AcharyaChanakya/simple-wikipedia huggingface dataset:
In his "Discourse of 1759," Revolutionist Jonathan Mayhew argued that people should only obey their governments if they "actually perform the duty of rulers by exercising a reasonable and [fair] authority for the good of human society." Many American colonists were convinced that British rulers were not using their power "for the good of human society." This made them want to form a new government which would be based on republicanism. They thought a republican government would protect not threaten freedom and democracy.
The "Founding Fathers" were strong supporters of republican values, especially Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.
For example, Thomas Jefferson once wrote that a government that had the most possible participation by "its citizens in mass" (all the people together) was the safest kind. He said a republic is:
The Founding Fathers often talked about what "republicanism" meant. In 1787, John Adams defined it as "a government, in which all men, rich and poor, magistrates and subjects, officers and people, masters and servants, the first citizen and the last, are equally subject to the laws."
Some other ideas also affected the Founding Fathers. For example, in the 1600s, John Locke, an English philosopher, had created the idea of the "social contract." This idea said that people agree to obey governments, and in return, those governments agree to protect the people and their rights. This is like a contract made between the people and the government. If the government breaks this contract, and does not protect the people's rights, then the people have the right to overthrow their leaders. This idea was important to the Revolutionists.
When they were writing state and national constitutions, the Americans used ideas from Montesquieu, an 18th-century French political thinker. Montesquieu wrote about how the perfect British constitution would be "balanced." The idea of a balance of power (also called "checks and balances") is a very important part of the Constitution. It is one of the strategies the Founders used to make sure their government would be republican and protect the people from government corruption.
The Founding Fathers wanted republicanism because its ideas guaranteed liberty, with limited powers checking and balancing each other. However, they also wanted change to happen slowly. They worried that in a democracy, the majority of voters could vote away rights and freedoms. They were most worried about poor Americans (who made up most of the United States) turning against the rich. They worried that democracy could turn into "mob rule."
To guard against this, the Founders wrote many protections into the Constitution. For example:
Most adult white males were able to vote. In 1776, most states required people to own property to be able to vote. However, at that time, America was 90% rural, and most people owned farms. As cities grew bigger and people started doing work in the cities, most states dropped the property requirement. By 1850, this requirement was gone in every state.
Under the new government after the Revolution, "republican motherhood" became an ideal. Abigail Adams and Mercy Otis Warren were held up as the perfect "republican mothers." This idea said that a republican mother's first duty was to teach her children republican values. Her second job was to live simply and avoid luxury, which the Founders linked with corruption.
Many of the Founders did not think "democracy" was a good idea. Their idea of "democracy" was the "pure democracy" that de Tocqueville had described. They worried often about the problem of 'tyranny of the majority' that de Tocqueville had warned about. They wrote many protections into the Constitution to prevent this from happening. As historians Richard Ellis and Michael Nelson write: "The principles of republican government embedded in the Constitution represent an effort by the framers to [make sure] that the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness would not be [destroyed] by majorities." Thomas Jefferson warned that "an elect[ed] despotism is not the government we fought for."
James Madison, in particular, worried about this, and wrote about it in "The Federalist Papers". The "Federalist Papers" talk about democracy as being dangerous, because it allows a majority to take away the rights of a smaller group. However, Madison thought that as more people came to the United States, the country would get more diverse, and it would be harder to form a majority big enough to do this. In Federalist No. 10, Madison also argued that a strong federal government would help protect republicanism. The United States' first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave most power to the states and had a very weak federal government that could not get anything done. In Federalist No. 10, Madison argued that a small but powerful group might be able to take control of a small area, like a state. However, it would be much harder to take over an entire country. The bigger the country, he argued, the safer republicanism would be.
As late as 1800, the word "democrat" still had a very bad meaning to most Americans. It was mostly used to attack an opponent of the Federalist party. In 1798, George Washington complained that a "Democrat ... will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country." This changed over the next few decades.
United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (1779–1845) made the protection of property rights by the courts a major part of American republicanism. James Madison appointed Story to the Court in 1811. Story and Chief Justice John Marshall made the Court a protector of the rights of property against runaway democracy. Story believed that "the right of the citizens to the free enjoyment of their property" (if they got it legally) was "a great and fundamental principle of a republican government." Historians agree that Story—as much or more than Marshall or anyone else—reshaped American law in a conservative direction that protected property rights.
Republicanism saw military service as one of a citizen's most important duties. John Randolph, a Congressman from Virginia, once said: "When citizen and soldier shall be synonymous terms, then you will be safe."
