the-french-artist/wikipedia_20220301.simple_sentence_split huggingface dataset:
If two-thirds of both the House and Senate agree, the President is declared unable to discharge his duties and the Vice President stays in control of the Presidency.
Clause 7: Salary
This means the President can receive a salary.
However, the salary cannot be changed during the President's four-year term in office.
Also, the President cannot receive any other salary, either from the federal government, or from any state government.
Clause 8: Oath or affirmation
Before he becomes President, Clause 8 requires the new President to take an oath, promising that he will do his best as President, and will also do his best to protect and defend the Constitution.
Usually, the Chief Justice of the United States gives the oath ("swears in" the new President) at the President's inauguration.
Section 2: Presidential powers
Clause 1: Command of military; Opinions of cabinet secretaries; Pardons
The President is the military's Commander-in-Chief.
However, as part of the system of checks and balances in the Constitution, Article One says that only Congress can declare war.
Still, the President can take actions like sending soldiers to certain places without needing Congress's approval, or a declaration of war.
The President may ask the "principal (head) officer" of any executive department to give him advice in writing.
The Constitution actually does not require a formal Cabinet.
However, America's first President, George Washington, organized his principal offices into a Cabinet, and every President has done the same since.
The President may grant pardons or reprieves to people who were convicted of crimes (except when the person was impeached).
A "reprieve" cancels or changes a punishment  for example, changing a death sentence to a sentence of life in prison.
Clause 2: Advice and Consent Clause
This part of Section 2 is called the Advice and Consent Clause.
It gives the President powers, but he has to use them with the "advice and consent" (agreement) of the Senate.
This is another example of checks and balances in the Constitution.
Here, the Constitution gives the President the power to make treaties with other countries.
However, two-thirds of the Senators must agree with the treaty for it to take effect.
If two-thirds of the Senate does not agree with the treaty, it is not approved, and there is nothing the President can do about it.
The Constitution does not say how the United States can end a treaty.
Since the Constitution has passed, the government has done this in a few ways.
In 1798, the first time the government wanted to end a treaty (the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with France), Congress passed a law ending the treaty.
Other times, in the 1800s, a few Presidents ended treaties after Congress asked them to.
The first time a President ended a treaty without Congress's approval was in the 1970s, when President Jimmy Carter ended a treaty with the Republic of China.
In a lawsuit called Goldwater v. Carter, members of Congress asked the Supreme Court to clarify whether a President could end a treaty on his own.
The Supreme Court could not agree on a decision, and the case was dismissed (ended without a decision).
Once the Senate gives advice and consent to the President (approves the President's choice for a job), and that person is given the job, the Senate cannot go back and change its mind.
It cannot take away its advice and consent once the person gets the job.
However, after the Senate grants advice and consent, the President can change his mind, and decide not to give the job to the person he nominated.
It is not clear whether the President can fire a person who was hired with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Congress has limited this power many times.
For example, during the Reconstruction Era, President Andrew Johnson wanted to fire people that Congress had approved.
Congress passed a law saying he could not do that, but Jackson ignored the law.
Later, Congress impeached him, but the Senate did not convict him.
A Supreme Court case called Bowsher v. Synar (1986) decided that Congress can fire a person it approved.
Congress can do this by repealing the law that gave the President permission to appoint that person.
Clause 3: Recess appointments
Clause 3 has to do with Senate recesses (times when the Senate is not meeting).
In the past, fast transportation was not available, and it could take a long time for members of Congress to get to Washington, D.C.  Because of this, Congress would usually meet only during planned "sessions," so everyone would have time to get there.
After the planned sessions were over, the Senate would go into recess, and all the Senators would go home.
During Senate recesses, the President may appoint officers to stand in for the missing Senators.
However, these officers are temporary, and their permission to act as Senators expire (end) when the Senate finishes its next session.
Section 3: Presidential responsibilities
Clause 1: State of the Union
Clause 1 of Section 3 is called the State of the Union Clause.
It says that "from time to time," the President must give Congress information on the "State of the Union."
("State of the Union" basically means "The Situation in the United States.")
Originally, Presidents personally delivered State of the Union Addresses to Congress every year.
Thomas Jefferson thought this was too much like a King speaking from a throne.
Instead, he would send Congress written messages, and clerks (assistants) would read them.
Other Presidents did the same for over 100 years, until President Woodrow Wilson went back to speaking in front of Congress.
Every President since Wilson has kept doing that .
The purpose of the State of the Union is to make sure the President shares information with Congress, as well as the entire country.
This information helps Congress decide whether anything is happening that they need to pass laws for.
It also lets the people in the country know what is happening in their government.
Clause 2: Making recommendations to Congress
The President has the power to suggest to Congress anything he thinks is "necessary [needed] and expedient [appropriate]".
This is called the Recommendation Clause.
