Elementary Schools
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Clarence Thomas Takes Oath As Court's 106Th Justice
THE SUPREME COURT HISTORICAL SOCIETY VOLUME XII NUMBER 4,1991 Clarence Thomas Takes Oath as Court's 106th Justice CourtesyLois Long, Officeof the Curator of the Court In a ceremony held on the South Lawn ofthe White House on October 18,1991, Judge Clarence Thomas took the officialoath of a federal government official prior to becoming the 106th member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Justice Byron R. White administered this oath. The judicial oath was a administered by ChiefJustice Willijun H. Rehnquist at a private fi&QSpfM ceremony on October 23, 1991 so that he might commence his work on the Court. A more traditional ceremonywasheld in the Supreme Court Chamber on November 1, 1991 in which Chief Justice Rehnquist readministered the oath to Justice Thomas who then assumed his seat on the Bench. Courtesy Lois Long, Office of the Curatorof the Court The ChiefJustice looks on as Justice Thomas signs his judicial oath of officeas part ofthe ceremony held at the Supreme Court on November 1,1991. Justice Thomas was sworn in at a public ceremony held in the Supreme Court Chamber. Justice Thomas fills the seat vacated by the retirement of Justice Thurgood Marshall. Justice Thomas was bornonJune23, 1948, inPinPoint, Georgia. Hisearly childhood years were spent in Georgia where he attended parochial school much ofthe time. After briefly attending Immaculate Conception Seminary in Mis souri , Justice Thomas entered Holy Cross College in Worcester, At a White House ceremony, Judge Clarence Thomas (left Massachusetts. He graduated from Holy Cross with honors, foreground) takes the olTiclal oath of office required of all finishing ninth in his class and then entered Yale Law School, government officials. -
Abington School District V. Schempp 1 Ableman V. Booth 1 Abortion 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Bill of Rights 66 Birth Control and Contraception 71 Abington School District v. Schempp 1 Hugo L. Black 73 Ableman v. Booth 1 Harry A. Blackmun 75 Abortion 2 John Blair, Jr. 77 Adamson v. California 8 Samuel Blatchford 78 Adarand Constructors v. Peña 8 Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Dowell 79 Adkins v. Children’s Hospital 10 Bob Jones University v. United States 80 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 13 Boerne v. Flores 81 Advisory Opinions 15 Bolling v. Sharpe 81 Affirmative Action 15 Bond v. United States 82 Afroyim v. Rusk 21 Boumediene v. Bush 83 Age Discrimination 22 Bowers v. Hardwick 84 Samuel A. Alito, Jr. 24 Boyd v. United States 86 Allgeyer v. Louisiana 26 Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 86 Americans with Disabilities Act 27 Joseph P. Bradley 87 Antitrust Law 29 Bradwell v. Illinois 89 Appellate Jurisdiction 33 Louis D. Brandeis 90 Argersinger v. Hamlin 36 Brandenburg v. Ohio 92 Arizona v. United States 36 William J. Brennan, Jr. 92 Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing David J. Brewer 96 Development Corporation 37 Stephen G. Breyer 97 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 38 Briefs 99 Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority 38 Bronson v. Kinzie 101 Assembly and Association, Freedom of 39 Henry B. Brown 101 Arizona v. Gant 42 Brown v. Board of Education 102 Atkins v. Virginia 43 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association 104 Automobile Searches 45 Brown v. Maryland 106 Brown v. Mississippi 106 Bad Tendency Test 46 Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company 107 Bail 47 Buchanan v. -
Supreme Court Justices
The Supreme Court Justices Supreme Court Justices *asterick denotes chief justice John Jay* (1789-95) Robert C. Grier (1846-70) John Rutledge* (1790-91; 1795) Benjamin R. Curtis (1851-57) William Cushing (1790-1810) John A. Campbell (1853-61) James Wilson (1789-98) Nathan Clifford (1858-81) John Blair, Jr. (1790-96) Noah Haynes Swayne (1862-81) James Iredell (1790-99) Samuel F. Miller (1862-90) Thomas Johnson (1792-93) David Davis (1862-77) William Paterson (1793-1806) Stephen J. Field (1863-97) Samuel Chase (1796-1811) Salmon P. Chase* (1864-73) Olliver Ellsworth* (1796-1800) William Strong (1870-80) ___________________ ___________________ Bushrod Washington (1799-1829) Joseph P. Bradley (1870-92) Alfred Moore (1800-1804) Ward Hunt (1873-82) John Marshall* (1801-35) Morrison R. Waite* (1874-88) William