However, at this time, the word "army" meant "foreign mercenaries." After the Revolutionary War, Americans did not trust mercenaries. Instead, they came up with the idea of a national army, made of citizens. They changed their definition of military service from a choice of careers to a civic duty something every good republican should do. Before the Civil War, people saw military service as an important show of patriotism, and a necessary part of citizenship. To soldiers, military service was something they chose to do, something they had a say in, and it showed that they were good citizens.
The term "republic" is not used in the Declaration of Independence. However, it does appear in Article Four of the Constitution, which "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."
The United States Supreme Court has created a basic definition of what a "republic" is. In "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), the court ruled that the "equal rights of citizens" were inherent to the idea of a republic. Later, the Court's decision from "In re Duncan" (1891) ruled that the "right of the people to choose their government" is also part of the definition of a republic.
Over time, most Americans changed their opinion about the word "democracy." By the 1830s, most Americans saw democracy as a great thing, and members of the new Democratic Party proudly called themselves "Democrats."
After 1800, the limitations on democracy (like rules that limited who could vote) were removed one by one:
Defence Intelligence
Defence Intelligence (DI) is part of the United Kingdom "intelligence Community", with the SIS, GCHQ, and the Security Service.
It is not a stand-alone organisation, but a part of the Ministry of Defence (MOD). The organisation employs civilian and military staff. The organisation was formerly known as the Defence Intelligence Staff or DIS, but changed its name in 2009.
Defence Intelligence gets information from many sources. This information is used to support military operations, planning, and defence policy. It notes politico-military, scientific and technical developments which may affect the UK. DI's assessments support the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), other Government departments, and international partners such as NATO and the European Union.
It is this 'all-source' information which distinguishes Defence Intelligence from other organisations such as SIS and GCHQ. They focus on the collection of 'single-source' human intelligence (HUMINT) and signals intelligence (SIGINT) respectively.
Water purification
Water purification is the process of removing contaminants from water. One reason is to make it safe for humans to consume. Another is industrial use such as cleaning and cooling microchips during manufacturing. Unclean water is not only harmful to your health but equally damaging for the plumbing, home appliances, kitchen, washroom, and everything. According to a 2007 World Health Organization (WHO) report, 1.1 billion people do not have access to clean drinking water.;)
Corwin Amendment
The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution. It was passed by the Congress on March 2, 1861 and sent to the state legislatures for ratification. Senator William H. Seward of New York introduced the amendment in the Senate. Representative Thomas Corwin of Ohio introduced it in the House of Representatives. It was one of several bills considered by Congress in an unsuccessful attempt to attract the seceding states back into the Union and to convince border slave states to stay. Technically still pending before the states, it would, if ratified, shield "domestic institutions" of the states (which in 1861 included slavery) from the constitutional amendment process and from interference by Congress.
The Corwin Amendment was ratified by:
In 1963, more than a century after the Corwin Amendment was sent to the state legislatures by the Congress, a joint resolution to ratify it was introduced in the Texas House of Representatives by Dallas Republican Henry Stollenwerck. The joint resolution was sent to the House's Committee on Constitutional Amendments on March 7, 1963, but received no further consideration.
The Corwin Amendment, when viewed through the lens of the plain meaning rule ("literal rule"), would have made institutionalized slavery unable to be affected by the amendment process. As a result, the later Reconstruction Amendments (Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth) would not have been allowed, as they abolish or interfere with the domestic institution of the states.
A competing theory, however, suggests that a later amendment conflicting with an already-ratified Corwin Amendment could either explicitly repeal the Corwin Amendment (as the Twenty-first Amendment explicitly repealed the Eighteenth Amendment) or be inferred to have partially or completely repealed any conflicting provisions of an already-adopted Corwin Amendment.
Child Labor Amendment
The Child Labor Amendment is a proposed and still-pending amendment to the United States Constitution that would specifically authorize Congress to regulate "labor of persons under eighteen years of age". The amendment was proposed in 1924 following Supreme Court rulings in 1918 and 1922 that federal laws regulating and taxing goods produced by employees under the ages of 14 and 16 were unconstitutional.
The majority of the state governments ratified the amendment by the mid-1930s. However, it has not been ratified by the required three-fourths of the states according to Article V of the Constitution. None of the states have ratified it since 1937. There was not much interest in the amendment after the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which implemented federal regulation of child labor with the Supreme Court's approval in 1941.
Because Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the amendment is still technically pending before the states. Currently, ratification by an additional ten states would be necessary for this amendment to become law.
With the Keating–Owen Act of 1916, Congress had attempted to control interstate commerce involving goods produced by employees under the ages of 14 or 16, depending on the type of work. The Supreme Court found this law unconstitutional in "Hammer v. Dagenhart" (1918). Later that year, Congress attempted to levy a tax on businesses with employees under the ages of 14 or 16 (again depending on the type of work), which was struck down by the Supreme Court in "Bailey v. Drexel Furniture". It became apparent that a constitutional amendment would be necessary for such legislation to overcome the Court's objections.