The Recommendation Clause is another part of the checks and balances in the Constitution.
The President cannot just do anything he thinks is needed; he has to get Congress's approval.
If the President gives recommendations to Congress, Congress can approve them.
However, if the President gives no suggestions to Congress, Congress has no power to force him to.
Also, just by asking Congress, the President shows that he respects them as equals, and is not more powerful or important than they are, like a King would be.
One scholar explains: "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 [for problems to be fixed]."p.
Clause 3: Calling Congress into extraordinary session; adjourning Congress
Clause 3 gives the President the right to call one or both Houses of Congress "on extraordinary Occasions."
This clause is meant to allow the government to act quickly in case a major emergency comes up when Congress is not in session.
If the two Houses of Congress cannot agree on a date for when to adjourn a special session, the President may adjourn both Houses whenever he thinks it is appropriate.
Presidents have called extraordinary sessions 27 times in history to deal with crises like wars or emergencies with the economy.
The last time this happened was in 1948, when President Harry S Truman called a special session to try to get civil rights, Social Security, and health care laws passed.
After airplane travel became common around the 1950s, Congress began meeting year-round.
Since that time, no President has had to call a special session.
Clause 4: Receiving foreign representatives
The President receives (greets and hosts) all foreign Ambassadors.
This clause of the Constitution is called the Reception Clause.
Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law
The President must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed [used and followed]."
This clause in the Constitution is sometimes called the Take Care Clause, the Faithful Execution Clause, or the Faithfully Executed Clause.
This clause gives the President power, limits, and a duty, all at the same time:pp.
3–4
It gives him the power to carry out the laws in any way that is legal and follows the Constitution
It gives him the limit of not being able to ignore the laws.
He cannot refuse to enforce a law or follow part of the Constitution
It gives him the duty to carry out the laws (even if he disagrees with them).
It also gives him the duty to make sure the rest of the government (including state governments) carry out the laws too
Supreme Court cases have focused on the duties and limits the Take Care Clause puts on the President.
The President must make sure everyone in the Executive Branch follows the laws made by Congress
The President cannot stop enforcing, change, or ignore whatever laws he does not like.
This is unconstitutional because it basically gives him power over lawmaking, and the Constitution gives that power only to Congress
When Congress passes a law that approves money for a program, the President, or executive departments, cannot refuse to spend the money on that program.
They cannot spend the money on anything else, because this would go against a law made by Congress.
Clause 6: Officers' commissions
The President commissions "all the Officers of the United States."
(This means he gives these officers the power to do their jobs.)
These include officers in both the military and foreign service (people who work for the United States government in other countries, like Ambassadors).
However, Article One of the Constitution, Section 8, gives each state the power to appoint officers in their own militias.
Section 4: Impeachment
The Constitution also allows some government officials to be removed from office (fired).
The President, Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries, and other executive officers, as well as judges, may be impeached by the House of Representatives, and then tried in the Senate.
Anyone who is convicted by impeachment is fired immediately.
The Senate may also choose to prevent the person from holding any federal office in the future.
These are the only punishments that an impeachment proceeding can give.
However, the person can still be tried for civil and criminal charges in the courts, and punished if they are found guilty.
Impeachment is a power that only Congress has.
In Nixon v. United States (1993), the Supreme Court ruled that even they cannot review or change the Senate's decision in an impeachment trial.
Its impeachment powers give Congress a way to make sure that no executive officials or judges are getting corrupt.
"High crimes and misdemeanors"
The Constitution says clearly that officials can be impeached for treason or bribery.
But it does not say exactly what "High crimes and Misdemeanors" includes or does not include.
"High crimes" is a phrase from old British law that means crimes committed by people with political power.
However, in British history, "high crimes and misdemeanors" could include many different things (even losing a ship by not tying it up).
After the Constitution was written, Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist Papers what kind of causes for impeachment the Founders had in mind: "offences which [come] from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
[They cause] injuries done immediately to the society itself."
Congress has made the meaning of "high crimes and misdemeanors" clearer by who they have chosen to impeach, and why.
Since the Constitution was ratified, the House of Representatives has impeached 18 people - mostly judges, but also two Presidents.
All but three of these 18 were impeached for crimes other than treason or bribery.
President Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for breaking a federal law (he was acquitted by the Senate)
President Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice (he was acquitted)
The judges were mostly impeached for:
Being unfair, not being impartial, and making rulings that broke laws
Abusing their power
Being corrupt
Tax evasion and lying about how much money they had
A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion in a legal case.
It is written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion of the court.
In some cases, they simply declare a disagreement with the majority opinion.
In other cases they may be used to instruct, prod, or otherwise try to convince other justices of the point of view expressed by the minority.
Dissenting opinions are normally written at the same time as the majority opinion and any concurring opinions.
They are also delivered and published at the same time.