Johnson (1804-34) John M. Harlan (1877-1911) Henry B. Livingston (1807-23) William B. Woods (1881-87) Thomas Todd (1807-26) Stanley Matthews (1881-89) Gabriel Duvall (1811-35) Horace Gray (1882-1902) Joseph Story (1812-45) Samuel Blatchford (1882-93) Smith Thompson (1823-43) Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1883-93) Robert Trimble (1826-28) Melville W. Fuller* (1888-1910) ___________________ ___________________ John McLean (1830-61) David J. Brewer (1890-1910) Henry Baldwin (1830-44) Henry B. Brown (1891-1906) James Moore Wayne (1835-67) George Shiras, Jr. (1892-1903) Roger B. Taney* (1836-64) Howell E. Jackson (1893-95) Philip P. Barbour (1836-41) Edward D. White* (1894-1921) John Catron (1837-65) Rufus W. Peckham (1896-1909) John McKinley (1838-52) Joseph McKenna (1898-1925) Peter Vivian Daniel (1842-60) Oliver W. -
Franklin and Jay
Franklin and Jay Imagine being in the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia on May 10, 1775, as the delegates of the Second Continental Congress gathered! So much had happened in recent months: the British Parliament had declared Massachusetts in a state of rebellion; Patrick Henry had delivered his stirring “Give me Liberty” speech; Paul Revere had taken his famous ride; and, on April 19, the Battles of Lexington and Concord had been fought, ending in the British retreat to Boston. The “extreme Urgency of the Business” (as William Livingston put it) saw the return of many of the members of the First Congress, men who had traveled many days over dusty, rutted roads to attend, leaving the comforts of home, staying in flea-ridden boarding houses unless they were lucky enough to be invited to stay with friends. Among the returnees were John and Samuel Adams, Richard H. Lee, John Dickinson, George Washington, and John Jay. New to the Congress was a man recently returned from England where he had resided many years, at first highly lauded, but more recently humiliated: Benjamin Franklin. While in England, his efforts on behalf of the American colonies had yielded only disappointment and failure. Now nearly 70, Franklin had lost his favorable view of the Mother Country. Congress quickly set to work; many committees were created, among them one to draft a petition to King George III. Appointed were John Dickinson and Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, John Jay of New York, Thomas Johnson of Maryland, and John Rutledge of South Carolina—all moderates. Franklin was the oldest, famous as a self-made man, author, scientist, and wit; Jay the youngest, known as a hard-working lawyer and a fine writer. -
Justices of the Supreme Court Justices of the Supreme Court, 1789 to 2014 1
ø1970¿ 1970 JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1789 TO 2014 1 Years 2 State whence ap- Date of com- Date service Name 3 of pointed mission terminated service CHIEF JUSTICES 1. John Jay ................................. New York .............. Sept. 26, 1789 June 29, 1795 5 2. John Rutledge ........................ South Carolina ..... July 1, 1795 Dec. 15, 1795 (4)(5) 3. Oliver Ellsworth .................... Connecticut ........... Mar. 4, 1796 Dec. 15, 1800 4 4. John Marshall ........................ Virginia ................. Jan. 31, 1801 July 6, 1835 34 5. Roger Brooke Taney .............. Maryland ............... Mar. 15, 1836 Oct. 12, 1864 28 6. Salmon Portland Chase ........ Ohio ....................... Dec. 6, 1864 May 7, 1873 8 7. Morrison Remick Waite ........ ....do ....................... Jan. 21, 1874 Mar. 23, 1888 14 8. Melville Weston Fuller .......... Illinois ................... July 20, 1888 July 4, 1910 21 9. Edward Douglas White ......... Louisiana .............. Dec. 12, 1910 May 19, 1921 5 10 10. William Howard Taft ............ Connecticut ........... June 30, 1921 Feb. 3, 1930 8 11. Charles Evans Hughes .......... New York .............. Feb. 13, 1930 June 30, 1941 5 11 12. Harlan Fiske Stone ............... ......do ..................... July 3, 1941 Apr. 22, 1946 5 4 13. Fred Moore Vinson ................ Kentucky ............... June 21, 1946 Sept. 8, 1953 7 14. Earl Warren ........................... California .............. Oct. 2, 1953 June 23, 1969 15 15. Warren E. Burger .................. Virginia ................. June 23, 1969 Sept. 26, 1986 17 16. William Hubbs Rehnquist .... Virginia ................. Sept. 25, 1986 Sept. 3, 2005 5 19 17. John G. Roberts, Jr ............... Maryland ............... Sept. 29, 2005 ........................ ............ ASSOCIATE JUSTICES 1. John Rutledge ........................ South Carolina ..... Sept. 26, 1789 Mar. 5, 1791 1 2. William Cushing .................... Massachusetts ...... Sept. 27, 1789 Sept. -