The amendment was offered by Ohio Republican Congressman Israel Moore Foster on April 26, 1924, during the 68th Congress, in the form of House Joint Resolution No. 184. The text of the proposed amendment reads:
Having been approved by Congress, the proposed amendment was sent to the state legislatures for ratification. It was ratified by the following states:
The following fifteen state legislatures rejected the Child Labor Amendment and did not ratify it: Connecticut (1925), Delaware (1925), Florida (1925), Georgia (1924), Louisiana (1924), Maryland (1927), Massachusetts (1925), Missouri (1925), North Carolina (1924), South Carolina (1925), South Dakota (1925, 1933 and 1937), Tennessee (1925), Texas (1925), Vermont (1925), and Virginia (1926). Although the act, on the part of state legislatures, of "rejecting" a proposed constitutional amendment has no legal recognition, such action does have political implications.
Of the 48 states in the Union in 1924, five have taken no action of record on the amendment: Alabama, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York and Rhode Island. Neither have Alaska or Hawaii, which became states in 1959. Because there are now 50 states in the Union, it cannot become law unless it is ratified by 38 states (an additional 10), although when it was submitted to the states 36 ratifications were enough.
If ever ratified by the required number of U.S. state legislatures, the Child Labor Amendment would give the Congress of the United States jurisdiction concurrent with that of the states to legislate on the subject of child labor. In this case, child labor laws would no longer only fall under the jurisdiction of the states under the 10th Amendment. The states would have to yield to federal law where the two conflict—which is normal procedure anyway. After several state legislatures initially objected to the proposal during the 1920s, a number of them re-examined their position during the 1930s and decided to ratify. Those delayed actions resulted in much controversy. They also resulted in the 1939 decision of the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case of "Coleman v. Miller". In this case it was determined that the Child Labor Amendment remains pending business before the state legislatures because the 68th Congress did not specify a deadline within which the state legislatures must act upon the Child Labor Amendment. The "Coleman v. Miller" ruling formed the basis of the unusual and belated ratification of the 27th Amendment which was proposed by Congress in 1789 and ratified more than two centuries later in 1992 by the legislatures of at least three-fourths of the 50 states.
The common legal opinion of federal child labor regulation reversed in the 1930s. Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 regulating the employment of those under 16 or 18 years of age. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of that law in "United States v. Darby Lumber Co." (1941), which overturned "Hammer v. Dagenhart" (one of the key decisions that had motivated those in favor of the Child Labor Amendment). After this shift, the amendment has been described as "moot" and effectively part of the Constitution; the movement for it had concluded.
National Central Library (Florence)
District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment
The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would have given the District of Columbia full representation in the United States Congress, full representation in the Electoral college system, and full participation in the process by which the Constitution is amended. It was proposed by Congress on August 22, 1978. It was ratified by only 16 states by the time of its expiration on August 22, 1985. It was 22 ratifications short of the needed 38 in order for the proposed amendment to have been adopted.
Representative Don Edwards of California proposed House Joint Resolution 554 in the 95th Congress. The United States House of Representatives passed it on March 2, 1978, by a 289–127 vote, with 18 not voting. The United States Senate passed it on August 22, 1978, by a 67–32 vote, with 1 not voting. With that, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was submitted to the state legislatures for ratification. The Congress included in the text of the proposed amendment that included the requirement that ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states be completed within seven years following its passage by the Congress (i.e., August 22, 1985) in order for the proposed amendment to become part of the Constitution. By placing the ratification deadline in the text of the proposed amendment, the deadline could not be extended, as had been done regarding the Equal Rights Amendment.
Ratification by the legislatures of at least 38 of the 50 states by August 22, 1985 was necessary for the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment to become a part of the Constitution. During the seven-year period specified by Congress it was ratified by only 16 states and so failed to be adopted. The amendment was ratified by the following states:
Had it been adopted, this proposed amendment would have given Washington, D.C. full representation in both houses of the Congress. Also, this proposed amendment would have repealed the Twenty-third Amendment. The Twenty-third Amendment does not allow Washington, D.C. to have more electoral votes "than the least populous State," nor does it grant Washington, D.C. any role in the election of a President by the House of Representatives (or that of the Vice President by the Senate). In contrast, this proposed amendment would have provided Washington, D.C. full participation in the Electoral College. Finally, the proposed amendment would have also allowed the Council of the District of Columbia, the Congress, or the people of Washington D.C. (depending on how this proposed amendment would have been interpreted) to decide whether to ratify any proposed amendment to the Constitution, or to apply to the Congress for a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, just as a state's legislature can according to the Constitutional amendment process. The amendment would neither have made Washington, D.C. a state, nor affected Congress's authority over it.