A dissenting opinion does not create binding precedent nor does it become a part of case law.
However, they can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive authority in subsequent cases when arguing that the court's holding should be limited or overturned.
In some cases, a previous dissent is used to spur a change in the law.
A later case may result in a majority opinion adopting a particular rule of law formerly advocated in dissent.
As with concurring opinions, the difference in opinion between dissents and majority opinions can often highlight the precise holding of the majority opinion.
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes stated in 1936: "A dissent in a Court of last resort is an appeal".
In law, a legal opinion is usually a written explanation by a judge or group of judges that accompanies an order or ruling in a case.
Legal opinions  may also be written by legal experts.
A legal opinion is used to lay out the rationale (reasons for) and legal principles for the ruling.
Opinions are usually published at the direction of the court.
They may be used to reinforce, explain, change, establish, or overturn legal precedent.
If a court decides that an opinion should be published, the opinion is included in a volume from a series of books called law reports or case reports.
Published opinions of courts are also collectively referred to as case law, which is one of the major sources of law in common law legal systems.
A judicial opinion is a form of legal opinion written by a judge or a panel of judges explaining how they resolved a legal dispute.
It cites the decision reached to resolve the dispute.
A judicial opinion usually includes the reasons behind the decision.
Where there are three or more judges, it may take the form of a majority opinion, minority opinion or a concurring opinion.
Kinds of judicial opinions
A majority opinion is a judicial opinion agreed to by more than half of the members of a court.
A majority opinion sets becomes the decision of the court in a particular case.
A concurring opinion is written to agree with a decision, but for giving different reasons for the agreement.
When it is joined by the greatest number of judges, it is referred to as the plurality opinion.
A dissenting opinion (or dissent) is an opinion written by one or more judges expressing disagreement with the majority opinion.
In law, a concurring opinion is a written opinion by one or more judges of a court which agrees with the decision made by the majority of the court, but states different (or additional) reasons for the decision.
It may also be used to add comments.
When no absolute majority of the court can agree on the basis for deciding the case, the decision of the court may be contained in a number of concurring opinions.
The concurring opinion joined by the greatest number of judges is called the plurality opinion.
Having failed to receive a majority of the court's votes, concurring opinions are not binding precedent (common law) and cannot be cited as such.
But concurring opinions can sometimes be cited as a form of persuasive precedent (assuming there is no binding precedent already in effect).
The conflict in views between a majority opinion and a concurring opinion can assist a lawyer in understanding the points of law in the majority opinion.
Occasionally, a judge will use a concurring opinion to signal that he or she is open to certain types of "test cases" that would allow the development of a new legal rule.
In turn, such a concurring opinion may become more famous than the majority opinion in the same case.
A well-known example of this phenomenon is Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1944).
Concurring opinions by region
In some courts, such as the Supreme Court of the United States, the majority opinion may be broken down into numbered or lettered parts.
Concurring justices may state that they join some parts of the majority opinion, but not others, for the reasons given in their concurring opinion.
In other courts, such as the Supreme Court of California, the same justice may write a majority opinion and a separate concurring opinion to express additional reasons in support of the judgment
Terminology at the various courts
At the International Court of Justice, the term "separate opinion" is used and judges can also add declarations to the judgment.
The term concurring opinion is used at the Supreme Court of the United States.
The European Court of Human Rights uses the term concurring opinion and calls both concurring and dissenting opinions separate opinions.
Judges very rarely add declarations to the judgment.
The Law Lords of the United Kingdom give each an opinion of their own.
No aggregated judgment is provided.
In some jurisdictions (e.g., California), the term may be abbreviated in certain contexts to conc.
opn.
Legal usage
A seriatim opinion describes an opinion delivered by a court with multiple judges, in which each judge reads his or her own opinion rather than a single judge writing an opinion on behalf of the entire court.
This is a practice generally used when a legal case does not have a majority opinion.
In modern use pleadings is used for "one by one in sequence".
For example, in English civil cases, defence statements generally used to conclude with the phrase "save as expressly admitted herein, each allegation of the plaintiffs is denied as if set out in full and traversed herein seriatim."
This formulation is now discouraged under the English Civil Procedure Rules, especially rule 16.5 (3)-(5).
It is sometimes seen in older deeds and contracts as a more traditional way of using terms of reference.
For example "the railway by-laws shall apply to the contract as if set out herein seriatim."
It is sometimes found as part of the longer phrase brevatim et seriatim, meaning "briefly and in series".
This provision will force the pleader to consider carefully and promptly the wisdom of amending to meet the arguments in the motion... and will expedite determination of issues that otherwise might be raised seriatim.
In law, a memorandum opinion is usually an unpublished legal opinion that cannot be cited as precedent.
