Article Two of the United States Constitution
Title: Article Two of the United States Constitution
Subject: List of clauses of the United States Constitution, WikiProject U.S. Congress/Cleanup listing, Third Amendment to the United States Constitution, United States Constitution, Unitary executive theory
Collection: Articles of the United States Constitution, Executive Branch of the United States Government
Article Two of the United States Constitution creates the executive branch of the government, consisting of the President, the Vice President, and other executive officers and staffers appointed by the President, including the Cabinet. Pursuant to Article Two, the executive power of the federal government is vested in the President.
Section 1: President and Vice President 1
Clause 1: Executive Power 1.1
Clause 2: Method of choosing electors 1.2
Clause 3: Electors 1.3
Clause 4: Election day 1.4
Clause 5: Qualifications for office 1.5
Clause 6: Vacancy and disability 1.6
Clause 7: Salary 1.7
Clause 8: Oath or affirmation 1.8
Section 2: Presidential powers 2
Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons 2.1
Clause 2: Advice and Consent Clause 2.2
Treaties 2.2.1
Appointments 2.2.2
Clause 3: Recess appointments 2.3
Section 3: Presidential responsibilities 3
Clause 1: State of the Union 3.1
Clause 2: Making recommendations to Congress 3.2
Clause 3: Calling Congress into extraordinary session; adjourning Congress 3.3
Clause 4: Receiving foreign representatives 3.4
Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law 3.5
Clause 6: Officers' commissions 3.6
Section 4: Impeachment 4
Section 1: President and Vice President
Clause 1: Executive Power
Obama signing legislation at the Resolute desk
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows[1]
Clause one is a "vesting clause," similar to other clauses in Articles One and Three, but it vests the power to execute the instructions of Congress, which has the exclusive power to make laws; "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
The head of the Executive Branch is the President of the United States. The President and the Vice President are elected every four years.
Clause 2: Method of choosing electors
Under the U.S. Constitution the President and Vice President are chosen by Electors, under a constitutional grant of authority delegated to the legislatures of the several states and the District of Columbia (see Bush v. Gore). The constitution reserves the choice of the precise manner for creating Electors to the will of the state legislatures. It does not define or delimit what process a state legislature may use to create its state college of Electors. In practice, the state legislatures have generally chosen to create Electors through an indirect popular vote, since the 1820s.
In an indirect popular vote, it is the names of the electors who are on the ballot to be elected. Typically, their names are aligned under the name of the candidate for President and Vice President, that they, the Elector, have pledged they will support. It is fully understood by the voters and the Electors themselves that they are the representative "stand-ins" for the individuals to whom they have pledged to cast their electoral college ballots to be President and Vice President. In some states, in past years, this pledge was informal, and Electors could still legally cast their electoral ballot for whomever they chose. More recently, state legislatures (exercising their constitutional authority to do so) have mandated in law that Electors shall cast their electoral college ballot for the Presidential Candidate to whom they are pledged. The constitutionality of such mandates is uncertain.
Each state chooses as many Electors as it has Representatives and Senators representing it in Congress. Under the Twenty-third Amendment, the District of Columbia may choose no more electors than the state with the lowest number of electoral votes. No Senators, Representatives or federal officers may become Electors.
Clause 3: Electors
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse [sic] by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse [sic] the President. But in chusing [sic] the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse [sic] from them by Ballot the Vice President.
(Note: This procedure was changed by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804.)
In modern practice, each state chooses its electors in popular elections. Once chosen, the electors meet in their respective states to cast ballots for the President and Vice President. Originally, each elector cast two votes for President; at least one of the individuals voted for had to be from a state different from the elector's. The individual with the majority of votes became President, and the runner-up became Vice President. In case of a tie, the House of Representatives could choose one of the tied candidates; if no person received a majority, then the House could again choose one of the five with the greatest number of votes. When the House voted, each state delegation cast one vote, and the vote of a majority of states was necessary to choose a President. If second-place candidates were tied, then the Senate broke the tie. A quorum of two-thirds applied in both Houses: at least one member from each of two-thirds of the states in the House of Representatives, and at least two-thirds of the Senators in the Senate. This procedure was followed in 1801 after the electoral vote produced a tie, and nearly resulted in a deadlock in the House.
The Twelfth Amendment introduced a number of important changes to the procedure. Now, Electors do not cast two votes for President; rather, they cast one vote for President and another for Vice President. In case no Presidential candidate receives a majority, the House chooses from the top three (not five, as with Vice Presidential candidates). The Amendment also requires the Senate to choose the Vice President from those with the two highest figures if no Vice Presidential candidate receives a majority of electoral votes (rather than only if there's a tie for second for President). It also stipulates that to be the Vice President, a person must be qualified to be the President.
Clause 4: Election day
Certificate for the vote for Rutherford B. Hayes and William A. Wheeler for the State of Louisiana
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
Congress sets a national Election Day. Currently, Electors are chosen on the Tuesday following the first Monday in November, in the year before the President's term is to expire. The Electors cast their votes on the Monday following the second Wednesday in December of that year. Thereafter, the votes are opened and counted by the Vice President, as President of the Senate, in a joint session of Congress.
Clause 5: Qualifications for office
Beginning of the clause in the 1787 document
Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States:
By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be:
natural born citizens
at least thirty-five years old
inhabitants of the United States for at least fourteen years.
In this 1944 poster, Franklin Roosevelt (left) successfully campaigned for a fourth term. He was the only President who served more than two terms.
Eligibility for holding the office of President and Vice-President were modified by subsequent amendments:
The Twelfth Amendment (1804) requires the Vice-President must meet all of the qualifications of being a President.
The Twenty-second Amendment (1951) prevents a President from being elected more than twice.
Clause 6: Vacancy and disability
1888 illustration of Vice President Tyler receiving the news of President Harrison's death from Chief Clerk of the State Department Fletcher Webster.
The wording of this clause caused much controversy at the time it was first used. When William Henry Harrison died in office, a debate arose over whether the Vice President would become President, or if he would just inherit the powers, thus becoming an Acting President. Harrison's Vice President, John Tyler, believed that he had the right to become President. However, many Senators argued that he only had the right to assume the powers of the presidency long enough to call for a new election. Because the wording of the clause is so vague, it was impossible for either side to prove its point. Tyler ended up taking the Oath of Office and became President, setting a precedent that is followed to this day. Tyler's precedent made it possible for Vice Presidents Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, Chester Arthur, Theodore Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Harry Truman, and Lyndon Johnson to ascend to the presidency (Gerald Ford took office after the passage of the Twenty-fifth Amendment).
John Tyler's precedent established that if the President's office becomes vacant due to death, resignation or disqualification, the Vice President becomes President. The Congress may provide for a line of succession beyond the Vice President. The Presidential Succession Act establishes the order as: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate and then the fifteen Cabinet Secretaries in order of that Department's establishment.
The Twenty-fifth Amendment explicitly states that when the Presidency is vacant, then the Vice President becomes President. This provision applied at the time Gerald Ford succeeded to the Presidency. In case of a Vice Presidential vacancy, the Amendment permits the President to appoint, with the approval of both Houses of Congress, a new Vice President. Furthermore, the Amendment provides that the President, or the Vice President and Cabinet, can declare the President unable to discharge his duties, in which case the Vice President becomes Acting President. If the declaration is done by the Vice President and Cabinet, the Amendment permits the President to take control back, unless the Vice President and Cabinet challenge the President and two-thirds of both Houses vote to sustain the findings of the Vice President and Cabinet. If the declaration is done by the President, he may take control back without risk of being overridden by the Congress.
Clause 7: Salary
The President's salary, currently $400,000 a year, must remain constant throughout the President's term. The President may not receive other compensation from either the federal or any state government.
Clause 8: Oath or affirmation
President Barack Obama being administered the oath of office by Chief Justice John Roberts for the second time, on January 21, 2009.
Before he enters the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
According to the Joint Congressional Committee on Presidential Inaugurations, [2] though this has been disputed. There are no contemporaneous sources for this fact, and no eyewitness sources to Washington's first inaugural mention the phrase at all—including those that transcribed what he said for his oath.
Also, the President-elect's name is typically added after the "I", for example, "I, George Washington, do...." Normally, the Chief Justice of the United States administers the oath. It is sometimes asserted that the oath bestows upon the President the power to do whatever is necessary to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Andrew Jackson, while vetoing an Act for the renewal of the charter of the national bank, implied that the President could refuse to execute statutes that he felt were unconstitutional. In suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, President Abraham Lincoln claimed that he acted according to the oath. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. Finally, Andrew Johnson's counsel referred to the theory during his impeachment trial. Otherwise, few have seriously asserted that the oath augments the President's powers.
The Vice President also has an oath of office, but it is not mandated by the Constitution and is prescribed by statute. Currently, the Vice Presidential oath is the same as that for Members of Congress.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[3]
Section 2: Presidential powers
In the landmark decision Nixon v. General Services Administration Justice William Rehnquist, afterwards the Chief Justice, declared in his dissent the need to "fully describe the preeminent position that the President of the United States occupies with respect to our Republic. Suffice it to say that the President is made the sole repository of the executive powers of the United States, and the powers entrusted to him as well as the duties imposed upon him are awesome indeed."
Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons
President Franklin Roosevelt as Commander in Chief, with his military subordinates during World War II.
Left to right: General Douglas MacArthur, President Franklin Roosevelt, Admiral William D. Leahy, Admiral Chester W. Nimitz.
