AcharyaChanakya/simple-wikipedia huggingface dataset:
After "Furman", all of the states stopped using the death penalty so they could change their capital punishment laws. They wanted these new laws to make sure the death penalty would not be given in an arbitrary or discriminatory way. By early 1975, thirty states had passed new death penalty laws that they thought would satisfy the Supreme Court and let them use the death penalty in a constitutional way.
"Gregg" started out as five separate cases in five different states: "Gregg v. Georgia", "Proffitt v. Florida", "Jurek v. Texas", "Woodson v. North Carolina", and "Roberts v. Louisiana".
After the "Furman" decision, the states of Georgia, Florida, Texas, North Carolina, and Louisiana changed their death penalty laws to obey the Supreme Court's decision in "Furman". After this, the five defendants in these cases Troy Leon Gregg, Charles William Proffitt, Jerry Jurek, James Tyrone Woodson, and Stanislaus Roberts were each convicted of murder. Each was sentenced to death. Each defendant appealed to their state's Supreme Court. Each of the five state Supreme Courts said the death sentences were fair and legal.
Next, the defendants asked the United States Supreme Court to decide whether their death sentences were constitutional. In "Furman", the Court had ruled that the death penalty was "sometimes" cruel and unusual punishment. These five defendants were asking the Supreme Court to rule that the death penalty was "always" cruel and unusual punishment. If the Court ruled this way, it would make the death penalty unconstitutional in the entire United States. The death penalty would be illegal in every state in the country.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases, but they combined them all into one case. This one case is usually called "Gregg v. Georgia", because the entire name of the case is very long.
The United States Supreme Court was trying to answer a few legal questions in "Gregg". The most important were:
The Court ruled 7-2 that the death penalty is not always cruel and unusual punishment. (The two Justices who disagreed, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, had already said in "Furman" that they thought capital punishment was "always" cruel and unusual.)
The Court set out two rules that state laws have to include to make sure their death penalty sentencing laws are constitutional:
Specifically, the Court said that Georgia's, Florida's, and Texas's new death penalty laws met these requirements. This meant these laws were constitutional, and these states could go back to executing people.
The Court ruled that North Carolina's and Louisiana's new laws did not meet the requirements, because they made the death penalty mandatory (required in all cases) for some crimes. This meant these laws were still unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court's ruling in "Gregg" was important for several reasons:
A proof-of-work (POW) system is a system where finding a solution to a given problem is difficult and/or expensive, but verifying the solution to the given problem is simple and/or cheap.
Find the positive integer whose sha256 hash value is:
To find this integer, you must compute the sha256 value for every integer starting with zero until you find the right value. While each individual computation is trivial and cheap, cumulatively the work adds up and becomes time consuming and expensive. To successfully reproduce the given hash value, you must do some work.
Find some data whose sha256 hash value begins with at least 8 leading zeros:
In the first example, the problem required the original value as proof that work had been done. In this example, it does not matter what the data is, only that it produces a hash value with the given constraints. Finding this data is difficult, but once found, it is trivial to verify by running it through sha256.
University of Barisal
Ineffective assistance of counsel (United States)
Ineffective assistance of counsel means that a lawyer (counsel) did not help their client defend themselves during a trial. "Ineffective assistance of counsel" is a complaint that a person can make if they have been convicted of a crime, and they want to argue that their trial was not fair.
"Ineffective" means that something, or someone, did not work the way it should have. "Assistance" means "help." "Counsel" is a legal word for "lawyer." So by making a complaint of "ineffective assistance of counsel," a person is saying "my defense attorney did not help me enough."
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says: "the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the assistance of counsel for his defence." When a person says they had ineffectiveness of counsel, they are saying their lawyer was so bad that they did not receive this right to a lawyer.
Unfortunately, the Sixth Amendment only said that people had the right to have a lawyer. It did not give any more details about this right. Here are some examples of things it did not say:
The Supreme Court tried to answer some of these questions in a case called "Strickland v. Washington", . In this case, the court ruled that there were two things a defendant would have to show in order to prove that they had ineffective assistance of counsel. This became known as the "Strickland test":
This second part was important. After "Stirickland", the states' appeals courts ruled that convictions were legal even in cases where the defense attorney:
There was an important reason why these cases did not qualify as "ineffective assistance of counsel." The prisoners who brought the cases to the Supreme Court could not prove the second piece of the "Strickland test." They could not prove that if they had different lawyers, their trials would have turned out differently. There was so much evidence against them, and they were so obviously guilty, that the appeals courts decided having a different lawyer would not have made any difference. No lawyer could have saved these cases, the state courts basically said.
The issue of ineffective counsel is important in the debate over capital punishment in the United States. The University of Michigan Law School keeps a list of people who have been exonerated from death row. The list counts "exonerations" as cases where "a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared based on new evidence of innocence."