It is formally defined as: "[1] unanimous appellate opinion that succinctly states the decision of the court; an opinion that briefly reports the court's conclusion, usu.
without elaboration because the decision follows a well-established legal principle or does not relate to any point of law."
There is no elaboration or explanation because the decision either follows a well-known legal principle or it does not relate to a point of law.
A memorandum opinion is also not subject to appeal.
Generally, memorandum opinions follow ordinary rules, including the application of precedent and the rule of stare decisis.
In law, a per curiam decision (or opinion) is a ruling issued by an appellate court in which the decision rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively and unanimously.
In contrast to regular opinions, a per curiam does not list the individual judge responsible for authoring the decision, but minority dissenting and concurring decisions are signed.
Per curiams are not the only type of decision that can reflect the opinion of the court.
Other types of decisions can also reflect the opinion of the entire court, such as unanimous decisions, in which the opinion of the court is expressed with an author listed.
The Latin term per curiam literally means "by the court".
The decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court are usually not per curiam.
Their decisions more commonly take the form of one or more opinions signed by individual justices which are then joined in by other justices.
Unanimous and signed opinions are not considered per curiam decisions, as only the court can officially designate opinions as per curiam.
Per curiam decisions tend to be brief in length.
The designation is stated at the beginning of the opinion.
The notable exception to the usual characteristics for a per curiam decision is the case of Bush v. Gore.
Although it was per curiam, there were multiple concurrences and dissents.
The Supreme Court of California occasionally releases decisions in the name of "The Court".
But these are not necessarily unanimous.
Sometimes an opinion in the name of the Court may be accompanied by extensive concurring and dissenting opinions.
The Supreme Court of Canada also attributes some decisions to "The Court" but does not use the phrase per curiam.
In the U.S. the term is used primarily for uncontroversial cases.
In Canada, however, it has been used for important and controversial cases to emphasize that the entire Court is speaking with a single voice.
Anita Brookner, CBE (16 July 1928 – 10 March 2016) was a British award-winning novelist and art historian.
She was Slade Professor of Fine Art at the University of Cambridge from 1967 to 1968.
She was the first woman to hold this visiting professorship.
She was awarded the 1984 Man Booker Prize for her novel Hotel du Lac.
Anita Brookner Collection at the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin
He was a professor in the department of Materials Science at MIT from 1964 to 1978.
Since 1977, he has held a position at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly the National Bureau of Standards, NBS).Cahn has applied the basic laws of thermodynamics to describe and predict a wide range of physical phenomena.
Tamara D. Grigsby (November 19, 1974 – March 15, 2016) was an American social worker.
She was a university professor from Wisconsin.
She served as a Democratic Party member of the Wisconsin State Assembly, representing the 18th Assembly District, from 2005 until 2013.
Grigby's staff announced on December 22, 2011 that she was hospitalized in intensive care, battling cancer.
In April 2012, Grigsby announced she would be retiring from the Assembly to recover her strength.
Earline W. Parmon (Nonember 18, 1943 – March 15, 2016) was an American Democratic member of the North Carolina General Assembly.
She represented the state's seventy-second House district
Parmon has served five terms in the state House.
She announced in 2012 that she would run for a seat in the North Carolina Senate.
Parmon served in the North Carolina State Senate and resigned in 2015.
Parmon died on March 15, 2016 from a short-illness in Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Asa Briggs, Baron Briggs (7 May 1921 – 15 March 2016) was an English historian.
He was a leading specialist on the Victorian era.
He was a well-known historian of broadcasting in Britain.
He was made a life peer in 1976.
Briggs was born in Keighley, West Riding of Yorkshire.
Briggs died in Lewes, East Sussex on 15 March 2016.
Pharisees were Jewish leaders who composed and enforced religious law at a certain period in Jewish history.
At times, the Pharisees were a political party, a social movement, and a school of thought.
After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD, Pharisaic beliefs became the foundation for Rabbinic Judaism.
The term 'Judaism' today almost always refers to Rabbinic Judaism.
Pharisees: Oxford Quick Reference
Jewish Encyclopedia: Pharisees
Ratu Seru Raveive Rabeni (27 December 1978 – 15 March 2016) was a Fijian rugby union player.
He played as a centre or wing.
He played for the Fiji national rugby union team from 2000 through 2011.
Rabeni was known in both club and international level for his physicality and bone crunching tackles, earning him the nickname "Rambo".
Leeds profile
Tigers profile
Fiji profile
Pacific Islanders profile
Scrum profile
This article will show the current results of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries.
The Democratic Party presidential primary is a process of choosing delegates, or people that represent someone, to go to the 2016 Democratic National Convention.
The remaining candidates are former first lady and secretary of state and senator Hillary Clinton and senator Bernie Sanders.
On June 6, 2016, the Associated Press reported that senator Hillary Clinton has gotten enough delegates to become the presumptive Democratic nominee.
