No one knows who first pulled a trigger, but no one disputes that eight of the nearly eighty Lexington militiamen鈥攙astly outnumbered by several hundred British regulars鈥攍ost their lives that morning. Conflict at Concord a few hours later yielded a different outcome. The king鈥檚 soldiers found few of the military supplies that had been their objective. Forced into retreat at the Old North Bridge, they began a perilous seventeen-mile journey back to Boston. As thousands of Massachusetts militiamen descended on their route, British casualties mounted. At Menotomy, Massachusetts, 80-year-old Samuel Whittemore stood ready to avenge British aggression with a musket, a pair of pistols, and a sword. As Redcoats marched along the road near his home, he took aim. He downed one British soldier and then another. Dropping his musket, he drew his pistols. He had shot a third Redcoat by the time a detachment of the regulars descended upon him, stabbing him thirteen times with their bayonets and shooting him in the face. As he flailed about with his sword they left him for dead. But Whittemore didn鈥檛 die. He lived鈥攆or another 18 years. In 1793, he took his last breath as a 98-year-old citizen of the free and independent United States.

Parker鈥檚 famous words鈥斺�渋f they mean to have a war, let it begin here鈥濃�攈elped mark the start of what eventually came to be known as the War for Independence. But people have long taken pains to distinguish this war, which concluded with the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, from the less well-defined and potentially farther-reaching American Revolution. As John Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson in 1815, 鈥淲hat do we mean by the Revolution? The war? That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people, and this,鈥� Adams insisted, took place 鈥渇rom 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington.鈥� Although Adams believed that the real revolution had taken place before the war, Philadelphia physician Benjamin Rush, a fellow member of the Continental Congress, insisted that it would continue for years after the fighting had ended. 鈥淭here is nothing more common,鈥� Rush wrote in 1787, 鈥渢han to confound the terms of American Revolution with those of the late American war.鈥� But the war and the Revolution were not the same thing. 鈥淚t remains yet to establish and perfect our new forms of government,鈥� Rush observed, 鈥渁nd to prepare the principles, morals, and manners of our citizens, for those forms of government after they are established and brought to perfection.鈥� This, the real revolution, had only just begun.

This volume features a selection of primary sources spanning 1760 to 1783. Some of these documents give voice to the sometimes competing philosophies of the Revolutionary generation. Others exemplify them. All originate from either the years of the war or the crucial period preceding the conflict, when 鈥渢he minds of the people,鈥� as Adams wrote, took a decisive turn. Whittemore, a veteran of King George鈥檚 War (1744鈥�48) and the French and Indian War (1754鈥�63), before taking aim at Redcoats had risked his life fighting alongside them. Similarly, the vast majority of Americans prior to 1760 felt proud of their British heritage. In the minds of American colonists, what made Britain the richest and most powerful of the world鈥檚 nations was the fact that it was also the freest. This, for them, endured as the source of their British patriotism. As philosopher John Locke had explained when justifying the Glorious Revolution of 1688鈥�89, only a government that protected the people鈥檚 rights to life, liberty, and property could consider itself legitimate. Soon after the French and Indian War, however, Parliament approved a series of measures that jeopardized colonists鈥� rights. Americans who resisted Britain鈥檚 鈥渓ong train of abuses and usurpations,鈥� as Jefferson鈥檚 Declaration of Independence described it, had struggled to hold their government true to its own avowed principles. Only gradually and reluctantly did the belief that Britain had no intention of keeping its promises push Americans to secure these commitments independent of the British government鈥檚 interference. In this sense the American revolutionaries were better Englishmen than their cousins across the Atlantic.

The conflict that commenced when Parker and his men stood their ground at Lexington tested the principles valued most by these once-loyal Britons. How to deal with those who remained loyal to the king? How best to bear the monetary costs? How to recruit and retain for the army men willing not only to defend, at a minute鈥檚 notice, their homes and hometowns but also, for multiple years, distant parts of the new United States? Given their love of liberty and the revulsion they felt toward acts of coercion, the War for Independence posed a significant problem. Wars, which necessitate the concentration of force, require the centralization of power. How to defeat (or at least outlast) the world鈥檚 most formidable military without creating an army posing a threat to the freedom it aimed to defend?

George Washington probably never wrote that government, 鈥渓ike fire, is a dangerous servant, and a fearsome master,鈥� but the fact that so many have never questioned this quotation鈥檚 frequent attribution to him helps to explain his selection as commander of the Continental Army. The members of the Continental Congress recognized in him a multitude of qualifications. He had gained experience as a colonel in the French and Indian War. He possessed relative youth as well as social and physical stature. As a Virginian, he seemed well positioned to transform an army of New Englanders into a truly continental force. Maybe most important, since 1758 he had served in the House of Burgesses. Like them, he was a civilian legislator who understood the importance of civilian control of military power, which, if not properly directed, possessed the greatest potential to consume the people鈥檚 liberty. He demonstrated respect for civilian leaders and urged his army鈥檚 restraint when dealing with common citizens. Throughout the war, Washington addressed Congress in the most deferential terms. Near the end, he extinguished his officers鈥� threatened insubordination against this legislative body and the states on whose authority it acted. After the conclusion of peace, Washington鈥檚 decision to relinquish power, resign as commander-in-chief, and return to Mount Vernon as a private citizen reportedly prompted even George III to describe him as 鈥渢he most distinguished of any man living鈥� and 鈥渢he greatest character of the age.鈥�

It was not just Washington鈥檚 willingness to give up power that made the American Revolution a successful struggle for liberty. In addition to exhausting the will of Great Britain to wage war against them, the American revolutionaries transitioned from monarchy and aristocracy to republican government and an emerging spirit of democracy. Embracing representative governments within and among the states, they coalesced around the principles that the people are sovereign and that popular consent is a precondition of political legitimacy. They had also internalized the rich lexicon of individual rights that had formed the basis of both their opposition to British imperial policy and their claim on independence. Yet if the 鈥渟elf-evident鈥� 鈥渢ruths鈥� that 鈥渁ll men are created equal, with certain unalienable rights鈥� bolstered their confidence, at the same time, they troubled their collective conscience. What about women, African Americans, members of religious minorities, and other individuals denied their natural rights to life, liberty, and property? What about people denied civil rights bestowing equality under the law?

It is no coincidence that during the years of the War for Independence, people began to question why rights that were said to belong to all mankind were not recognized as the inheritance of all Americans. But it is also no surprise that the Founders鈥� generation鈥攖he first to notice the conflict between their newly-expanded principles and their practices reflecting deeply-entrenched prejudices鈥攚as not the last to struggle to keep the promises of the Declaration of Independence. Even before the war鈥檚 conclusion, northern states began either to abolish slavery or to enact plans for gradual emancipation. Soon after, Congress halted the expansion of slavery to parts of the West, and Jefferson, as president in 1807, championed and signed a bill outlawing US participation in the international slave trade.

In the decades to follow, the issue of slavery became even more central. So did the rights of women, and the voting rights of men who did not own land. Even today, in the United States and around the world, oppressed groups and individuals invoke the philosophies of the American Revolution. As Benjamin Rush predicted in 1787, 鈥渢he American war is over, but this is far from being the case with the American Revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the great drama is closed.鈥�

In some ways the Revolution would extend far beyond the conclusion of the War for Independence. A few days prior to the fiftieth anniversary of the adoption of his Declaration, Thomas Jefferson observed that 鈥渁ll eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.鈥� He expressed his faith that the decision of the Continental Congress to separate from Great Britain would continue to inspire people 鈥渢o burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.鈥� Awakening the world to the proposition that 鈥渢he mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them, legitimately, by the grace of God,鈥� the ideas of the American Revolution could eventually bring liberty to everyone, everywhere, not only in the United States but also around the globe. The freedom for which Americans had stood their ground would come 鈥渢o some parts sooner鈥� and 鈥渢o others later.鈥� But eventually, Jefferson predicted, real liberty would one day be enjoyed by all.

