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
Trang 1of 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
The Twenty-fifth Amendment was proposed
on July 6, 1965, and ratified on February 10,
1967 The amendment establishes the procedure for replacing the president or vice president when either office is vacant The amendment, which was proposed in the aftermath of the assassination of President JOHN F KENNEDY in
1963, has been used during the presidential terms
ofRICHARD M.NIXON,GERALD R.FORD, andRONALD REAGAN
Section 1 of the amendment states that in the event of“the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.” This section reaffirmed a precedent set by Vice President JOHN TYLER, in 1841, when President WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON died after only one month in office Tyler rejected the concept of serving as acting president during the remaining 47 months of Harrison’s term Instead, he an-nounced that he would assume the full duties and powers of the office and become president
Section 2 of the amendment established a new procedure for selecting a vice president if a vacancy occurs This section was enacted in reaction to the situation after the Kennedy assassination When Vice President LYNDON B JOHNSON assumed the presidency on November
22, 1963, the Constitution left the office of vice president unfilled Under the Constitution, if Johnson had died or been removed from office, his successor would have been the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who at the time
was John McCormick, then in his eighties Section 2 permits the president to choose a vice president, subject to confirmation by a majority vote of both houses of Congress
Section 2 was used twice in the 1970s in the wake of political scandals in the Nixon administration In 1973 Gerald R Ford became the first person chosen as vice president using this method Nixon appointed Ford to replace Vice President Spiro T Agnew, who resigned
in the face of criminal BRIBERY charges When Nixon resigned in August 1974 because of the WATERGATE scandal, Ford became president Ford then appointed Nelson A Rockefeller as vice president under the authority of Section 2 Sections 3 and 4 of the amendment deal with presidential disability Several presidents have been temporarily disabled during their terms of office, but until the amendment, the Constitution contained no provision for the temporary replacement of a disabled president and provided no guidance as to who would have actual decision-making authority should the president become disabled PresidentWOODROW WILSON, for example, was seriously disabled by
a stroke in 1919 and was totally incapacitated for a number of weeks His wife, Edith, took
on much of the responsibility of the office, an arrangement that aroused sharp criticism Section 3 deals with a situation in which the president communicates in writing to Congress that he is“unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the office The vice president then assumes the role of acting president The vice president continues in this role unless and until the president is able to transmit a declaration to the contrary
Section 4 deals with the more difficult situation of a president who is unable or unwilling to acknowledge the inability to perform the duties of the office The section authorizes the vice president and a majority of the presidential cabinet members to determine whether the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office If they agree that the president is incapacitated, the vice president immediately becomes acting presi-dent The president may transmit to Congress a statement declaring that no inability exists and resume the duties of president The vice president and the majority of the cabinet, however, may send a declaration to Congress within four days disputing the assertion of the
138 TWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT
Trang 2president that he is able to discharge the duties
of the office If this happens, Congress must
vote by a two-thirds majority in both houses
that the president is unable to serve Otherwise,
the president will reassume office
The disability procedures were used for
eight hours on July 13, 1985, when President
Reagan underwent surgery for cancer Vice
PresidentGEORGE H.W.BUSHtemporarily assumed
the powers and duties of the office as acting
president Section 4 was also invoked on June
29, 2002, when PresidentGEORGE W.BUSH, who
was set to undergo a colonoscopy, temporarily
transferred power to Vice President Dick Cheney
Vice President Cheney acted as president from
7:09A.M until 9:24 A.M., when President Bush
transmitted a letter announcing that he was
resuming his duties
RESOURCES
Bellamy, Calvin 2000 “Presidential Disability: The
Twenty-Fifth Amendment Still an Untried Tool ” Boston Univ.
Public Interest Law Journal 9 (spring).
Feerick, John D 1992 The Twenty-fifth Amendment: Its
Complete History and Applications New York: Fordham
Univ Press.
Gant, Scott E 1999 “Presidential Inability and the
Twenty-Fifth Amendment’s Unexplored Removal Provisions.”
Law Review of Michigan State Univ Law Review.
(winter).
Gilbert, Robert E., ed 2000 Managing Crisis: Presidential
Disability and the Twenty-Fifth Amendment New York:
Fordham Univ Press.