However, their count includes some superdelegates.
Since superdelegates can vote however they want at the Democratic convention, their votes could change at any time before then, so it is possible (but only remotely possible) that Clinton will not get the nomination.
Bernie Sanders endorsed Clinton on 12 July 2016.
Hillary Clinton – 67th United States Secretary of State (2009 to 2013), First Lady of the United States (1993 to 2001) and New York senator (2001 to 2009).
Bernie Sanders – Vermont senator (2007 to present) and representative (1991 to 2007).
Dropped out during primaries
Martin O'Malley – Maryland governor (2007 to 2015) and Baltimore mayor (1999 to 2007).
Dropped out before primaries
Jim Webb – Virginia senator (2007 to 2013) and Secretary of the Navy (1987 to 1988).
Lincoln Chafee – Rhode Island governor (2011 to 2015), senator (1999 to 2007) and Warwick mayor (1993 to 1999)
Lawrence Lessig – professor
The delegate count that is under the popular vote percentage is estimated.
If you add all the delegates listed, you may get a result that is a little bit off from the total at the top of the table.
It also only shows pledged delegates, and not super delegates.
Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016
The Armenian calendar was the main calendar used in Armenia during the medieval period.
The year in this calendar is exactly 365 days long, divided into twelve months of thirty days each, plus five extra days that are called "aveleacʿ" in the Armenian language, which are not a part of any month.
The first year in the Armenian calendar is equal to the year 552 AD in the Gregorian calendar.
This calendar was mainly used in the medieval era, but is also used in modern times by some Armenian nationalists.
This calendar has no leap days.
For that reason, it shifts backwards against the Gregorian calendar over a period of 1,461 years.
Philby began his work for the Soviet Union as a spy in 1934.
He went on to serve the KGB for 54 years.
He passed over 900 British documents to the KGB.
He served as a double agent.
In 1961, defector Anatoliy Golitsyn gave information which pointed to Philby.
An MI6 officer,  Nicholas Elliott, was sent in 1963 to interview him in Beirut.
He reported that Philby seemed to know he was coming (this suggested the presence of yet another mole).
Nonetheless, Philby allegedly confessed to Elliott.
Shortly afterwards, apparently fearing he might be abducted in Lebanon, Philby defected to the Soviet Union.
He fled, under cover of night, to a Soviet freighter.
Sylvia Anderson (27 March 1927 – 16 March 2016) was a British producer and actress.
She was born in London, England, United Kingdom.
She was known for voicing Lady Penelope in Thunderbirds.
She was married to producer Gerry Anderson from 1960 until they divorced in 1981.
They had a daughter and son.
Hua Mulan () is a legendary warrior from China.
The stories about her are set during various times in China's history.
She was first written about in a ballad called the Ballad of Mulan ().
In the ballad, Hua Mulan takes her father's place in the army.
She practiced martial arts such as kung fu, and was skilled with a sword.
She fought for twelve years and became famous, but she refused any reward.
Mulan (movie)
Yassmin Abdel-Magied is a writer, social advocate, and an engineer.
She helps women, youth, and ethnic minorities develop their communities.
At 16 years old, Abdel-Magied created Youth Without Borders, an organization that provides programs, opportunities, and support for youth to create positive changes in their communities.
She received the Dean’s Excellence Scholarship from the University of Queensland.
In 2011, she graduated from the University of Queensland with a Bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering
In 2012, Abdel-Magied started working on oil and gas rigs as a field engineer (Measurement and Logging While Drilling specialist).
In 2014, she moved to Perth, Australia to work as a drilling engineer on offshore rigs.
Achievements-
Abdel-Magied has served on multiple boards and councils, including the boards of the Queensland Museum, the Australian Multicultural Council, the Queensland Design Council, United Nations Youth Australia and others.
She currently sits on the board of ChildFund Australia, the Council of Australian-Arab Relations and OurWatch.
In December 2014, Abdel-Magied presented her first TED Talk about implicit bias.
She published her first book, Yassmin’s Story, in 2016 with Random House.
In 2007, Abdel-Magied received the Young Australian Muslim of the Year award.
In 2010 she received the Young Queenslander of the Year award, in 2011 she was a finalist for the Queensland Young Australian of the Year Award.
She was the winner of the Youth Leader category in the 2012 Australian Financial Review and Westpac 100 Women of Influence Awards and the youngest woman on the list.
In 2015, Abdel-Magied was one of the finalists in Young Australian of the Year, being named Queensland Young Australian of the Year.
Youth Without Borders
Abdel-Magied founded Youth Without Borders  in 2007 and has been the chair of the organization since its establishment.
The organization provides programs, opportunities, and support for youth to create positive changes in their communities.
One of the projects is a library for children and youth on a motorcycle.
This motorcycle travels to villages that do not have access to libraries in Indonesia.