Acknowledgements: A number of friends either suggested documents included in this collection or tracked down information helping me to contextualize them. I am grateful for the assistance of Jeremy Bailey, Veronica Burchard, Benjamin Carp, Mickey Craig, Joe Dooley, Todd Estes, Mary-Jo Kline, Stuart Leibiger, Melanie Miller, Rob Parkinson, Richard Samuelson, and Brian Steele. Sean Sculley performed both these tasks and also reviewed all of the documents鈥� introductions. Sarah Morgan Smith, who served as series editor, lent her considerable expertise to the selection of documents and execution of the finished product. Caleb Cage helped to deepen my appreciation for people who, in the midst of war, share their stories for the benefit of others, present and future. Jefferson McDonald and Grace McDonald helped select illustrations. Christine Coalwell McDonald, a historian in her own right, offered unfailing encouragement and assisted in every way possible.

The post American Revolution appeared first on 澳门六合彩开奖直播.

The post Poster Advertising Sale of a 鈥淰aluable Gang of Young Negroes鈥� appeared first on 澳门六合彩开奖直播.

Note that both memos reference the 鈥渙pinions鈥� given: under Chief Justice Earl Warren鈥檚 direction, the court actually issued two separate but parallel decisions on the question of segregation in the schools, one applying to the states and one applying to the District of Columbia.

Dear Chief,

Today I believe has been a great day for America and its court. Your opinions in the segregation cases were highly appropriate and were delivered in the appropriate spirit. I expect there will be no more significant decision made during our service on the Court. I cherish the privilege of sharing in this.

To you goes the credit for the character of the opinions which produced the all important unanimity. Congratulations.

Harold H. Burton

Dear Chief,

This is a day that will live in glory. It is also a great day in the history of the Court, and not in the least for the course of deliberation which brought about the result. I congratulate you.

Felix Frankfurter

The post The Justices’ View on Brown v. Board of Education appeared first on 澳门六合彩开奖直播.

Thus the larger question of how the British and colonial heritage fits into the American story is covered only briefly (Documents 1鈥�2). Of considerable importance in this brief account is that the rights included in the Massachusetts Body of Liberties (1641) are, numerically, more significant than those found in Magna Carta (1215) and the English Bill of Rights (1689). And so too are the rights enumerated in the Maryland Toleration Acts. We include these two colonial documents to remind the reader that Americans were concerned about rights, especially religious rights, even before the founding era of 1776鈥�1791. Three rights are unanimously represented in all the state constitutions: the right of conscience/free exercise of religion; the right to have one鈥檚 case heard by a local impartial jury; and the due process rights of the common law. The framers of the new state documents decided these last rights were no longer secure under the traditional governmental arrangements. We consider it significant that the new states declared themselves to be republican and that the purpose of a republican government was to secure rights.

Seven states attached a prefatory declaration of rights to the frame of government: Virginia (June 1776), Delaware (September 1776), Pennsylvania (September 1776), Maryland (November 1776), North Carolina (December 1776), Massachusetts (March 1780), and New Hampshire (June 1784). These declarations were, in effect, a preamble stating the purposes for which the people had chosen the particular form of government. There was a remarkable uniformity among the seven states with regard to the kinds of civil and criminal rights they sought to secure.

Four states decided not to preface their republican constitutions with a declaration of rights: New Jersey (July 1776), Georgia (February 1777), New York (April 1777), and South Carolina (March 1778). Nevertheless, each incorporated individual protections in their constitutions.

Virginia entered unfamiliar territory with the disestablishment of the Anglican Church in 1779. Nevertheless, there were two competing models to which legislators could turn. The Massachusetts model endorsed the establishment of the Christian Protestant religion and, to that end, the legislature was constitutionally mandated to tax inhabitants for the support of public religious instruction. The taxpayer, nevertheless, was free to name the specific religion that was to receive the assessment. On the other hand, the Pennsylvania model warned that such taxation threatened the right of an individual to the free exercise of religion. In December 1784, the Virginia Assembly considered an assessment bill, consistent with the Massachusetts model, that would financially support the propagation of Christianity as the state religion. James Madison objected. The author of a protest addressed to the Virginia Assembly (Document 7), Madison urged the legislators to reject the proposed legislation. In the process, Madison pushed the national conversation even further in the direction of individual free exercise of religion and away from community-endorsed religion. The practical manifestation of Madison鈥檚 efforts was the Virginia Assembly鈥檚 adoption in 1785 of Jefferson鈥檚 Statute of Religious Liberty introduced in 1779. The Virginia Senate passed the statute in January 1786. It is also important to note how these rights made their way into the Northwest Ordinance (Document 8).

A year after the passage of the Virginia statute at the Constitutional Convention (May to September 1787), the first of George Mason鈥檚 ten objections to the Constitution began: 鈥淭here is no declaration of rights鈥� (Document 9). In particular, 鈥渢here is no declaration of any kind for preserving liberty of the press, the trial by jury in civil cases, nor against the danger of standing armies in times of peace.鈥� Mason鈥檚 position was that a federal bill of rights was both imperative and valuable. He was concerned that Congress might abuse the supremacy and the necessary and proper clauses of the Constitution (Articles 6 and 1, section 8, respectively). The supremacy clause made federal laws 鈥減aramount to the laws and constitutions of the several states.鈥� Thus, 鈥渢he declaration of rights, in the separate states, are of no security.鈥� The necessary and proper clause enabled Congress to 鈥済rant monopolies in trade and commerce, constitute new crimes, inflict unusual and severe punishments, and extend their power as far as they should think proper.鈥�

Throughout the nine-month ratification campaign, proponents of the Constitution defended the absence of a bill of rights. James Wilson鈥檚 State House Speech (Document 10), delivered in Philadelphia three weeks after the Constitutional Convention adjourned, articulated what came to be known as the Federalist position: a bill of rights is unnecessary and dangerous. Wilson argued that at the state level, a bill of rights was necessary and salutary because 鈥渆verything which is not reserved, is given,鈥� but 鈥渟uperfluous and absurd鈥� at the federal level because 鈥渆verything which is not given, is reserved.鈥� Wilson鈥檚 speech became the foil for the Antifederalist opposition literature in the fall of 1787 (Documents 11鈥�15). Near the end of the ratification campaign, Federalist 84 (Document 19) repeated Wilson鈥檚 insistence that a republican form of government had no need for a bill of rights because such bills 鈥渁re, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.鈥�

By early January 1788, the ratifying conventions in Delaware (voting 30鈥�0), Pennsylvania (46鈥�23), New Jersey (38鈥�0), Georgia (26鈥�0), and Connecticut (128颅鈥�40) had ratified the Constitution. The report issued by the twenty-three Pennsylvania opponents had a considerable impact on the subsequent campaign (Document 15). The report proposed two different kinds of amendments. On the one hand, the minority called for amendments that would re-establish the principles of the Articles of Confederation. These were unfriendly to the Constitution. On the other hand, they proposed that a declaration of rights be annexed to the Constitution. These were friendly amendments. What became听 drafts of the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments to the Constitution were included in their list, although the origin of these amendments can be traced to colonial documents and state constitutions.

