revolution in School in the 1960's and 70's.  Her contribution was to make food and clothes for the troops, can't think that made her much different than any other woman with patriot ties---this is why I hate the token attempts to recognize women at a time that women were not really recognized) Franklin, Benjamin - American Statesman.  What is not to love, one of 17 children, stopped school to work in the family business, truly an idealist, thinker, and amazing man.  How many men like him are lost due to the increased numbers of people in our population, where money buys more opportunity than heart/brains/or hardwork. Greene, Nathanael - American General during the American Revolutionary War, a regular guy that loved books and had high ideals, but why have I never heard of him before? Hancock, John - American Politician, Entrepreneur, and Soldier, businessman and politician, raised comfortably as friends with the family of our second president.  And he wrote big! Henry, Patrick - Founding father of American Revolutionary War and governor of Virginia, planter, attorney, orator, politician.  He would never have gone to a party where I was invited as a guest. Jay, John - The First Chief Justice of the United States, born into a wealthy family of merchants and politicians, a lawyer and statemen.  At least I had never heard of him. Jefferson, Thomas - Third US President and Co-Author of the Declaration of Independence, no matter how much I admire him, there is no way to pretend he wasn't born into an elite position in life. Jones, John Paul - Captain of the American Navy - "I have not yet begun to fight"  This is a man with earthy roots, one of the few in this list. Knox, Henry - First United States Secretary of War, owned a bookstore and was friends with George Washington. Lee, Richard Henry - American Statesman.  Formal education in England, political position granted before the revolution. Lee, Francis Lightfoot - Active in Virginia politics and signer of the Declaration of Independence, politician before the war, classically educated son of a planter (reads plantation owner) Madison, James - Fourth President of the United States, father was the largest landowner in Orange County Virginia. Monroe, James - Fifth President of the United States, decidely middle class roots. Moore, Margaret Catharine - Helped the colonists during the Battle of Cowpens.  Amazingly, I think you may need to be related to her to figure out why she is on this list.  I'm betting that there were no leaders that were female during that war, it was just not done. Paine, Thomas - Author of "Common Sense" and Revolutionary, middle class, an activist, I'm impressed. Prescott, William - American colonel in the Revolutionary War, a militia man, yea! for regular folks. Revere, Paul - American Activist and Artisan, specifically a silversmith, not exactly the craft of a poor person, but I like artisans, they work with their hands and that keeps you in touch with your own roots, plus I always liked that midnight ride. Rush, Benjamin - Signatory of the Declaration of Independence, another planter's son, this one educated as a physician.  Not exactly the salt of the earth, but that profession was different back then---read between those lines. Warren, Joseph - Doctor, Soldier and Statesman of the American Revolution, given a commission to lead, chose to serve as a private, killed in battle, this man seems to be the stuff of heroes and legends.  Of course, I would hope that no one thinks a private that didn't get a chance to lead was any less a loss, but I really am impressed. Washington, George - First President of the United States, family was rich/influential when arrived from England, receiving land from the King, then they lost it over politics, moved to Virginia, and George Washington's father who was quite ambitious acquired quite a bit of property in the form of land and slaves.  George inherited this  rather early on. So, while a few of the lesser known revolution leaders were from average, granted middle or better, but not the already rich and powerful, the majority were already leading things.  The already rich and powerful were not revolting to save the regular to poor people, they were trying to not share their wealth with the motherland--or her royals.  Those individuals would probably love the current practice of mostly taxing the already over-taxed and underfunded middle class to destitute. For those that were not in that apparently well-off but from the writing, high-minded and idealistic oligararchical individuals, there were a number of just plain folks that showed heroism, selflessness, ingenuity, and just plain hard work.  I never heard of most of those.  Except Ben Franklin, what's not to like about Ben. So, most people act as if there has never been another reason to revolt, not since the great documents created by the founding fathers.  But I think that a civil war is just a revolution where only half the folks decided to revolt---and they lost.  I'm glad they lost because the last thing we need is another excuse to treat poor and powerless people like chattel, but if they hadn't lost, the south would have some other country name and history would read very differently. Could we have a revolution in this country today?  Revolution reads as WAR.  War is not a good thing.  It doesn't guarantee anything except a smaller population at the end.  Plus, if you haven't noticed, the leaders these days rarely enter the fray.  And who would be the leaders of such a thing.  We currently have militias, but most are quite extreme, frequently neonazi or survivalist mentality, or those with a strong desire to start a new and incredibly self-serving religion aimed at meeting the leader's needs at the expense of all the members.    I like to think that there are not enough people willing to follow those people to start much of anything.   Do I think our own government could become so awful that the people will rise up?  So far, we don't even vote most of the time.  We are so worried about our own little lives we don't see the big picture.  Everything is gradual or behind the scenes.  Most of us don't know enough about our taxes to be able to tell if they went up or down until we do them at the end of the year.  If anything else changes, income, deductions, anything, then we still don't know.  In our country the facts about tax rates are obscure and little talked about.  The laws that are changed require that an individual seeks answers from multiple sources as the news is not from a free press but from multiple bought and paid for presses.   I do think it is not too late to fix our current government.  Peacefully and fairly. We will see.