Belaid Abdessalam
Belaid Abdessalam () (20 July 1928 – 27 June 2020) was an Algerian politician. He served as Prime Minister of Algeria. He served as minister from 8 July 1992 until he resigned in 21 August 1993.
Abdessalam was born in Dehemcha, near Sétif, Algeria on 20 July 1928. He died on 27 June 2020, aged 91.
Marcy Kaptur
Marcia Carolyn "Marcy" Kaptur (born June 17, 1946) is an American politician. He is the U.S. Representative representing Ohio. She has served since 1983. She is a member of the Democratic Party.
Kaptur endorsed Bernie Sanders for Democratic nomination in 2016.
Federalism in the United States
Federalism in the United States is the relationship between the state governments and the federal government. This relationship is set out in the United States Constitution. The Constitution says which powers the federal government has, and which powers belong to the states. The goal of federalism is to create a balance of power, so neither the states or the federal government can get too powerful.
When America was a colony of the British Empire, it was ruled by the government of King George III. Many American colonists thought this government was corrupt and did not care about the colonists' rights.
The Founding Fathers of the United States started to believe in an idea they called republicanism. This idea said that the people in a country should be able to choose their government. It said that the government's job was to protect people's natural rights, and if the government did not do this, the people had the right to overthrow it. By 1775, these ideas were common in colonial America.
In the 1760s and 1770s, the British government began passing laws that forced the colonists to pay taxes on items like printed materials and things that were made outside the colonies. To many Americans, these were examples of corruption and unfairness in the government. The government was making them pay taxes, but the colonists had no say in what tax laws were passed, or even what their money was spent on.
In 1775, the American Revolutionary War began. The next year, the colonies passed the United States Declaration of Independence, making them the new country of the United States. By 1783, thanks to help from France, Spain, and some Native American tribes, the United States won the war and its independence from the British Empire.
However, British rule had made most Americans distrust federal governments. Many Americans did not like the thought that people far away from them could make rules about their lives, like the British government had. They saw government as the biggest threat to their freedom. Because of this, the United States' first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, gave most of the power to the states. The Articles created a federal government, but gave it very little power. For example, the Articles allowed the Continental Congress to sign treaties and declare war, but it could not raise taxes to pay for an army. Also, all major decisions required all of the state governments to agree. This made it very difficult for the federal government to get anything done.
The Founding Fathers and regular Americans began to see that the Confederation government was not working well. Some of the Founding Fathers began to suggest federalism as a solution to the problems with the Articles of Confederation.
Many more Americans began to support federalism after Shays' Rebellion of 1786-1787. Shays' Rebellion started out as a protest by poor farmers in western Massachusetts, and ended up as an armed rebellion. Neither the federal government or the state government had enough soldiers or money to pay for an army that could stop the rebellion. Merchants in Massachusetts had to pay for a private army to stop the rebellion. Also, during the Rebellion, Massachusetts' state government took away people's right to habeas corpus (so they could keep people in jail without a trial) and their right to say bad things about the government. Many Americans began to realize that under the Articles of Confederation, their government was unable to protect them or their rights. This was not the republican government they had fought for.
In 1787, fifty-five delegates met at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. There, they created ideas about a new type of government, called federalism. In this type of government, they decided:
The delegates at the Constitutional Convention wrote a new Constitution. The last part of the Constitution, Article 7, said that nine states would have to ratify (approve) the Constitution for it to go into effect. The Federalist movement started working to get the Constitution ratified.
Some of the Founding Fathers argued strongly for federalism, especially James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. They created the strongest defense of the new Constitution in a book called "The Federalist" Papers. This was a collection of 85 essays supporting federalism. Its goal was to convince people to vote to ratify the Constitution. Although they were published anonymously at the time (with nobody's real names listed), the essays were written by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay. The essays explained the new Constitution and all the protections in it. It answered many of the arguments against federalism, and explained how the Constitution would help protect people's rights. For example, in "Federalist No. 10," James Madison wrote that federalism would help protect the republican values most Americans supported, like the importance of personal freedoms.
People who did not support the new Constitution were called "Anti-Federalists". The Anti-Federalists included Founding Fathers like Patrick Henry and George Mason. They worried that under the new Constitution, the federal government was too strong, and had too much power over the states. They wanted the states to have more power. They also did not like the fact that the Constitution had no bill of rights. Without a bill of rights, they worried that the federal government would take their rights away.
After the Federalists promised to add a bill of rights to the Constitution after it was ratified, and after George Washington said he supported the new Constitution, the states ratified the Constitution.