The Constitution vests the President with Executive Power. That power reaches its zenith when wielded to protect national security.[4] And federal courts in the United States must pay proper deference to the Executive in assessing the threats that face the nation.[5] The President is the military's commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the exclusive right to declare war. Nevertheless, the power of the president to initiate hostilities has been subject to question. According to historian Thomas Woods, "Ever since the Korean War, Article II, Section 2 [...] has been interpreted 'The president has the power to initiate hostilities without consulting Congress' [....]But what the framers actually meant by that clause was that once war has been declared, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to direct the war. Alexander Hamilton spoke in such terms when he said that the president, although lacking the power to declare war, would have “the direction of war when authorized or begun.” The president acting alone was authorized only to repel sudden attacks (hence the decision to withhold from him only the power to “declare” war, not to “make” war, which was thought to be a necessary emergency power in case of foreign attack). [6][7] Since World War II, every major military action has been technically a U.S. military operation or a U.N. "police action", which are deemed legally legitimate by Congress, and various United Nations Resolutions because of decisions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the The Resolution of The Congress Providing Authorization for Use of Force In Iraq.
The President may require the "principal officer" of any executive department to tender his advice in writing. Thus, implicitly, the Constitution creates a Cabinet that includes the principal officers of the various departments.
The President, furthermore, may grant pardon or reprieves, except in cases of impeachment. Originally, as ruled by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wilson (1833), the pardon could be rejected by the convict. In Biddle v. Perovich 274 U.S. 480 (1927), the Supreme Court reversed the doctrine, ruling that "[a] pardon in our days is not a private act of grace from an individual happening to possess power. It is a part of the Constitutional scheme. When granted it is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed."[8]
Clause 2: Advice and Consent Clause
The President exercises the powers in the Advice and Consent Clause with the advice and consent of the Senate.
The President may enter the United States into treaties, but they are not effective until ratified by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.[9] In Article II however, the Constitution is not very explicit about the termination of treaties. The first abrogation of a treaty occurred in 1798, when Congress passed a law terminating a 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France.[10] In the nineteenth century, several Presidents terminated treaties after Congress passed resolutions requesting the same.[11] In 1854, however, President Franklin Pierce terminated a treaty with Denmark with the consent of the Senate alone. A Senate committee ruled that it was correct procedure for the President to terminate treaties after being authorized by the Senate alone, and not the entire Congress. President Pierce's successors, however, returned to the former procedure of obtaining authorization from both Houses. Some Presidents have claimed to themselves the exclusive power of terminating treaties. Abraham Lincoln, for instance, terminated a treaty without prior Congressional authorization, but Congress retroactively approved his decision at a later point. The first unambiguous case of a President terminating a treaty without authorization, granted prior to or after the termination, occurred when Jimmy Carter terminated a treaty with the Republic of China.[12] For the first time, judicial determination was sought, but the effort proved futile: the Supreme Court could not find a majority agreeing on any particular principle, and therefore instructed the trial court to dismiss the case.
The President may also appoint judges, ambassadors, consuls, ministers and other officers with the advice and consent of the Senate. By law, however, Congress may allow the President, heads of executive departments, or the courts to appoint inferior officials.
The Senate has a long-standing practice of permitting motions to reconsider previous decisions. In 1931, the Senate granted advice and consent to the President on the appointment of a member of the Federal Power Commission. The officer in question was sworn in, but the Senate, under the guise of a motion to reconsider, rescinded the advice and consent. In the writ of quo warranto proceedings that followed, the Supreme Court ruled that the Senate was not permitted to rescind advice and consent after the officer had been installed.
After the Senate grants advice and consent, however, the President is under no compulsion to commission the officer. It has not been settled whether the President has the prerogative to withhold a commission after having signed it. This issue played a large part in the famous court case Marbury v. Madison.
At times the President has asserted the power to remove individuals from office. Congress has often explicitly limited the President's power to remove; during the Reconstruction Era, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, purportedly preventing Andrew Johnson from removing, without the advice and consent of the Senate, anyone appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. President Johnson ignored the Act, and was later impeached and acquitted. The constitutionality of the Act was not immediately settled. In Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926), the Supreme Court held that Congress could not limit the President's power to remove an executive officer (the Postmaster General), but in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) it upheld Congress's authority to restrict the President's power to remove officers of the Federal Trade Commission, an "administrative body [that] cannot in any proper sense be characterized as an arm or eye of the executive."
Congress may repeal the legislation that authorizes the appointment of an executive officer. But it "cannot reserve for itself the power of an officer charged with the execution of the laws except by impeachment."[13] Congress has from time to time changed the number of justices in the Supreme Court.
Clause 3: Recess appointments
President John R. Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice looks on.
During recesses of the Senate, the President may appoint officers, but their commissions expire at the conclusion of the Senate's next session.
Section 3: Presidential responsibilities
Clause 1: State of the Union
2011 State of the Union Address given by President Barack Obama
The President must give the Congress information on the "State of the Union" "from time to time." This is called the State of the Union Clause.[14] Originally, Presidents personally delivered annual addresses to Congress. Thomas Jefferson, who felt that the procedure resembled the Speech from the Throne delivered by British monarchs, chose instead to send written messages to Congress for reading by clerks. Jefferson's procedure was followed by future Presidents until Woodrow Wilson reverted to the former procedure of personally addressing Congress, which has continued to this day.[14]
Kesavan and Sidak explain the purpose of the State of the Union clause:
"The State of the Union Clause imposes an executive duty on the President. That duty must be discharged periodically. The President's assessment of the State of the Union must be publicized to Congress, and thus to the nation. The publication of the President's assessment conveys information to Congress- information uniquely gleaned from the President's perspective in his various roles as Commander-in-Chief, chief law enforcer, negotiator with foreign powers, and the like-that shall aid the legislature in public deliberation on matters that may justify the enactment of legislation because of their national importance."[14]
Clause 2: Making recommendations to Congress
The president has the power and duty[14] to recommend, for the consideration of Congress, such measures which the president deems as "necessary and expedient". At [15]'
Kesavan and Sidak explain the purpose of the Recommendation clause:
"The Recommendation Clause also imposes an executive duty on the President. His recommendations respect the equal dignity of Congress and thus embody the anti-royalty sentiment that ignited the American Revolution and subsequently stripped the trappings of monarchy away from the new chief executive. Through his recommendations to Congress, the President speaks collectively for the People as they petition Government for a redress of grievances, and thus his recommendations embody popular sovereignty. The President tailors his recommendations so that their natural implication is the enactment of new legislation, rather than some other action that Congress might undertake. Finally, the President shall have executive discretion to recommend measures of his choosing."[14]
Sidak explained that there is a connection between the Recommendation clause and the Petition Clause of the first amendment: "Through his performance of the duty to recommend measures to Congress, the President functions as the agent of a diffuse electorate who seek the redress of grievances. To muzzle the President, therefore, is to diminish the effectiveness of this right expressly reserved to the people under the first amendment."[15]:2119, note 7 Kesavan and Sidak also cited a Professor Bybee who stated in this context: "The Recommendation Clause empowers the President to represent the people before Congress, by recommending measures for the reform of government, for the general welfare, or for the redress of grievances. The Right of Petition Clause prevents Congress from abridging the right of the people to petition for a redress of grievances."[14]:43
The Recommendation clause imposes a duty, but its performance rests solely with the President. Congress possesses no power to compel the President to recommend, as he alone is the "judge" of what is "necessary and expedient." Unlike the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, which limits Congress's discretion to carrying out only its delegated powers, the phrase "necessary and expedient" implies a wider range of discretion for the President. Because this is a political question, there has been little judicial involvement with the President's actions under the clause as long as Presidents have not tried to extend their legislative powers. In Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the Supreme Court noted that the Recommendations Clause serves as a reminder that the President cannot make law by himself: "The power to recommend legislation, granted to the President, serves only to emphasize that it is his function to recommend and that it is the function of the Congress to legislate."[16] The Court made a similar point in striking down the line-item veto in Clinton v. City of New York (1998).[16] When President William Jefferson Clinton attempted to shield the records of the President's Task Force on Health Care Reform as essential to his functions under the Recommendations Clause, a federal circuit court rejected the argument and noted in Ass'n of American Physicians & Surgeons v. Clinton (1993): "[T]he Recommendation Clause is less an obligation than a right. The President has the undisputed authority to recommend legislation, but he need not exercise that authority with respect to any particular subject or, for that matter, any subject."[16]
Clause 3: Calling Congress into extraordinary session; adjourning Congress
The President may call extraordinary sessions of one or both Houses of Congress. If the two Houses cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the President may adjourn both Houses to such a time as befits the circumstances. The last time this power was exercised was in 1948, when President Harry S Truman called a special session of Congress. That was the twenty-seventh time in American history that a president convened such a session.[17]
Clause 4: Receiving foreign representatives
The President receives all foreign Ambassadors. This clause of the Constitution has been interpreted to imply that the President can be granted broad power over all matters of foreign policy by Congress.[18]
Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law
The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."[19] This clause in the Constitution imposes a duty on the President to take due care while executing laws and is called the Take Care Clause,[20] also known as the Faithful Execution Clause[21] or Faithfully Executed Clause.[22] This clause is meant to ensure that a law is faithfully executed by the President,[20] even if he disagrees with the purpose of that law.[23] By virtue of his executive power, the President may execute the law and control the law execution of others. Under the Take Care Clause, however, the President must exercise his law-execution power to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."[21] Addressing the a tax rebellion, Washington observed, "it is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to [that duty.]"[21]
According to former United States Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Dellinger III, the Supreme Court and the Attorneys General have long interpreted the Take Care Clause to mean that the President has no inherent constitutional authority to suspend the enforcement of the laws, particularly of statutes.[24] The Take Care Clause demands that the President obey the law, the Supreme Court said in Humphrey's Executor v. United States, and repudiates any notion that he may dispense with the law's execution.[25] In Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), the Supreme Court explained how the President executes the law: "The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2."
