OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Constitution of the United States of America/Annotated/Introduction/Ratification of Amendments to the Constitution Generally

Online at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.3-1/ALDE_00001236/
The essays that follow discuss the ratification of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America along with the text of the amendments (literal print).
In Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921), the Supreme Court stated that it would take judicial notice of the date on which a state ratified a proposed constitutional amendment. Accordingly the Court consulted the state journals to determine the dates on which each house of the legislature of certain states ratified the Eighteenth Amendment. It, therefore, follows that the date on which the governor approved the ratification, or the date on which the secretary of state of a given state certified the ratification, or the date on which the Secretary of State of the United States received a copy of said certificate, or the date on which he proclaimed that the amendment had been ratified are not controlling. Hence, the ratification date given in the following essays is the date on which the legislature of a given state approved the particular amendment (signature by the speaker or presiding officers of both houses being considered a part of the ratification of the legislature). When that date is not available, the date given is that on which it was approved by the governor or certified by the secretary of state of the particular state. In each case such fact has been noted. Except as otherwise indicated information as to ratification is based on data supplied by the Department of State.
Brackets enclosing an amendment number indicate that the number was not specifically assigned in the resolution proposing the amendment. It will be seen, accordingly, that only the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Sixteenth Amendments were thus technically ratified by number.
# Constitution of the United States of America/Annotated/Introduction/Serial Numbers in the Constitution Annotated

Online at https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.5-5/ALDE_00000025/
Each essay on the Constitution Annotated website is associated with a unique serial number based on the essay’s position in the Constitution Annotated hierarchy.
The serial number begins with a prefix: Intro for essays in the “Introduction to the Constitution Annotated” category, Pre for essays in the “Preamble to the Constitution” category, Art for essays in the “Articles of the Constitution” category, Amdt for essays in the “Amendments to the Constitution” category, and finally “Appx” for essays in the Appendix to the Constitution Annotated category. Additional prefixes that may follow are: S if the essay annotates a specific constitutional section and C if the essay annotates a specific constitutional clause.
These prefixes are followed by serial numbers that indicate the position of the essay relative to other essays or group(s) of essays in the Constitution Annotated hierarchy. For example:
* Intro.3.1 Ratification of Amendments to the Constitution Generally is an essay in the Introduction to the Constitution Annotated (Intro.3.1), is in the third group (Intro.3.1), and is the first essay (Intro.3.1) therein.
* Pre.2 Historical Background on the Preamble is the second essay in the Preamble to the Constitution (Pre.2).
* ArtI.S2.C5.2 Historical Background on Impeachment is an essay annotating Article I (ArtI.S2.C5.2), Section 2 (ArtI.S2.C5.2), Clause 5 (ArtI.S2.C5.2), and is the second essay (ArtI.S2.C5.2) therein.
* Amdt5.9.1 Overview of Takings Clause is an essay annotating the Fifth Amendment (Amdt5.8.1), is in the eighth group (Amdt5.8.1), and is the first essay (Amdt5.8.1) therein.
* Appx.1 Methodologies for the Tables is an essay in the Appendix to the Constitution Annotated (Appx.1) and is the first essay (Appx.1) therein.
When concepts in a particular essay are discussed in another section of the Constitution Annotated, the essay will include cross-references including the relevant essay’s serial number.
# Copper Sun (Cullen)/Timid Lover

Timid Lover
# Copper Sun (Cullen)/The Spark

The Spark
# Copper Sun (Cullen)/Thoughts in a Zoo

Thoughts in a Zoo
# Copper Sun (Cullen)/Threnody for a Brown Girl

Threnody for a Brown Girl
# Copper Sun (Cullen)/The Touch

The Touch
# Copper Sun (Cullen)/To Endymion

To Endymion
# Copper Sun (Cullen)/To One Who Was Cruel

To One Who Was Cruel
# Copper Sun (Cullen)/The Wind Bloweth Where It Listeth

At Cambridge
(With grateful appreciation to Robert S. Hillyer)
The Wind Bloweth Where It Listeth
# Copper Sun (Cullen)/Two Thoughts of Death

Two Thoughts of Death
# Cornhuskers/Bilbea

BILBEA
(From tablet writing, Babylonian excavations of 4th millennium B.C.)
I saw nothing of you anywhere.
Why don't you write?
Send me some kind of a letter.
# Cornhuskers/Band Concert

BAND CONCERT
# Cornhuskers/Blizzard Notes

BLIZZARD NOTES
And the snare drums—I know what they want—they are empty too.
The lullabies of the Southwest get a chance, a mother song.
# Cornhuskers/Adelaide Crapsey