San Sebastián Street Festival, also known as “San Se”, is a very popular Puerto Rican festivity that takes place in the Old San Juan.
It is a four-day event that starts the third Thursday of January through Sunday.
This festive is in honor of Saint Sebastian.
January 20th is the day that Catholic Church celebrates the life of this Saint.
More than 200,000 people participate in this festival, making this activity be recognized internationally.
Also, some Puerto Ricans have started this festive in the United States.
Also they celebrate the Rivera Family, next year Paris Rivera will be the starter of the festival.
Father Juan Manuel Madrazo, the priest of the San José Church in the 1950s, was the first person who organized the festival.
The purpose of this festival was to commemorate the life of this Saint and raise money to repair the church.
When the father was moved out of San Juan, this festival came to an end.
It was not until 1970 when a historian and anthropologist named Ricardo Alegría proposed to Rafaela Balladares de Brito, a resident of San Sebastian street, to revive this tradition.
Balladares de Brito with the help of her neighbors began to reorganize the festival and recollect money for an elementary school directed by Sisters of Charity.
First celebrations
During the past celebrations, a group of musicians in the early morning of the first days walked and announced the festivity though the street.
People in costumes of Spanish Kings, Queen Isabel and King Fernando, wear huge mask over their heads and were called “Cabezudos”, also participated in the parade.
During the procession, people carried the Saint’s Image from San Sebastian Street and ended at the San José Church.
In addition, the neighbors decorated their home’s balcony and the streets.
They also prepared typical food, wore dresses and participated as host of the music shows.
Today’s celebrations
In the present, the addition of artisans has acquired more importance, as well as music and dance in the nights.
Also, artists perform at different stages localized around the Old San Juan. “
Cabezudos” now include characters representing the Puerto Rican folklore that pass through the streets dancing and singing followed by the public.
Now, the parade is longer than the past ones and the municipality of San Juan is responsible in organizing the entire festival.
Festivities vary year by year, but mainly include the ones mentioned above.
In the recent years, several of San Sebastian Festivals have been celebrated in different areas of Florida and in DFW, Texas.
This has been a result of many Puerto Ricans moving to the United States and wanting to maintain a connection with their typical island traditions.
The festivals programed in Florida and Dallas, Texas have a duration of one to two days compared to the one celebrated in Puerto Rico which last four days.
These festivals also have Puerto Rican food and rums, “Cabezudos”, artisan market, and music.
A least developed country (LDC) is a country that the United Nations considers to be the least developed out of all the countries in the world.
They normally have the lowest ratings on the Human Development Index.
The idea to name LDCs started in the late 1960s.
The first group of LDCs was listed by the UN in November 1971.
Classification process
The gross domestic product, per person, is low.
Currently, the average over three years is considered.
An index measuring social factors, such as health,  education and literacy among adults.
Currently, the Human Assets Index is used for this purpose.
A third index looks at how vulnerable the economy is as a whole.
Currently, the Economic Vulnerability Index is used.
To be considered a least developed country, a country must have high levels of poverty, low human resources and a vulnerable economy.
The UN looks at indicators, such as gross national income, nutrition, health, education and literacy.
Economic vulnerability is recorded on the Economic Vulnerability Index.
LDC criteria are reviewed every three years.
Countries may stop being considered an LDC when indicators show that they have become developed enough.
Since the LDC category was created, four countries have graduated to developing country status.
The first country to do this was Botswana in 1994.
The second was Cape Verde, in 2007.
Then Maldives in 2011, and Samoa in 2014.
It is expected that Equatorial Guinea and Vanuatu will be the next countries to be promoted from LDC status.
, there are 48 least developed countries.
There are also three countries which meet the criteria for LDC status, but have asked to not be included in the index: Ghana, Papua New Guinea and Zimbabwe.
Current list
Africa (34 countries)
Asia (9 countries)
Oceania (4 countries)
Americas (1 country)
Third world
United Nations, "LDCs: Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and Small Island Developing States"
World Trade Organisation, ""WTO Launches Trade Initiative for Least Developed Countries", FOCUS newsletter, WTO, Geneva, Switzerland, November 1997 issue 24.
Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, United Nations
United Nations List of LDCs
The Constitutional Convention (also known as the Philadelphia Convention) was held from May 25 to September 17, 1787 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Although the Convention was called to revise the Articles of Confederation, it became clear from the beginning that many members, including James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, intended to create a new government rather than fix the existing one.
The result of the Convention was the creation of the United States Constitution.
This makes the meeting one of the most significant events in the history of the United States.
Most of the disputes were about the makeup and election of the Senate.
Other disagreements concerned how "proportional representation" was to be defined (whether to include slaves or other property).
They needed to decide whether to divide the executive power between three persons or invest the power into a single president.
