the-french-artist/wikipedia_20220301.simple_sentence_split huggingface dataset:
Artur Górski - parliamentary page  - includes declarations of interest, voting record, and transcripts of speeches.
Artur Górski home page - personal website, includes articles, biographies and photographs.
Denise Robertson MBE, DL (9 June 1932 – 31 March 2016) was a British writer and television broadcaster.
She made her television debut as the presenter of the Junior Advice Line segment of the BBC's Breakfast Time programme in 1985.
She was best known as the resident agony aunt on the ITV show This Morning from its first ever broadcast on 3 October 1988 until her death in 2016.
Denise Robertson returns to Uganda
Clodomir Santos de Morais, PhD (30 September 1928 – 25 March 2016), was a Brazilian sociologist.
He worked with the Organization Workshop (OW) and the associated  Activity-based Large Group Capacitation Method (LGCM).
In the 1940s and 1950s de Morais worked as a trade unionist and a journalist.
He became a member of the Pernambuco State Assembly and co-founder of the Ligas Camponêsas (Peasant Leagues).
After the 1964 coup he was forced into exile, first in Chile, and, as ILO Regional Advisor on Agrarian Reform for Central America, he later worked as Agrarian Reform consultant in Latin America, Portugal and Africa.
.Van Dam was translated into Dutch in 1983 re: Het Experimenteel Laboratorium ISBN  9064432910.
South American sociologists
Adam Roman Żurowski (3 March 1929 – 25 March 2016) was a Polish surveyor.
He was the professor of technical sciences at the  Gdansk University of Technology.
He was also Dean of the Faculty Hydrotechnics from 1990 through 1993.
He was Head of the Department of Geodesy from 1985 through 1999.
Vincent Joseph Boryla (March 11, 1927 – March 27, 2016) was an American basketball player, coach and executive.
His nickname was "Moose".
Boryla was born in East Chicago, Indiana.
He studied at East Chicago Washington High School in 1944.
He played basketball at the University of Notre Dame and the University of Denver.
Boryla was part of the U.S team that won the gold medal at the 1948 Summer Olympics in London.
Boryla played for the New York Knicks in the early 1950s.
In 1951, Boryla scored nine points in the 1951 NBA All-Star Game.
He played in the NBA Finals in 1951 and 1953.
Boryla was not in the 1952 playoffs.
He later became the Knicks' coach from 1956 to 1958, and had an 80-85 record with them.
Later in his career, Boryla became the general manager of the American Basketball Association's Denver Nuggets early in their history when they were first the Kansas City ABA team and then the Denver Larks.
He was also the general manager of the ABA's Utah Stars.
Boryla later rejoined the Nuggets when the franchise joined the NBA.
He won the NBA Executive of the Year Award with the Nuggets in 1984.
Vince Boryla (as coach) Statistics at Basketball-Reference.com
National Polish-American Sports HOF profile
Spahn Ranch, also known as the Spahn Movie Ranch, was a large movie ranch in Los Angeles County, California.
It was used for filming mostly old Western movies and television programs.
With its mountains and western scenery, the ranch was ideal for cowboy and Indian type shows.
Some of the well known TV shows which were made at Spahn were episodes of Bonanza, The Lone Ranger, and Zorro.
The ranch is no longer in use.
The entrance was at 12000 Santa Susana Pass Road but the street number has changed.
The ranch was very popular due to its being a home for Charles Manson and his followers.
They lived there during 1968 and 1969.
It was owned and named after a dairy farmer named George Spahn.
George Spahn, an old man whom lived and owned the ranch decided to allow Charles Manson and his 'family' to move in, rent-free, in exchange for helping out on the ranch.
Manson and his family did daily chores and helped run the horse rental business, which had become Spahn's main source of income.
One of the Manson girls, Lynette Fromme, would take care of George Spahn, who was half blind, needed and appreciated the assistance.
George Spahn was never accused of any involvement in the crimes for which members of the Family were later convicted, the most infamous being the Tate-LaBianca murders committed on August 9th and 10th, 1969.
In the months after, a documentary film creator named Robert Hendrickson began filming the Manson Family at the ranch for his documentary film Manson.
There he filmed George Spahn, Lynette Fromme, Nancy Pittman, Catherine Share, Sandra Good, Paul Watkins  and many others.
It is the place where the 'family' lived while committing the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders in Los Angeles.
A wildfire destroyed all of the Spahn Movie Ranch film set and building on September 26, 1970.
The owner, George Spahn died on September 22, 1974.
The Spahn Movie Ranch site is empty, abandoned and now part of California's Santa Susana Pass State Historic Park with the historic section along Old Santa Susana Stage Road, on the park's northern side.
Many hiking trails give access to the natural beauty and the panoramic views of the San Fernando Valley.
Today, the only physical remains of what was once the Manson residence is known as the Manson Family Cave, so called from a popular photo which has circulated over the years which still is intact and exactly how it appeared back then.