The fate of the Constitution was determined in the Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and New York ratifying conventions in the first half of 1788. Antifederalist literature in the fall of 1787 had had an adverse effect on the campaign for ratification. A compromise鈥斺�渞atify now, amend later鈥濃�攚as needed in each of these four states to secure ratification (Documents 17鈥�18). In Massachusetts, ten delegates switched their votes and a 187鈥�168 majority ratified the Constitution. A switch of five votes ensured ratification in both New Hampshire (57鈥�47) and Virginia (89鈥�79). In New York, the Antifederalists outnumbered the Federalists by a margin of 46鈥�19 going into the convention; but in the end, the Constitution was ratified by a vote of 30鈥�27.

The Antifederalist opposition and friends of the Constitution made two different kinds of recommendations. First, some called for an alteration in the very structure and powers of the new federal government. Second, others sought to protect the rights of individuals with respect to the federal government. All nine of Massachusetts鈥檚 recommendations are of the first kind. New Hampshire was the first to add a brief declaration of the rights of citizens to the list of amendments. In Virginia and New York, the two kinds of amendments were explicitly separated.

With the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison (1751鈥�1836), who had done so much to bring it into existence,^[1] supported the adoption of a bill of rights, while objecting to amendments that would radically alter the new government鈥檚 structure and power (Document 22). He did so for both theoretical and prudential reasons. Madison distanced himself from Wilson鈥檚 argument that a bill of rights might be dangerous as well as unnecessary. He overcame the danger of listing rights鈥攖he list might be seen as definitive and thus limit the rights of citizens rather than protect them鈥攂y declaring that the enumeration 鈥渙f certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.鈥� This eventually became the Ninth Amendment and is a wholly Madison contribution. The prudential reasons included conciliating 鈥渉onorable and patriotic鈥� opponents who wanted to 鈥渞evise鈥� the Constitution by including a bill of rights and defeating the call for a second convention that would 鈥渁bolish鈥� the Constitution (Document 21). He saw the First Congress as the 鈥減roper mode鈥� to accomplish the objective of revision. What joined together the theoretical and prudential reasons was that Madison did not want a second convention to take place.

The correspondence between Madison in the United States and Thomas Jefferson in Paris is a critical part of the story of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, from the signing of the Constitution through the ratification campaign and into the First Congress (Documents 16, 20, and 21). In his October 24, 1788 letter, Madison summarized the political and ethical problem that was to be solved by the Constitution: 鈥淭o prevent instability and injustice in the legislation of the states.鈥� What Madison was able to achieve, he explained to Jefferson, was the creation of an extended republic that would secure the civil and religious rights of individuals from the danger of majority faction. Jefferson responded favorably toward the proposed Constitution two months later. He was troubled, however, by Wilson鈥檚 argument that a bill of rights was unnecessary. He reminded Madison that 鈥渁 bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.鈥� He listed six essential rights that should be declared: 鈥渇reedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction of monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters.鈥� Jefferson reiterated the importance of including his list of six rights upon being informed by Madison that the Constitution had been adopted.

In his first Inaugural Address (April 30, 1789), George Washington addressed only two particular issues: his compensation, which he declined, and Congress鈥� 鈥渆xercise of the occasional power delegated by the fifth article of the Constitution,鈥� the power to amend the Constitution. He asked that 鈥渨hilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an united and effective government, a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question, how far the former can be impregnably fortified or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.鈥� Madison followed Washington鈥檚 recommendation of proposing a bill of rights that, at the same time, did not alter the work of the Constitutional Convention. That became Madison鈥檚 challenge in the First Congress (Document 22).

The House of Representatives debate on Madison鈥檚 propositions is not without irony (Document 23). Roger Sherman, arguably Madison鈥檚 leading and most persuasive opponent during the structural phase of the 1787 Philadelphia Convention, objected to Madison鈥檚 attempt to incorporate the bill of right additions 鈥渘eatly鈥� within the body of the Constitution. If the revisions are added as 鈥渟upplements,鈥� or amendments to the Constitution, argued Madison, 鈥渢hey will create unfavorable comparison鈥� with the original Constitution. Sherman, however, prevailed. The original work of the framers, he argued, should remain intact. Moreover, Sherman urged his colleagues to reject incorporating the Declaration of Independence into the Preamble: 鈥淭he words 鈥榃e the people,鈥� in the original Constitution, are as copious and expressive as possible; any addition will only drag out the sentence without illuminating it.鈥� On the other hand, Sherman proved to be an important ally in defeating the attempts of the South Carolina delegation to introduce amendments that would 鈥渃hange the principles of the government.鈥� The Senate reduced the number of amendment proposals from seventeen to twelve. In doing so, the Senate defeated Madison鈥檚 House-backed proposal to protect freedom of conscience and the press at the state and national levels, restricting the protection to the national level only. The Senate also combined the protection of conscience and the press into one amendment (Document 24). The Senate version was adopted, with slight revision, by the whole Congress and submitted as twelve amendments to the states for approval (Document 25). Ten were ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures (Document 26).

Very important from Madison鈥檚 perspective, Richard Henry Lee and William Grayson鈥攂oth radical Antifederalists and the only Antifederalists in the United States Senate鈥攚ere totally unsuccessful in their effort to move the power and structure of the Constitution back in the direction of the Articles of Confederation. They preferred this to adopting a bill of rights that would reinforce the idea that the Constitution was a limiting as well as an empowering document.

For his part, Madison was less than completely successful with his bill of rights proposals. Few members shared Madison鈥檚 urgent feeling that friendly alterations must be sent to the states by the end of the first session. The rights did not end up located in the Constitution where he wanted them to be. The number of rights was reduced from Madison鈥檚 original list (Document 22) and several clauses, the religion clauses in particular, underwent close scrutiny and major alteration. Madison鈥檚 attempt to have the states as well as the nation restrained in the area of conscience, press, and jury was defeated in the Senate. The Bill of Rights, as adopted, applied only to the federal government. So the appellation 鈥淔ather of the Bill of Rights鈥� ought to be cautiously used. Yet it is certainly true that Madison鈥檚 persistence was critical to twelve amendments being sent to the states for adoption by the end of the first session and, not coincidentally, for the subsequent adoption of the original Constitution by North Carolina and Rhode Island.

The adoption of the Bill of Rights was a mixture principle and politics.^[2] It did not just fall from the sky in one whole and intelligible form. True, the Bill of Rights incorporated much of the English common law and the colonial due process tradition, but it also shed much of this tradition鈥檚 feudal and monarchical features. Also, Americans between 1776 and 1791 appealed beyond their traditions to support freedom of conscience, free speech, and enhanced rights of due process of law.

Madison, known as 鈥渢he Father of the Constitution,鈥� is at the heart of our documentary account of the origin and politics of the Bill of Rights, from Virginia in 1776 to the First Congress in 1789. During this time, Madison鈥檚 position on the Bill of Rights changed, at least in part because of his relationship with Jefferson. To see the importance of this relationship, we must place it in the context of Virginia politics, which provide the bookends to the story of the Bill of Rights. George Mason wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights in June 1776 (with Madison鈥檚 suggested alteration to the right of conscience clause). The Declaration of Rights was one influence on Jefferson as he wrote the Declaration of Independence. Mason also proposed to the Constitutional Convention that a bill of rights be adopted. Madison opposed Mason in the Convention on the issue. A few years later, in December 1791, Virginia finally adopted the Bill of Rights, with Madison as the leader of those favoring adoption and Mason in opposition. Why did Virginia start the process, take the lead in the debates, and then delay so long to ratify the Bill of Rights? The answer is an irreconcilable divide among Antifederalists. There were those who wanted to change fundamentally the new American system and those who were friendly to the Constitution. The latter wanted to restrain the new government with a bill of rights. Between 1787 and 1791, Mason became one of those who wanted fundamental change, while Madison, always a friend to the Constitution, became one of those willing to amend it by adding a bill of rights. He made this change with the help of Jefferson (Documents 16, 20鈥�22).