The President may not prevent a member of the executive branch from performing a ministerial duty lawfully imposed upon him by Congress. (See Marbury v. Madison (1803); and Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes (1838)). Nor may the President take an action not authorized either by the Constitution or by a lawful statute. (See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)). Finally, the President may not refuse to enforce a constitutional law, or "cancel" certain appropriations, for that would amount to an extra-constitutional veto or suspension power.[21]
The President, while having to enforce the law, also possesses wide discretion in deciding how and even when to enforce laws. He also has a range of interpretive discretion in deciding the meaning of laws he must execute. When an appropriation provides discretion, the President can gauge when and how appropriated moneys can be spent most efficiently.
Some Presidents have claimed the authority under this clause to impound money appropriated by Congress. President Jefferson, for example, delayed the expenditure of money appropriated for the purchase of gunboats for over a year. President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successors sometimes refused outright to expend appropriated money.[21] The Supreme Court, however, has held that impoundments without Congressional authorization are unconstitutional.[26]
It has been asserted that the President's responsibility in the "faithful" execution of the laws entitles him to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Article One provides that the privilege may not be suspended save during times of rebellion or invasion, but it does not specify who may suspend the privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress may suspend the privilege if it deems it necessary. During the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln suspended the privilege, but, owing to the vehement opposition he faced, obtained congressional authorization for the same. Since then, the privilege of the writ has only been suspended upon the express authorization of Congress.
In Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1867), the Supreme Court ruled that the judiciary may not restrain the President in the execution of laws. In that case the Supreme Court refused to entertain a request for an injunction preventing President Andrew Johnson from executing the Reconstruction Acts, which were claimed to be unconstitutional. The Court found that "[t]he Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance."[27] Thus, the courts cannot bar the passage of a law by Congress, though it may strike down such a law as unconstitutional. A similar construction applies to the executive branch.
Clause 6: Officers' commissions
The President commissions "all the Officers of the United States." These include officers in both military and foreign service. (Under Article I, Section 8, the States have authority for "the Appointment of the Officers . . . of the [State] Militia . . ..")
The presidential authority to commission officers had a large impact on the 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, where outgoing Federalist President John Adams feverishly signed many commissions to the judiciary on his final day in office, hoping to, as incoming Democratic-Republican President Thomas Jefferson put it, "[retire] into the judiciary as a stronghold." However, in his haste, Adams' Secretary of State neglected to have all the commissions delivered. Incoming President Jefferson was enraged with Adams, and ordered his Secretary of State, James Madison, to refrain from delivering the remaining commissions. William Marbury took the matter to the Supreme Court, where the famous Marbury was decided.
Section 4: Impeachment
Depiction of the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson, in 1868, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase presiding.
The Constitution also allows for involuntary removal from office. The President, Vice-President, Cabinet Secretaries, and other executive officers, as well as judges, may be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried in the Senate.
Any official convicted by impeachment is immediately removed from office. The Senate may also choose to bar the removed official from holding any federal office in the future.[28] No other punishments may be inflicted pursuant to the impeachment proceeding, but the convicted party remains liable to trial and punishment in the courts for civil and criminal charges.[29]
^ The U.S. Constitution With Declaration of Independence, US Government Printing Office
^ "Joint Congressional Committee on Presidential Inaugurations". Retrieved November 10, 2006.
^ 5 U.S.C. § 3331
^ Cf: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579,637 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring) ("When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization from Congress," his actions are "supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion ... rest[s] heavily upon any who might attack it.").
^ Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 797 (2008) ("[M]ost federal judges [do not] begin the day with briefings that describe new and serious threats to our Nation and its people.").
^ Woods, Thomas (July 7, 2005) Presidential War Powers, LewRockwell.com
^ Woods, Thomas (2013). "Presidential War Powers: The Constitutional Answer". Liberty Classrooom. Retrieved September 6, 2013.
^ Biddle, at 486
^ John H. Haswell,
^ Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979)
^ Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986)
^ a b c d e f Vasan Kesavan and
^ a b Sidak, Gregory (August 1989). "The Recommendation Clause". Georgetown Law Journal 77 (6): 2079–2135. Retrieved June 29, 2012.
^ a b c Kesavan, Vasan. "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution: Recommendations Clause". The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved October 27, 2012.
^ U.S. Senate Turnip Day Session (January 5, 2011).
^ "Article II, Section 3, U.S. Constitution". law.cornell.edu. Legal Information Institute. 2012. Retrieved August 7, 2012.
^ a b "Take Care Clause Law & Legal Definition". USLegal.com. Retrieved July 5, 2012.
^ a b c d e f g Take Care Clause. "Take Care Clause". The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.
^ Prepared by Devotion Garner. Updated by Cheryl Nyberg. "Popular Names of Constitutional Provisions". Gallagher Library of the University of Washington School of Law. Retrieved November 23, 2013.
^ "Chapter 12-The Presidency Flashcards". Flashcard Machine. January 16, 2012. Retrieved July 5, 2012.
^ Walter E. Dellinger III (September 7, 1995). "CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN BINDING ARBITRATION". United States Department of Justice. Retrieved July 5, 2012.
^ Kinkopf, Neil (September–October 2005). "FURIOUS GEORGE - The belligerence of the Bush Administration in pursuing expansive power has a long Republican pedigree". Legal Affairs - The magazine at the intersection of Law and Life. Retrieved July 5, 2012.
^ Sai Prakash. "Take Care Clause". The Heritage Guide to the Constitution. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved August 27, 2012.
^ Johnson, at 500
^ An example of this is Alcee Hastings who was removed from a federal judgeship, but was not barred from serving in another federal office. He was later elected to, and currently serves in, the House of Representatives.
^ Cf. Ritter v. United States, 677 F.2d 957 (2d. Cir. 19) 84 Ct. Cl. 293, 300 (Ct. Cl. 1936) ("While the Senate in one sense acts as a court on the trial of an impeachment, it is essentially a political body and in its actions is influenced by the views of its members on the public welfare."); STAFF OF H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, 93D CONG., CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS FOR PRESIDENTIAL IMPEACHMENT 24 (Comm. Print 1974) ("The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment; its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government.") (citation omitted), reprinted in 3 LEWIS DESCHLER, DESCHLER'S PRECEDENTS OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, H.R. DOC. NO. 94‒661 ch. 14, app. at 2269 (1977).
The Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis and Interpretation.Kilman, Johnny and George Costello (Eds). (2000).
Mount, Steve. (2003). "Presidential Pardons."
Use mdy dates from December 2013
Executive branch of the United States government
Ulysses S. Grant, American Civil War, Indiana, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States
Article Two of the United States Constitution, Law, United States Constitution, Vanderbilt University, Separation of powers


Gun show opponents want more safeguards at fairgrounds
Adele Josepho of Solana Beach was one of about 80 people from NeverAgainCA who protested outside the Crossroads of the West gun show at Del Mar in 2018.
(Howard Lipin)
By Phil Diehl
Gun show opponents are asking for increased safety precautions when the Crossroads of the West event returns to the Del Mar Fairgrounds this weekend.
“Take steps that will give the public confidence that you are protecting us,” said Rose Ann Sharp of NeverAgainCA in a presentation this week to the 22nd District Agricultural Association board of directors.
The board that runs the fairgrounds voted in 2018 to suspend the gun shows this year. However, the event was reinstated in September after a judge issued a temporary injunction requested by the show operator B&L Productions. The events are expected to continue through 2020 until a state law passed this year takes effect in 2021 to outlaw the sale of firearms and ammunition at the fairgrounds.
Fairgrounds spokeswoman Annie Pierce said Wednesday that the board did not respond to Sharp’s request, made during public comments at Tuesday’s meeting, and that there were no new developments in the B&L lawsuit against the fairgrounds.
“We are committed to ensuring that every event at the fairgrounds is safe and secure,” Pierce said.
Crossroads of the West held the weekend firearms bazaar at Del Mar five times annually for more than 30 years until Jan. 1. The company holds more than 60 gun shows annually in four Western states.
The gun show attracts thousands of people each weekend and has been one of the fairgrounds’ most popular events, outside of the annual horse races and the San Diego County Fair.
Crossroads found itself in the cross-hairs of NeverAgainCA soon after the mass shooting that killed 17 people at a Parkland, Fla., high school on Feb. 14, 2018. Since then, the ever-increasing numbers of shootings have focused attention on the national problem of gun violence and easy access to firearms, and NeverAgainCA has kept up the pressure.
The group frequently points to the background of Crossroads owner Bob Templeton and his son Jeff Templeton, who both have past felony firearms convictions. In recent years, the shows have been run by Templeton’s daughter, Tracy Olcott, who has a clean record.
Also, San Diego jeweler Leo Hamel, an advisory board member of the San Diego County Gun Owners political action committee, a staunch supporter of the Crossroads shows. Hamel was indicted on federal charges this year after FBI agents found more than 200 firearms and 100,000 rounds of ammunition at his home and jewelry store. Hamel and a Sheriff’s Department lieutenant, along with a former sheriff’s captain and two others were charged with multiple criminal counts stemming from illegal firearms sales from 2013 through this year.
The county gun owners group announced Wednesday it will host a rally and news conference at the fairgrounds when the gun show opens on Saturday.