The Supreme Court and Superman
THE SUPREME COURT AND SUPERMAN THE JUSTICES AND THE FAMOUS PEOPLE IN THEIR FAMILY TREES Stephen R. McAllister† HILE EXAMINING a photograph of the 1911 U.S. Supreme Court, I spotted Joseph Rucker Lamar, but was initially confused because I thought Justice Lamar served on the Court in the nineteenth century. I quickly discovered that Joseph was the cousin (distant, it turns out) of an earlier Justice, Lu- W 1 cius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II. I was aware of two other family rela- tionships between Justices who served on the Court: John Marshall Harlan and his grandson, John Marshall Harlan II, and Stephen Johnson Field and his nephew, David Josiah Brewer,2 with the service of only Field and Brewer overlapping.3 † Stephen McAllister is United States Attorney for the District of Kansas, and on leave of absence from the University of Kansas where he is the E.S. & Tom W. Hampton Distinguished Professor of Law. 1 His namesake presumably is Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, the Roman farmer-statesman who legend holds was appointed dictator and left his farm in 458 B.C. to defend Rome against an attacking army, quickly defeated the enemy, and then immediately gave up his power and returned to his farm. 2 The Kansas Justice, David Josiah Brewer, 19 Green Bag 2d 37 (2015). 3 A particularly observant reader of the chart that accompanies this article, or a knowl- edgeable student of Supreme Court history, might wonder whether some other Justices 21 GREEN BAG 2D 219 Stephen R. McAllister Justice John Marshall Harlan, left (1833-1911) and right (1899-1971). -
President Thomas Jefferson V. Chief Justice John Marshall by Amanda
A Thesis Entitled Struggle to Define the Power of the Court: President Thomas Jefferson v. Chief Justice John Marshall By Amanda Dennison Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Arts in History ________________________ Advisor: Diane Britton ________________________ Graduate School The University of Toledo August 2005 Copyright © 2005 This document is copyrighted material. Under copyright law, no parts of this document may be reproduced without the expressed permission of the author. Acknowledgments Finishing this step of my academic career would not have been possible without the support from my mentors, family, and friends. My professors at the University of Toledo have supported me over the past three years and I thank them for their inspiration. I especially thank Professors Alfred Cave, Diane Britton, Ronald Lora, and Charles Glaab for reading my work, making corrections, and serving as advisors on my thesis committee. I am eternally grateful to the University of Toledo History Department for their financial and moral support. When I came to the University of Toledo, I would not have survived my first graduate seminar, let alone long enough to finish this project without the experience from my undergraduate career at Southwestern Oklahoma State University. I thank Professors Laura Endicott and John Hayden for their constant support, reading drafts, and offering suggestions and Professors Roger Bromert and David Hertzel for encouraging me via email and on my visits back to Southwestern. Ya’ll are the best. I have a wonderful support system from my family and friends, especially my parents and brother. Thank you Mom and Dad for your encouragement and love. -
Thomas Johnson: Gentleman, Vermonter, Patriot Angela Nicole Grove University of Vermont
University of Vermont ScholarWorks @ UVM Graduate College Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 2015 Thomas Johnson: Gentleman, Vermonter, Patriot Angela Nicole Grove University of Vermont Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/graddis Part of the American Studies Commons, and the History Commons Recommended Citation Grove, Angela Nicole, "Thomas Johnson: Gentleman, Vermonter, Patriot" (2015). Graduate College Dissertations and Theses. 403. https://scholarworks.uvm.edu/graddis/403 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations and Theses at ScholarWorks @ UVM. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate College Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ UVM. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THOMAS JOHNSON: GENTLEMAN, VERMONTER, PATRIOT A Thesis Presented by Angela Grove to The Faculty of the Graduate College of The University of Vermont In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Specializing in History October, 2015 Defense Date: June 8, 2015 Thesis Examination Committee: Andrew Buchanan, Ph. D, Advisor Barbara Saylor Rodgers, Ph. D, Chairperson Jacqueline Carr, Ph. D Cynthia J. Forehand, Ph. D, Dean of the Graduate College ABSTRACT This thesis is a micro-history of the formation of the various identities that shaped the Revolutionary War experiences of one eighteenth-century Vermonter (Thomas Johnson) whose life is documented in a manuscript collection at the Vermont Historical Society. I break down Johnson’s identities into three levels: social class, state, and national. My argument is that what it meant to be a provincial gentleman, to be a Vermonter, and to be an American were still being constructed at the time of the Revolution and were therefore in a state of flux. -
MIDNIGHT JUDGES KATHRYN Turnu I
[Vol.109 THE MIDNIGHT JUDGES KATHRYN TuRNu I "The Federalists have retired into the judiciary as a strong- hold . and from that battery all the works of republicanism are to be beaten down and erased." ' This bitter lament of Thomas Jefferson after he had succeeded to the Presidency referred to the final legacy bequeathed him by the Federalist party. Passed during the closing weeks of the Adams administration, the Judiciary Act of 1801 2 pro- vided the Chief Executive with an opportunity to fill new judicial offices carrying tenure for life before his authority ended on March 4, 1801. Because of the last-minute rush in accomplishing this purpose, those men then appointed have since been known by the familiar generic designation, "the midnight judges." This flight of Federalists into the sanctuary of an expanded federal judiciary was, of course, viewed by the Republicans as the last of many partisan outrages, and was to furnish the focus for Republican retaliation once the Jeffersonian Congress convened in the fall of 1801. That the Judiciary Act of 1801 was repealed and the new judges deprived of their new offices in the first of the party battles of the Jeffersonian period is well known. However, the circumstances surrounding the appointment of "the midnight judges" have never been recounted, and even the names of those appointed have vanished from studies of the period. It is the purpose of this Article to provide some further information about the final event of the Federalist decade. A cardinal feature of the Judiciary Act of 1801 was a reform long advocated-the reorganization of the circuit courts.' Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the judicial districts of the United States had been grouped into three circuits-Eastern, Middle, and Southern-in which circuit court was held by two justices of the Supreme Court (after 1793, by one justice) ' and the district judge of the district in which the court was sitting.5 The Act of 1801 grouped the districts t Assistant Professor of History, Wellesley College. -
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND SUMMARY Property: Rose Hill Manor 1611 North Market Street
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION FREDERICK COUNTY, MARYLAND 30 North Market Street, Third Floor Frederick, Maryland 21701 (301) 600-1147 CASE NO. CR 20-02 NOMINATION TO COUNTY REGISTER STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Property: Rose Hill Manor 1611 North Market Street, Frederick, MD Applicant: Frederick County Government Public Hearing for consideration of placing Rose Hill Manor located at 1611 North Market Street, Frederick, on the Frederick County Register of Historic Places. Submitted by Frederick County Government, property owner of record. The public hearing for the nomination of the property to the Frederick County Register of Historic Places will be held at 7:00 p.m., or thereafter, on January 6, 2021. HPC Packet Information CR 20-02 Page 2 DESIGNATION STATUS The property is listed on the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties under survey number F- 3-126 as well as to the National Register of Historic Places. Rose Hill Manor was designated to the National Register in December 1971 under Criterion B and C for its association with Maryland’s first governor, Thomas Johnson, and for embodying the distinctive characteristics of types, periods, and