Articles of Confederation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
War and the Constitutional Text John C
War and the Constitutional Text John C. Yoo∗ In a series of articles, I have criticized the view that the original under- standing of the Constitution requires that Congress provide its authorization before the United States can engage in military hostilities.1 This “pro- Congress” position ignores the constitutional text and structure, errs in in- terpreting the ratification history of the Constitution, and cannot account for the practice of the three branches of government. Instead of the rigid proc- ess advocated by scholars such as Louis Henkin, John Hart Ely, Louis Fisher, Michael Glennon, and Harold Koh,2 I have argued that the Constitu- tion creates a flexible system of war powers. That system provides the president with significant initiative as commander-in-chief, while reserving to Congress ample authority to check executive policy through its power of the purse. In this scheme, the Declare War Clause confers on Congress a ju- ridical power, one that both defines the state of international legal relations ∗ Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) (on leave); Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, United States Department of Justice. The views expressed here are those of the author alone and do not represent the views of the Department of Justice. I express my deep appreciation for the advice and assistance of James C. Ho in preparing this response. Robert Delahunty, Jack Goldsmith, and Sai Prakash provided helpful comments on the draft. 1 See John C. Yoo, Kosovo, War Powers, and the Multilateral Future, 148 U Pa L Rev 1673, 1686–1704 (2000) (discussing the original understanding of war powers in the context of the Kosovo conflict); John C. -
Prince Edward Island and Confederation 1863-1873
CCHA, Report, 28 (1961), 25-30 Prince Edward Island and Confederation 1863-1873 Francis William Pius BOLGER, Ph.D. St. Dunstan’s University, Charlottetown The idea of Confederation did not receive serious consideration in Prince Edward Island prior to the year 1863. Ten more years elapsed before the subject of union with the British North American Colonies moved into the non-academic and practical sphere. The position of the Island in the Confederation negotiations illustrated in large measure the characteristics of its politics and its attitude to distant administrations. This attitude might best be described simply as a policy of exclusiveness. The history of the Confederation negotiations in Prince Edward Island consisted of the interplay of British, Canadian, and Maritime influences upon this policy. It is the purpose of this paper to tell the story of Confederation in Prince Edward Island from 1863 to 1873. The policy of exclusiveness, which characterized Prince Erward Island’s attitude to Confederation, was clearly revealed in the political arena. The Islanders had a profound respect for local self-government. They enjoyed their political independence, particularly after the attainment of responsible government in 1851, and did not wish to see a reduction in the significance of their local institutions. They realized, moreover, that they would have an insignificant voice in a centralized legislature, and as a result they feared that their local needs would be disregarded. Finally, previous frustrating experience with the Imperial government with respect to the settlement of the land question on the Island had taught the Islanders that it was extremely hazardous to trust the management of local problems to distant and possibly unsympathetic administrations. -
American Organic Law and Government. Form #11.217
American Organic Law By: Freddy Freeman American Organic Law 1 of 247 Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form #11.217, Rev. 12/12/2017 EXHIBIT:___________ Revisions Notes Updates to this release include the following: 1) Added a new section titled “From Colonies to Sovereign States.” 2) Improved the analysis on Declaration of Independence, which now covers the last half of the document. 3) Improved the section titled “Citizens Under the Articles of Confederation” 4) Improved the section titled “Art. I:8:17 – Grant of Power to Exercise Exclusive Legislation.” This new and improved write-up presents proof that the States of the United States Union were created under Article I Section 8 Clause 17 and consist exclusively of territory owned by the United States of America. 5) Improved the section titled “Citizenship in the United States of America Confederacy.” 6) Added the section titled “Constitution versus Statutory citizens of the United States.” 7) Rewrote and renamed the section titled “Erroneous Interpretations of the 14th Amendment Citizens of the United States.” This updated section proves why it is erroneous to interpret the 14th Amendment “citizens of the United States” as being a citizenry which in not domiciled on federal land. 8) Added a new section titled “the States, State Constitutions, and State Governments.” This new section includes a detailed analysis of the 1849 Constitution of the State of California. Much of this analysis applies to all of the State Constitutions. American Organic Law 3 of 247 Copyright Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry, http://sedm.org Form #11.217, Rev. -
How Bad Were the Official Records of the Federal Convention?