They also had to work out how to elect the president, how long his term was to be and whether he could stand for reelection.
There were issues over what offenses should be impeachable.
Most of the time during the Convention was spent on deciding these issues, while the powers of legislature, executive, and judiciary were not heavily disputed.
Once the Convention began, the delegates first agreed on the principles of the Convention, then they agreed on Madison's Virginia Plan and began to modify it.
A Committee of Detail assembled during the July 4 recess and produced a rough draft.
Most of this rough draft remained in place, and can be found in the final version of the constitution.
After the final issues were resolved, the Committee on Style produced the final version, and it was voted on and sent to the states.
The Virginia Plan
James Madison had spent the winter of 1787 making a study of various confederations throughout history.
He came to Philadelphia armed with a wealth of knowledge and an idea for what the United States government should be.
His plan was presented to the Convention by Edmund Randolph, the Governor of Virginia.
It became the broad outline of what would be a new government under the U.S. Constitution.
His plan called for three branches of government with checks and balances to prevent any one branch from abusing their power.
Madison's idea for a legislature had two houses.
One would feature members elected by the people for a three-year term.
The other would have its members elected by the state legislatures and would serve for 7 years.
Both would have the seats determined by the population of the country.
Two more plans
After debating the Virginia plan for two weeks, William Patterson presented his plan called variously, the New Jersey Plan, the Patterson Plan and the Small State Plan.
It was very similar to the Articles of Confederation and featured a unicameral (one house) legislature.
All states would have one vote.
He had one idea that was kept; that state laws that ran counter to federal laws would be voided.
A third plan was offered by Alexander Hamilton.
It was a copy of the British Constitution.
It also was bicameral with an upper house and a legislature in which members served on their good behavior.
Finally they worked out a compromise between all three plans.
The new government would have an upper house, having an equal number of delegates from each state, and a lower house with representation based on population.
The executive branch would have most of the responsibilities of foreign affairs while other important powers, like ratifying treaties, would be the responsibility of the legislative branch.
After the new Constitution was ratified by the states, it went into effect in 1789.
Section 1: Full faith and credit
This clause makes certain that any judicial decisions made in courts of one state are recognized and honored in all other states.
This eliminates the practice of "forum shopping", the practice of having a legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment.
It also prevents someone moving from one state to another to escape a judgment.
In Mills v. Duryee (1813), the United States Supreme Court ruled that the merits of a case, as settled by courts of one state, must be recognized by the courts of other states.
state courts may not reopen cases which have been conclusively decided by the courts of another state.
Later, Chief Justice John Marshall suggested that the judgment of one state court must be recognized by other states' courts as final.
However, in McElmoyle v. Cohen (1839), the court heard a case where one party obtained a judgment in South Carolina and sought to enforce it in Georgia, which had a statute of limitations that barred actions on judgments after a certain amount of time had passed.
The court upheld Georgia's refusal to enforce the South Carolina judgment.
The court found that out-of-state judgments are subject to the procedural law of the states where they are enforced, notwithstanding any priority it may be given in the state in which they it was issued.
Section 2: Rights of state citizens; rights of extradition
Clause 1: Privileges and Immunities
Clause One of Section 2 requires interstate protection of "privileges and immunities".
The apparent ambiguity of the clause has given rise to a number of different interpretations.
Some contend that the clause requires Congress to treat all citizens equally.
Others suggest that citizens of states carry the rights accorded by their home states while traveling in other states.
Neither of these theories has been endorsed by the Supreme Court.
A state may not discriminate against citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens.
But certain exceptions are allowed.
For example a state may give their own citizens the right to buy a hunting or fishing license at a lower cost than to nonresidents.
Clause 2: Extradition of fugitives
Clause Two requires that fugitives from justice may be extradited on the demand of executive authority of the state from which they flee.
The Supreme Court has held that it is not compulsory for the fugitive to have fled after an indictment was issued, but only that the fugitive fled after having committed the crime.
The Constitution provides for the extradition of fugitives who have committed treason, felony or other crime.
That phrase incorporates all acts prohibited by the laws of a state, including misdemeanors and small, or petty, offenses.
In Kentucky v. Dennison (1860), the Supreme Court held that the federal courts may not compel state governors to surrender fugitives through the issue of writs of mandamus.
The Dennison decision was overruled by Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987).
Now, the federal courts may require the extradition of fugitives.
Alleged fugitives generally may not challenge extradition proceedings.
Clause 3: Fugitive Slave Clause
Pierce Butler and Charles Pinckney, both from South Carolina, submitted this clause to the Constitutional Convention.
James Wilson and Roger Sherman both objected and Butler withdrew the clause.
However, on the next day the clause was reinstated and adopted by the Convention without objection.
At the last moment the language was changed from "Person legally held to Service or Labour in one state" to read "Person held to Service or Labour in one state, under the Laws thereof".