ADELAIDE CRAPSEY
       I read your heart in a book.
       Mother of God, I'm so little a thing,
       Let me sing longer,
       Only a little longer.
# Cornhuskers/Alix

ALIX
       Dark, shining-velvet Alix,
       Night-sky Alix in a gray blanket,
# Cornhuskers/A Tall Man

A TALL MAN
The eyes of this man are chlorine of two sobbing oceans,
Foam, salt, green, wind, the changing unknown.
The neck of this man is pith of buffalo prairie, old longing and new beckoning of corn belt or cotton belt,
Either a proud Sequoia trunk of the wilderness
Brother cryptic to lifted cryptic hands,
He is night and abyss, he is white sky of sun, he is the head of the people.
The heart of him the red drops of the people,
Slashed sod under the iron-shining plow,
# Cornhuskers/Always the Mob

ALWAYS THE MOB
                One more arch of stars,
                In the night of our mist,
                In the night of our tears.
# Cornhuskers/Ashurnatsirpal III

ASHURNATSIRPAL III
(From Babylonian tablet, 4,000 years Before Christ)
They expected everything of those walls;
Took away cattle and sheep, took all the loot in sight,
Others—I cut off ears and fingers.
Some—I put out the eyes.
I made a pyramid of heads.
# Cornhuskers/Autumn Movement

AUTUMN MOVEMENT
# Cornhuskers/Baby Face

BABY FACE
Shines and glimmers against gnarled shadows,
All silver to slow twisted shadows
And some of your flimmering silver
For her by the window to-night
# Creator of the starry frame

Also known as Advent Hymn, this translation of the Latin hymn Creator alme siderum (Urban VIII's 1632 revision of the 7th century hymn Conditor alme siderum) was first published in Caswall's Lyra Catholica, 1849.
* "Advent Hymn" in Catholic Hymns (1st ed.), 1853.
* "Advent Hymn" in Catholic Hymns (2nd ed.), 1860.
# Credit CARD Technical Corrections Act of 2009

Note: This is the original legislation as it was initially enacted. Any subsequent amendments hosted on Wikisource may be listed using What Links Here.
An Act To amend the Truth in Lending Act to make a technical correction to an amendment made by the Credit CARD Act of 2009.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

#### Section 1. Short Title.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Credit CARD Technical Corrections Act of 2009´´.

#### Sec. 2. Technical Correction.

    Section 163(a) of the Truth in Lending Act (U.S.C. 1666b(a)), as amended by section 106(b) of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, is amended by inserting “a credit card account under” after “payment on”.
Approved November 6, 2009.

## Notes

* ↑ So in original, probably should be “ (15 U.S.C. 1666b(a)) ”

## Legislative History

* H.R. 3606
   * CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 155 (2009):
   ** Oct. 13, considered and passed House.
   ** Oct. 29, considered and passed Senate.
This work is in the public domain in the U.S. because it is an edict of a government, local or foreign. See § 313.6(C)(2) of the Compendium II: Copyright Office Practices. Such documents include "legislative enactments, judicial decisions, administrative rulings, public ordinances, or similar types of official legal materials" as well as "any translation prepared by a government employee acting within the course of his or her official duties."
These do not include works of the Organization of American States, United Nations, or any of the UN specialized agencies. See Compendium III § 313.6(C)(2) and 17 U.S.C. 104(b)(5).
A non-American governmental edict may still be copyrighted outside the U.S. Similar to {{PD-in-USGov}}, the above U.S. Copyright Office Practice does not prevent U.S. states or localities from holding copyright abroad, depending on foreign copyright laws and regulations.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Civil Code of Japan

* related portals: Japan.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Source: Civil Code Japanese Law Translation by the Ministry of Justice on April 1, 2009.
Civil Code
* Law number: Act No. 89 of 1896
* Last amendment : Act No. 78 of 2006
* Part I
* Part II
* Part III

# Source

* Civil Code Japanese Law Translation by the Ministry of Justice on April 1, 2009.
This work is a translation and has a separate copyright status to the applicable copyright protections of the original content.
# Cohn v. United States Corset Company/Dissent Clifford