Toole, James F., Robert J Joynt, and Arthur S Link 2001.
Presidential Disability: Papers, Discussions, and
Recom-mendations on the Twenty-Fifth Amendment and Issues
of Inability and Disability among Presidents of the United
States Rochester, NY: Univ of Rochester Press.
TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT
The Twenty-first Amendment to the U.S
Con-stitution reads:
Section 1 The eighteenth article of
amend-ment to theCONSTITUTION 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 This article shall be inoperative
unless it shall have been ratified as an
amendment to the Constitution by
conven-tions 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
The Twenty-first Amendment was proposed
on February 20, 1933, and ratified on December
5, 1933 It is the only amendment to repeal another amendment, the Eighteenth, and the only one to be ratified by state conventions rather than by state legislatures
Repeal of the EIGHTEENTH AMENDMENTended fourteen years of PROHIBITION, a failed national experiment that sought to eliminate the con-sumption of intoxicating liquors Though consumption was reduced, federal and state law enforcement officials could not prevent the illegal manufacture and sale of “bootleg”
alcohol ORGANIZED CRIMEprofited from the ban
on alcohol, which enabled criminals such as Chicago gangster AL CAPONE to become multi-millionaires Critics of Prohibition argued that the increase in crime and lawlessness offset any gains from reducing the consumption of liquor
Prohibition was supported most strongly in rural areas In urban areas enforcement was difficult Cities had large populations of immi-grants who did not see anything morally wrong with consuming alcohol In the early 1930s, as production and sales of illegal liquor continued
to rise, the onset of the Great Depression led
to calls for repeal of the Eighteenth Amend-ment A legalized liquor industry would pro-vide more jobs at a time when millions were out of work
At its national convention in 1932, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY adopted a platform plank calling for repeal The landslide Democratic victory of 1932 signaled the end of Prohibition
In February 1933 a resolution proposing the Twenty-first Amendment was introduced in Congress; it contained a provision requiring ratification by state conventions rather than by state legislatures Though Article V of the Con-stitution authorizes this ratification method, it had never been used Supporters of repeal did not want the state legislatures, which generally were dominated by rural legislators supportive
of Prohibition, to vote against ratification
During 1933, 38 states elected delegates to state conventions to consider the amendment
Almost three-quarters of the voters supported repeal in these elections Therefore, it was not surprising that the ratification conventions certified the results and ratified the Twenty-first Amendment on December 5, 1933
Section 2 of the amendment gives states the right to prohibit the transportation or
TWENTY-FIRST AMENDMENT 139
Trang 3importation of intoxicating liquors Many states enacted their own prohibition laws in the 1930s, but all had been repealed by 1966 The regulation of liquor is now primarily a local issue
FURTHER READINGS Brown, Everett Somerville, compiler 2003 Ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States: State Convention Records and Laws Clark, N.J.: Lawbook Exchange.
Rotter, Jonathan M and Joshua S Stambaugh 2007.
“What’s Left of the Twenty-First Amendment.” Car-dozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal 6.
TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the U.S
Constitution reads:
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
The Twenty-fourth Amendment was pro-posed on August 27, 1962, and ratified on January
23, 1964 It prohibits the federal government or the states from making voters pay a poll tax before they can vote in a national election A poll tax, also called a head tax, is a tax collected equally from all voters The amendment was proposed as a CIVIL RIGHTS measure because southern states had used the poll tax to keep African Americans from voting
POLL TAXES were commonly imposed in the United States at the time the Constitution was adopted but had fallen into disuse by the mid-nineteenth century After the ratification of the FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT in 1870, the poll tax was revived in the South as a way to prevent African Americans, who were mostly poor, from voting
The poll tax also denied poor whites the right to vote Typically, the unpaid fees would accumu-late from election to election, making it more difficult for poor persons to find the economic resources to qualify for voting
In Breedlove v Suttles, 302 U.S 277, 58 S Ct
205, 82 L Ed 252 (1937), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that poll taxes, by themselves, did not violate the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amend-ments Breedlove led to the introduction of the
first poll tax constitutional amendment in 1939 and to efforts to abolish the poll tax through STATE ACTION By 1960 only five southern states still had poll taxes
The abolition of the poll tax was not a controversial issue, even at a time of fierce southern resistance to racial desegregation The amendment was limited to federal elections, however, leaving state elections outside its scope Following the ratification of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court abandoned the Breedlove precedent In Harper v Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S 663, 86 S Ct 1079,
16 L Ed 2d 169 (1966), the Court struck down poll taxes in state and local elections, ruling that such taxes violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause
TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT The Twenty-second Amendment to the U.S Constitution reads:
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 The Twenty-second Amendment was pro-posed on March 24, 1947, and ratified on February
27, 1951 The amendment imposed term limits on the office of president of the United States The Framers of the Constitution vested power in a single executive, elected for a term of four years Participants at the Constitutional Convention discussed the wisdom of limiting presidential terms, but in the end the conven-tion refused to limit the number of terms The Framers believed a four-year term and an
140 TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT
Trang 4independentELECTORAL COLLEGEwould prevent a
president from seeking more than two terms
President GEORGE WASHINGTON declined the
offer of a third term, as did THOMAS JEFFERSON
Once the tradition of serving no more than
two terms had been established in the early 1800s,
it became a canon of U.S politics President
FRANKLIN D ROOSEVELT ignored the tradition in
1940, however, when he chose to run for a third
term He did so in the belief that U.S involvement
inWORLD WAR IIwas imminent In making his bid
for a third term, Roosevelt ignored the advice of
some members of theDEMOCRATIC PARTY In 1944,
with the war raging, Roosevelt was elected to an
unprecedented fourth term In declining health
when elected, he died in 1945
After the 1946 election, which produced
Republican majorities in both houses of
Con-gress, the Republicans sought to prevent a
repetition of Roosevelt’s actions The
Twenty-second Amendment was introduced in 1947 and
adopted in 1951 The amendment prohibits a
person from serving more than two four-year
terms A person who serves more than two years
of a term to which some other person was elected
president may be elected only for one full term
For example, if a president dies in the first year of
the term, the vice president who becomes
president may be elected to only one four-year
term If, however, the president dies in the third
year of the term, the vice president would be
eligible to serve a maximum of ten years
TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT
The Twenty-seventh Amendment to the U.S
Constitution reads:
No law, varying the compensation for the
services of Senators and Representatives,
shall take effect, until an election of
Repre-sentatives shall have intervened
The effect of the Twenty-seventh
Amend-ment is to prevent salary increases for federal
legislators from taking effect until after an
intervening election of members of theHOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES The amendment is an expression
of the concern that members of Congress, if left
to their own devices, may choose to act in their
own interests rather than the PUBLIC INTEREST
Because the amendment postpones salary
increases until after an election, members of
Congress may not immediately raise their own
salaries All Representatives must endure an
election before a pay raise takes effect because
Representatives are elected once every two years;
Senators need not necessarily succeed in an election before a pay raise takes effect unless the pay raise is approved within two years of the Senator’s next re-election effort
The long history of the Twenty-seventh Amendment is curious and unprecedented The amendment was first drafted by JAMES MADISON
in 1789 and proposed by the First Congress in
1789 as part of the original BILL OF RIGHTS The proposed amendment did not fare well, as only six states ratified it during the period in which the first ten amendments were ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states The amend-ment was largely neglected for the next two centuries; Ohio was the only state to approve the amendment in that period, ratifying it in 1873