“Because of the pending litigation in federal court, every gun show at the Del Mar Fairgrounds could potentially be the last gun show at Del Mar,” said Michael Schwartz, executive director of the group. “We’re inviting all Second Amendment advocates to join us ... in support of the gun show.”
NeverAgainCA also asked the fairgrounds this week to make public a list of all the vendors at the Crossroads show to see if any have been investigated for illegal activities. Sharp said Wednesday that the fairgrounds attorney has agreed to provide the information.
Sharp also requested details of the fairgrounds’ requirements for security employees at the gun shows, registration desk workers, and security for packages entering and leaving the event.
“Do you have training standards?” Sharp asked. “Do you do background checks?
“Just like you check the rides at the Del Mar Fair every day for potential risk of injury or death, you need to do the same for your first line of defense at the gun show,” Sharp said.
The show features dozens of vendors selling guns, ammunition, hunting gear, tactical gear, knives, targets, jewelry, memorabilia and more.
Legislation to end gun sales at the county-owned Cow Palace near San Francisco was vetoed last year by Gov. Jerry Brown. However, the venue’s board of directors voted in November to ban the shows in response to requests from the local community.
“The Cow Palace Board of Directors is taking these mass shootings seriously, and not caving to pressure from the gun lobby,” according to a joint statement released by Sen. Scott Wiener and Assemblyman Phil Ting, both D-San Francisco, last month. “We must continue to push for stricter gun laws at the local, state, and national level.”
Gun-safety advocates also are working to end the shows at state fairgrounds in Orange and Ventura counties.
— Phil Diehl is a reporter for The San Diego Union-Tribune
NewsLocal NewsSolana Beach SunCarmel Valley News
Phil Diehl
Carmel Valley student artwork featured in city’s 2020 calendar
The City of San Diego’s new Water Conservation calendar features the winning artwork of several local Carmel Valley students.This is the 20th year the calendar has been produced by the city’s Public Utilities Department.
Encinitas residents debate homeless parking proposal
Safety and security were among the top concerns Encinitas residents expressed to city staff at a Jan. 14 public forum about a proposed parking area for North County residents who are experiencing homelessness and living in their cars.
Movement inspires acts of kindness in memory of a boy named Blake
“So shines a good deed in a weary world.”
Adult sports program begins at PHR Rec Center in March
Several adult sports programs at the new Pacific Highlands Ranch Recreation Center will begin in March.
Juveniles receive probation, community service for Solana Vista vandalism
The San Diego Juvenile Court System has ordered restitution, community service hours and probation for a group of five juveniles who were involved in vandalizing Solana Vista School last summer.
Del Mar appoints Housing Element Task Force members
The Del Mar City Council created a Housing Element Citizens’ Task Force to make recommendations on where to add new housing in the city as part of the state’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment.


The New Left Fascists
By Robert Spencer 2012-10-01T18:08
The internationally notable Egyptian-American journalist Mona Eltahawy last week took a can of spray paint and began spray-painting over an ad in the Times Square subway station that she didn’t like. Eltahawy painted the ad until a supporter of the ad got in between her and it; shortly thereafter, Eltahawy was arrested, charged with criminal mischief, and spent the night in jail. That a prominent journalist would stoop to this crude act of vandalism is noteworthy in itself, but even more striking is the fact that so many on the Left are applauding her for it.
The ad read: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat jihad.” It was created by my colleague Pamela Geller and sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), of which I am associate director. The mainstream media has widely circulated the claim that this ad is somehow referring to and demeaning of all Muslims, even though the words "Muslim" and "Islam" never appear in it, and it is quite clearly referring to those jihad terrorists who commit acts of savagery against Israeli civilians and then celebrate those acts.
Nonetheless, whether as part of their ongoing efforts to demonize and marginalize all those who speak out against jihad, or out of visceral hatred for Israel, or both, Leftist and putatively “moderate” Muslim writers have enthusiastically praised Eltahawy’s vandalism and called for more ads to be defaced. Cyrus McGoldrick of the New York chapter of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) exulted about Eltahawy’s vandalism: “THIS is GOLD.”
Christina Abraham, the “civil rights director” of Hamas-linked CAIR’s Chicago chapter, went even farther, tweeting that “what some might call hate ads,” Eltahawy “sees as a blank canvas. everyone should do the same.” Ironically, Abraham describes herself in her Twitter profile as a “human rights enthusiast.”
Likewise the Islamic supremacist writer Reza Aslan, who enjoys a widespread reputation as a “moderate Muslim” despite being a Board member of the National Iranian American Council, which has recently been established to be a mouthpiece of the Iranian mullahcracy, was enthusiastic about the vandalism and wanted more. “Hey New York!,” he tweeted: “How many racist ads are left unscathed? Get busy.”
https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-new-left-fascists/


a-z, dash, period, spaces only
Select a State Nationwide Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
People Search County Records Kansas Shawnee
Shawnee Kansas
Search Shawnee County Public Records & Background Checks
Public Records in Shawnee
Type of Record
Shawnee County Court Recorder Offices
County Register of Deeds
Shawnee County 200 SE 7th St, Rm108 Topeka, KS 66603-3932
Record Availability
Separate indices to search include grantee/grantor, numerical, computer & books (depending on age of document). Records indexed on a public use terminal back to 1988.
Courier Offices
200 SE 7th St, Rm 108 Topeka, KS 66603
in Kansas
Hodgeman
Labette
Pottawatomie
Wabaunsee
Privacy Education
PeopleSmart is designed to help you find and connect with others. Search by name, email, phone number, and address. PeopleSmart is not a consumer reporting agency as defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). To learn more, please see our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Information offered by PeopleSmart is not to be used for assessing or evaluating a person's eligibility for employment, housing, insurance, credit, or for any other purpose covered under the FCRA.


Queen Elizabeth says she supports Harry and Meghan's plan as royal summit ends
By Maria Puente and Hannah Yasharoff, USA TODAY
The royal summit over the future roles of Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan of Sussex concluded Monday with an endorsement from Queen Elizabeth II herself about what her grandson seeks to do, and a promise that "final decisions" will be reached in coming days.
Shortly after 5 p.m. local time, Buckingham Palace released a statement from the queen in which she described the discussions on the future of "my grandson and his family" as "constructive."
"My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan’s desire to create a new life as a young family," the statement said. "Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family."
She said Harry and Meghan made it clear they don't want to rely any longer on public funds in their new lives.
"It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the U.K," the statement said. "These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days."
Prince Harry, his brother Prince William and father Prince Charles arrived for a royal summit at Sandringham to address the crisis set off by Harry and Duchess Meghan's historic announcement last week to step back from their senior royal duties and live part time in North America.
It is as yet unclear whether Duchess Meghan joined her husband Harry over the phone for the rare sit-down meeting with his grandmother and senior royal courtiers from all the relevant households.
There was no immediate announcement about the specifics of what was discussed or any decisions made. The palace said the queen's statement, sent to USA TODAY via email, would be the only comment of the day.
Buckingham Palace previously confirmed to USA TODAY that Harry would sit down with his brother , father and grandmother for face-to-face talks to discuss a resolution of the crisis that arose last week after Harry and Meghan announced their plans with little warning.
Meghan, who is in Canada, was expected to participate via phone but that was not officially confirmed ahead of time.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's plans have been widely attacked in Britain as unworkable, and amount to a painful split of the royal family.
The royal summit took place at Sandringham, the queen's private estate in Norfolk about 100 miles north of London, where she typically stays between late December and early February.
Save for Meghan, the same group participated in a conference call on Friday, according to the Associated Press, quoting British media reports. Buckingham Palace confirmed that day that Duchess Meghan had returned to Canada to rejoin 8-month-old baby Archie.
Harry remained in the United Kingdom to deal with the fallout from the Sussex desire to change their royal roles, which has produced a fierce media storm. Overnight Sunday into Monday, reporters, cameras and media trucks appeared outside the gates of Sandringham to await news.
Prince Charles arrived at Sandringham from Oman late Sunday after attending the official mourning ceremony Sunday for the late Sultan Qaboos bin Said, who died Friday at 79 after ruling the country for 50 years, as a representative of the queen.
Prince William traveled from his home at Kensington Palace in London and Harry from his and Meghan's home at Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor Castle estate west of London.
Ahead of the meeting, Harry and William issued a joint statement challenging the accuracy of a story in a London newspaper Monday about a severe breakdown in the relationship between the two brothers.
Their statement, sent to USA TODAY in an email from Buckingham Palace, denied a report in the Times of London that Harry and Meghan felt driven away from the royal family due to alleged "bullying" by William and his wife, Duchess Kate of Cambridge, who were supposedly unfriendly to Meghan.
"Despite clear denials, a false story ran in a U.K. newspaper today speculating about the relationship between The Duke of Sussex and The Duke of Cambridge," the statement said. "For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful."
By 2 p.m. local time, both princes had arrived separately at the sprawling estate, according to the Daily Mail and the Evening Standard.
Buckingham Palace said “a range of possibilities” would be discussed at Monday's meeting, the Associated Press reported, but the goal was to agree on next steps to take to resolve the crisis. The unusual royal gathering follows days of talks among royal courtiers and officials from the U.K. and Canada, and any decisions will take time to be implemented, the palace said.
The meeting comes less than a week after Harry and Meghan dropped their bombshell announcement on Jan. 8: They want to step back as senior members of the royal family, become "financially independent," spend less time in the U.K., and still continue to "fully support" the queen through charity work and royal tours.