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
* Dissenting Opinion Clifford
United States Supreme Court
93 U.S. 366
Cohn v. United States Corset Company
MR. JUSTICE CLIFFORD dissenting.
Inventors are required, before they receive a patent, to deliver a written description of their inventions, and of the process of making, constructing, and using the same, 'in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms,' as to enable persons skilled in the art or science to make, construct, and use the same.
Power to grant letters-patent is vested in the commissioner; but when the power is exercised and the patent has been duly granted, it is of itself prima facie evidence that the patentee is the original and first inventor of that which is therein described and secured to him as his invention.
Proofs are admissible to overcome that presumption; but it is well-settled law that patented inventions cannot be superseded by the mere introduction of a foreign publication of the kind, though of a prior date, unless the description and drawings contain and exhibit a substantial representation of the patented improvement, 'in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms,' as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to which it appertains, to make, construct, and use the invention to the same practical extent as he would be enabled to do if the information was derived from a prior patent. Applicants for a patent are as much required to describe the manner and process of making, constructing, and using the invention, as they are to file in the Patent Office a written description of the alleged improvement; and both are expressly required to be in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms, as to enable any person skilled in the art or science to make, construct, and use the invention.
Nothing deserving the least consideration is exhibited in the record to support the defence that the appellant is not the original and first inventor of the patented improvement, except the Johnson specification, which, in my judgment, does not contain or exhibit a substantial representation of the patented invention in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms, as to enable even an expert, without previous experiments, to make, construct, or practise the invention.
Instead of that, the provisional specification fails altogether to describe the means or mode of operation by which the pockets of varying lengths are to be stopped or closed in the process of weaving. Conclusive support to that proposition is found in the fact that it became necessary for the infringers to experiment for a long time before they could imitate the patented product.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Coin's Financial School

COIN'S
FINANCIAL SCHOOL
BY
W. H. Harvey
PUBLISHED BY COIN PUBLISHING COMPANY, 115 MONROE STREET,
page
Entered according to act of Congress in the year 1894, by the Coin Publishing Company in the office of the Librarian of Congress at Washington, D. C.
page
Illustrated by
W. R. GOODALL,
HENRY MAYER,
AND
page
HOARDING GOLD.
page
All Money
IS A MEDIUM OF EXCHANGE
BUT Primary Money only
IS THE MEASURE OF VALUES.
page
ALL THE GOLD IN THE WORLD IN THE CHICAGO WHEAT PIT.
page
To Those
Trying to locate the seat of
the disease that threatens the
life of the nation, this book is
* Preface
* Chapter 1
* Chapter 2
* Chapter 3
* Chapter 4
* Chapter 5
* Chapter 6
* Appendix
* Index
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1936, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 87 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Cohn v. Malone

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
248 U.S. 450
Cohn v. Malone
Argued: and Submitted Dec. 18, 1918. --- Decided: Jan 13, 1919
Messrs. J. R. Pottle, of Albany, Ga., George S. Jones, of Macon, Ga., James McIntosh, of New York City, and J. W. Kieve and I. J. Hofmayor, both of Albany, Ga., for petitioner.
Messrs. Sam S. Bennet, of Albany, Ga., Alexander Akerman and Charles Akerman, both of Macon, Ga., and John D. Pope and H. A. Peacock, both of Albany, Ga., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. Crouch/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
94 U.S. 514
Davis v. Crouch
Our jurisdiction upon writs of error to State courts is confined to the final judgment or decree in a suit in the highest court in which a decision in the suit can be had. Rev. Stat. 709. This, we think, is not such a judgment. It decides some of the questions involved in the controversy between the parties, but the suit itself has been sent back to the Circuit Court for further proceedings, in conformity to the opinion filed with the record. In short, the judgment is one of reversal only, which, as we have uniformly held, is not final judgment in the suit. McComb v. Commissioners, 91 U.S. 1; Parcels v. Johnson, 20 Wall. 654; Tracy v. Holcomb, 24 How. 427. After the further proceedings which have been ordered in the Circuit Court, the suit may be again taken to the Court of Appeals, and another judgment rendered there.
The object of the parties is to settle and distribute the estate of the testator under the direction of the court. The plaintiffs in error are only interested in securing the payment of their legacy. A statement of the accounts of the executor, upon the principles settled by the Court of Appeals, may produce a fund sufficient to satisfy them. The only question upon which our jurisdiction can be invoked arises out of the decision as to the liability of the executor to account for his investments in Confederate securities. As to this, the present plaintiffs in error, having been non-residents of the Confederate territory during the war, occupy a different position from the other parties; and, until the suit has been finally disposed of in the State courts, the fund ascertained, and the results of a decree ordering distribution known, we cannot tell whether they will be injuriously affected by the errors now complained of. They cannot bring the case here for the benefit of the other parties interested in the estate, except so far as the relief granted to them may indirectly operate to the advantage of the others. If in the end, upon the distribution of the estate under the principles of accounting as now established, they shall not be able to obtain payment of the amount due them, the case may be again taken to the Court of Appeals upon the future decree of the Circuit Court, and from there here, if necessary. Whether their interest in the convertible value of the Confederate currency invested in Confederate bonds for the purchase of State stock is sufficient to justify them in doing so, will be a matter for them to determine, after the final decree shall have been rendered.
In the present condition of the suit, however, we are compelled to dismiss the writ for want of jurisdiction.
Writ dismissed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. Currie