According to the list, between 1989 and 2015, 116 people have been exonerated from death row. Over one out of every four of these people were exonerated because an appeals court ruled they had received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Barisal Sadar Upazila
Barisal Sadar () is an Upazila of Barisal District in the Division of Barisal, Bangladesh.
The population of Barisal Sadar Upazila is 527,017. Males are 52.72% of the population, and females 47.28%. The population density is about 1625 people per km².
Peristalsis
Peristalsis is a process of contraction and relaxation of the muscle around parts of the alimentary canal.
The most familiar example of this is in the oesophagus. In the oesophagus, peristalsis pushes the ball of food down the oesophagus. The smooth muscle of the oesophagus contracts and relaxes in sequence, and this pushes the ball of food down the oesophagus.
The muscle is worked by a nervous mechanism called the "migrating motor complex". This works in one direction only, and also works in the lower regions of the digestive system.
Institut supérieur de l'aéronautique et de l'espace
Institut supérieur de l'aéronautique et de l'espace (ISAE-SUPAERO) is a renowned graduate engineering school in France. It is in a campus of the University of Toulouse (South France).
Academic activities and industrial applied research are performed mainly in French and English languages. Students from a lot of nationalities participate to the different curricula at SUPAERO.
Most of the 1600 graduate engineer students at ISAE-SUPAERO live in dedicated residential buildings nearby research labs and metro public transports.
The school results from the "École nationale supérieure de l'aéronautique et de l'espace" (created In 1909) and the "École nationale supérieure d'ingénieurs de construction aéronautique" (created in 1946).
Admission to the "Supaero engineering Programme" implemented at ISAE is possible after two/three year scientific undergraduate studies and requires success to either:
The "Supaero Programme" typically lasts three years and results in a Master degree, augmented with international experience. Thus undergraduate studies + the Supaero Programme account for more than a cumulated 300 ECTS credits as applicable in the European education system.
However, graduate students enrolled in the TIME double degree procedure are required to spend two-years at ISAE and spend two years in the TIME-partner institute for a total of four years resulting in a double master degree.
Research activities at ISAE relate to the following topics:
Libertarian Party (Spain)
The Libertarian Party (Spanish: Partido Libertario or P-LIB) is a Spanish political party. It was formed in 2009. It is currently led by Juan Pina.
The party believes in classical liberalism and that government should stay out of economics. They also believe in objectivism. They believethat governments should only be able to protect people from violence, theft, fraud, and other actions that go against people's rights. The party is open to some more libertarian and anarcho-capitalism ideas. There are two groups within the party; the Objectivist and Radicals. Most party members aren't involved with these groups.
The party took part in the 2011 Spanish general election in Madrid and Zaragoza. They received about 7,000 votes to the Senate and over 2,000 (0.01 %) to the Congress.
European Canadians
European Canadians (sometimes called Euro-Canadians) are Canadians with ancestry from Europe. As of 2011, there were 25,186,890 European Canadians in Canada.
The French were the first Europeans to live in Canada permanently. Hélène Desportes was the first "white" person born in New France. She was born in 1620.
In 2006, most European Canadians had English ancestry (21.03%). Other common ancestries were French (15.82%), Scottish (15.11%), Irish (13.94%), German (10.18%) then Italian (4.63%). However, 32.22% of people said they had Canadian ancestry. Because of this, some people think the numbers for the English and French ancestry are too low.
Most European Canadians are Christian. A small number of them are Jews, Deists, Agnostics, Atheists, Muslims, Bahá'ís, Paganists/Wiccas and Unitarian Universalists. Most also speak English and French.
Latin American Canadians
Latin American Canadians are Canadians with ancestry from Latin America. They may also be called "Latino Canadian" and "Latin Canadian". As of 2011, there were 381,280 Latin American Canadians in Canada.
Most Latin American Canadians speak two or more languages. They usually speak Spanish and/or Portuguese along with English and French.
A lot of Latin American Canadians came to Canada in the late 20th century. They came to Canada because it has better economic opportunities than their native country. Some Cubans came to Canada to escape Fidel Castro's regime. Other Latino Americans left their country because Canada offered freedom from war.
In 2011, most Latin American Canadians had Mexican ancestry (18.6%). Other common ancestries were Colombian (16.2%), Salvadoran (11.7%), Peruvian (7.1%), Chilean (6.7%) and Brazilian (6.1%).
Almost all Latino American Canadians are Christian.
Roper v. Simmons
Roper v. Simmons, , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court. The Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute a person for crimes they committed before they were 18 years old. This decision affected 25 states in the country, which still allowed executions of children under age 18. Also, the decision reversed the Court's past ruling in "Stanford v. Kentucky", , which had said that executions of children ages 1618 were sometimes legal.