The couple said they will split their time between the U.K. and North America but did not specify where on the continent they plan to set up shop. Meghan and Archie are currently somewhere in Canada, the country in which she previously lived while filming the television show "Suits" and one of the largest of the U.K.'s 53 Commonwealth nations.
Meghan's mother, Doria Ragland, lives in Los Angeles, sparking speculation that the royal couple could spend time there .
"This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity," the couple's statement said.
About an hour after the announcement, a statement from the queen's spokesperson suggested Harry and Meghan's attempts to step away wouldn't be quite as simple as they implied.
"Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage," the statement said. "We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through."
On Thursday, Britain's national news agency, Press Association, reported that the queen had ordered officials representing her, Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan to meet and find "workable solutions" within "days not weeks."
On Saturday evening, the palace confirmed that the queen had called a meeting of the princes and their top advisers for Monday.
Meanwhile, Harry does have at least one royal engagement scheduled this week: He's due to host the Rugby League World Cup 2021 draws at Buckingham Palace on Thursday. Harry has been royal patron of the Rugby Football League since he succeeded the queen in 2016. No plans to alter or cancel the engagement have been announced.
Greenwood Life ~ P.O. Box 398, Greenwood, AR 72936 ~ Do Not Sell My Personal Information ~ Cookie Policy ~ Do Not Sell My Personal Information ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service ~ Your California Privacy Rights / Privacy Policy
Greenwood Tornado Anniversary


JSoM Bulletin » Overview » Centers and Institutes
The Center for Electronic and Computer Music was established in 1966 by Iannis Xenakis as a mirror to the Centre for Automated and Mathematical Music in Paris. Created for the purposes of theoretical training, electronic and multimedia composition, and the dissemination of works through public concerts, CECM today houses two studios which employ the most current technologies in digital sound synthesis and sampling, interactive music programming and performance, video, and research-level computing. The curriculum provides an extensive technical training and historical background for composition students with little or no previous technical experience. More advanced students may enroll to use the studio facilities for the production of compositions and multimedia works, as well as for research. More information can be found at http://www.indiana.edu/~emusic/.
Established in 1998, the Center for the History of Music Theory and Literature provides a home for such international projects as the Thesaurus musicarum latinarum (TML; an eight-million-word searchable archive of Latin music theory ranging from the time of Augustine through the early seventeenth century); TML’s three sister projects Traités français sur la musique, Saggi musicali italiani, and Texts on Music in English from the Medieval and Early Modern Eras (music treatises in French, Italian and English); and the annotated bibliography on Musical Borrowing and Reworking. Other projects are currently under development. More information can be found at http://www.chmtl.indiana.edu.
The Historical Performance Institute is a center for interdisciplinary research, teaching, colloquia, and creative activity directed towards the performance practice of medieval, renaissance, baroque, and classical music. Of international significance, the Institute disseminates original research through a series of books as well as an annual journal published by the Indiana University Press. The HPI produces a series of recordings through Focus Records (IU Music) and maintains the Thomas Binkley Archive of Early Music Sound Recordings and extensive holdings of period instruments. JSoM students are enthusiastically encouraged to take advantage of these resources. More information can be found at http://music.indiana.edu/departments/academic/early-music/index.shtml.
The Latin American Music Center fosters the research and performance of Latin American art music and promotes professional and academic exchange between scholars and musicians from the United States and Latin America. In partnership with the Cook Music Library, the LAMC helps manage one of the largest and most complete Latin American music collections in the world, which includes several special collections, rare recordings and scores, and unpublished manuscripts by a number of prominent 20th-century composers. The center’s other activities include concerts, commissions, premiere performances and recordings, courses, visits by distinguished performing artists and lecturers, festivals, and conferences. More information can be found at: http://music.indiana.edu/lamc.


Two Killed as Explosion Collapses Building in Paris Suburb
Powerful Explosion Rocks Paris Building
Aug. 31, 201400:27
Aug. 31, 2014, 10:25 AM UTC / Updated Aug. 31, 2014, 3:39 PM UTC
A child and an 80-year-old woman were killed Sunday morning when a four-story building in a Paris suburb collapsed following an explosion, French authorities said. Ten people were pulled from the rubble, including four who were seriously wounded. Rescue teams were still looking for more survivors.
The explosion, which took place about 7 a.m. (1 a.m. ET), is believed to have been caused by a gas leak, officials said. "We should be prudent, because there are investigations ongoing. There is no certainty," French Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve said at the scene. Fire department spokesman Gabriel Plus said, "We could still find living victims in the hours to come." Television images of the building, in the suburb of Rosny-Sous-Bois, showed a facade ripped off completely, exposing the interiors of the apartments inside.
— Christina Boyle with Reuters


The UN Climate Summit in NYC Gives Us Reason to Hope
Those in attendance at the UN Climate Summit in New York City made significant progress towards the goal of a global climate agreement in 2015. At the end of the Summit, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon summarized the outcome saying "This was a great day!"
The UN Climate Summit was a success simply by virtue of those who attended. There were an unprecedented number of world leaders in attendance, this included 100 government leaders and more than 800 leaders from business, finance and civil society.
Before the summit, Ban asked leaders from government, business, finance and civil society to "crystallize a global vision for low-carbon economic growth and to advance climate action on five fronts: cutting emissions; mobilizing money and markets; pricing carbon; strengthening resilience; and mobilizing new coalitions." The end results suggest that many responded to the UN Secretary General's request.
Optimism is warranted when we review the list of accomplishments compiled by United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the end of the climate change summit. From deforestation to cleaner energy initiatives, we are moving forward. The governmental and private climate and energy commitments are unprecedented.
The 2014 climate summit in NYC was different from all the summits that preceded it. This year the goal was clearer, "to raise political momentum for a meaningful universal climate agreement in Paris in 2015 and to galvanize transformative action in all countries to reduce emissions and build resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change."
We achieved so much more in 2014 than we did in 2009. Five years ago we were working simply to build momentum towards a global climate deal. This effort proved fruitless as divisions between nations took center stage.
Despite progress at the 2014 Summit in New York, serious disagreements remain. We can expect resistance from countries beholden to fossil fuels. This includes nations like Canada and Australia. However, now that President Obama is leading through example, future prospects are looking far brighter than they have in the past.
This summit gives us reason to hope that we may be able to achieve the ambitious goal of a global climate agreement in 2015.
As Ban said, "Today’s Summit has shown that we can rise to the climate challenge."
© 2014, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.
Organizations and Individuals Coalesce for Action on Climate Change
Business Leadership at the UN Climate Summit
Eleven Business Pledges at the UN Climate Summit
The We Mean Business: Low Carbon Economics
Corporations Go 100% Renewable for Climate Week NYC
UN Climate Summit: Ban Ki-moon Final Summary
President Obama's Address and other Highlights from the U.N. Climate Summit
Climate Change and SDG's Dominate the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly
Leonardo DiCaprio's Address at the UN Climate Summit
The People's Climate March Sets the Stage for the UN Climate Summit
India Social Good Summit 2014: Climate Activism and Social Media in Innovation
Investors Support the UN Climate Summit Objectives
Video - Whats Possible: A Short Film to be Presented at the UN Climate Summit
Video - Support for the UN Climate Summit


New Zealand mosque attacks: terrorism or act of violence? - Daily News Egypt
In Focus New Zealand mosque attacks: terrorism or act of violence?
New Zealand mosque attacks: terrorism or act of violence?
‘It is clear that this can now only be described as a terrorist attack,’ says New Zealand Prime Minister
Fatma Lotfi March 17, 2019 Be the first to comment
In one of the deadliest attacks in the history of New Zealand against civilians based on their religion, race, colure, or identity, 49 Muslims have been killed and 48 others were severely wounded when an Australian right-wing extremist opened fire on worshipers in two mosques during the Friday prayer in Christchurch city and livestreamed video of the attack.
The attacker, identified as Brenton Tarrant, was apprehended and appeared in court on Saturday over charges of murder. He has been described by New Zealand’s Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern as having “extremist views.” Three others were taken into custody in connection with the terrorist attack. All are Australians.
The terror attack drew huge reactions including anger and condemnation among world leaders who differently termed that attack. For New Zealand, Ardern condemned the mosque shooting saying it was one of New Zealand’s darkest days. “It is clear that this can now only be described as a terrorist attack,” Ardern told reporters following the attack.
According to the Small Arms Survey in 2017, residents in New Zealand own an estimated 1.2m firearms. There are no strict measures on ownership of military-style weapons as most firearms can be easily and legally sold on the internet. Meanwhile, Ardern vowed on Friday to consider banning semi-automatic firearms. “Our gun laws will change,” she confirmed.
About 1.1% of New Zealand’s population, almost 4.25 million people, are Muslim, according to the country’s most recent survey. The victims of the two attacks included refugees and migrants who fled the war and violence in their countries, seeking better living conditions and peaceful places. Egyptian, Saudi, and Jordanian nationals were among the casualties. Women and children were also killed or injured.
Terrorist or shooter?
Muslims and their supporters around the world criticised a few international media outlets or state leaders and politicians who considered the attack as an “act of violence,” rather than “terrorism”.
Some argue that far-right terrorism is not less dangerous or widespread than Islamic terrorism, such as the Islamic State. Jewish Russian journalist Leonid Bershidsky wrote in a recent column in Bloomberg that the number of violent incidents committed by the far-right is on the rise. “The Institute for Economics and Peace noted in its 2018 Global Terrorism Index report that the number of such killings increased from three in 2014 to 17 in 2017,” he added.