[1] See the companion volumes The American Founding: Core Documents (Ashland, Ohio: Ashbrook Press, 2017) and The Constitutional Convention: Core Documents (Ashland, Ohio: Ashbrook Press, 2018), both edited by Gordon Lloyd.

[2] . This letter, organized around seven themes, is a model of principled leadership at its best; it joins that which is necessary with that which is proper.

The post Bill of Rights appeared first on 澳门六合彩开奖直播.

The act of Congress entitled 鈥淎n act to enforce the provisions of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and for other purposes,鈥� approved April 20, A. D. 1871, being a law of extraordinary public importance, I consider it my duty to issue this my proclamation calling the attention of the people of the United States thereto, enjoining upon all good citizens, and especially upon all public officers, to be zealous in the enforcement thereof, and warning all persons to abstain from committing any of the acts thereby prohibited.

This law of Congress applies to all parts of the United States and will be enforced everywhere to the extent of the powers vested in the Executive. But inasmuch as the necessity therefore is well known to have been caused chiefly by persistent violations of the rights of citizens of the United States by combinations of lawless and disaffected persons in certain localities lately the theater of insurrection and military conflict, I do particularly exhort the people of those parts of the country to suppress all such combinations by their own voluntary efforts through the agency of local laws and to maintain the rights of all citizens of the United States and to secure to all such citizens the equal protection of the laws.

Fully sensible of the responsibility imposed upon the executive by the act of Congress to which public attention is now called, and reluctant to call into exercise any of the extraordinary powers thereby conferred upon me except in cases of imperative necessity, I do, nevertheless, deem it my duty to make known that I will not hesitate to exhaust the powers thus vested in the executive whenever and wherever it shall become necessary to do so for the purpose of securing to all citizens of the United States the peaceful enjoyment of the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution and laws.

It is my earnest wish that peace and cheerful obedience to law may prevail throughout the land and that all traces of our late unhappy civil strife may be speedily removed. These ends can be easily reached by acquiescence in the results of the conflict, now written in our Constitution, and by the due and proper enforcement of equal, just, and impartial laws in every part of our country.

The failure of local communities to furnish such means for the attainment of results so earnestly desired imposes upon the National Government the duty of putting forth all its energies for the protection of its citizens of every race and color and for the restoration of peace and order throughout the entire country.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 3d day of May, A. D. 1871, and of the Independence of the United States the ninety-fifth.

The post Proclamation on Enforcement of the 14th Amendment appeared first on 澳门六合彩开奖直播.

Mr. Speaker, when a young woman graduates from college and starts looking for a job, she is likely to have a frustrating and even demeaning experience ahead of her. If she walks into an office for an interview, the first question she will be asked is, “Do you type?”

There is a calculated system of prejudice that lies unspoken behind that question. Why is it acceptable for women to be secretaries, librarians, and teachers, but totally unacceptable for them to be managers, administrators, doctors, lawyers, and Members of Congress?

The unspoken assumption is that women are different. They do not have executive ability, orderly minds, stability, leadership skills, and they are too emotional.

It has been observed before, that society for a long time discriminated against another minority, the blacks, on the same basis – that they were different and inferior. The happy little homemaker and the contented “old darkey” on the plantation were both produced by prejudice.

As a black person, I am no stranger to race prejudice. But the truth is that in the political world I have been far oftener discriminated against because I am a woman than because I am black.

Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because, slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists. Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as “for men only.”

More than half of the population of the United States is female. But women occupy only 2 percent of the managerial positions. They have not even reached the level of tokenism yet. No women sit on the AFL-CIO council¹ or Supreme Court. There have been only two women who have held Cabinet rank, and at present there are none. Only two women now hold ambassadorial rank in the diplomatic corps. In Congress, we are down to one Senator and 10 Representatives.

Considering that there are about 3 1/2 million more women in the United States than men, this situation is outrageous.

It is true that part of the problem has been that women have not been aggressive in demanding their rights. This was also true of the black population for many years. They submitted to oppression and even cooperated with it. Women have done the same thing. But now there is an awareness of this situation particularly among the younger segment of the population.

As in the field of equal rights for blacks, Spanish-Americans, the Indians, and other groups, laws will not change such deep-seated problems overnight. But they can be used to provide protection for those who are most abused, and to begin the process of evolutionary change by compelling the insensitive majority to reexamine its unconscious attitudes.

It is for this reason that I wish to introduce today a proposal that has been before every Congress for the last forty years and that sooner or later must become part of the basic law of the land – the equal rights amendment.

Let me note and try to refute two of the commonest arguments that are offered against this amendment. One is that women are already protected under the law and do not need legislation. Existing laws are not adequate to secure equal rights for women. Sufficient proof of this is the concentration of women in lower paying, menial, unrewarding jobs and their incredible scarcity in the upper level jobs. If women are already equal, why is it such an event whenever one happens to be elected to Congress?

It is obvious that discrimination exists. Women do not have the opportunities that men do. And women that do not conform to the system, who try to break with the accepted patterns, are stigmatized as “odd” and “unfeminine.” The fact is that a woman who aspires to be chairman of the board, or a Member of the House, does so for exactly the same reasons as any man. Basically, these are that she thinks she can do the job and she wants to try.

A second argument often heard against the equal rights amendment is that it would eliminate legislation that many States and the Federal Government have enacted giving special protection to women and that it would throw the marriage and divorce laws into chaos.

As for the marriage laws, they are due for a sweeping reform, and an excellent beginning would be to wipe the existing ones off the books. Regarding special protection for working women, I cannot understand why it should be needed. Women need no protection that men do not need. What we need are laws to protect working people, to guarantee them fair pay, safe working conditions, protection against sickness and layoffs, and provision for dignified, comfortable retirement. Men and women need these things equally. That one sex needs protection more than the other is a male supremacist myth as ridiculous and unworthy of respect as the white supremacist myths that society is trying to cure itself of at this time.

The post Speech Introducing the Equal Rights Amendment appeared first on 澳门六合彩开奖直播.

The notion that men and women stand as equals before the law was not the original understanding, nor was it the understanding of the Congress that framed the Civil War amendments. . . .

Mid-nineteenth century feminists, many of them diligent workers in the cause of abolition, looked to Congress after the Civil War for an express guarantee of equal rights for men and women.¹ But the text of the Fourteenth Amendment appalled the proponents of a sex equality guarantee. Their concern centered on the abortive second section of the amendment, which placed in the Constitution for the first time, the word “male.” Threefold use of the word “male,” always in conjunction with the term “citizen,” caused concern that the grand phrases of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment – due process and equal protection of the laws – would have, at best, qualified application to women.

After close to a century’s effort, the suffrage amendment was ratified, according to female citizens the right to vote. The most vigorous proponents of that amendment saw it as a beginning, not as a terminal point. Three years after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, the National Women’s Party succeeded in putting before Congress the equal rights amendment that has been reintroduced in every Congress since 1923. . . .