The new Constitution took effect on March 4, 1789. That same year, Congress wrote and proposed twelve amendments to the Constitution. Three-fourths of the states would have to ratify these amendments in order to add them to the Constitution. The states ratified ten amendments on December 15, 1791. Together, they became the Bill of Rights. The Tenth Amendment set the guidelines for federalism in the United States. It said that any powers that the Constitution did not give to the federal government belonged to the states. This was meant to calm people's worries that the federal government would try to take more and more power from the states.
Roger Agnelli
Roger Agnelli (May 3, 1959 – March 19, 2016) was a Brazilian entrepreneur, banker, and corporate leader. He ran one of the largest mining companies in the world, Vale SA. In 2013, he was voted by Harvard Business Review as the world’s fourth best-performing chief executive officer behind Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com and Yun Jong-Yong of Samsung.
On March 19, 2016, he was killed, along with his wife, son, and daughter (and three others) when their plane crashed in São Paulo, Brazil. He was aged 56.
Dušan Čkrebić
Dušan Čkrebić (born 7 August 1927) is a Serbian politician. He was the Prime Minister of Serbia. He served as minister from 5 May 1984 through 5 May 1986. He was a member of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia.
Čkrebić was born in Niš, Serbia.
Niš
Niš is the city of southern Serbia. It is the third-largest city in Serbia (after Belgrade and Novi Sad).
It is the administrative center of the Nišava District. According to the 2011 census, the city has population of 183,164. The city center has 187,544 people living there and the administrative area has a population of 260,237.
Sikiru Adesina
United States Reports
United States Reports are the official record of all the cases that the United States Supreme Court has heard.
The United States Reports include many types of information, like:
In the United States, when lawyers want to talk or write about a Supreme Court decision, they cite the "United States Reports". For example, the case "Brown, et al., v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas", is cited this way:
This tells the lawyer that the decision of the Court in the case entitled "Brown v. Board of Education" (as properly abbreviated), decided in 1954, can be found in volume 347 of the United States Reports, starting on page 483.
Joseph Mercieca
Joseph Mercieca (, 11 November 1928 – 21 March 2016) was a Maltese prelate. He served as Archbishop of Malta from 1976 to 2006. He was born in Gozo, Malta. He was known for restoring stability in the Maltese church following his predecessor Mikiel Gonzi's dispute with the Malta Labour Party.
Mercieca died in his home in Żejtun, Malta after a long-illness on 21 March 2016. He was aged 87.
Léonie Geisendorf
Léonie Geisendorf, née Kaplan (8 April 1914 – 18 March 2016), was a Polish-born Swedish architect. She lived and worked in Stockholm, Sweden most of her life.
Geisendorf was born in Warsaw, Poland. She studied architecture at Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich.
In 1938, after her internship, Geisendorf moved to Sweden and was hired by Sven Ivar Lind, KFAI and Paul Hedqvist. In 1950 Geisendorf and her husband, Charles Edouard started their own office in Stockholm. She was known for creating the S:t Göran high school. She turned 100 in April 2014. Geisendorf died in Paris, France at the age of 101.
Salmonidae
The Salmonidae is a family of ray-finned fish. They are the only living family in the order Salmoniformes. It includes salmon, trout, chars, graylings, and the subfamily known as the freshwater whitefish.
The Atlantic salmon and trout in the genus "Salmo" give the family and order their names.
Salmonids look rather primitive for teleost fish. Their pelvic fins are placed far back, with an adipose fin towards the rear of the back. They are slender fish, with rounded scales and forked tails. Their mouths contain a single row of sharp teeth. Although the smallest species is just long as an adult, most are much larger, with the largest reaching .
All salmonids spawn in fresh water. In many cases the fish spend most of their lives at sea, returning to the rivers only to reproduce. This a migratory lifecycle. They are predators, feeding on small crustaceans, aquatic insects, and smaller fish.
Robert J. Healey
Robert John "Bob" Healey, Jr. (May 3, 1957 – March 20, 2016) was an American attorney, businessman, educator, restaurateur, and political activist. He was the founder of Rhode Island's Cool Moose Party. It is the state's third-largest political party from 1994 until 2002. He has been a perennial candidate for statewide office.
Healey has run for Governor or Lieutenant Governor a total of seven times. He ran as an independent candidate in 2010, he won 39% of the vote for Lieutenant Governor. He wanted to abolish the office. As the Moderate Party nominee for Governor in 2014, Healey won 22% of the vote while spending less than $40 on the campaign.
Healey was found dead in his bed at his home in Barrington, Rhode Island on March 20, 2016. He is believed to have died from a suspected heart attack in his sleep. He was aged 58.