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
266 U.S. 182
Davis v. Currie
Argued: Oct. 10, 1924. --- Decided: Nov 17, 1924
Messrs. Douglas McKay, of Columbia, S.C.., and Thomas W. Davis, of Wilmington, N. C., for petitioner.
Mr. L. D. Jennings, of Sumter, S.C.., for respondent.
Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. Currie/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
266 U.S. 182
Davis v. Currie
Argued: Oct. 10, 1924. --- Decided: Nov 17, 1924
This writ must be dismissed. The petition therefor declared: The sole question presented is: 'Can damages for humiliation and wounded feelings be awarded the respondent against the petitioner, the United States Railroad Administration, under the provisions of the Federal Control Act [Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 3115 3/4 a to 3115 3/4 p], the proclamations of the President, and the general orders of the Director General pursuant thereto?'
At the hearing counsel relied on the following: 'The judgment against the Director General of Railroads for wounded feelings and humiliation arising out of a wanton, willful, and malicious act of his servant is unauthorized, involving, essentially, the infliction of a penalty upon the government.' The argument was that, although the trial court distinctly limited the jury to actual damages, nevertheless, it necessarily follows from the size of the verdict that punitive damages were assessed against and a penalty was imposed upon the United States.
The petition did not state the case presented at the bar.
Dismissed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. Davis

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
305 U.S. 32
Davis v. Davis
Argued: Oct. 14, 1938. --- Decided: Nov 7, 1938
Motion to Recall Mandate Denied April 3, 1939.
See 59 S.Ct. 773, 83 L.Ed. --.
Mr. Joseph T. Sherier, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
[Argument of Counsel from page 33 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Crandal Mackey, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 34 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. Corona Coal Company

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
265 U.S. 219
Davis v. Corona Coal Company
Argued: and Submitted May 5, 1924. --- Decided: May 26, 1924
Messrs. Harry McCall and George Denegre, both of New Orleans, La., for petitioner.
Mr. Richard B. Montgomery, of New Orleans, La., for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from page 220 intentionally omitted]
Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Davis v. Department of Labor and Industries of Washington

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
317 U.S. 249
Davis v. Department of Labor and Industries of Washington
Argued: Nov. 18, 1942. --- Decided: Dec 14, 1942
See 317 U.S. 713, 63 S.Ct. 438, 87 L.Ed. --.
Messrs. Alfred J. Schweppe, Maurice R. McMicken, and Otto B. Rupp, all of Seattle, Wash., for petitioner.
Mr. Edward S. Franklin, of Seattle, Wash., for respondent.
Mr Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Daley's Dorg Wattle

This work is in the public domain in Australia because it was created in Australia and the term of copyright has expired. According to Australian Copyright Council - Duration of Copyright, the following works are public domain:
* published non-government works whose author died before January 1, 1955,
* anonymous or pseudonymous works and photographs published before January 1, 1955, and
* government works published more than 50 years ago (before January 1, 1974).
This work is also in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days), and it was first published before 1989 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities (renewal and/or copyright notice) and it was in the public domain in Australia on the URAA date (January 1, 1996). This is the combined effect of Australia having joined the Berne Convention in 1928, and of 17 USC 104A with its critical date of January 1, 1996.
Because the Australian copyright term in 1996 was 50 years, the critical date for copyright in the United States under the URAA is January 1, 1946.
This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Dallas Company v. McKenzie

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
110 U.S. 686
Dallas Company v. McKenzie
John P. Ellis, for plaintiff in error.
Thos. C. Fletcher, Geo. D. Reynolds, and J. B. Henderson, for defendant in error.
WAITE, C. J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Dakota Territory Session Laws

* Search for titles containing or beginning with: "Dakota Territory Session Laws."
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
This is a disambiguation page. It lists works that share the same title. If an article link referred you here, please consider editing it to point directly to the intended page.