Persons unacquainted with the history of the amendment deplore its generality and the absence of investigation concerning its impact. The models of the due process and equal protection clauses should suffice to indicate that the wording of the amendment is a thoroughly responsible way of embodying fundamental principle in the Constitution. Before the amendment was proposed, the National Women’s Party, with the aid of a staff of lawyers and expert consultants, tabulated state and federal legislation and court decisions relating to the status of women. Advisory councils were formed, composed of different economic and professional groups of women – industrial workers, homemakers, teachers and students, federal employees. Each council conducted studies of the desirability of equal rights and responsibilities for men and women. Reading debates on the amendment in the law journals of the 1920s is enlightening. The objections still voiced in 1973 were solidly answered then.

Opponents of the amendment suggest the pursuit of alternate routes: particularized statutes through the regular legislative process in Congress and in the states, and test case litigation under the Fourteenth Amendment. Only those who have failed to learn the lessons of the past can accept that counsel. . . .

. . . A recent government computer search, the solicitor general told the Supreme Court this term, revealed that 876 sections in the United States Code contain sex-based references. Similar searches in some of the states have turned up hundreds of state statutes in need of revision.

Will major legislative revision occur without the impetus of the equal rights amendment? Probably not if past experience is an accurate barometer. . . .

A preview of the kind of revision that can be expected under the stimulus of the amendment has been provided by legislative analyses in some of the states. These analyses should reassure those who fear intolerable change in the wake of the amendment. They propose extension of desirable protection to both sexes; for example, state minimum wage laws would be extended to men; in no case do they propose depriving either sex of a genuine benefit now enjoyed.

As a sample of laws destined for the scrap heap if the amendment is ratified, consider these: Arizona law stipulates that the governor, secretary of state, and treasurer must be male. In Ohio only men may serve as arbitrators in county court proceedings. In Wisconsin barbers are licensed to cut men’s hair and women’s hair, but cosmeticians may attend to women only. Georgia law, still faithful to Blackstone, provides:

The husband is head of the family and the wife is subject to him; her legal civil existence is merged in the husband’s, except so far as the law recognizes her separately, either for her own protection, or for her benefit, or for the preservation of public order.

Another embarrassment from the same state reads: “Any charge or intimation against a white female of having sexual intercourse with a person of color is slanderous without proof of special damages.” Legislative inertia keeps laws of this kind on the books. Prof. Thomas Emerson summarized the situation this way: “It is not a weakness but a strength of the amendment that it will force prompt consideration of changes that are long overdue.” . . .

In the 1971 term, a new direction was signaled when the Supreme Court responded affirmatively to two complaints of unconstitutional sex discrimination. In Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), the Court . . . relied on the due process clause to hold that an unwed father who wished to retain custody of his children had to be given a hearing of the kind that would be accorded to any mother or any married father. The opinions in both cases were laconic; they provided an uncertain basis for predicting the Court’s future course.

On May 14, 1973, in Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, the Court moved forward more swiftly than many had anticipated; in effect, it served notice that sex discrimination by law would no longer escape rigorous constitutional review. . . .

. . . If the equal rights amendment is adopted, the hard task of revision will be undertaken in earnest; absent ratification, comprehensive revision may continue to be regarded as “premature and unnecessary.”

Reasoned appraisal of the amendment requires consideration of the realities of life for an increasing population of women in the latter half of the twentieth century. . . . [O]ver the last fifty years the percentage of working women in the population has approximately doubled, and the projection is that this trend will accelerate. . . .

With the disappearance of home-centered economic activity, and the possibility now open to women to determine whether and when to bear children, perceptive persons of both sexes recognize that there is no justification for confining women to a role of their own.

Some aspects of the traditional arrangement disfavor men, and some exact a toll from both sexes. Women who have paid serious attention to laws that appear to disfavor men agree with the position stated by Sarah Grimke, noted abolitionist and advocate of equal rights for men and women. She said in 1837: “I ask no favors for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.” Favors rarely come without an accompanying detriment. Too often men of the law fail to grasp this basic point.

A number of “horribles” have been raised in opposition to the amendment. Four of them dominate the literature of amendment opponents.

First horrible. Women will lose the benefit of protective labor laws. Today, challenges to these laws rarely emanate from male employers who wish to overwork women. Since the passage of Title VII,² they have come overwhelmingly from blue-collar working women to overcome what they regard as a system that protects them against higher paying jobs and promotions. In the vast majority of Title VII employment discriminations cases, courts have understood these challenges. Legislatures are beginning to abandon disingenuous protection for women and to extend genuine protection to all workers. Models are ample. In Norway, for example, where opposition to “special protection for women only” came predominantly from women’s organizations, a 1956 workers protective act assures safe and healthy conditions for employees of both sexes. Moreover, extension rather than invalidation of laws that benefit only one sex is a route recently traveled by the Supreme Court. In Frontiers v. Richardson, fringe benefits for married male members of the military were extended to married female members. The National Women’s Party put it this way decades ago in 1926: protective legislation that is desirable

Should be enacted for all workers. . . . Legislation that in-cludes women but exempts men . . . limits the woman worker’s scope of activity . . . by barring her from econ-omic opportunity. Moreover, restrictive conditions [for women but not for men] fortifies the harmful assump-tions that labor for pay is primarily the prerogative of the male.

Second horrible. Wives will lose the right to support. Only if our legislatures or courts act capriciously, spitefully, without regard for the public welfare, and in flagrant disregard of the intent of the Amendment’s proponents. In a growing number of states the equal rights amendment will occasion no change whatever in current support law. In these states, and under the amendment in all states, either husband or wife can be awarded support depending on the couple’s circumstances. Who pays in any particular family will depend upon the division of responsibilities within that family unit. If one spouse is the breadwinner and the other performs uncompensated services at home, the breadwinning spouse will be required to support the spouse who works at home.

Underlying the amendment is the premise that a person who works at home should do so because she, or he, wants to, not because of an unarticulated belief that there is no choice. The essential point, sadly ignored by the amendment’s detractors, is this: the equal rights amendment does not force anyone happy as a housewife to relinquish that role. On the contrary, it enhances that role by making it plain that it was chosen, not thrust on her without regard to preference.

Third horrible. Women will be forced to serve in the military. Only if men are, and assignments would be made on the basis of the individual capacity rather than sex. With the draft terminated, it is high time for consideration of the other side of that coin. Women who wish to enlist must meet considerably higher standards than men; women in service are denied fringe benefits granted men and do not receive equal vocational training opportunities. The reason for higher standards for women was given by an Air Force colonel in a deposition taken in December, 1972. He explained: “We have had and we continue to have roughly twice as many women apply[ing] as we are able to . . . take. . . . We don’t have an excess of men over what we can take.”

Young women’s groups uniformly testified during congressional hearings on the amendment that they did not wish exemption from responsibility for service. Conspicuous among these groups was the 200,000 member Intercollegiate Association of Women Students, a group appropriately characterized as “middle American.”

In 1948, long before women and the military became an emotion-charged issue in connection with the equal rights amendment, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower observed:

Like most old soldiers I was violently against women sol-diers. I thought a tremendous number of difficulties would occur, not only of an administrative nature . . . but others of a more personal type that would get us into trouble. None of that occurred. . . . In the disciplinary field, they were . . . a model for the Army. More than this their influence throughout the whole command was good. I am convinced that in another war they have got to be drafted just like the men.

Final horrible. Rest rooms in public places could not be sex separated. Emphatically not so, according to the amendment’s proponents in Congress, who were amused at the focus on the “potty problem.” Apart from referring to the constitutional regard for personal privacy, they expressed curiosity about the quarter from which objections to current arrangements would come. Did the people who voiced concern suppose that men would want to use women’s rest rooms or that women would want to use men’s? In any event, the clever solution devised by the airlines suggests one way out of the problem.