methods of construction. SUPPORTING MATERIALS The Maryland Historical Trust Review form, National Register nomination form, aerial map, topographic map, and digital photographs are included. SITE VISITS Rose Hill Manor is a county park and is opened to the public. Commissioners are encouraged to visit during visiting hours to familiarize themselves with the property. REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS 1) Analysis The documentation provided in the National Register nomination and Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties clearly establishes the architectural and historical significance of Rose Hill Manor, indicating that is eligible for listing under Criteria 6B(1A), 6B(1C), 6B(1D), and 6B(2A). -
Johnson Genealogy: Records of the Descendants of John Johnson of Ipswich and Andover, MA
JOHNSON GENEALOGY. RECORDS — — OF THE DESCENDANTS — OF— John Johnson Of Ipswich and Andover, Mass. 1635—1892. WITHAN APPENDIX CONTAINING RECORDS OF DESCENDANTS OF TIMOTHY JOHNSON, OF ANDOVER, /^^ ANDPOEMS OF JOHNSON DESCENDANTS. ( IPQC COMPILED Byn^' REV. WILLIAMwfJOHNSON, COMPILER OF "RECORDS OF THE DESCENDANTS OF DAVID*JOHNSON, OF LEOMINSTER, MASS." / AND "RECORDS OF THE DESCENDANTS .OF THOMAS CLARKE, PLYMOUTH,1623—1697." One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: Theae^vorda which Icommand thee tbia day ahall he in thy heart; aud thou shnlt teach them diligentlyto thychildren. Tell ye your children ofit,—and let yonr children tell their children, and their children' another generation. Bible. Published by the Compiler, NORTH GREENFIELD, WISCONSIN. 1892. PR.OV yxrt-6 I JOHNSON. PREFACE. From the summit of Sinai thousands of years ago, in the midst of thunderings and lightnings, Jehovah gave to the human race a moral code to be observed by the people of every land, and of every clime throughout all ages, and a part of this code proclaimed to every man and woman and child, "Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." The duty enjoined in this commandment includes in its requirement not only respect, and kindness and honor to parents while living, but a kind and honorable remembrance also of ancestors who have departed. Hence it is becoming and appropriate in the members of a family line to collect and pre serve and transmit to posterity the history of their progenitors. The work of the genealogist is to trace ancestral lines, and to connect one generation withanother during a succession of years, to gather items ofinterest in connection with each family, and to preserve a correct and reliable history of the descendants of a remote ancestor. -
Of Founders on the Supreme Court Bench
The Effect (or Non-Effect) of Founders on the Supreme Court Bench Maeva Marcus* ABSTRACT Eleven of the first twelve Justices to serve on the Supreme Court partici- pated in the creation and ratification of the Constitution. Their active partici- pation in the constitutional process shaped their perspectives of both federal law and the Constitution. Through a series of examples, this Article shows that the initial group of Justices emerged from the Founding period with re- markably similar views of the purposes for which the Constitution was estab- lished, but that differences arose among them on specific points of constitutional interpretation. Reviewing early Supreme Court opinions and grand jury charges written by the Justices indicates how participating in the creation and ratification of the Constitution permitted the Court to speak with a unified voice on such things as the importance of the law of nations and the need for judicial review. The Justices’ participation in Constitution-making activities also led to disagreement on certain topics, such as how states were to be treated and whether the requirement of circuit riding in the Judiciary Act of 1789 was constitutional. Professor Mary Bilder suggested the topic, “The Effect (or Non- Effect) of Founders on the Bench,” but she neglected to clarify what she meant. Who is a Founder? Someone who participated in the Fed- eral Convention? Someone who attended a state ratifying conven- tion? Someone who did neither, but who was actively involved in getting the Constitution ratified? My answer would be all of the above, so it is instructive to look at those who served on the Supreme Court in its first decade to see if differences exist among those Jus- tices’ approaches to courts and judging traceable to their activities in the Founding period.