How Bad Were the Official Records of the Federal Convention? Mary Sarah Bilder* ABSTRACT The official records of the ConstitutionalConvention of 1787 have been neglected and dismissed by scholars for the last century, largely to due to Max Farrand'scriticisms of both the records and the man responsible for keeping them-Secretary of the Convention William Jackson. This Article disagrees with Farrand'sconclusion that the Convention records were bad, and aims to resurrect the records and Jackson's reputation. The Article suggests that the endurance of Farrand'scritique arises in part from misinterpretationsof cer- tain proceduralcomponents of the Convention and failure to appreciate the significance of others, understandable consideringthe inaccessibility of the of- ficial records. The Article also describes the story of the records after the Con- vention but before they were published, including the physical limbo of the records in the aftermath of the Convention and the eventual deposit of the records in March 1796 amidst the rapid development of disagreements over constitutional interpretation. Finally, the Article offers a few cautionary re- flections about the lessons to be drawn from the official records. Particularly, it recommends using caution with Max Farrand's records, paying increased attention to the procedural context of the Convention, and recognizing that Constitutionalinterpretation postdated the Constitution. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1621 A NOTE ON THE RECORDS ..................................... -
Richatd Henry Lee 0Az-1Ts4l Although He Is Not Considered the Father of Our Country, Richard Henry Lee in Many Respects Was a Chief Architect of It
rl Name Class Date , BTocRAPHY Acrtvrry 2 Richatd Henry Lee 0az-1ts4l Although he is not considered the father of our country, Richard Henry Lee in many respects was a chief architect of it. As a member of the Continental Congress, Lee introduced a resolution stating that "These United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States." Lee's resolution led the Congress to commission the Declaration of Independence and forever shaped U.S. history. Lee was born to a wealthy family in Virginia and educated at one of the finest schools in England. Following his return to America, Lee served as a justice of the peace for Westmoreland County, Virginia, in 1757. The following year, he entered Virginia's House of Burgesses. Richard Henry Lee For much of that time, however, Lee was a quiet and almost indifferent member of political connections with Britain be Virginia's state legislature. That changed "totaIIy dissolved." The second called in 1765, when Lee joined Patrick Henry for creating ties with foreign countries. in a spirited debate opposing the Stamp The third resolution called for forming a c Act. Lee also spoke out against the confederation of American colonies. John .o c Townshend Acts and worked establish o to Adams, a deiegate from Massachusetts, o- E committees of correspondence that seconded Lee's resolution. A Declaration o U supported cooperation between American of Independence was quickly drafted. =3 colonies. 6 Loyalty to Uirginia An Active Patriot Despite his support for the o colonies' F When tensions with Britain increased, separation from Britain, Lee cautioned ! o the colonies organized the Continental against a strong national government. -
American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
Approved in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic June 14, 2016 During the Forty-sixth Ordinary Period of Sessions of the OAS General Assembly AMERICAN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES Organization of American States General Secretariat Secretariat of Access to Rights and Equity Department of Social Inclusion 1889 F Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 | USA 1 (202) 370 5000 www.oas.org ISBN 978-0-8270-6710-3 More rights for more people OAS Cataloging-in-Publication Data Organization of American States. General Assembly. Regular Session. (46th : 2016 : Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic) American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples : AG/RES.2888 (XLVI-O/16) : (Adopted at the thirds plenary session, held on June 15, 2016). p. ; cm. (OAS. Official records ; OEA/Ser.P) ; (OAS. Official records ; OEA/ Ser.D) ISBN 978-0-8270-6710-3 1. American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2016). 2. Indigenous peoples--Civil rights--America. 3. Indigenous peoples--Legal status, laws, etc.--America. I. Organization of American States. Secretariat for Access to Rights and Equity. Department of Social Inclusion. II. Title. III. Series. OEA/Ser.P AG/RES.2888 (XLVI-O/16) OEA/Ser.D/XXVI.19 AG/RES. 2888 (XLVI-O/16) AMERICAN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES (Adopted at the third plenary session, held on June 15, 2016) THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, RECALLING the contents of resolution AG/RES. 2867 (XLIV-O/14), “Draft American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,” as well as all previous resolutions on this issue; RECALLING ALSO the declaration “Rights of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas” [AG/DEC. -