Flag of California
Korematsu v. United States
Korematsu v. United States , was a landmark United States Supreme Court. It concerned the constitutionality of military commanders, under an executive order by the President, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II. This was regardless of their citizenship. In February of 1942, President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order No. 9066. This gave military commanders the power to evacuate all persons considered a threat to national security from the West Coast of the United States to relocation centers. Fred Korematsu, a Japanese-American who was born in the United States, refused to comply with the order. He became a fugitive, but was arrested and sentenced to five years probation. He appealed his conviction with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After having his conviction upheld, the case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld his conviction and ruled the exclusion order was constitutional.
The question before the Court was did the President and Congress exceed their long powers. Did they violate the rights of Japanese and American citizens of Japanese descent?
In the majority opinion by Justice Hugo Black, the Court ruled 6-3 that the need to protect the country from
espionage outweighed the rights of Mr. Korematsu. The issue of discrimination against a person due to prejudice against his ancestry is not a factor. Neither is there any question of his loyalty to the United States. The sole issue is his refusal to comply with a legal order during a time of war.
On May 19, 1942, during World War II, Japanese Americans were ordered to be move into relocation camps by Civilian Restrictive Order No. 1, 8 Fed. Reg. 982. This order, and other similar orders, were based upon Executive Order 9066 (February 19, 1942). Fred Korematsu was a Japanese-American man who decided to stay in San Leandro, California and knowingly violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army. Korematsu argued that the Executive Order 9066 was unconstitutional and that it violated the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. He was arrested, tried and convicted. No question was raised as to Korematsu's loyalty to the United States. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, and the Supreme Court granted "certiorari."
The decision in "Korematsu v. United States" has been very controversial. Korematsu's conviction for evading internment was overturned in 1983. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998 from President Bill Clinton.
Lunar mare
Mare (; singular: mare ) is the name for a great plain on the moon. Several such maria exist. They were formed by ancient volcanic eruptions. The plural form of mare is maria. The Latin word maria means seas. Because of their high amount of iron, they reflects less light than the highlands of moon. So, they appear dark to the naked eye. They are called sea because ancient astronomers looked at the Moon and thought they saw seas and oceans on the Moon. The maria cover about 16% of the surface of the Moon and most of them are in the side of the moon which is visible from Earth.
A lunar mare, Mare Tranquillitatis was the landing site for the first manned landing on the Moon on July 20, 1969, at 20:18 UTC. Apollo 11 landed at .
Aérospatiale SN-601 Corvette
The Aérospatiale SN-601 Corvette is a French twin-turbojet aircraft. It was the only one business jet built by Aérospatiale. It can carry two pilots and between 6 and 14 passengers.
Embraer Emb-202 Ipanema
The Embraer Emb-202 Ipanema is Brazilian civilian aircraft. It's used for crop dusting.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, , was a United States Supreme Court case. It had to do with the right to die. Nancy Cruzan was a woman who was in a persistent vegetative state. Her family wanted to stop life support treatments so she could die. Hospital workers refused to do this without a court order. Eventually, the case made it to the Supreme Court. On June 25, 1990, the Court decided it was legal to require "clear and convincing evidence" that stopping life support is what a person would have wanted.
On January 11, 1983, Nancy Cruzan's car ran off the road. She landed 35 feet away, face-down in a ditch filled with water. When paramedics arrived, her heart had stopped and she was not breathing. The paramedics resuscitated her, but her brain was damaged by not having enough oxygen. The brain damage caused a persistent vegetative state.
Doctors put a feeding tube into her stomach so food and water could be given through the tube. Without the feeding tube, Cruzan would die from starvation or dehydration, because she could not swallow anything.
In 1988, Cruzan's parents asked her doctors to stop feeding her through the feeding tube. They believed Nancy would not have wanted to live in a persistent vegetative state. She had recently told a friend that if she got badly injured or sick, she would not want to live unless she could live "at least halfway normally." Nancy's parents wanted her to be able to die. However, the hospital refused to take out the feeding tube without a court order.
The Cruzans asked a trial court to order the hospital to remove Nancy's feeding tube. The trial court agreed.
The court said that a person has a "fundamental natural right" in the Constitution to have someone make the decision to remove life support "when the person has no more cognitive brain function ... and there is no hope of further recovery." The court said Nancy's conversation with her friend showed that she would not want to live in a persistent vegetative state.
The state of Missouri appealed this decision. The case went to the Supreme Court of Missouri, which reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court of Missouri ruled that no one can refuse treatment for another person, unless:
The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal of the Missouri Supreme Court's decision. This was the first "right to die" case that the United States Supreme Court had ever heard.
The Cruzan case divided the Supreme Court. Five of the Supreme Court Justices (judges) wrote their own opinions about the case. Four disagreed with the decision the Court made. However, the Court ruled, in a 5-4 vote, that the Supreme Court of Missouri made the right decision. They ruled that Missouri did not violate the Constitution when it required 'clear and convincing evidence' that Nancy would have wanted her life support to be ended.