Some people have expressed fear of a “flood of litigation” in the wake of the equal rights amendment. But the dramatic increase in sex discrimination litigation under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in the 1970s is indicative that, if anything, ratification of the amendment will stem the tide. The amendment will impel the comprehensive legislative revision that neither Congress nor the states have undertaken to date. The absence of long overdue statutory revision is generating cases by the hundreds across the country. Legislatures remain quiescent despite the mounting judicial challenges, challenges given further impetus by the Supreme Court’s decision in Frontiero v. Richardson. Ratification of the amendment, however, would plainly mark as irresponsible any legislature that did not undertake the necessary repairs during the two-year period between ratification and effective date.

To date, three fifths of the states have ratified the amendment; these thirty states represent a clear majority of the country’s population. One state, Nebraska, has attempted to withdraw its ratification. But New Jersey and Ohio took the same action with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment, and New York ratified and then withdrew its ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment. Congress at that time evidently concluded that ratification, once accomplished, could not be undone. New Jersey and Ohio counted to constitute the requisite three fourths for promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment. New York was counted among the states that ratified the Fifteenth Amendment.

The equal rights amendment, in sum, would dedicate the nation to a new view of the rights and responsibilities of men and women. It firmly rejects sharp legislative lines between the sexes as constitutionally tolerable. Instead, it looks toward a legal system in which each person will be judged on the basis of individual merit and not on the basis of an unalterable trait of birth that bears no necessary relationship to need or ability. As the Federal Legislation Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York explained:

[T]he Amendment would eliminate patent discrim-ination, including all laws which prohibit or discourage women from making full use of their political and economic capabilities on the strength of notions about the proper “role” for women in society. Any special exemptions or other favorable treatment required by some women because of their physical stature or family roles could be preserved by statutes which utilize those factors – rather than sex – as the basis for distinction.

The post The Need for the Equal Rights Amendment appeared first on 澳门六合彩开奖直播.

Good evening, my fellow citizens:

This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama residents who happened to have been born Negro.

That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive way.

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Vietnam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops.

It ought to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register and to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal.

It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case.

The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the Nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college, one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much.

This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right.

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is a land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or cast system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?

Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or state or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.

The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.

We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is a time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives. . . .

Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in a series of forthright cases. The executive branch has adopted that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing.

But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is in the street.

I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public – hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments.

This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do. . . .

I am also asking Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to desegregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today a Negro is attending a state-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow. . . .

Other features will be also requested, including greater protection for the right to vote. But legislation, I repeat, cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of every American in every community across our country.

In this respect, I want to pay tribute to those citizens North and South who have been working in their communities to make life better for all. They are acting not out of a sense of legal duty but out of a sense of human decency.

Like our soldiers and sailors in all parts of the world, they are meeting freedom’s challenge on the firing line, and I salute them for their honor and their courage.

My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all – in every city of the North as well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a state university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States.

This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents. . . .

Therefore, I am asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.

As I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or an equal motivation, but they should have the equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.

We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century.¹

This is what we are talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens.

Thank you very much.

The post Radio and Television Report to the American People on Civil Rights appeared first on 澳门六合彩开奖直播.

AN ACT To protect the United States against certain un-American and subversive activities by requiring registration of Communist organizations, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the 鈥淚nternal Security Act of 1950.鈥�

TITLE I 鈥� SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL

Section 1. (a) This title may be cited as the 鈥樷�楽ubversive Activities Control Act of 1950.鈥�

(b) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize, require, or establish military or civilian censorship or in any way to limit or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States and no regulation shall be promulgated hereunder having that effect.

Necessity for Legislation

Sec. 2. As a result of evidence adduced before various committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, the Congress hereby finds that

(1) There exists a world Communist movement which, in its origins, its development, and its present practice, is a world-wide revolutionary movement whose purpose it is, by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups (governmental and otherwise), espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and any other means deemed necessary, to establish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in the countries throughout the world through the medium of a world-wide Communist organization.

(2) The establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in any country results in the suppression of all opposition to the party in power, the subordination of the rights of individuals to the state, the denial of fundamental rights and liberties which are characteristic of a representative form of government, such as freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of religious worship, and results in the maintenance of control over the people through fear, terrorism, and brutality.

(3) The system of government known as a totalitarian dictatorship is characterized by the existence of a single political party, organized on a dictatorial basis, and by substantial identity between such party and its policies and the government and governmental policies of the country in which it exists.

(4) The direction and control of the world Communist movement is vested in and exercised by the Communist dictatorship of a foreign country.

(5) The Communist dictatorship of such foreign country, in exercising such direction and control and in furthering the purposes of the world Communist movement, establishes or causes the establishment of, and utilizes, in various countries, action organizations which are not free and independent organizations, but are sections of a world-wide Communist organization and are controlled, directed, and subject to the discipline of the Communist dictatorship of such foreign country.

(6) The Communist action organizations so established and utilized in various countries, acting under such control, direction, and discipline, endeavor to carry out the objectives of the world Communist movement by bringing about the overthrow of existing governments by any available means, including force if necessary, and setting up Communist totalitarian dictatorships which will be subservient to the most powerful existing Communist totalitarian dictatorship. Although such organizations usually designate themselves as political parties, they are in fact constituent elements of the world-wide Communist movement and promote the objectives of such movement by conspiratorial and coercive tactics, instead of through the democratic processes of a free elective system or through the freedom-preserving means employed by a political party which operates as an agency by which people govern themselves.

(7) In carrying on the[ir] activities . . . such Communist organizations . . . are organized on a secret, conspiratorial basis and operate to a substantial extent through organizations, commonly known as 鈥樷�楥ommunist fronts鈥欌��, which in most instances are created and maintained, or used, in such manner as to conceal the facts as to their true character and purposes and their membership. One result of this method of operation is that such affiliated organizations are able to obtain financial and other support from persons who would not extend such support if they knew the true purposes of, and the actual nature of the control and influence exerted upon, such 鈥淐ommunist fronts鈥�. . . .

(9) In the United States those individuals who knowingly and willfully participate in the world Communist movement, when they so participate, in effect repudiate their allegiance to the United States, and in effect transfer their allegiance to the foreign country in which is vested the direction and control of the world Communist movement. . . .

(11) The agents of communism have devised clever and ruthless espionage and sabotage tactics which are carried out in many instances in form or manner successfully evasive of existing law.

(12) The Communist network in the United States is inspired and controlled in large part by foreign agents who are sent into the United States ostensibly as attach茅s of foreign legations, affiliates of international organizations, members of trading commissions, and in similar capacities, but who use their diplomatic or semi-diplomatic status as a shield behind which to engage in activities prejudicial to the public security.

(13) There are, under our present immigration laws, numerous aliens who have been found to be deportable, many of whom are in the subversive, criminal, or immoral classes who are free to roam the country at will without supervision or control.

(14) One device for infiltration by Communists is by procuring naturalization for disloyal aliens who use their citizenship as a badge for admission into the fabric of our society.

(15) The Communist movement in the United States is an organization numbering thousands of adherents, rigidly and ruthlessly disciplined. Awaiting and seeking to advance a moment when the United States may be so far extended by foreign engagements, so far divided in counsel, or so far in industrial or financial straits, that overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence may seem possible of achievement, it seeks converts far and wide by an extensive system of schooling and indoctrination. . . .