The first known "juvenile" (child under the age of 18) to be executed in America was Thomas Granger. In 1642, he was executed at age 16 or 17 for sodomy. Between 1642 and 2016, 364 juveniles have been executed in the United States.
Until 1988, the Supreme Court had put no limits on how old a person had to be in order to be executed. This meant each state could set their own rules. In some states, the minimum age for execution was as low as 14. For example, in 1944, South Carolina executed a 14-year-old boy named George Stinney in the electric chair. Stinney was the youngest person in the United States to be convicted and executed during the 20th century.
Juvenile executions were much more common earlier on. However, between 1976 and 2005, twenty-two juveniles were executed.
The Supreme Court started to set some limits on juvenile executions in the late 1980s. In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled in "Thompson v. Oklahoma" that children under the age of sixteen could not be executed. However, the next year, in "Stanford v. Kentucky", the Court ruled that juveniles ages 16 and 17 could be given the death penalty.
The "Simmons" case started in Missouri in 1993. Christopher Simmons, who was 17, made a plan to murder a woman named Shirley Crook. He brought two younger friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, into the plan. They planned to break into Crook's house, steal things, tie Crook up, and throw her off a bridge. Tessmer dropped out of the plan at the last minute. However, Simmons and Benjamin broke into Crook's home, drove her to a state park, and threw her off a bridge.
Simmons and Benjamin were caught and put on trial. There was a lot of evidence of what they had done. Simmons had admitted to the murder. Tessmer testifid against Simmons and said Simmons had planned the crime ahead of time. (In American law, thinking about killing someone ahead of time makes the killing first degree murder.) The jury found Simmons guilty, and recommended a death sentence. The judge agreed.
Simmons appealed his conviction. Each appeals court which heard his case agreed with the original jury's death sentence. Then the United States Supreme Court decided in "Atkins v. Virginia" 536 U.S. 304 (2002) that executing people with intellectual disabilities was unconstitutional. Encouraged, Simmons filed a new petition to the Supreme Court of Missouri. That court decided that "a national consensus has developed against the execution of juvenile offenders," meaning that across the country, most Americans disagreed with executing juveniles. The court ruled that executing juveniles is cruel and unusual punishment, which violates the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They changed Simmons' sentence from death to life in prison.
The State of Missouri appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court. The Court agreed to hear the case.
This case divided the Supreme Court. In a vote of 5-4, they ruled that it is cruel and unusual punishment to execute people who were juveniles when they committed their crimes. This means that executing these people is against the Eighth Amendment, and is unconstitutional. This decision made it illegal for any state in the country to execute someone who was under the age of 18 when they committed their crime.
The Court had a few reasons for making this decision. First, they argued that juveniles are not as mature as adults. They wrote that there is a lot of research showing that:
The Court pointed out that most states realized these things, which is why they kept teenagers from voting, being on juries, or getting married without their parents' approval.
The Court also agreed with the Missouri Supreme Court that there was a "national consensus" against executing people who committed their crimes as juveniles.
Finally, the Court looked at what other countries in the world did. They wrote that:
When the Supreme Court decided "Roper", there were 72 other prisoners in the United States who were on death row because of crimes they committed as juveniles:
These people were not set free. However, their death sentences were automatically cancelled and they were sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison instead.
Peremptory challenge
A peremptory challenge is a right during voir dire (the process of selecting a jury) to reject a certain number of potential jurors without having to give a reason. The word "peremptory" means without a reason given; allowing no contradiction or refusal. Peremptory challenges may be made by either party to the proceedings. This kind of challenge has been more difficult to use because the Supreme Court of the United States has prohibited peremptory challenges (also called peremptory strikes) based on gender or race. Different jurisdictions allow different numbers of peremptory challenges to each side. Some jurisdictions allow additional peremptory challenges. In United States federal courts each side is allowed three peremptory challenges. Also, if there are more than two parties involved in the proceeding the court may allow additional challenges or restrict the number for all parties.
To insure an impartial jury, during voir dire, prospective jurors are questioned by the lawyers and the court. Either lawyer may challenge a juror for cause. Reasons may include the prospective juror's opinions on issues, personal knowledge of the case, their occupation or any reason to believe the juror may not be able to be fair. Unlike peremptory challenges, challenges for cause may not be limited to a certain number in most jurisdictions. The reason for either type of challenge is that each lawyer is trying to find jurors who are sympathetic to their case.
The peremptory challenge has its roots in Roman law. Both parties would propose up to 100 prospective jurors, then each could strike 50. This left a total of 100 jurors on the jury. In English common law, a prosecutor had an unlimited number of peremptory challenges while the defendant has 35. In 1305, the Parliament of England eliminated all peremptory challenges for the prosecution. In 1988, Parliament eliminated all peremptory challenges for the defense. Peremptory challenges came to the United States with the colonists and Common Law. Peremptory challenges remained much the same until the late 20th century.