Money is free speech?

I'm having a hard time with that one--that judicial decision.  
No one will let me buy a car with my opinion.  
If I tell the guy at the drive-in window that I have paid for a hamburger, he is not going to hand me a hamburger, he is going to give me some free speech back, probably involving crazy old ladies.  
When corporations became people, that was ridiculous.  We need definitions of what a person is, we have definitions of what a corporation is.  But the very idea that money and free belong in the same sentence or even paragraph is an omen of more ridiculous things to come.
But first-I must go off on a tangent-----What happened to the checks and balances system guaranteed by having three branches of the government?  The original set up should have worked.  Executive--not given enough power to become a dictator or so little power that the position becomes a figurehead(sorry Royalty of England, but when all you have is tradition  it isn't really a branch of government, its more of a paparazzi thing), the Congress--divided into two parts, one giving each state 2 reps, and one giving each state a number of representatives based on population--there is a max number allowed--435--since 1963), and the Judicial branch.
When I was little, Donald Duck's relative explained it, perhaps a bit vaguely, but the job of congress is to make law, the president is to enact laws and the judges are to interpret laws.  Thus the branches are equal in ability to check the other two.
Somehow, the idea that we would get to a place where people (corporations?) were having undue influence over members of each of those branches by giving them large amount of free speech (money/contributions/perks?) and effectively making the system of checks and balances disappear---just never occurred to most of us.

So, lets look at this thing.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to 

the United States Constitution.

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

First Amendment

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 petitition the Government for a redress of grievances.  (I underlined the one that made it OK to buy an election or law)

Second Amendment

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.  (this one is tricky, the "well-regulated" part makes some of the NRA tactics look like they just have a LOT of free speech)

Third Amendment

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.  (hope we followed this in the north during the Civil War--guess it didn't really apply in the south since they had seceded, considering how many wars we have fought and young people we have lost to death/disability and mental distress, hard to guess that we have not had a war on our own soil since the civil war)

Fourth Amendment

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.  (this one might be fightable by those individuals that have lost everything due to drug investigations, then when not found guilty, not received anything back)

Fifth Amendment

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.  (think Guantanamo, think held for years for mental illness, think about those already executed then the DNA said---"OOPS")

Sixth Amendment

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.  (this is the only one that has caused some issues, although I'm sure that public defenders are not all created equally and notifying people of their rights and charges after keeping them up for hours/needing to go to the bathroom/and the general stress of being arrested could make the public efforts less than genuine)

Seventh Amendment

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 reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of common law. (my question?is it still twenty dollars?)

Eighth Amendment

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.  (what is excessive to a billionaire is not at all the same as what is excessive to a homeless person, or a person working at minimum wage---this problem is pretty evident at the county jails where people sit in jail for misdemeanors due to no money)

Ninth Amendment

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.  (HUH?--I guess we can't go in later and take away people's constitutional rights with an amendment)

Tenth Amendment

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.  (or to the people?  where do the people have access to the system?  what was this intended to mean?)

 AMENDMENT 11

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.  (got it, unless the state judicial system does something that is against the constitution, the federal judicial system has no say--why the federal cases and the state cases never have the same charges.  This was added in 1795)

AMENDMENT 12

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice­President, 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 Vice­President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice­President, 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 asVice­President,shall be theVice­President, 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 Vice­President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two­thirds 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 Vice­President of the United States.  (So, the electoral college was not part of the original bill of rights, it was ratified in 1804--so we didn't get very many true elections by the people,  we have mostly just been allowed to vote on who will vote for us!  I would be curious to know what initiated that bit of crap)

AMENDMENT 13

[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.  ( I underlined this because I'm fairly sure that placing criminals into slavery and involuntary servitude would require an amendment to this list)

[2.] Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT 14

[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.