In 1982, Gregory Watson, a 20-year-old student at the University of Texas, wrote a term paper arguing for RATIFICATION of the amend-ment Watson received a‘C’ grade for the paper and then embarked on a one-man campaign for the amendment’s ratification From his home in Austin, Texas, Watson wrote letters to state legislators across the country on an electric typewriter During the 1980s, state legislatures passed pay raises Public debate over the raises reached a fever pitch, and state legislatures began to pass the measure, mostly as a symbo-lic gesture to appease voters Few observers believed that the amendment would ever be ratified by the required 38 states, but the tally of ratifying states began to mount On May 7,
1992, Michigan became the thirty-eighth state
to ratify the amendment, causing it to become part of the U.S Constitution
The ratification process of the Twenty-seventh Amendment was by far the longest-running amendment effort in the history of the United States Before the Twenty-seventh Amendment was ratified, the longest it had taken to ratify an amendment was four years
That measure, the TWENTY-SECOND AMENDMENT limiting the president to two terms in office, was ratified in 1951 The proposedEQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT, which would have become the Twenty-seventh Amendment had it passed, failed to win ratification by the required 38 states during the 10-year period Congress had allowed for its consideration by the states
The gradual manner in which the Twenty-seventh Amendment was passed has raised questions about its validity, with concerns centering on the wisdom of allowing changes
TWENTY-SEVENTH AMENDMENT 141
Trang 5to the Constitution without reference to the passage of time In Dillon v Gloss, 256 U.S 368,
41 S Ct 510, 65 L Ed 994 (1921), the U.S
SUPREME COURTstated a requirement that ratifica-tion of amendments be contemporaneous with their proposal, but in Coleman v Miller, 307 U.S
433, 59 S Ct 972, 83 L Ed 1385 (1939), the High Court left it for Congress to decide whether
a ratification was contemporaneous with its proposal In Boehner v Anderson, 809 F Supp
138 (D.D.C 1992), aff’d, 30 F.3d 156 (D.C Cir
1994), the district court for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to the constitu-tionality of pay raises in the Ethics Reform Act of
1989, Pub L 101-194, 103 Stat 1716 (1989)
The court observed that the pay raises complied with the Twenty-seventh Amendment because they took effect after an election had intervened
FURTHER READINGS Bernstein, Richard B 1992 “The Sleeper Wakes: The History of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment ” Fordham Law Review 61 (December).
Dalzell, Stewart, and Eric J Beste 1994 “Is the Twenty-Seventh Amendment 200 Years Too Late? ” George Washington Law Review 62 (April).
Paulsen, Michael Stokes 1993 “A General Theory of Article V: The Constitutional Lessons of the Twenty-Seventh Amendment ” Yale Law Journal 103 (December).
CROSS REFERENCE Congress of the United States.
TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT The Twenty-sixth Amendment to the U.S
Constitution reads:
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 the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation
The Twenty-sixth Amendment was pro-posed on March 23, 1971, and ratified on July 1,
1971 The ratification period of 107 days was the shortest in U.S history The amendment, which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18, was passed quickly to avert potential problems in the 1972 elections
The drive for lowering the voting age began with young people who had been drawn into the political arena by the VIETNAM WAR Proponents argued that if 18-year-olds were old enough to be drafted into military service and sent into combat, they were also old enough to vote This line of
argument was not new It had persuaded Georgia and Kentucky to lower the minimum voting age to
18 during WORLD WAR II The one flaw in the argument was that women were not drafted and were not allowed to serve in combat units if they enlisted in the armed forces
Nevertheless, the drive for lowering the voting age gained momentum In 1970 Con-gress passed a measure that lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 in both federal and state elections (84 Stat 314)
The U.S Supreme Court, however, declared part of this measure unconstitutional in Oregon v Mitchell, 400 U.S 112, 91 S Ct 260, 27 L Ed 2d
272 (1970) The decision was closely divided Four justices believed Congress had the consti-tutional authority to lower the voting age in all elections, four justices believed the opposite, and one justice, HUGO L.BLACK, concluded that Congress could lower the voting age by statute only in federal elections, not in state elections The Court’s decision allowed 18-year-olds
to vote in the 1972 presidential and congressio-nal elections but left the states to decide if they wished to lower the voting age in their state elections The potential for chaos was clear Congress responded by proposing the Twenty-sixth Amendment, which required the states as well as the federal government to lower the voting age to 18
TWENTY-THIRD AMENDMENT The Twenty-third Amendment to the U.S Constitution reads:
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 The Twenty-third Amendment was pro-posed on June 16, 1960, and ratified on March
29, 1961 The amendment rectified an omission
142 TWENTY-SIXTH AMENDMENT
Trang 6in the Constitution that prevented residents
of the District of Columbia from voting in
presidential elections
Article I of the Constitution gives Congress
the authority to accept land from the states and
administer it as the seat of national government
The District of Columbia was organized under
this provision from land given to the federal
government by Virginia and Maryland
The government of the city of Washington
and the District of Columbia has been