The following observation is attributed to Mark Twain:
While the right to use peremptory challenges is not guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, The Supreme Court has held peremptory challenges are "to assure the parties that the jurors before whom they try the case will decide on the basis of the evidence placed before them, and not otherwise."
Three Supreme Court decisions have shaped the modern peremptory challenge:
Batson v. Kentucky
Batson v. Kentucky, , was a landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges in a criminal case may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race. The Court ruled that this practice violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case gave rise to the term "Batson challenge", an objection to a peremptory challenge. This is based on the standard established by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. Later decisions have resulted in the extension of "Batson" to civil cases. For example, in "Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company", the Court allowed private litigants to use this challenge. The Supreme Court also allowed it in cases are excluded on the basis of gender as in "J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.".
The principle had been established previously by several state courts, including the California Supreme Court in 1978, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 1979 and the Florida Supreme Court in 1984.
James Kirkland Batson was an African American man convicted of burglary and receipt of stolen goods in a Louisville, Kentucky circuit court by a jury composed entirely of white jurors. The key part of his appeal was based on the "voir dire" (jury selection) phase of the trial. During this phase potential jurors are examined by the Court, the prosecution, and the defense, to determine their competence, willingness, and suitability to hear, deliberate and decide a case put to them in order to render a verdict. During "voir dire" the judge can dismiss jurors and both the prosecution and the defense have a limited number of peremptory challenges which they use to excuse any juror for any reason. Each side does this to help their case. Each side also may dismiss jurors for cause (for example, bias).
In "Batson", the judge dismissed several potential jurors for various causes. The defense peremptorily challenged nine potential jurors and the prosecution peremptorily challenged six, including all four black persons. As a result, only white persons were selected. The defense counsel moved to discharge the whole jury on the ground that the prosecutor's removal of the black jurors violated petitioner's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to a jury drawn from a cross section of the community, and under the Fourteenth Amendment to equal protection of the laws. Without expressly ruling on petitioner's request for a Hearing, the trial judge denied the motion, and the jury ultimately convicted the defendant.
The defendant appealed his conviction to the Kentucky Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction. That court cited "Swain v. Alabama", and held that a defendant claiming lack of a fair cross section must demonstrate systematic exclusion of a group of jurors from the panel of prospective jurors. That is, the defendant had to show that not just in his case, but as a process, juries in his community did not represent a cross section of that community. Batson continued his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted "certiorari" to decide whether petitioner was tried "in violation of constitutional provisions guaranteeing the defendant an impartial jury and a jury composed of persons representing a fair cross section of the community."
In a 7–2 decision authored by Justice Lewis Powell, the Supreme Court ruled in Batson's favor. The court overruled "Swain v. Alabama" by lowering the burden of proof that a defendant must meet to make a "prima facie" case of purposeful discrimination. In "Swain", the Court had recognized that a "State's purposeful or deliberate denial to Negroes on account of race of participation as jurors in the administration of justice violates the Equal Protection Clause", but that the defendant had the burden of proving a systematic striking of black jurors throughout the county, that is, that the peremptory challenge system as a whole was being perverted. In "Batson" the court ruled that the defendant could make a "prima facie" case for purposeful racial discrimination in jury selection by relying on the record only in his own case. The Court explained:
The Court also held that:
Justice Marshall, concurring with the majority, called the decision "historic" but added: "The decision today will not end the racial discrimination that peremptories inject into the jury-selection process. That goal can be accomplished only by eliminating peremptory challenges entirely."
In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger argued that the court's decision in "Batson" "sets aside the peremptory challenge, a procedure which has been part of the common law for many centuries and part of our jury system for nearly 200 years". He believed the majority was replacing peremptory challenges with something very similar to challenge for cause, but was unclear in explaining the standard to be applied. "I am at a loss to discern the governing principles here," he wrote. "I join my colleagues in wishing the nation's judges well as they struggle to grasp how to implement today's holding."
Justice Rehnquist wrote that the majority misapplied equal protection doctrine: "In my view, there is simply nothing 'unequal' about the state using its peremptory challenges to strike blacks from the jury in cases involving black defendants, so long as such challenges are also used to exclude whites in cases involving white defendants, Hispanics in cases involving Hispanic defendants, Asians in cases involving Asian defendants, and so on."
Whether the principles of "Batson" applied retroactively to anyone convicted previously by juries whose racial composition was influenced by peremptory challenges not consistent with this opinion was for a time uncertain. In "Allen v. Hardy" (1986), the Court held that it did not apply retroactively to collateral review of final convictions. In "Griffith v. Kentucky" (1987), it decided it would apply it in cases on direct review.
