(03-28-2018 02:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 01:54 PM)JSA Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 01:37 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 12:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Going back to the Constitution, wasn't the 3/5 compromise for slaves part of the apportionment process?

Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

...superseded by Amendment XIV, Section 2: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."

And the requirement that "direct Taxes" be apportioned among the States led to the 16th Amendment.

The second decade of the 20th Century gave us these four amendments:
(1) Income tax
(2) Direct election of Senators
(3) Prohibition
(4) Women's suffrage

It took 14 years to get rid of prohibition. The others are still in force.

On the other hand, 1933 was pretty solid: we got rid of prohibition, and shortened the presidential lame duck period from four months to 1.5
That may have been the best single year for amendments since 1791.

I would vote for 1868, just on the basis of the sole Amendment of that year.

14th was the lens through which the Bill of Rights is applicable to the individual state governments --- without that it would be a madhouse since the Bill of Rights, written in the negative, serves as a 'floor' (bare minimum) level for a right that governmental restriction cannot impinge upon.

States were always allowed to grant more rights than elucidated in the Bill of Rights; for example the Texas Constitution enshrines much broader free speech, religious, association, and gun possession rights for its populace than the Federal Constitution grants.

But before the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as only being applicable against the Federal government, thus you had the utterly bizarre world where a state action of an individual state could be far more restrictive vis a vis rights associated with the Bill of Rights, and in fact violative of them if passed or enforced by the Federal government.

The 14th was a fantastic Amendment *just* for the Due Process clause that does that.