On Twitter, tens of thousands of users used the hashtag “#NewZealandTerroristAttack,” to pay tribute to the victims and criticise media outlets that used “act of violence” to describe the incident instead of “terrorist attack,” and the use of “shooter” rather than “terrorist”.
“This terrorist killed 49 Muslims, but the world media calls him ‘the shooter’ not ‘the terrorist’ because he is not ‘Muslim!’ A Muslim is the only one who is punished and called a ‘terrorist,’ but others are called mentally unstable. Why?” wrote a Twitter user Kashif Khan.
Another tweet by Adam Saleh read: “This guy is not just a ‘shooter’ as what the media is saying. He’s also a Terrorist. Terrorism has no religion.” Meanwhile, Eman Ali wrote: “He [the attacker] is not mentally sick, He’s a terrorist.”
Furthermore, Abdel Allah asserted, “Don’t call him a shooter, he is a terrorist. Terrorism doesn’t belong to any religion. Keep this in mind.”
Mark Pavelich tweeted: “The first victim of the Terrorist Attack in New Zealand is shown on the video greeting the gunman with ‘Hello Brother.’ Those were his last words. Love in the face of hate.”
Mariam Mostafa tweeted, “White Supremacy and normalisation of Islamophobia are the real monsters threatening humanity right now. Please, don’t feed the beast with your silence and SPEAK UP.”
“This is terrorism”
Max Abrahms, a professor of political science at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, and the author of Rules for Rebels: The Science of Victory in Militant History, tweeted shortly after the attack: “This is terrorism, Non-state actor. Civilian target and Political goal.”
“The terrorist who struck in New Zealand claimed to do it to oppose Muslims. Of course, the attack will have the exact opposite political effect. It will increase international sympathy towards Muslims and marginalise their fiercest political opponents,” Abrahms highlighted.
He noted that mass shootings in New Zealand are exceedingly rare. “The deadliest in modern history occurred in the small town of Aramoana in 1990 when gunman David Gray shot and killed 13 people following a dispute with a neighbour,” Abrahms articled.
Abrahms further tweeted that “the terrorist in New Zealand was very public-faced. He recorded the attack and left a manifesto. This will inevitably prompt questions about how much info the media should share to inform without incentivising the violent behaviour.”
Meanwhile, Shadi Hamid, a senior fellow and the author of Islamic Exceptionalism: How the Struggle Over Islam Is Reshaping the World, asserted in a tweet: “It’s not quite right to say the Christchurch shooter was ‘crazy, mad, insane,’ and certainly not thoughtless. Similarly, I was opposed to calling ISIS crazy, because that seemed a way to reduce the importance of what was happening, making it harder to confront the threat.”
Meanwhile, Egyptian writer Khaled Mansour emphasised the significance to describe what happened in New Zealand as a terrorist act, as such a description would open the doors for applying specific police procedures and laws and more restrictions against specific organisations or associations.
Global reactions
Egypt’s Foreign Ministry condemned the attack on Friday, describing it as “terrorist”. According to the Ministry of Immigration, four Egyptians were killed in the attack. They are Mounir Soliman, Ahmed Gamal El-Din, Ashraf AL-Morsi, and Ashraf Al-Masry.
Globally, the US President Donald Trump tweeted that he spoke with the Prime Minister of New Zealand regarding “the horrific events” that have taken place on Friday. “I informed the Prime Minister…that we stand in solidarity with New Zealand, and that any assistance the US can give, we stand by ready to help. We love you New Zealand,” Trump wrote.
The German Chancellor Angela Merkel also tweeted: “This is an attack directed against Muslims. It is also an attack on New Zealand’s democracy and an open and tolerant society”.
Outrage over Facebook
The terrorist appeared to use a Twitter account holding the name of Brenton Tarrant to publish a racist 74-page manifesto called “The Great Replacement”, in which he identified himself as a 28-year-old man born in Australia.
The attacker also apparently used Facebook’s live stream service to release a shooting video, which he ironically warned he would live stream before the attack. The video, which contained graphic footage, reportedly ran for nearly 17 minutes and showed part of the attack. It is believed to be taken from an action camera worn by the terrorist. Copies of the video continued to appear on Youtube, Twitter, and Instagram over a few hours after the attack.
In a statement on Friday, Facebook said it removed the video and the account which published the content. “We’re also removing any praise or support for the crime and the shooter or shooters as soon as we’re aware,” Facebook stated.
The social media platform revealed that New Zealand police alerted them to the video shortly after the live stream commenced. “We quickly removed both the shooter’s Facebook and Instagram accounts as well as the video,” Facebook added.
Democratic US Senator Cory Booker, who is running for presidency, criticised Facebook’s slow response to the spread of the graphic content of the video. Booker said at his election campaign event that “tech companies have a responsibility to do the morally right thing.”
Booker added, “this is a case where you’re giving a platform for hate. That’s unacceptable, it should have never happened, and it should have been taken down a lot more swiftly.”
Topics: attacks mosque New Zealand terrorism
Fatma Lotfi
More in In Focus
More in Fatma Lotfi
After initial denial, Iran admits ‘mistakenly’ downing Ukrainian airliner
Economy Plus poll forecasts currency appreciation, lower interest rates, price cuts across consumer goods
Qassim Soleimani: the construction worker who spearheaded Iran’s Middle East ‘shadow wars’
Local Administration Committee supports local council draft law, suggests amendment
Concerns arise as ‘foreign mercenaries’ mobilise to Libyan battlefield
Al-Sisi, Conte in talks on Libya crisis
Libyan parliament says it would seek Egyptian army support ‘if need be’
Iran admits shooting down Ukrainian plane after initial denials
Al-Sisi :As long as we are united, no one can hurt us
Libya’s Haftar seizes strategic city of Sirte
https://cdn2.dailynewsegypt.com/2019/03/17/new-zealand-mosque-attacks-terrorism-or-act-of-violence/
Prosecution detains St. Mark Church’s guard for 4 days over murder charge
Mar-Mina Church attacker to face death penalty
New weapons used in Egyptian-Greek-Cypriot joint military exercise ‘Medusa 8’
Al-Sisi, Merkel discuss updates on Sudan, Libya
Camp David turns 40
Al-Sisi, King Abdullah, Abdul-Mahdi agree on economic coordination, fighting terrorism
Far-right terrorism: gaining momentum around world
MP Fouad denounces New Zealand attack, Senator Anning’s offensive statement
Eleven Egyptians among those wounded in Mosques’ attack in New Zealand
Op-ed review: Christchurch attacks, Press Syndicate’s election
Can women make a living out of football?
Wadi El Nile to set up sorting, packaging station with EGP 20m investments in 2019
Egypt’s Defence Minister meets New Zealand counterpart over enhancing military cooperation
Real Madrid win record fourth Club World Cup
Abu Dhabi witnesses exceptional night in Club World Cup
Emirates flies 1.1 million passengers to, from Cairo over last 19M


Centre for Health Leadership & Enterprise (CCHLE)
Physician heal thyself: engineering a new national health system
The National Health Service turned 70 in 2018 – but, amid the celebrations, its health is faltering. By working closely with local hospitals and GPs, researchers at the University of Cambridge are developing bold new ideas they believe will help…
Forget the TV drama, it’s routine care that leaves our NHS hospitals with constipation
For many lucky people who have never been hospitalised, the popular image of hospitals is a glamorous one, as portrayed on hit television shows like Casualty, Grey’s Anatomy and House. by Stefan Scholtes, Dennis Gillings Professor of Health Management In…
A framework for drug development
'Science is not enough' for ensuring commercial success of new drugs, so a new journal article co-authored by Dr Nektarios (Aris) Oraiopoulos of Cambridge Judge outlines a framework to help pharma companies align better with end-customer priorities. In most industries,…
Separating routine and complex healthcare
Simplifying general hospital services to make them more manageable is a route to solving the current healthcare crisis, say two healthcare experts at Cambridge Judge Business School. Every day seems to bring fresh misery for the NHS - from the…
Workload and patient treatment
Workload affects both treatment and referral decisions by "gatekeepers" to specialist services such as primary care physicians and emergency doctors, says a new study co-authored at Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge. People with serious ailments naturally desire immediate…
Why big data comes with big headaches for the healthcare sector
"Big Data" is a phrase that seems to get many people excited these days. The potential is clearly so enormous that society seems to naturally believe it is the answer to everything. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that people…
BBC Radio 4: Today programme
Reporter Joe Lynam covers AstraZeneca & Pfizer deal and speaks with Richard Mason, CEO of XO1 Ltd and a fellow in Health Management at Cambridge Judge Business School. Richard discusses what role Cambridge plays in new drugs development. Listen from…
The Times: Patients are ‘shunted like parcels’ in the night
This Times cover story features Stefan Scholtes, Dennis Gillings Professor of Health Management at CJBS, and his research into the safety tipping point at which hospitals begin to fail. Stefan and co-authors investigated bed occupancy levels and death tolls in…
When slacker is safer
Professor Stefan Scholtes warns that exceeding the ‘tipping point' can have serious consequences They turn up late. They seem immune to deadlines. They don't mind being carried by the team. Slackers are not usually the most popular people in the…
PhD student selected for Academy of Management Best Paper Award