The term "Batson challenge" describes an objection to opposing counsel's use of a peremptory challenge to exclude a juror from the jury pool based on criteria the courts have found disqualifying, as race was the sole rationale for exclusion in "Batson".
In some cases, parties have appealed a verdict or judgment and asked it be made invalid because one or more peremptory challenges excluded a recognizable group from the jury. Though the "Batson" decision addressed jury selection in criminal trials, in 1991 the Supreme Court later extended the same rule to civil trials in "Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Company". In 1994, in "J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B."., the Court held that peremptory challenges based on sex alone violated the standard established in "Batson" as well.
Polearm
Citizenship in the United States
Citizenship in the United States means being a citizen of the United States. A person who has citizenship is called a citizen. Citizenship does not just mean that a person lives in the United States. United States citizenship gives people many rights, many protections, and also some duties.
There are two ways that people can become citizens of the United States.
The first is called "birthright citizenship." Anybody who is born in the United States automatically becomes a United States citizen.
The second is called "naturalization." This is for people who were born outside the United States. A person becomes a "naturalized citizen" if they apply for citizenship and are approved.
Once a person is a naturalized citizen, they have all of the same rights, protections, and duties as a person who was born in the United States.
Being a United States citizen gives a person many rights. Here is a list of some of these rights.
Citizenship also comes with duties. Here are some of those duties.
Americans are permitted to formally abandon their citizenship, even if they do not possess another citizenship and become stateless as a result. Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, was an American citizen because he was born there. He renounced his American citizenship in 2016. 5411 other Americans renounced their citizenship in the same year.
Gates v. Collier
Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974), was a landmark case decided by a United States federal court called the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case had to do with the rights of prisoners at Mississippi State Penitentiary (usually called "Parchman").
"Gates v. Collier" is a very important case for prisoners' rights. It was the first case to rule that many types of physical punishment against prisoners are cruel and unusual punishment, and are against the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was also the first time that the Supreme Court started supervising how the country's prisons were being run.
The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution says that the state cannot give cruel and unusual punishments to anyone.
Parchman opened in 1903. At the prison, there was a program called the "trusty system." This was a system where some prisoners had more rights and freedoms than others. They also had power over the other inmates.
The Governor of Mississippi, James K. Vardaman, said the prison was run “like an efficient slave plantation.” Trusties had guns and were allowed to shoot at prisoners who stepped out of line. Other punishments were painful and severe. The prison also segregated (separated) black and white prisoners.
For years, there were protests over civil rights abuses at Parchman. Eventually, civil rights lawyer Roy Haber began to collect evidence of the abuse. With Haber as their lawyer, four prisoners filed a lawsuit in federal court, saying that conditions at the prison were cruel and unusual. They said that prison trusties and guards punished and tortured prisoners in ways that were painful and humiliating on purpose.
The prisoners' lawsuit, "Gates v. Collier", 349 F. Supp. 881 (1972), went first to a federal court called the United States District Court N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division. This court ruled strongly in favor of the prisoners. The court found that Parchman's trusties and guards gave many cruel and unusual punishments, including:
The court ruled that the prison had violated the prisoner's rights under the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The court ordered the prison to make many different changes to fix these abuses. It also ordered the prison to end the trusty system.
The state of Mississippi appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the Fifth Circuit also agreed with the lower court's earlier decision. Federal Judge William C. Keady wrote that Parchman Farm had violated "modern standards of decency. He ordered an immediate end to all unconstitutional conditions and practices.
The Fifth Circuit Court ruled that Parchman was using cruel and unusual punishments on its prisoners. It was violating their rights to be protected by the laws which apply to prisoners, too.
After the court decision, Parchman had to end its trusty system. It also stopped segregating its prisoners.
After the court decision, other states that used the trusty system had to stop using it too. These states included Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas.
This decision also set some important precedents. One is that even prisoners have the right to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment. Americans' constitutional rights do not all stop when a person goes to prison. It also limited the type of punishments that prisons can use.
Sher e Bangla Medical College
Sher-e-Bangla Medical College (SBMC), is a government medical school in Bangladesh, established in 1968. It is located in Barisal.
Construction began on the college on 6 November 1964, at that time it was known as Barisal Medical College.
There are three hostels for male students and two for the female students. Both male and female intern doctors have each one hostel for them.
The diaeresis (plural: diaereses) is also spelled diæresis or dieresis. It is a diacritical mark: two dots ( ¨ ) put over a letter, usually a vowel.
It is most often used in this way:
2015–16 La Liga - Results of first round
This is the Results of the first round of 2015–16 La Liga.