domi-nated by Congress for most of the district’s
history Congress is empowered by Article I to
exercise exclusive authority over the seat of
government In the 1820s Congress allowed
citizens of the district to vote for a mayor and
city council In 1871 Congress created a
terri-torial form of government for the district All
the officials, including a legislative assembly,
were appointed by the president This system was
abandoned in 1874, when Congress reestablished
direct control over the city government
From the 1870s until 1961, residents of the
district were denied all rights to vote Though
residents paid federal and local taxes and were
drafted into the military services, they could not
vote The Twenty-third Amendment gave district
residents the right to vote for president Under
the amendment the number of the district’s
electors cannot exceed that of the state with the
smallest population In practice, this means that
the district elects three presidential electors
The amendment did not address the issue of
representation in Congress Later, a constitutional
amendment that would have given residents the
right to vote for congressional representatives was
proposed, but it failed to win ratification In 1970
Congress created the position of nonvoting
delegate to the House of Representatives, to be
elected by the district’s residents
TYING ARRANGEMENT
A tying arrangement is an agreement in which a
vendor conditions the sale of a particular product
on a vendee’s promise to purchase an additional,
unrelated product
In a tying arrangement, the product that
the vendee actually wants to purchase is known
as the tying product, whereas the additional
product that the vendee must purchase to
consummate the sale is known as the tied
product Typically, the tying product is a
desirable good that is in considerable demand
by vendees in a given market The tied product
is normally less desirable, of poorer quality, or otherwise difficult to sell
Tying arrangements are governed by the law
of UNFAIR COMPETITION Such arrangements tend
to restrain competition by requiring buyers to purchase inferior goods that they do not want or more expensive goods that they could purchase elsewhere for less In addition, competitors may reduce their prices to below market level to draw purchasers away from prospective tying arrange-ments Competitors who sell their products at below-market prices for an extended period can suffer enormous losses or go out of business
Not every tying arrangement is illegal under the law of unfair competition Four elements must be proved to establish that a particular tying arrangement is illegal First, the tying arrangement must involve two different pro-ducts Manufactured products and their com-ponent parts, such as an automobile and its engine, are not considered different products and may be tied together without violating the law However, the law does not permit a shoe manufacturer to tie the purchase of promo-tional T-shirts to the sale of athletic footwear because these items are considered unrelated
Second, the purchase of one product must be conditioned on the purchase of another product
A buyer need not actually purchase a tied product
in order to bring a claim If a vendor refuses to sell
a tying product unless a tied product is purchased
or agrees to sell a tying product separately only at
an unreasonably high price, a court will declare the tying arrangement illegal If a buyer can purchase a tying product separately on nondis-criminatory terms, however, there is no tie
Third, a seller must have sufficient market power in a tying product to restrain competition
in a tied product Market power is measured by the number of buyers the seller has enticed to enter a particular tying arrangement Sellers expand their market power by enticing additional buyers to purchase a tied product However, sellers are prohibited from dominating a given market by locking up an unreasonably large share
of prospective buyers in tying arrangements
Fourth, a tying arrangement must be shown
to appreciably restrain commerce Evidence of anticompetitive effects includes unreasonably high prices for tied products and unreasonably low prices for competing products in a tied market A PLAINTIFF need not establish that a
TYING ARRANGEMENT 143
Trang 7business has actually controlled prices through a tying arrangement, as is required to establish certain monopolistic practices, but only that prices and other market conditions have been significantly influenced
Tying arrangements are regulated at both the state and the federal level At the federal level, tying arrangements are regulated by the SHERMAN ANTITRUST ACT(15 U.S.C.A § 1) and the CLAYTON ACT (15 U.S.C.A § 14) At the state level, tying arrangements are regulated by analogous statutes and various common-law doctrines At either level both purchasers and businesses that are injured by illegal tying arrangements have two remedies available:
money damages (compensation for pecuniary
losses) and injunctive relief (a court order restraining a business from tying its products) One of the most notable tying cases in the early 2000s involved software giant Microsoft
In United States v Microsoft (253 F.3d 34 [D.C Cir 2001]), the government claimed that Microsoft had illegally tied its Windows operat-ing system with its web browser, Internet Explorer The government argued that Micro-soft developed Windows so that it was difficult
to remove the browser and also that Microsoft developed Windows in a manner that made use
of Internet Explorer’s competitor, Netscape Navigator, difficult to use Microsoft countered that Windows and Explorer were merely part of the same product, but the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia disagreed The case was eventually settled out of court
FURTHER READINGS Dorton, Kathleen A 2008 “Intellectual Property Tying Arrangements: Has the Market Power Presumption Reached the End of Its Rope? DePaul Law Review (Winter).