Stefano Tasselli, a PhD candidate in Management Studies at Cambridge Judge Business School, has been awarded with the Academy of Management Best Paper Award in the Health Care Management Division. He will receive the award during a ceremony in Orlando,…
Archives Select Month January 2020 (7) December 2019 (30) November 2019 (41) October 2019 (36) September 2019 (56) August 2019 (38) July 2019 (57) June 2019 (44) May 2019 (45) April 2019 (58) March 2019 (56) February 2019 (46) January 2019 (41) December 2018 (35) November 2018 (55) October 2018 (62) September 2018 (42) August 2018 (39) July 2018 (45) June 2018 (68) May 2018 (51) April 2018 (47) March 2018 (61) February 2018 (55) January 2018 (62) December 2017 (55) November 2017 (75) October 2017 (74) September 2017 (71) August 2017 (56) July 2017 (62) June 2017 (77) May 2017 (83) April 2017 (63) March 2017 (71) February 2017 (59) January 2017 (68) December 2016 (38) November 2016 (83) October 2016 (73) September 2016 (53) August 2016 (56) July 2016 (48) June 2016 (68) May 2016 (64) April 2016 (84) March 2016 (88) February 2016 (82) January 2016 (71) December 2015 (66) November 2015 (92) October 2015 (83) September 2015 (61) August 2015 (51) July 2015 (78) June 2015 (85) May 2015 (61) April 2015 (87) March 2015 (101) February 2015 (97) January 2015 (82) December 2014 (69) November 2014 (99) October 2014 (106) September 2014 (75) August 2014 (53) July 2014 (88) June 2014 (99) May 2014 (127) April 2014 (89) March 2014 (122) February 2014 (83) January 2014 (85) December 2013 (70) November 2013 (109) October 2013 (130) September 2013 (37) August 2013 (58) July 2013 (55) June 2013 (32) May 2013 (34) April 2013 (70) March 2013 (57) February 2013 (54) January 2013 (48) December 2012 (40) November 2012 (86) October 2012 (84) September 2012 (70) August 2012 (85) July 2012 (31) June 2012 (21) May 2012 (24) April 2012 (28) March 2012 (34) February 2012 (40) January 2012 (20) December 2011 (12) November 2011 (9) October 2011 (7) September 2011 (6) August 2011 (2) July 2011 (22) June 2011 (7) May 2011 (9) April 2011 (27) March 2011 (14) February 2011 (1) January 2011 (17) December 2010 (14) November 2010 (10) October 2010 (4) September 2010 (6) August 2010 (15) July 2010 (6) June 2010 (9) May 2010 (4) April 2010 (19) March 2010 (10) February 2010 (9) January 2010 (5) December 2009 (16) November 2009 (8) October 2009 (2) August 2009 (2) July 2009 (21) June 2009 (9) May 2009 (8) April 2009 (4) March 2009 (9) February 2009 (16) January 2009 (1) December 2008 (10) November 2008 (8) October 2008 (3) September 2008 (3) August 2008 (2) July 2008 (5) June 2008 (1) April 2008 (5) February 2008 (1) December 2007 (1) September 2007 (1) August 2007 (1) July 2007 (2) May 2007 (1) April 2007 (1) March 2007 (2) February 2007 (2) December 2006 (1) October 2006 (1) September 2006 (1) July 2006 (3) December 2005 (1) March 2005 (2) December 2004 (2) November 2004 (1) May 2004 (1) January 2004 (1) December 2003 (1) June 2003 (4) January 2003 (2) December 2002 (1) November 2002 (1) September 2002 (1) May 2002 (1) February 2002 (1) January 2002 (1) February 2001 (5) January 2001 (1) September 2000 (1) August 2000 (2)


UTEP WBB’s Slump Continues Against Portland State
UTEP vs. Portland State on 12/9/18. (Photo by Brandon Cohn)
The UTEP Women's basketball team extended their losing streak to seven consecutive games following an 89-61 victory by Portland State at the Don Haskins Center on Sunday afternoon. Playing without their leading scorer Zuzanna Puc in the second half, the Miners struggled throughout the contest to stay with the Vikings, who remain undefeated at 6-0 on the season. UTEP took a 13-11 lead midway through the first quarter thanks to an Alexander 3-pointer, but Portland State would counter by going on a 6-0 run to take the lead and ultimately outscored the Miners 26-17 in the opening quarter.
The Vikings then extended their lead to 35-19 with 5:13 remaining in the first half. UTEP got within 11 points of PSU at 41-30 with 37 seconds left in the half, but a trey at the buzzer gave Portland State a commanding 44-30 edge heading into the locker room. The Miners got within 12 of PSU midway through the third quarter at 51-39, but the Vikings scoring frenzy was too much for UTEP to handle as they went on an 11-1 run and subsequently went on for the easy victory in what was their first ever visit to El Paso.
For the Miners, Redshirt-junior Ariona Gill posted her first career double-double 17 points, a career-best 12 rebounds, while Jade Rochelle added a career-high 11 points, Ariana Taylor a career-high 10 points, and Jordan Alexander tallied 8 points, as well as 8 boards. The Miners finished at 32.8 percent (20-61) from the floor, including 25.0 percent (3-12) from 3-point range. The Vikings shot 44.2 percent on 34-77 shooting and had a slight edge in rebounding (45-41). Portland State also had a significant advantage in terms of points in the paint (42-28) and fastbreak points (24-21). UTEP shared the ball effectively, recording 15 assists on 20 made field goals.
Following the game Coach Baker mentioned, “Anytime you give up 89 points you’re not going to win many games,” UTEP head coach Kevin Baker said. “I’m really disappointed in our performance. I don’t want to take anything away from Portland State. They’re a really good team and do a lot of really tough things. I just was really disappointed in the product as a whole today. I think we’re a much better basketball team than the way we played today.”
UTEP is now 2-7 on the season and will be idle for finals week before returning to action at Pacific-12 member Arizona at 6:30 p.m. MT on Dec. 17, a game that you can listen to on 600 ESPN El Paso with Duke Keith.
Filed Under: 600 ESPN El Paso, kevin baker, Portland State WBB, UTEP WBB, zuzanna puc
Categories: Basketball, College Basketball, Local / El Paso / Texas, Sports, UTEP


Home › Orson Scott Card: Writer of the Terrible Choice (Studies in Young Adult Literature)
Edith S Tyson
Orson Scott Card: Writer of the Terrible Choice (Studies in Young Adult Literature)
Author: Edith S. Tyson
From a precocious childhood, through practice at playwriting in college, early writing, and life-experiences from the mission field in Brazil to unemployment crises back in the USA, Orson Scott Card has become an established writer. He is best known for his novel Ender's Game. But, provocative as this book is, with its supreme ethical dilemma at the climax, and even though it has given birth to two sets of sequels (The Speaker Trilogy and The Shadow Books), it should not be regarded as Card's only great work.
Card is completing a series set in a fantastic, and alternate, North America: The Tales of Alvin Maker, a saga that shows the struggle of good and evil as you never saw it before. He has daringly done a saga of humanity on a distant planet governed by a supercomputer, rediscovering its home of origin, Earth: The Homecoming Series. And, with Kathryn Kidd, he has begun a trilogy in which humans manufacture their own aliens, by giving animals intelligence: The Mayflower Trilogy. He has reached out into Biblical fiction. He wrote about Moses and the Exodus three decades ago as a musical play, and now has redone it as a novel. Among his most recent books are the Women of Genesis series, at once original yet faithful to the Biblical model. He writes about his own denomination, the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons), in the past, the present age, and the future. We discover how a singing voice can be a weapon, or how a young woman can lead a quest. He can be masterful at ghost-story suspense; in time travel, he can show love transcending time, or he can recreate centuries of history. He is best known for novels and novel-series, yet some of his best work is in novellas, novelettes, or short stories.
Through it all, there runs The Terrible Choice . If you don't know Orson Scott Card yet, this book will introduce you. If you know just a few of his books, this book will introduce you to aspects of Card that you never suspected.
A History of Jews in Albania
3000 Degrees: The True Story Of A Deadly Fire And The Men Who Fought It
The Norton Anthology Of Children'S Literature: The Traditions In English (Slipcased Edition)
The Usborne Internet-Linked Encyclopedia Of The Ancient World (Internet Linked World History)
support@greenwaybooks.com
Copyright © 2020, GreenwayBooks. Powered by Shopify


Home > America architecture: buildings + architects > New Orleans Houses – Brad Pitt, Make It Right Housing
New Orleans Houses – Brad Pitt, Make It Right Housing
Published by Adrian Welch updated on October 28, 2018
New Orleans Houses, Make It Right Building, Architects, United States of America, News
New Orleans Homes : Make It Right Designers + Images
Louisiana Housing Development following Hurricane Katrina – design by Graftlab
Make It Right House
Film about one of the “most sensational architectural projects in the US” – a home that floats in the event of flooding and is hurricane-proof. The TV clip focuses on actor Brad Pitt and his organization Make It Right that rebuilds disaster-stricken communities in New Orleans using the revolutionary construction techniques
http://en.jyskebank.tv/flash/Application.swf?v=0126346519861782-L2 – not working now, link checker 11 June 2016
Make It Right Housing
New Orleans Houses, Lower Ninth Ward
Graftlab with Brad Pitt
Mavis Yorks; Megan Grant x 2
150 bright pink solar-powered and water-resistant houses
For homeless residents of New Orleans due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Brad Pitt & his wife Angelina Jolie and their four children are residents of New Orleans
Graft – architecture practice based in Los Angeles
Pink House Images from Graftlab 1 April 2008
£2.5m
Ricky Ridecos
For charity Make It Right – run by Brad Pitt
Officially opened by former President Bill Clinton in March 2008
Previously Brad had worked with Frank Gehry on projects such as the Hove development, England
Stefan Beese
Information from Graftlab Mar 2008:
Make It Right : Housing In the Lower 9th Ward, New Orleans
images : Graft
Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. The slow reaction to the initial emergency and to the ongoing crisis exposed troubling realities about the response capabilities of the American government when the citizens of our most culturally diverse city were in desperate need of help.