[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 Vice­President 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 twenty­one 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 twenty­one years of age in such State.

[3.] No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice­President, 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.

[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.

[5.] The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.  (pretty obvious what created the need for this amendment)

AMENDMENT 15

[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.(since

[2.] The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.  (was that already in 14,  people love to find loopholes)

AMENDMENT 16

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.  (oh my, look up the 16th amendment and start reading, from questions about the legality of its ratification  to concerns that it flies in the face of several parts of the bill of rights,  I've heard a few militia men discuss this as their main problem with our current government.  (ratified in 1913--explains why those wild and wooly frontiersmen didn't start a war over it)

AMENDMENT 17

The Senate of the United States shall be com­posed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

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.  (i'm sure there is a story here, that this is part of the constitution and written so recently)

AMENDMENT 18

Repealed by Amendment 21, 12/5/1933

[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.

[2.] The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[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.
(We learned nothing from this, as proven by our current war on drugs.  With drugs illegal, no source except black market or for pills--those amazing Doctors that don't mind flying in the face of ethics/law--there are times when I can't even fault them, although the people hooked on pills frequently got their by those same Docs.  Black market ranges from huge and dangerous drug cartels to desparate home chemist/addicts/and gardeners.  The prices are inflated for the drugs due to their illegality, so addicts {and we pretty much stopped trying to help the addicts without money in the early 1990's} had to buy their drug of choice at high prices when their disease was making them unable to get or hold a job or finish school--high school, college, trade, i.e., homeless/minimum wage earner/sofa-surfers.  What do people with a strong physical or psychological need do  to earn enough money to buy their only real solace?  Sell their bodies, sell their loved one's bodies, hurt people, rob people, go to work for the nearest dealer that can keep them in supplies.  
The government can not legislate addiction, making an addiction illegal is like making cancer illegal.  No one says "when I grow up I want to be an addict, I want to risk everything to take a chemical to make myself feel ok for a little while".  Ratified in 1919, repealed in 1933, a time of monstrous growth of gangs and organized crime.  If we were smart, we would make the stupid drugs legal through clinics and on a fee based on a sliding scale.  Also offering free counciling and education and rehab and meeting space for groups like AA and NA.

AMENDMENT 19

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.  (women have been able to vote since 1920--less than 100 years.  These past ten years, with all the push to make women's health issues again a part of law, has me expect this amendment to come up for repeal anytime.  The Tea Party scares the crap out of me.)

AMENDMENT 20

[1.] The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[5.] Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

[6.] This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three­fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.  (If you can't see what this is about, it used to be that they started in March, horses and buggies, snail mail, so this is housekeeping to catch up with the times. )

AMENDMENT 21

[1.] The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

[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.

[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. (very self-explanatory, read the 18th)

AMENDMENT 22

[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.

[2.] This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three­fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.  (This was done after Franklin D. Roosevelt just kept winning.  Apparently there was a fear that he would make himself king,  I personally want one that limits the members of congress to 2 consecutive terms,  they treat it like they have been appointed for life and even if the same person ran 2 out of every 3 times, it would make it more less likely for someone to invest so much in one when they wouldn't keep being there forever.)

AMENDMENT 23

[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.  (now the District of Columbia can vote for the president---what!?!  They couldn't before?!? holy crap)

[2.] The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT 24

[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. (wow, some things never change, how is the cost of an official government ID not a Poll tax)

[2.] The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

AMENDMENT 25

[1.] In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

[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.

[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.

[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.  (Read the constitution, while the assumption that the vice-president exists to take over for the president in case of death or debility or other issue, it apparently was never spelled out.  ratified 1967)

AMENDMENT 26

[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.

[2.] The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.  (basically it was decided that if they are old enough to die in a war that they were drafted to fight, they were old enough to vote)

AMENDMENT 27

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.  (first presented in 1789, ratified in 2011---those crafty self-serving congressional branch people)

So, If you have made it to here, you may ask, what does this have to do with free speech and money, and the answer is--I'm ADD--so I get off track.  Hope you enjoyed the lesson with commentary.   But truly, I want some judge on the Supreme court to rule that free speech is money.  
I'll take a greenhouse, please, with a hot tub inside.  I just paid you with my free speech!