Château de Saint Cloud
The Château de Saint Cloud was a château in Paris, France. It was sometimes called the Palace of Saint Cloud. It was burned down during the Franco-Prussian War in 1870. It was once a private property of Queen Marie Antoinette. Since December 2006, there has been a movement to rebuild the Château de Saint-Cloud.
The building was originally called the ""he Hôtel d'Aulnay"". In the 16h century, it was expanded into a château by the Gondi banking family. The estate was in the hands of the Gondi family till 1658. At that time it was bought by Philippe of France, Duke of Orléans, the only brother of Louis XIV of France. The estate remained the personal property of the descendants of Philippe of France. It was a country residence, as opposed to the Palais Royal in the center of Paris.
After negotiating for a long time, the Château de Saint-Cloud was bought in 1785 by Louis XVI. He bought it for Marie Antoinette. She thought that the air of Saint-Cloud would be good for her children. Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans, who had not visited the château since his morganatic marriage to his mistress Madame de Montesson, sold it for 6,000,000 livres. Marie Antoinette started changing Saint-Cloud in 1787-1788. She used her preferred architect Richard Mique. He had also decorated parts of the Palace of Versailles for the queen.
During the Second Empire, Emperor Napoléon III and Empress Eugénie held their imperial court at Saint-Cloud during the spring and the autumn. There was also a reception for Queen Victoria in honour of her 1855 visit to France. In 1859, a model railway was built in the private park. It was built for Napoléon, Prince Imperial, the 3-year-old son of emperor Napoléon III.
Essential oil
An essential oil is a liquid from a plant. Essential oils contain chemical compounds that are useful for their scent. They are used in aromatherapy. Perfumes are made with essential oils.
Around the world, essential oils are being studied in modern clinical trials to test ancient claims of healing. They are being studied for their effectiveness as antibacterial agents, fungicides, insecticides, pain relief, stress reduction, and skin problems.
The name "essential oil" comes from theories in the Middle Ages of a fifth element. People than believed that there were four basic elements that everything was made of: fire, water, air and earth. The elusive "soul" of things was called the quintessential element or the fifth element. Over time, "quintessential" was shortened to "essential". Alchemists said that this element could change iron to gold. Some believed it held the planets in their orbits.
Most essential oils today are steam distilled. This process separates out the aromatic essential oils from the solid plant matter. With steam distillation, it can take thousands of pounds of plant matter to create just one liter of essential oil.
Other methods include expelling and solvent extraction. Expelling is using pressure to squeeze the essential oil out of the plant. This method is generally used for citrus oils. Solvent extraction uses substances such as carbon dioxide to extract the essential oil. This method is used for delicate plants such as rose and jasmine, which can be too fragile to go through the distillation process.
A birch tree is a thinleaved deciduous hardwood tree of the genus Betula. They are in the family Betulaceae, which also includes alders, hazels, and hornbeams.
"Betula" contains 30 to 60 species of which 11 are on the IUCN 2011 Green List of Threatened Species. They are usually rather short-lived pioneer species widespread in the Northern Hemisphere.
Brown v. Board of Education II
Brown v. Board of Education II (often called Brown II) was a Supreme Court case decided in 1955. The year before, the Supreme Court had decided "Brown v. Board of Education", which made racial segregation in schools illegal. However, many all-white schools in the United States had not followed this ruling and still had not integrated (allowed black children into) their schools. In "Brown II", the Court ordered them to integrate their schools "with all deliberate speed."
In "Brown II", the Supreme Court also set out rules about what schools needed to do to de-segregate. Finally, it explained how the United States government would make sure the schools did de-segregate.
After the Supreme Court decided the original "Brown" case, it planned to hear arguments during its next court session about just how school de-segregation was going to happen. Segregation in United States schools had existed for centuries. The Court understood that it would not be easy to get the states to follow its ruling and de-segregate their schools.
Also, in its ruling in "Brown", the Court had not given the states any instructions for "how" to end school segregation. The Court had also not given the states a deadline for "when" they needed to de-segregate their schools. These were all details that the Supreme Court needed to decide in "Brown II".
When it decided the original "Brown" case in 1954, the Supreme Court had combined "Brown" with four other cases. The Court decided all five cases together as one, which it called "Brown v. Board of Education". This meant that in "Brown II", the Court was again deciding about five different cases. These were:
There were a few legal questions that the Supreme Court had to decide in "Brown II". For example:
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), whose lawyers had won "Brown", argued that school de-segregation should begin right away. The states argued back that this would be too difficult and too expensive, and that they needed more time to de-segregate.
In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ordered the states to start trying to obey the "Brown" decision and de-segregate their schools. It ordered the states to start making plans about how they were going to integrate their schools.
However, the Court refused to order the schools to integrate right away, like the NAACP had wanted. It also did not set any clear deadline for when schools needed to be de-segregated. In the Court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that the states should integrate "with all deliberate speed."