Safe Haven County.Pdf
RESOLUTION OF THE GUADALUPE COUNTY COlVIMISSIONERS' COURT WHEREAS, the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our nation, and The Second Amendment to the Constitution states "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", and WHEREAS, The Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 23 states "'Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State", and, WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Guadalupe County Commissioner's to declare its support for the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. and the Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 23, protecting citizens' inalienable and individual right to keep and bear arms, and, WHEREAS, the members of the Guadalupe County Commissioners' Court took an oath to support and defend the United States Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Texas, and the laws of the State of Texas (insofar as they are constitutional), NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commissioners' Court of the County of Guadalupe, by the authority granted to the Commissioners' Court by the laws of the State of Texas and the people of Guadalupe County, Texas, to stand and defend their rights and liberties, which are guaranteed by the United States and Texas constitutions, we hereby declare this Resolution as follows: Second Amendment Preservation Resolution Designating Guadalupe County a Second Amendment Safe- Haven County BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this -
The Springfield Armory Historic Background
The Springfield Armory Historic Background Report by Todd Jones, Historic Preservation Specialist Federal Emergency Management Agency October 2011 The Springfield Armory Exceptionally unique among the structures in Springfield, MA, the Springfield Armory has stood on Howard Street for over one hundred years. Yet, with its impressive medieval architecture, the building could easily pass for a centuries-old European castle. It may appear as a much unexpected feature on the skyline of a Connecticut River Valley city, but considering Springfield’s illustrious history as a manufacturer of war goods, a castle is actually quite an appropriate inclusion. The Armory is located today at 29 Howard Street. It is surrounded by a dense urban community characterized by commercial interests, with parking lots, a strip mall, and an apartment block included as its primary neighbors. The area transitioned from an urban working class residential neighborhood to its present commercial character during the mid and late twentieth century. Figure 1: Location of the State Armory in Springfield, 29 Howard Street, Springfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts (42.10144, -72.60216).1 Figure 2: Topographic map of Springfield showing the location of the State Armory.2 1 http://mapper.acme.com, accessed September 22, 2011 2 http://mapper.acme.com, accessed September 22, 2011. ______________________________________________________________________________ Attachment A. Historic Background Page 2 The 1895 Armory The structure was finished in 1895 for the Massachusetts Volunteer Militia (MVM), referred to in modern times as the Massachusetts National Guard. It was designed by the Boston architectural firm of Wait & Cutter, led by Robert Wait and Amos Cutter, who also planned the Fall River Armory at the same time. -
An Historical Account of the Old State House of Pennsylvania Now Known
r-He weLL read mason li""-I:~I=-•I cl••'ILei,=:-,•• Dear Reader, This book was referenced in one of the 185 issues of 'The Builder' Magazine which was published between January 1915 and May 1930. To celebrate the centennial of this publication, the Pictoumasons website presents a complete set of indexed issues of the magazine. As far as the editor was able to, books which were suggested to the reader have been searched for on the internet and included in 'The Builder' library.' This is a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by one of several organizations as part of a project to make the world's books discoverable online. Wherever possible, the source and original scanner identification has been retained. Only blank pages have been removed and this header- page added. The original book has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books belong to the public and 'pictoumasons' makes no claim of ownership to any of the books in this library; we are merely their custodians. Often, marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in these files – a reminder of this book's long journey from the publisher to a library and finally to you. Since you are reading this book now, you can probably also keep a copy of it on your computer, so we ask you to Keep it legal. -
What Was the Iroquois Confederacy?