Certain Prohibited Acts

Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to combine, conspire, or agree, with any other person to perform any act which would substantially contribute to the establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship, . . . the direction and control of which is to be vested in, or exercised by or under the domination or control of, any foreign government, foreign organization, or foreign individual: Provided, however, That this subsection shall not apply to the proposal of a constitutional amendment. . . .

. . .

(f) Neither the holding of office nor membership in any Communist organization by any person shall constitute per se a violation of subsection (a) or subsection (c) of this section or of any other criminal statute. The fact of the registration of any person under section 7 or section 8 of this title as an officer or member of any Communist organization shall not be received in evidence against such person in any prosecution for any alleged violation of subsection (a) or subsection (c) of this section or for any alleged violation of any other criminal statute.

Employment of Members of Communist Organizations

Sec. 5. (a) When a Communist organization, as defined in paragraph (5) of section 3 of this title, is registered or there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring such organization to register, it shall be unlawful

(1) For any member of such organization, with knowledge or notice that such organization is so registered or that such order has become final

(A) in seeking, accepting, or holding any nonelective office or employment under the United States, to conceal or fail to disclose the fact that he is a member of such organization; or

(B) to hold any nonelective office or employment under the United States; or

(C) in seeking, accepting, or holding employment in any defense facility, to conceal or fail to disclose the fact that he is a member of such organization; or

(D) if such organization is a Communist-action organization, to engage in any employment in any defense facility.

(2) For any officer or employee of the United States or of any defense facility, with knowledge or notice that such organization is so registered or that such order has become final 鈥�

(A) to contribute funds or services to such organization; or

(B) to advise, counsel or urge any person, with knowledge or notice that such person is a member of such organization, to perform, or to omit to perform, any act if such act or omission would constitute a violation of any provision of subparagraph (1) of this subsection. . . .

Denial of Passports to Members of Communist Organizations

Sec. 6. (a) When a Communist organization as defined in paragraph (5) of section 3 of this title is registered, or there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring such organization to register, it shall be unlawful for any member of such organization, with knowledge or notice that such organization is so registered or that such order has become final 鈥�

(1) to make application for a passport, or the renewal of a passport, to be issued or renewed by or under the authority of the United States; or

(2) to use or attempt to use any such passport. . . .

Registration and Annual Reports of Communist Organizations

Sec. 7. (a) Each Communist-action organization (including any organization required, by a final order of the Board, to register as a Communist-action organization) shall . . . register with the Attorney General, on a form prescribed by him . . . as a Communist-action organization. . . .

. . . containing the following information:

(1) The name of the organization and the address of its principal office.

(2) The name and last-known address of each individual who is . . . [or] who was at any time during the period of twelve full calendar months next preceding the filing of such statement, an officer of the organization, with the designation or title of the office so held, and with a brief statement of the duties and functions of such individual as such officer.

(3) An accounting . . . of all moneys received and expended (including the sources from which received and the purposes for which expended) by the organization during the period of twelve full calendar months next preceding the filing of such statement.

(4) In the case of a Communist-action organization, the name and last-known address of each individual who was a member of the organization at any time during the period of twelve full calendar months preceding the filing of such statement. . .听

Use of the Mails and Instrumentalities of Interstate or Foreign Commerce

Sec. 10. It shall be unlawful for any organization which is registered under section 7, or for any organization with respect to which there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring it to register under section 7, or for any person acting for or on behalf of any such organization 鈥�

(1) to transmit or cause to be transmitted, through the United States mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, any publication which is intended to be, or which it is reasonable to believe is intended to be, circulated or disseminated among two or more persons, unless such publication, and any envelope, wrapper, or other container in which it is mailed or otherwise circulated or transmitted, bears the following, printed in such manner as may be provided in regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, with the name of the organization appearing in lieu of the blank: 鈥淒isseminated by ____________, a Communist organization鈥�; or

(2) to broadcast or cause to be broadcast any matter over any radio or television station in the United States, unless such matter is preceded by the following statement, with the name of the organization being stated in place of the blank: 鈥淭he following program is sponsored by ____________, a Communist organization鈥�. . . .

Subversive Activities Control Board

Sec. 12. (a) There is hereby established a board, to be known as the Subversive Activities Control Board, which shall be composed of five members, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than three members of the Board shall be members of the same political party. . . .

(e) It shall be the duty of the Board

(1) upon application made by the Attorney General under section 13(a) of this title, or by any organization under section 13(b) of this title, to determine whether any organization is a 鈥淐ommunist-action organization鈥� within the meaning of paragraph (3) of section 3 of this title, or a 鈥淐ommunist-front organization鈥� within the meaning of paragraph (4) of section 3 of this title; and

(2) . . . to determine whether any individual is a member of any Communist-action organization registered, or by final order of the Board required to be registered, under section 7(a) of this title. . . .

Proceedings before Board

Sec. 13. (a) Whenever the Attorney General shall have reason to believe that any organization which has not registered under . . . this title is in fact an organization of a kind required to be registered under such subsection, or that any individual who has not registered under . . . this title is in fact required to register under such section, he shall file with the Board and serve upon such organization or individual a petition for an order requiring such organization or individual to register pursuant to such subsection or section, as the case may be. . . .

(b) Any organization registered under . . . this title, and any individual registered under . . . this title, may, not oftener than once in each calendar year, make application to the Attorney General for the cancellation of such registration and (in the case of such organization) for relief from obligation to make further annual reports. . . .

(c) Upon the filing of any petition pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection (b) of this section, the Board (or any member thereof or any examiner designated thereby) may hold hearings, administer oaths and affirmations, may examine witnesses and receive evidence at any place in the United States, and may require by subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, and other records deemed relevant, to the matter under inquiry. . . .

(d) (1) All hearings conducted under this section shall be public. Each party to such proceeding shall have the right to present its case with the assistance of counsel, to offer oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. . . .

(e) In determining whether any organization is a 鈥淐ommunist-action organization,鈥� the Board shall take into consideration

(1) the extent to which its policies are formulated and carried out and its activities performed, pursuant to directives or to effectuate the policies of the foreign government or foreign organization in which is vested, or under the domination or control of which is exercised, the direction and control of the world Communist movement referred to in section 2 of this title; and

(2) the extent to which its views and policies do not deviate from those of such foreign government or foreign organization; and

(3) the extent to which it receives financial or other aid, directly or indirectly, from or at the direction of such foreign government or foreign organization; . . .

. . .

(8) the extent to which its principal leaders or a substantial number of its members consider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate to their obligations to such foreign government or foreign organization.

(f) In determining whether any organization is a 鈥淐ommunist-front organization,鈥� the Board shall take into consideration

(1) the extent to which persons who are active in its management, direction, or supervision, whether or not holding office therein, are active in the management, direction, or supervision of, or as representatives of, any Communist-action organization, Communist foreign government, or the world Communist movement referred to in section 2; and

(2) the extent to which its support, financial or otherwise, is derived from any Communist-action organization, Communist foreign govern-ment, or the world Communist movement referred to in section 2; . . .

(k) When any order of the Board requiring registration of a Com-munist organization becomes final under the provisions of . . . this title, the Board shall publish in the Federal Register the fact that such order has become final, and publication thereof shall constitute notice to all members of such organization that such order has become final.

Judicial Review

Sec. 14. (a) The party aggrieved by any order entered by the Board under subsection (g), (h), (i) or (j) of section 13 may obtain a review of such order by filing in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, within sixty days from the date of service upon it of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the Board be set aside. . . .

TITLE II 鈥� EMERGENCY DETENTION

Sec. 100. This title may be cited as the 鈥淓mergency Detention Act of 1950.鈥�

Findings of Fact and Declaration of Purpose

[This Title repeats the findings reported at the beginning of Title I above.]