Hancock, William A., ed 2001 Special Study for Corporate Counsel on Tying Arrangements Chesterland, Ohio: Business Laws.
Klarfeld, Peter J 1994 Tying Arrangements and Exclusive Dealing New York: Practising Law Institute.
CROSS REFERENCES Antitrust Law; Monopoly.
vTYLER, JOHN John Tyler served as the tenth president of the United States from 1841 to 1845 A political maverick and a proponent of STATES’ RIGHTS, Tyler was the first vice president to succeed to the office because of the death of a president Rejecting the concept of an acting president,
John Tyler.
DAGUERROTYPE BY
MATHEW BRADY.
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
John Tyler 1790–1862
1790 Born, Greenway, Va.
1775–83
American Revolution
1809 Admitted to the Va bar
1812–14 War of 1812
1811–16 Served in the Virginia Legislature
1817–21 Served
in U.S.
House
1823–25 Served in the Virginia Legislature
1827–36 Served in U.S Senate
◆
1838 Elected to the Virginia Legislature
◆
◆
1841 President Harrison died 31 days after taking office; Tyler assumed presidency
1846–48 Mexican War
◆❖
1861–65 U.S Civil War
1861 Elected to Confederate Congress
1862 Died, Richmond, Va.
1844 Failed
to be renominated
◆
1840 Elected vice president as the Whig party candidate
144 TYLER, JOHN
Trang 8Tyler established the right of the vice president
to assume the powers and duties of president
Tyler was born the second of eight children
into a politically active family on March 29,
1790, in Greenway, Virginia, son of John Tyler,
Sr and Mary Armistead He is the first
President born after the RATIFICATION of the
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES He graduated
from the College of William and Mary in 1807
and was admitted to the Virginia bar in 1809
He began his political career in 1811 when he
was elected as a member of the DEMOCRATIC
PARTYto the Virginia legislature In 1817 he was
elected to the U.S House of Representatives,
where he remained until 1821 During his years
in the House, he was a consistent supporter of
states’ rights, believing that the role of the
federal government should be limited Tyler,
who owned slaves, objected to the MISSOURI
COMPROMISE OF 1820, which placed restrictions
on the expansion ofSLAVERY to new states
In 1823 Tyler returned to the Virginia
legislature, where he served two years In 1825
he was elected governor of Virginia, and in 1827
he was elected to the U.S Senate
During his nine years in the Senate, Tyler
opposed several of President Andrew Jackson’s
policies though he and Jackson were both
Democrats In 1832 South Carolina issued its
nullification policy, declaring its right as a state to
reject federal tariff regulations Jackson, in
retalia-tion, initiated the Force Act of 1833 (4 Stat 633),
which permitted the president to use the military,
if necessary, to collect tariff revenues Tyler did
not agree with South Carolina’s actions, but he
vehemently opposed Jackson’s use of federal
power to bring the state to heel
Tyler lost the support of Virginia Democrats
when he refused to reverse his 1834 vote of
censure against Jackson for removing deposits
from the BANK OF THE UNITED STATES In 1836,
when the Virginia legislature gave him a direct
order to change his vote, Tyler resigned from
the Senate rather than obey He returned to
Virginia, where he was elected again to the
Virginia legislature in 1838
In the presidential election of 1840, theWHIG
PARTY sought to broaden its northern political
base by selecting a vice presidential candidate
who could attract southern voters Accordingly,
Tyler was chosen to be the vice presidential
candidate to run with WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON, known as “Tippecanoe” from the battle where
he had defeated Chief Tecumseh of the Shawnee tribe In a campaign devoid of political ideas, the political slogan“Tippecanoe and Tyler too”
popularized the two Whig candidates, who won the election
The elderly Harrison died 31 days after becoming president, and Tyler assumed the presidency on April 4, 1841 As the first vice president to become president because of the death of the chief executive, Tyler rejected the idea that he serve as acting president
Though the U.S Constitution was silent on the matter of succession, Tyler announced that he would assume the full powers and duties of the office, setting a precedent that would be followed