The U.S. Supreme Court did rule that competent people (people who are able to make decisions for themselves) have the right to refuse medical treatment. They said the Constitution gives competent people this right in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
However, it said things are different for people who are incompetent (people who cannot not make decisions for themselves for example, because they are in a persistent vegetative state). If another person wants to refuse treatment for someone who is incompetent, they have to show "clear and convincing proof" that refusing treatment is what the person would want.
After the Supreme Court's decision, the Cruzans went back to the first trial court with new evidence. The court ruled that the Cruzans now had clear and convincing evidence that Nancy would have wanted her life support ended if she was in a persistent vegetative state. On December 14, 1990, Nancy's feeding tube was taken out.
Protesters filed seven different petitions with the court to try to get Nancy's feeding tube put back in, but the court refused. Then, on December 18, nineteen people went into Nancy's hospital room and tried to reattach her feeding tube themselves; they were arrested.
Nancy Cruzan died on December 26, 1990. She had been in a persistent vegetative state for eight years.
At Nancy's funeral, her father told reporters: "I would prefer to have my daughter back and let someone else be this trailblazer." Six years later, he killed himself.
The "Cruzan" case is one of the most important "right to die" cases in United States history. It set precedents that courts would follow in many cases in the future.
The case also made many Americans interested in writing living wills and other advance directives (documents that tell doctors and family members what they want in certain medical situations, if they cannot make decisions for themselves).
Adam Darski
Adam Nergal Darski (sometimes just called Nergal; born Adam Michał Darski; 10 June 1977 in Gdynia, Poland) is a Polish musician and celebrity who is best known for being in the black/death metal band Behemoth. He is the vocalist for Behemoth and plays the guitar, bass, synthesizer and drums.
Darski was born Adam Michał Darski in Gdynia, Poland. He was raised Catholic and began to play the guitar at age eight. He likes to call himself Nergal (which comes from Babylonia mythology and is the god of plague and war). He founded the band Behemoth while he was just a teenager in 1991. Darski also is the main lyricist, composer and manager of the band. For a brief time, he called himself Holocausto, which was inspired by Beherit leader Nuclear Holocausto. He was a member of a band called Wolverine, which showed his skills at clean singing.
He was inspired by Norway's Black Circle, so he formed together with Blasphemous (from the band Veles) and Venom (from Xantotol) and called themselves the Temple of Infernal Fire. Later other bands joined and far-right politics were introduced, and the group renamed the Temple of Fullmoon. Darski didn't want to be involved with politics, so he distanced himself from the group. This led to some members of the group accusing him of betrayal. Some members even sent him death threats. He says that he is now in good terms with the members.
Darski has completed six years of history at the University of Gdańsk. He is qualified to be a museum curator.
In March of 2010, Darski got in legal trouble and was faced with blasphemy charges after he publicly condemned religion and ripped a Bible up on stage in 2007. Darski claimed that he did it to enhance his live performance, and didn't mean to offend anyone. He also said that he believes freedom of speech should come before religion in Poland. Darski faced up to two years in prison for ripping up the Bible, but the charges were dropped on 28 June 2010.
In 2011, he became a judge on season one of The Voice of Poland.
In July 2012, Nergal became the newest spokesman for Demon Energy drinks that would be sold all throughout Poland. Nergal appeared in his full Behemoth attire on the front of four different flavors of the Demon Energy brand next to the brand's slogan of "No Limits, No Laws". Darski reportedly donated all of the money he earned for his placement to one of the world's best bone marrow donor centers.
In October 2012, he got into legal troubles again over the ripped up Bible incident in 2007. The Supreme Court said that Darski could be guilty of the crime of “offending religious feelings” even though he did not mean to. The case was returned to a lower court which found him guilty of “intentionally insulting the Holy Bible” but the case was dismissed because of to the statute of limitations.
Darski dated the famous Polish pop singer, Dorota Rabczewska, from mid-2009 to early 2011. They even engaged during those years, but on 17 March 2011, the media claimed that they had called off the engagement and broken up.
Since 2014, Darski has been the co-owner of a barbershop in Warsaw, Poland. In 2015 he opened a second barber shop in Warsaw and bar in Sopot.
Darski was rushed to the hospital on 8 August 2010 for unknown reasons. All upcoming Behemoth live shows were cancelled. On 24 August 2010, Darski was diagnosed with leukemia. The illness was thought to have advanced far enough to make chemotherapy useless, but these reports have since been proven false. His then-fiancée offered to donate her marrow, but his marrow didn't match. On 8 November 2010, Darski found a genetic bone marrow match, and he then underwent treatment to receive a bone marrow transplant. He was let out of the hospital on 16 January 2011.