. . .

(14) The detention of persons who there is reasonable ground to believe probably will commit or conspire with others to commit espionage or sabotage is, in a time of internal security emergency, essential to the common defense and to the safety and security of the territory, the people and the Constitution of the United States.

(15) It is also essential that such detention in an emergency involving the internal security of the Nation shall be so authorized, executed, restricted and reviewed as to prevent any interference with the constitutional rights and privileges of any persons, and at the same time shall be sufficiently effective to permit the performance by the Congress and the President of their constitutional duties to provide for the common defense, to wage war, and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, the Government and the people of the United States.

Declaration of 鈥淚nternal Security Emergency鈥�

Sec. 102. (a) In the event of any one of the following:

(1) Invasion of the territory of the United States or its possessions,

(2) Declaration of war by Congress, or

(3) Insurrection within the United States in aid of a foreign enemy, and if, upon the occurrence of one or more of the above, the President shall find that the proclamation of an emergency pursuant to this section is essential to the preservation, protection and defense of the Constitution, and to the common defense and safety of the territory and people of the United States, the President is authorized to make public proclamation of the existence of an 鈥樷�業nternal Security Emergency鈥欌��.

(b) A state of 鈥樷�業nternal Security Emergency鈥欌�� (hereinafter referred to as the 鈥樷�榚mergency鈥欌��) so declared shall continue in exercise until terminated by proclamation of the President or by concurrent resolution of the Congress.

Detention during Emergency

Sec. 103. (a) Whenever there shall be in existence such an emergency, the President, acting through the Attorney General, is hereby authorized to apprehend and by order detain, pursuant to the provisions of this title, each person as to whom there is reasonable ground to believe that such person probably will engage in, or probably will conspire with others to engage in, acts of espionage or of sabotage. . . .

Detention Review Board

Sec. 105. (a) The President is hereby authorized to establish a Detention Review Board (referred to in this title as the 鈥淏oard鈥�) which shall consist of nine members, not more than five of whom shall be members of the same political party, appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. . . .

Sec. 109. (a) Any Board created under this title is empowered

(1) to review upon petition of any detainee any order of detention issued pursuant to section 104 (d) of this title;

(2) to determine whether there is reasonable ground to believe that such detainee probably will engage in, or conspire with others to engage in, espionage or sabotage;

(3) to issue orders confirming, modifying, or revoking any such order of detention; . . .

(3) The several departments and agencies of the Government, when directed by the President, shall furnish the Board, upon its request, all records, papers, and information in their possession relating to any matter before the Board.

(f) Every detainee shall be afforded full opportunity to be represented by counsel at the preliminary hearing prescribed by this title and in all stages of the detention review proceedings, including the hearing before the Board and any judicial review, and he shall have the right at hearings of the Board to testify, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to cross-examine adverse witnesses. . . .

(2) Any past act or acts of espionage or sabotage committed by such person, or any past participation by such person in any attempt or conspiracy to commit any act of espionage or sabotage, against the United States, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any public or private national defense facility within the United States; . . .

Orders of the Board

Sec. 110. (a) If upon all the testimony taken in any proceeding for the review of any order of detention issued pursuant to section 104 (d) of this title, the Board shall determine that there is not reasonable ground to believe that the detainee in question probably will engage in, or conspire with others to engage in, espionage or sabotage, the Board shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and serve upon the Attorney General or order revoking the order for detention of the detainee concerned and requiring the Attorney General, and any officer designated by him for the supervision or control of the detention of such person, to release such detainee from custody; and shall forthwith serve a copy of such order upon the detainee. . . .

Judicial Review

Sec. 111. (a) Any petitioner aggrieved by an order of the Board denying in whole or in part the relief sought by him, or by the failure or refusal of the Attorney General to obey such order, shall be entitled to the judicial review or judicial enforcement, provided hereinafter in this section. . . .

Separability of Provisions

Sec. 116. . . . Nothing contained in this title shall be construed to suspend or to authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

Sam Rayburn Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Alben W. Barkley Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

The post The Internal Security Act appeared first on 澳门六合彩开奖直播.

Drs. Keigwin and Hillis Invite Richard Bennett to Speak in Churches.

The Rev. Dr. A. E. Keigwin announced a platform meeting¹ yesterday in the West End Presbyterian Church, at Amsterdam Avenue and 105th Street, for next Sunday night on the subject of eugenics. One of the speakers will be Richard Bennett, the actor.² The Rev. Dr. Newell Dwight Hillis is another pastor who plans to push a eugenics campaign. He arranged with Mr. Bennett yesterday for a meeting early in the Fall in Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, similar to the one to be held next Sunday night in West End Church.³

“Much of our public difficulty and more of our public expense to-day are due, in my judgement,” said the Rev. Dr. Keigwin yesterday, “to the dense ignorance of young men and women about the weightier physical affairs of human life. I heartily approve of this present movement, and think Christian ministers may well forego vacations to push it. If we will deliver men and women from the shackles of ignorance concerning themselves, we shall effect a reform that is vital to the whole human family, and especially to our own country.”

The Liberal Ministers Association of New York, composed of Unitarian and Universalist pastors, and reform rabbis, among them the Rev. Drs. Wise, Magnes, Mendes, and Silverman, has appointed a Eugenics Committee, with the Rev. Edgar S. Weirs of Montclair as Chairman. It is charged to investigate the subject this Summer and report next Fall. The Rev. Dr. John Haynes Holmes, as a member of the association, said yesterday:

“What the recommendations of this committee may be I know not, but for myself I hope and shall urge that the association binds all of its members as a group to perform nothing, but health marriages. I believe in the health marriage. Both parties should present certificates, and ministers ought not to marry any who cannot. That is the ideal. The difficulty is to carry the ideal out. Eventually the State will make it a law. While we are waiting for the State to act, what are we to do? I feel it is the business of the Church to show the way because the Church has a moral responsibility. Such an important matter ought not to be left to the individual minister. Acting alone, he can accomplish little. Ministers should act in groups. Dean Sumner and the Chicago Cathedral have shown us the way.”⁴

Two pastors of Fifth Avenue churches advocated the plan yesterday. Both are among the ministers who perform the largest number of fashionable marriage ceremonies. Said the Rev. Dr. Charles L. Slattery, rector of Grace Church:

“It is desirable that the personal health of each party to a marriage be certified to, but the requirement for such certificate ought to come from the State, not from the Church, because it is the function of the State to guard the health of its citizens. I am glad to see the Church take steps toward reform, and toward compelling the State to do its part.”

The Brick Presbyterian Church,⁵ through the decision of its pastor, the Rev. Dr. William P. Merrill, takes its stand with others. “I think the general movement to require proper conditions of health from all men and women contemplating marriage is right. The State ought to obtain the fulfillment of that condition, and the Church ought to co-operate in every practical way,” the pastor said yesterday.

It was said yesterday that the subject of eugenics will come into the Episcopal General Convention⁶ in this city in October through the report of a committee on which are Bishop Anderson of Chicago, whose cathedral took an early stand on health marriages; Bishop Spalding of Utah, whose book on the Mormons attracted wide attention; Bishop Williams of Michigan, whose views are known to be radical; Dean Hodges of Cambridge, Dean Sumner of Chicago, Jacob A. Riis, Gifford Pinchot,⁷ the Rev. J. Howard Melish of Brooklyn, and Clinton Rogers Woodruff, the head of a social welfare movement.

The post New York Times: 鈥淧astors for Eugenics鈥� appeared first on 澳门六合彩开奖直播.