To many people, it was not clear exactly what this meant. It also meant that the Court was denying relief to the black students in the "Brown" lawsuits. As constitutional law scholar Steven Emanuel explains:
Instead of ordering the states to de-segregate right away, the Court created a slower plan. It gave federal district courts the power to look after whether schools were de-segregating. Justice Warren wrote: "[These] courts will [make sure] that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start" toward obeying "Brown."
"Brown II" did make it clear that schools in the United States would have to de-segregate. It also set out a process for making sure schools integrated, by giving federal district courts the power to supervise the schools, control how long they could have to de-segregate, and punish them if they refused to integrate.
However, many states, especially in the South, were able to avoid integrating their schools for years because "Brown II" did not set a specific deadline for integration. Justice Warren's ruling that schools needed to de-segregate "with all deliberate speed" was vague and could have many different meanings. States and schools that did not want to integrate chose meanings that gave them excuses not to let black students into their schools.
For example, based on the "Brown II" ruling, a federal district court ruled that Prince Edward County, Virginia, did not have to de-segregate its schools right away. Several years later, in 1959, a federal court of appeals ordered the county to start de-segregating its schools. Prince Edward County responded by refusing to fund (give any money to) the county's schools. With no money, the schools had to close. They stayed closed for five years, from 1959 to 1964.
Prince Edward County helped white students go to white-only private schools. Black students could not go to school at all, unless they moved to a different county.
Finally, in 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled that what Prince Edward County was doing was unconstitutional, and ordered the schools to re-open without segregation.
Joseph Weizenbaum
Benjamin Franklin Tilley
Benjamin Franklin Tilley (March 29, 1848 in Bristol, Rhode Island – March 18, 1907 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) was an admiral in the US Navy who served in the American Civil War and the Spanish-American War. He was also governor of American Samoa.
The Black Hills are a small mountain range from the Great Plains of North America in South Dakota.
Native Americans have a long history in the Black Hills. After conquering the Cheyenne in 1776, the Lakota took over the territory of the Black Hills.
In 1868, the U.S. government signed the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. This exempted the Black Hills from all white settlement forever.
But, when European Americans discovered gold there in 1874, miners swept into the area in a gold rush. The US government reassigned the Lakota, against their wishes, to other reservations in western South Dakota. Unlike most of South Dakota, the Black Hills were settled by European Americans from population centers to the west and south. Miners flocked there from earlier gold boom places in Colorado and Montana.
As the economy shifted from mining and logging, the tourism industry has grown. The Black Hills have two areas: "The Southern Hills" and "The Northern Hills". The Southern Hills is home to Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Wind Cave National Park, Jewel Cave National Monument, Harney Peak (the highest point in the United States east of the Rockies), Custer State Park (the largest state park in South Dakota, and one of the largest in the US), the Crazy Horse Memorial (the largest Mountain sculpture in the world), and the Mammoth Site in Hot Springs, the world’s largest mammoth research facility.
Corn Palace
The Corn Palace is an arena in Mitchell, South Dakota. The designs on the buildings are covered in corn and other grains.
The Corn Palace has concerts, sports events, exhibits and other community events. Each year, the Corn Palace is celebrated with a citywide festival, the Corn Palace Festival. Historically it was held at harvest time in September, but now it happens in August. Other popular annual events include the Corn Palace Stampede Rodeo in July and the Corn Palace Polka Festival in September. It is also where the Dakota Wesleyan University Tigers and the Mitchell High School Kernels basketball teams play their games.
Chaplain–Medic massacre
Knossos
Knossos is a Bronze Age archaeological site on the island of Crete. It is at modern Heraklion. It may be Europe's oldest city.
Many Roman coins found on the site had 'Knosion' or 'Knos' on one side, and an image of a Minotaur or Labyrinth on the reverse. These are symbols from the myth of King Minos, supposed to have reigned at Knossos.
The excavations at Knossos began in 1900 by the English archaeologist Sir Arthur Evans (1851–1941) and his team. They worked there for 35 years. The palace was excavated and partly restored. It was large. The team discovered two ancient scripts, called Linear A and Linear B. From the layering of the palace, Evans developed an idea of the civilization that used it, which he called Minoan. The palace was built over a previous Neolithic town. During the Bronze Age, the town surrounded the hill on which the palace was built.
The palace was abandoned at some unknown time at the end of the late Bronze Age, c. 1380–1100 BC, for reasons which are not known.
Imre Nagy
Imre Nagy (7 June 1896 - 16 June 1958) was a Hungarian communist politician. He was born in Kaposvár. He was chairman on two occasions. He was executed by hanging in Budapest.
Lee Trevino
China National Space Administration
The China National Space Administration (CNSA) is the national space agency of China, and is based in the Haidian District. It is in charge of the national space program and of managing different space-related activities.