Karaite
The words Karaite and Qaraite are very confusing and can be used about a few different things:
1) There are some groups of people (whose ancestors came from Central Asia) who have been called Karaite people and the languages of some of these groups of people have also been called Karaite languages. Their ancestors were a type of Christian from the Church of the East sometimes also called Keraites. Many Karaite people say that the word Karaite means "black" in the Turco-Mongol language of their ancestors. That is a traditional Central Asian way to say they were originally from the Northern Turkic tribes.
2) There are also Qaraite people who are mainly Turkic and related to the Karaite people but the Qaraite people mainly converted to Islam. Most people say their name also means "black" but some of these Qaraite people themselves say their name actually comes from an Arabic word for someone good at reading the Quran.
3) There is also a type of Judaism commonly called Karaite Judaism. More accurately it should be spelled in English with a Q not a K, so it should be Qaraite, but Karaite is a more common spelling. In Judaism the word Karaite comes from a Hebrew word meaning "to call out". This Jewish word has a completely different origin from the name used by the Karaite people and Qaraite people. Both words look the same by accident only in English. People who practice Karaite Judaism are called Karaite Jews. In Judaism the term Karaite Language refers to Hebrew.
4) Some Russian Christians -including some of the western groups of the Karaite people- took many ideas from Karaite Judaism but they did not completely give up on Jesus. They became Russian Sabbatarians. They are also called Russian Karaites and Karaite Sabbatarians but there is a big argument about why they are called Karaite. Is it because of their religion? Or is it because some of them descended from the Karaite people or Qaraite people? It seems impossible to know.Valproate
Valproate or VPA is a drug with the different forms, valproic acid, Sodium Valproate and Valproate semisodium. It is mostly used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder. It is also used to prevent migraines. It is useful to prevent some kinds of seizures. It can be given intravenously or by mouth.
Common side effects of this medication are sleepiness, dry mouth, weakness, vomiting and nausea. Serious side effects can include liver problems, pancreatitis and an increased suicide risk. Valproate is known to cause birth defects and miscarriages in pregnant women who use the medicine, so it is not recommended for women who are pregnant or able to become pregnant to take Valproate.
Too much valproic acid can result in sleepiness, shaking, near unconsciousness, shallow breathing, coma, metabolic acidosis, and death. Normal plasma valproic acid levels are in a range of 20–100 mg/l during managed treatment, but may reach 150–1500 mg/l after serious poisoning.
All the above formulations are Pharmac-subsidised.
In much of Europe, Dépakine and Depakine Chrono (tablets) are equivalent to Epilim and Epilim Chrono above.
Somnolence (also sleepiness or drowsiness) is a strong desire for sleep. It is also sleeping for unusually long periods. It can refer to the usual state before falling asleep. It can be accompanied by lethargy, weakness and difficulty thinking.
Sleepiness can be dangerous when performing tasks that require constant concentration, such as driving a vehicle.
2016 Brussels bombings
On 22 March 2016, three large explosions happened in the Belgian capital Brussels. Two bombs exploded at Brussels Zaventem Airport and one exploded at Maalbeek metro station. According to the Belgian Health Ministry, there have been at least 31 confirmed deaths and over 250 reported injuries. Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has publicly claimed responsibility for the attack. There are three suspects. Two were suicide bombers and Belgian police are currently searching for the third one.
Belgium is part of the war on ISIL in Iraq. About 500 foreign fighters in Syria and Iraq are Belgian. The fighters mostly come from immigrant families.
Belgium has been under attacks in the past. In May 2014, a gunman attacked the Jewish Museum of Belgium, killing four people. In January 2015, Security men stopped a group maybe planned a second "Charlie Hebdo" shooting. The operation resulted in the deaths of two members of the group. In August 2015, a man shot and stabbed people on a train in Brussels, before being stopped by passengers.
The attackers that were part of the November 2015 Paris attacks were based in Molenbeek, and the city of Brussels was closed for five days to search for people. On 18 March 2016, Salah Abdeslam, who possibly was part of the Paris attacks, was caught, and at least one other suspect is still free.
Two explosions took place in the airport's departure hall.
At least 31 people were killed and more than 230 others were harmed. Three Americans, Mormon missionaries, were seriously injured, as well as a member of the U.S. military and his family. The U.S. Embassy in Brussels asked U.S. citizens not to use buses and subways.
Two men used bombs to kill themselves at Brussels Airport. The police is looking for a third man seen with them in CCTV photo from the airport. ISIL said it was behind the attack.
Hours after the attacks, police went into a home in Schaarbeek, a north of Brussels, where they found a nail bomb, chemicals, and an ISIL flag. One man was arrested, but then released.