Section 3: New states and federal property
Clause 1: New states
The First Clause of Section Three grants to Congress the authority to admit new states into the Union.
Since the establishment of the United States in 1776, the number of states has expanded from the original 13 to 50.
It also forbids the creation of new states from parts of existing states without the consent of both the affected states and Congress.
This latter provision was designed to gave Eastern states that still had claims to Western lands (e.g., Virginia and North Carolina) to have a veto over whether their western counties (which eventually became Kentucky and Tennessee) could become states.
It would later be applied with regard to the formation of Maine (from Massachusetts) and West Virginia (from Virginia).
Clause 2: Property Clause
This clause, commonly known as the Property or Territorial Clause, grants Congress the constitutional authority for the management and control of all territories or other property owned by United States.
Additionally, the clause also proclaims that nothing contained within the Constitution may be interpreted to harm (prejudice) any claim of the United States, or of any particular State.
The exact scope of this clause has long been a matter of debate.
The federal government owns or controls about thirty percent of the land in the United States.
These holdings include national parks, national forests, recreation areas, wildlife refuges, vast tracts of range and public lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management, reservations held in trust for Native American tribes, military bases, and ordinary federal buildings and installations.
Although federal property can be found in every state, the largest concentrations are in the west, where, for example, the federal government owns over eighty percent of the land within Nevada.
Section 4: Obligations of the United States
Clause 1: Republican government
This clause, sometimes referred to as the Guarantee Clause, has long been at the fore-front of the debate about the rights of citizens compared to those of the government.
The Guarantee Clause mandates that all U.S. states must be grounded in republican principles, such as the consent of the governed.
By ensuring that all states must have the same type of government (a republic), the Guarantee Clause is one of several portions of the Constitution which mandates symmetric federalism between the states.
Clause 2: Protection from invasion and domestic violence
Section Four requires the United States to protect each state from invasion, and, upon the application of the state legislature (or executive, if the legislature cannot be convened), from domestic violence.
This provision was discussed during the 1967 Detroit riot, but was not invoked.
Adam H. Kurland, The Guarantee Clause as a Basis for Federal Prosecutions of State and Local Officials, 62  369 (1989).
Kilman, Johnny and George Costello (Eds). (
The Constitution of the United States of America: Analyis and Interpretation.
CRS Annotated Constitution: Article 4
Norma Angélica Cruz Córdoba (Norma Cruz) is a Guatemalan human rights  activist who works to stop violence against women.
Cruz is the head of the Fundación Sobrevivientes (Survivors' Foundation), a women's rights organization in Guatemala City.
In 2009, the US Department of State gave Cruz an International Women of Courage Award.
Norma Cruz was born in Guatemala City in 1962.
Her father was a shoemaker and her mother was a cook.
As a teenager, Cruz was a student leader and a missionary.
When she was 15 years old, Cruz joined a convent.
Two years later, she left the convent, because she wanted a more political life.
Cruz started the organization Fundación Sobrevivientes on July 3, 1996.
It started as a women's support center.
Now it has a shelter for up to 20 women, teenagers, and children.
In 2009, 110 people stayed at the shelter.
The organization also gives legal help to women who want to take legal action in the courts.
2009 International Women of Courage Award from U.S. Department of State
2009 Person of the Year by Prensa Libre, the leading newspaper in Guatemala
Caroline Herschel (16 March 1750 – 9 January 1848) was a German astronomer who spent most of her life in England.
She was the first female astronomer that we know of.
She was the first woman to receive a salary as a scientist.
She was the first woman in England to hold a government position.
She was the first woman to be awarded a Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society (1828), and to be named an Honorary Member of the Royal Astronomical Society (1835, with Mary Somerville).
She was also named an honorary member of the Royal Irish Academy (1838).
The King of Prussia presented her with a Gold Medal for Science on the occasion of her 96th birthday (1846).
Caroline was born on March 16, 1750 in Hanover, Germany.
She was encouraged by her father to get an education.
She learnt geometry on her own.
She had a hard life because people that she loved died.
After her father's death, her brother William Herschel suggested she join him in England.
She left Hanover for England on August 16, 1772, with her brother.
In England, Caroline's neighbour taught her how to cook, market, and to speak English.
This expanded her horizons.
William encouraged her to be independent.
She signed up to learn how to sing and to play the harpsichord.
This led her to being a part of William’s musical shows in small gatherings.
She and William discussed astronomy in their free time.
This caused her interest to grow.
Caroline began including English society in her everyday life.
She eventually decided to devote her time to astronomy.
This helped William: he needed Caroline’s talents in copying papers.
When they were in England, Caroline helped her brother in his scientific work.
She helped him to discover Uranus with a six-foot telescope.
William was credited with the discovery of Uranus.
He was knighted because of his discovery, and she was his assistant.