Betts v. Brady
Betts v. Brady, , was a landmark case decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1942. The case had to do with "indigent" (poor) people who were on trial for crimes, but did not have enough money to pay for a lawyer. The Court ruled that a person did not need a lawyer to get a fair trial. They also ruled that the states did not have to pay for free lawyers for poor defendants.
In 1963, the Court reversed its decision in "Betts" when it decided "Gideon v. Wainwright", .
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that "In all criminal [trials], the accused shall ... have the assistance of counsel for his defence." ("Counsel" is another word for "lawyer.")
However, in the 1930s, the Supreme Court made a few decisions that decreased the number of United States citizens who had the right to a lawyer.
In 1932, the Court decided a case called "Powell v. Alabama", . They ruled that the states had to assign free lawyers to poor defendants, but "only" if they were being tried for capital crimes. (Capital crimes are crimes that can be punished with the death penalty.)
Then, in 1938, the Supreme Court ruled in "Johnson v. Herbst" that in "federal" courts, any person who was charged with a crime and could not pay for a lawyer had to be assigned a lawyer for free. However, the Court also ruled that the Sixth Amendment applied "only" to federal courts not to state courts.
This meant that if a person was charged with a crime in a "state" court, and he could not afford a lawyer, he would have to defend himself in court.
In 1941, Betts was indicted (formally charged) with robbery by a court in Maryland. Betts could not pay for a lawyer. He asked the court to assign him a free lawyer. The judge refused. He said the court only appointed free lawyers to people charged with rape or murder.
Betts had to defend himself, without the help of a lawyer. He argued that he had been in a different place at the time of the robbery. He called witnesses who said this was true. However, the judge did not believe Betts. He sentenced Betts to eight years in prison.
Betts filed a writ of habeas corpus with a Maryland appeals court. A writ of habeas corpus asks to be set free from unfair imprisonment. Betts argued that his imprisonment was unfair because he had not been given a lawyer. His petition was denied.
Next Betts filed a writ of habeas corpus to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, the most powerful court in Maryland. It also denied his petition.
Finally, Betts filed a request with the Supreme Court of the United States, asking them to hear his case. The Court agreed.
The "Betts" case brought up some important legal issues for the Court to decide.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution says that "In all criminal [trials], the accused shall ... have the assistance of counsel for his defence."
Also, the Fourteenth Amendment says that no state can take away any person's "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws."
The Court had already decided that the right to have a lawyer applied to all people in federal criminal trials; people being tried by the states for rape or murder; and anyone who could pay for a lawyer. Now they needed to decide whether poor people had the right to have lawyers too, even if they could not pay for them.
They also needed to decide these questions:
On June 1, 1942, the Supreme Court voted 63 against Betts. They ruled that his conviction was fair.
The Court ruled that having a lawyer was not a basic right. Usually, a defendant did not need a lawyer to get a fair trial, the Court said.
In their decision, the Court did rule that there were special cases where a court should assign a lawyer. In these special cases, not having a lawyer would make it difficult for a defendant to get a fair trial. In each case, the judge was supposed to talk to the defendant to figure out whether any of these "special circumstances" existed. For example, was the defendant mentally able to defend himself? Did he have enough education? Did he understand what happens during a trial?
For 21 years, "Betts" set a precedent that allowed individual courts and judges to decide whether poor people would be given lawyers or not.
Finally, in 1963, the Supreme Court decided a case called "Gideon v. Wainwright", . In the "Gideon" decision, the Court admitted that it made the wrong decision in "Betts". A lawyer "is" needed for a fair trial.
Magasa, Crete
Magasa, Crete is a settlement on Crete.
A mamba is a fast-moving venomous snakes of the genus "Dendroaspis" (means "tree asp"). It belongs to the Elapidae family.
They are native to Africa. The black mamba is one of the well-known species and is also the most feared. Other members include the eastern green mamba, western green mamba and Jameson's mamba.
Most mambas are arboreal, meaning they live in trees. The only exception is the black mamba, which lives on land. All mamba species hunt during the day. They prey on birds, lizards and small mammals.
There are many stories of mambas chasing humans, but these snakes usually prefer to avoid contact with humans. Humans are actually their main predators, rather than prey.
Because mambas and cobras are in the same family, they share some similarities. Like the cobra, a mamba might display a hood when threatened. However, a mamba's hood is more narrow and is longer. A mamba usually opens its mouth when threatened, so they lean forward unlike the cobra which usually stands erect.
All mambas are very venomous. Their venom is mostly comprised of neurotoxins, which attack the nervous system. The venom can also contain cardiotoxins (which damage the heart muscle) and fasciculins (which cause muscle twitches).
The toxicity of the venom varies. Changes in the toxicity can even be caused by the weather or altitude.