04 AB6 Ch 4.11 4/2/08 11:22 AM Page 82 What was the 4 Iroquois Confederacy? Chapter Focus Questions •What was the social structure of Iroquois society? •What opportunities did people have to participate in decision making? •What were the ideas behind the government of the Iroquois Confederacy? The last chapter explored the government of ancient Athens. This chapter explores another government with deep roots in history: the Iroquois Confederacy. The Iroquois Confederacy formed hundreds of years ago in North America — long before Europeans first arrived here. The structure and principles of its government influenced the government that the United States eventually established. The Confederacy united five, and later six, separate nations. It had clear rules and procedures for making decisions through representatives and consensus. It reflected respect for diversity and a belief in the equality of people. Pause The image on the side of this page represents the Iroquois Confederacy and its five original member nations. It is a symbol as old as the Confederacy itself. Why do you think this symbol is still honoured in Iroquois society? 82 04 AB6 Ch 4.11 4/2/08 11:22 AM Page 83 What are we learning in this chapter? Iroquois versus Haudenosaunee This chapter explores the social structure of Iroquois There are two names for society, which showed particular respect for women and the Iroquois people today: for people of other cultures. Iroquois (ear-o-kwa) and Haudenosaunee It also explores the structure and processes of Iroquois (how-den-o-show-nee). government. Think back to Chapter 3, where you saw how Iroquois is a name that the social structure of ancient Athens determined the way dates from the fur trade people participated in its government. -
FOURTH SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT the Grand Jury Charges That, at All Times Material to This Indictment, on Or About the Dates
REGEIVED MAY 2 5 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Clerk, U.S. District and Bankruplcy Courts Holding a Criminal Term Grand Jury Sworn in on January 8, 2021 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CRIMINAL NO. 2l-cr-28-APM VIOLATIONS: THOMAS CALDWELL, 18 U.S.C. $ 371 (Conspiracy) (Counts 1,2, 4,9) l8 u.s.C. $$ lsl2(c)(2),2 DONOVAN CROWL, (Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and (Counts 1,2,,3,4,6) Aiding and Abetting) JESSICA WATKINS, : 18 U.s.C. SS 1361,2 (Counts l,2,3, 4, 6) : (Destruction of Government Property and : Aiding and Abetting) SANDRA PARKER, (Counts 1,2,,3,4,6) r8 U.S.C. $ l7s2(a)(r) (Entering and Remaining in a Restricted BENNIE PARKER, Building or Grounds) (Counts l, 2, 4) l8 u.s.C. $$ 231(a)(3),2 GRAYDON YOUNG, (Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting) (Counts l,2,3,4,6, l0) 18 U.S.C. $ lll(a)(1),2 LAURA STEELE, (Assaulting, Resisting, or Impeding (Counts 1,2,3,4) Certain Officers and Aiding and Abetting) KELLY MEGGS. l8 U.S.C. $ lsl2(c)(l) (Counts l, 2, 3, 4, I l) (Tampering with Documents or Proceedings) CONNIE MEGGS, (Counts 1,2,3,4) KENNETH HARRELSON, (Counts 1,2,3,, 4,12) ROBERTO MINUTA, (Counts l, 2, 4) : JOSHUA JAMES, : (Counts 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 13) : : JONATHAN WALDEN, : (Counts 1, 2, 4) : : JOSEPH HACKETT, : (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4) : : JASON DOLAN, and : (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4) : : WILLIAM ISAACS, : (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) : : Defendants. -
The Articles of Confederation Creating A
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION During the American Revolution, Americans drafted the Articles of Confederation to set up a new government independent of Britain. The Articles served as the constitution of the United States until 1789, when a new constitution was adopted. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, tension grew between the colonists and Britain. In 1765, 27 delegates from nine colonies met to oppose legislation passed by Parliament imposing a stamp tax on trade items. The delegates to the Stamp Act Congress drew up a statement of rights and grievances and agreed to stop importing goods from Britain. Parliament repealed the Stamp Tax Act. But it continued to impose new taxes on the colonies, and hostility to Britain kept growing. In 1773, some colonists protested a tax on tea by dressing up as Indians, boarding three British ships, and dumping their cargo of tea into the harbor. In response to the Boston Tea Party, Britain closed the Port of Boston. In turn, colonists convened the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia in September 1774. There was significant disagreement among the delegates. Many had supported efforts to repeal the offensive laws, but had no desire for independence. Even after battles broke out at Lexington and Concord in 1775 and the colonies began assembling troops to fight the British, many delegates remained loyal to the king. John Hewes, a delegate from North Carolina wrote in July 1775: “We do not want to be independent; we want no revolution . we are loyal subjects to our present most gracious Sovereign.” Many delegates felt a strong sense of loyalty to the Empire.