When Brad Pitt visited the Lower 9th Ward for the first time after the storm, he was shocked by what he saw: the remnants of people’s lives strewn across the streets and an entire neighborhood torn apart and turned upside down. Pitt was even more disturbed by the lack of a clear plan to address the situation. Many were quietly saying there was no chance the Lower 9th Ward would ever be re-built.
In a series of community meetings, residents of the Lower 9th Ward told Pitt about the challenges their community faced, both before and after the storm. The rising cost of energy placed a strain on the low-income households of the neighborhood and residents expressed concern about worsening environmental conditions. Their concerns have been validated by many scientists, who have concluded that climate change is increasing the frequency and strength of hurricanes, resulting in the erosion of wetlands and barrier islands that once protected the coast. The residents of the Lower 9th Ward told Pitt that while their terrible crisis had exposed their vulnerability, Katrina had also created an opportunity: to build something better than what had existed before.
Inspired by the courage and hope of the residents he met, Pitt resolved to do whatever he could to help them rebuild. Just as importantly, he wanted to help recreate and nurture the unique culture and spirit of the 9th Ward, which symbolizes the soul of New Orleans. He understood instinctively that a New Orleans rebuilt without the 9th Ward would never be whole.
He began by working with Global Green to sponsor an architecture competition aimed at generating ideas about how to rebuild sustainable. Pitt worked with local community leaders as well as experts from around the world to develop viable ideas for the Lower 9th Ward. That successful project inspired Pitt’s new focus: Make It Right.
The Mission of Make It Right is clear: It is to be a catalyst for redevelopment of the Lower Ninth Ward, by building a neighborhood comprised of safe and healthy homes that are inspired by Cradle to Cradle thinking, with an emphasis on a high quality of design, while preserving the spirit of the community’s culture. The mission is to accomplish this quickly, so that the first residents can begin returning to their homes in early 2008.
New Orleans Houses : Architects involved with charity Make It Right
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LOWER 9TH WARD
By Douglas Brinkley; Author and Historian
The 9th Ward of New Orleans is one of the richest cultural communities in the country and was, until Hurricane Katrina in August, 2005, a crossroads of families, music and social interaction in New Orleans. As one community leader aptly described it recently, the 9th ward had an ‘atmosphere of engagement’ that featured time spent with one another in dialog, in celebration of the music, words and history that make the 9th Ward so special. Porches and stoops were important places to catch up with one another and talk about everyday life.
The 9th Ward is distinguished in many ways, not least the fact that more residents owned their homes than in any other part of the city. The population is majority African American, and their homes were built on land that was, in the Colonial Louisiana of the 19th century, plantation land and built and paid for in modern times, thanks to an industrious nature and commitment to independence.
The force of the water resulting from multiple levee breaks due to Hurricane Katrina did far more than flood thousands of homes-it forced houses and families off their foundations. Houses were smashed or thrown on top of cars or other houses as even the highest areas of the neighborhood were flooded. The 9th Ward sustained the worst flooding after the storm, and thousands of lives were disrupted – lives still in limbo, but not defeated.
What is today referred to as the Lower 9th Ward was so named after the industrial canal was dredged in the 1920’s, cutting through the 9th Ward. The area below the canal became known as the Lower 9th Ward. The creation of the industrial canal resulted in development of land along it, providing steady work for many in the area. When shipping became containerized, the demand for workers declined, which had a negative economic impact for the neighborhood. The Lower 9th Ward includes Jackson Barracks, first built in 1834 and currently being rebuilt after Katrina to once again serve as headquarters for the Louisiana National Guard.
The 9th Ward is no stranger to hardship or to hurricanes: the people of the 9th Ward survived Hurricane Betsy in 1965 and they will surely overcome this adversity as well.
The activism that has characterized this neighborhood since its inception is alive and well, with several community groups coming together to form a coalition to ensure progress and a return of the 9th Ward’s culture and energy. Their vision – an attainable vision – is a rebuilt community complete with exceptional schools, quality of life and a robust local economy.
Louisiana Buildings
CHEROKEE GIVES BACK FOUNDATION
Cherokee is committed to making the world a better place. As an investment firm specializing in the acquisition, remediation and sustainable redevelopment of contaminated real estate, we do this through each real estate project and through our philanthropic outreach program, Cherokee Gives Back.
Cherokee Gives Back reflects our strong commitment to nonprofit initiatives, community involvement and public service. These principles are more than philanthropic efforts—they are fundamental corporate imperatives. Cherokee Gives Back is active around the globe and is committed to implementing long-term sustainable solutions that positively impact issues such as health, education, poverty, orphan care and more. Since inception, Cherokee Gives Back has helped fund $25 million in nonprofit and community-based initiatives in the United States, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Romania, Russia, China, and India.
As an investment firm, Cherokee proactively builds partnerships that foster sustainable development and seeks out people and organizations that share its commitments. Sustainability is integral to the site planning, design and building development of our real estate projects. The firm implements solutions that address multiple problems by applying a whole-systems approach centered on upfront planning and teamwork in all phases of the development process. Cherokee works with communities to define and achieve sustainable outcomes, together creating better options for future generations.
MIR Camelback House, Lower 9th Ward, New Orleans, USA
MIR Camelback House
Make It Right, PO Box 58009, New Orleans, LA 70158
Hurricane Katrina Housing design : GRAFT
Location:New Orleans, USA
American Architecture
American Architect Studios
Hurricane Katrina Housing architects : GRAFT
Buildings / photos for the New Orleans Architecture page welcome
New Orleans Houses
Website: www.makeitrightnola.org
Website: USA
August 26, 2010 in America architecture: buildings + architects. Tags: Housing designs - buildings + architects
Eberly Hospitality Project in Austin, Texas
Cushing Terrell ATX Office in Austin, Texas
Bienville House in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA
← Venice Biennale British Pavilion 2010 – Exhibition
Cool Tower, Rotterdam Housing, Dutch Apartment Building →


Extending your ‘healthspan’: Brain scientists tap into the secrets of living well longer
Sharon Jayson Kaiser Health News
AUSTIN, Texas — Retired state employees Vickey Benford, 63, and Joan Caldwell, 61, are Golden Rollers, a group of the over-50 set that gets out on assorted bikes — including trikes for adults they call “three wheels of awesome” — for an hour of trail riding and camaraderie.
“I love to exercise, and I like to stay fit,” said Caldwell, who tried out a recumbent bike, a low-impact option that can be easier on the back. “It keeps me young.”
Benford encouraged Caldwell to join the organized rides, which have attracted more than 225 riders at city rec centers and senior activity centers. The cyclists can choose from a small, donated fleet of recumbent bikes, tandem recumbents and tricycles.
“With seniors, it’s less about transportation and more about access to the outdoors, social engagement and quality of life,” said Christopher Stanton, whose idea for Golden Rollers grew out of the Ghisallo Cycling Initiative, a youth biking nonprofit he founded in 2011.
But that’s not all, according to brain scientists. They point to another important benefit: Exercising both body and brain can help people stay healthier longer.
The new thinking about aging considers not just how long one lives, but how vibrant one stays later in life.
“If you’re living, you want to be living well,” said Tim Peterson, an assistant professor of internal medicine at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “Most people who were interested in life span and were studying genes — which control life span — switched to ‘healthspan.’”
“Healthspan,” a coinage now gaining traction, refers to the years that a person can expect to live in generally good health — free of chronic illnesses and cognitive decline that can emerge near life’s end. Although there’s only so much a person can do to delay the onset of disease, there’s plenty that scientists are learning to improve your chances of a better healthspan.
The work takes on special resonance in light of a new report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showing that life expectancy in the United States has decreased in recent years. A rise in midlife mortality (ages 25 to 64) has dragged down the overall expectancy.
“The idea is to make people productive, healthier and happier longer and more capable taking care of themselves,” said Andreana Haley, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at Austin who is among this breed of researchers working to understand healthspan. “We now live a long time with a lot of chronic diseases, and it’s not fun. It’s costly — in terms of productivity, caregiving responsibilities, cost of health care.”
Haley, who collaborates with exercise physiologists, nutritionists, behavioral neuroscientists and physicians, said researchers from many other disciplines are also studying healthspan, such as nurses, speech pathologists and pharmacists.
Their work is inspired by an aging U.S. population with changing needs. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 10,000 people a day turn 65, the nation’s fastest-growing population segment.
“We have a lot of people who will need to be taken care of in the next 50 years,” she said, “and fewer young people to do the care.”
Haley, with UT’s Aging and Longevity Center, focuses her work on midlife, which she defines as ages 40 to 60, a time when health choices can have a big impact on older years. She’s especially interested in brain health.
Her team is collaborating with UT’s Human Laser Lab to pilot the use of low-level light therapy to increase brain energy and improve cognitive performance.
Because of this close brain-body connection, any degeneration in the brain affects not only cognitive function but also areas that control weight, appetite, personality, mood and blood pressure.
Online games and brain-training exercises have become popular as another way to keep the brain sharp.
However, research on brain training reflects mixed results, including a study published last year in the journal Neuropsychologia, which “calls into question the benefit of cognitive training beyond practice effects.”
Still, aging experts urge people as they age to work to keep mentally active, as well as physically active, to lengthen their healthspan.