by other vice presidents (Procedures for presi-dential succession were added to the Constitu-tion by theTWENTY-FIFTH AMENDMENTin 1967.) Tyler’s maverick streak, which had once stung the Democrats, soon offended the Whigs
Still a staunch supporter of states’ rights, Tyler twice vetoed a Whig-sponsored act establishing
a national bank As a result, his entire cabinet resigned, with the exception of the SECRETARY
OF STATE, DANIEL WEBSTER For the remainder of his term, Tyler was a chief executive without
a political party Consequently, his accomplish-ments were few He did approve theANNEXATION
of Texas and he signed the PREEMPTION Act of
1841 (5 Stat 453), which gave squatters on government land the right to buy 160 acres of land at the minimum auction price without competitive bidding
After leaving office in 1845, Tyler continued
to defend states’ rights In 1861, before the outbreak of the Civil War, Tyler directed the Washington conference, which was convened in
a final attempt to avert war When that meeting failed, Tyler favored secession and was elected as
a member of the Confederate Congress He died
on January 18, 1862, in Richmond, Virginia, however, before he could take his seat in the secessionist Congress
FURTHER READINGS Monroe, Dan 2003 The Republican Vision of John Tyler.
College Station: Texas A&M Univ Press.
Peterson, Norma Lois 1989 The Presidencies of William Henry Harrison & John Tyler Lawrence: Univ Press
of Kansas.
THE GREAT PRIMARY AND CONTROLLING INTEREST OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE IS UNION—UNION NOT ONLY IN THE MERE FORMS OF GOVERNMENT BUT UNION FOUNDED
IN AN ATTACHMENT
OF INDIVIDUALS FOR EACH OTHER
—J OHN T YLER TYLER, JOHN 145
Trang 10SeeUNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE
UCCC
SeeUNIFORM CONSUMER CREDIT CODE
UCMJ
SeeUNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
ULTIMATE FACTS
Information essential to a plaintiff’s right of action
or a defendant’s assertion of a defense
The concept of ultimate facts used to be an
essential part of preparing aPLEADING in a civil
action Until the late 1930s, the rules of CIVIL
PROCEDURE in federal and state courts required
parties to plead on the basis of a statement of
facts constituting theCAUSE OF ACTIONor defense
These ultimate facts alleged the substance of the
cause of action and were distinguished from
evidentiary facts, which concerned the
particu-lar events of the case, and conclusions of law
The highly technical distinctions among
ulti-mate facts, evidentiary facts, and conclusions of
law created great confusion and often led to the
dismissal of cases based on a pleading mistake
The development of these distinctions can
be traced to the 1848 New York Code of Civil
Procedure, which was largely drafted by DAVID
DUDLEY FIELD During the next few decades, most
of the states, except those on the East Coast,
adopted what came to be known as the Field Code The Field Code was a significant improve-ment over common-law systems of procedure However, the code required that the complaint contain “a plain and concise statement of the facts constituting plaintiff’s cause of action,” and used the pleading as a way of narrowing and defining the dispute rather than as a general means of initiating a civil action
Over time, however,CODE PLEADING became very technical and required the pleader to set forth the facts underlying and demonstrating the existence of the cause of action The pleading of ultimate facts was necessary, while the inclusion of evidentiary facts and conclu-sions of law was improper Judges and attorneys found it difficult, if not impossible, to draw meaningful and consistent distinctions among these three terms With no clear dividing line between a fact that demonstrated a cause of action and one that introduced specific evi-dence, courts made formal and often ARBITRARY decisions that were unrelated to the merits of the case Courts demanded a high degree of specificity and bound the parties to prove the ultimate facts alleged or lose the lawsuit This requirement was particularly harsh because it forced a party to allege detailed facts early in the case when there was still uncertainty over what facts had occurred
By the 1930s legal commentators agreed that the need to plead ultimate facts was hindering the cause of justice The Federal Rules of Civil
U