California State Parks: official Santa Susana Pass State Historic Park website
LAMountains.com: Santa Susana Pass Park website
{This list is highly inaccurate: no movies were filmed at Spahn after 9-25-70.}
endings=on&&locations=Spahn+Ranch,+Chatsworth,+Los+Angeles,+California,+USA IMDB: List of films shot at Spahn Movie Ranch
Spahn Ranch History
Daan Myngheer (13 April 1993 – 28 March 2016) was a Belgian cyclist.
In 2015, he was a member of the Verandas Willems cycling team and in 2016 he was a member of the Roubaix–Lille Métropole.
He was born in Roeselare, Belgium.
Khuzaima Qutbuddin (5 June 1940 – 31 March 2016) was a claimant to the title of 53rd Da'i al-Mutlaq of the Dawoodi Bohras.
It is a subgroup within the Mustaali, Ismaili Shia branch of Islam.
Qutbuddin was appointed "Da'i Madhun" (mazoon mola) by the Syedna Muhammad Burhanuddin in 1965.
Howard Reid Cable (December 15, 1920March 30, 2016) was a Canadian conductor, arranger, music director, composer, and radio and television producer.
He received an Associate diploma (ATCM) from The Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto in conducting and bandmastership 1939.
Cable composed and arranged the original theme for the Hockey Night in Canada television broadcast, The Saturday Game which opened the broadcast from 1952 until 1968.
Cable, Howard  entry in The Encyclopedia of Music in Canada (part of The Canadian Encyclopedia)
Howard Cable Northdale Music Press Ltd. biography
Howard Cable Canadian Music Centre biography
Howard Cable  profile for University of Lethbridge Music Department
Howard Cable Remembers the personal blog of Howard Cable
A Miranda warning is a list of rights that people in the United States have when they are being questioned by the police or arrested.
These rights are called Miranda rights.
Because of a United States Supreme Court decision in a case called Miranda v. Arizona, , the police have to give a person this list of rights before they start questioning them.
One goal of the Miranda warning is to make sure that suspects' rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution are protected.
Another goal is to make sure suspects know about their rights, and know that they can use them.
In Miranda v. Arizona, a man named Ernesto Miranda confessed to raping and murdering a 17-year-old girl.
Miranda was convicted and sent to prison.
However, he and his lawyers appealed his conviction all the way to the Supreme Court.
They argued that Miranda's confession should not have been used as evidence because:
The police never told him he had the right to a lawyer
The police never told him he had "the right to remain silent" (the right to refuse to answer questions).
This is called the "right against self-incrimination" (the right not to say anything that will prove you committed a crime).
It is protected in the Fifth Amendment.
Supreme Court ruling
The Sixth Amendment protects the right to a lawyer, but the Supreme Court had also just recently made two landmark decisions about this right.
In 1963, the Court ruled in Gideon v. Wainwright, , that anyone being tried for a crime had the right to a lawyer.
If the person could not pay for a lawyer, the state had to assign them a free lawyer.
The next year, the Court ruled in another landmark case called Escobedo v. Illinois, , that anyone suspected of a crime had the right to have a lawyer with them while the police questioned them.
The Supreme Court decided the police got Miranda's confession by ignoring his rights, and they threw out Miranda's conviction.
(Miranda was re-tried, and even without the confession as evidence, he was convicted again.)
The Court also ruled that police have to make sure suspects know and understand their rights before being interrogated.
Specifically, police have to give a "Miranda warning" that tells suspects they have these rights:
The right to refuse to answer any questions ("the right to remain silent")
The right to have a lawyer (including a public defender  a free lawyer, if the suspect cannot pay for a lawyer)
Basic Miranda warning
Many people from all over the world know these words from television and think of this as "the Miranda warning."
However, there is no one version of the Miranda warning.
Different people, police departments, and states use different words.
The Supreme Court has said the words can change, as long as the four basic parts of the warning are there.
In Simple English, they are:
The suspect has the "right to remain silent."
They do not have to say anything and can refuse to answer any questions.
Anything the suspect says that is related to a crime can be used as evidence in court to prove their guilt.
The suspect has the right to have a lawyer.
If the suspect cannot pay for a lawyer, they still have the right to a lawyer.
The court will assign a free lawyer for them.
There are at least 945 different versions of the Miranda warning just in English.
Some versions warn non-citizens of their right to consult their nation's consulate before questioning continues.
Some try to make the warning easier for juveniles or people with learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, or mental illnesses to understand.
Some may ask the suspect to confirm that he or she understands the warning.
However, studies have shown that in fact, people in these groups often have even more trouble understanding the 'simpler' versions.
The Miranda warning has also had to be translated into many different languages.
Many different police departments carry cards that show the warning in different languages.
Others use translators to give the warning.
When it is used
The law says the police have to give a suspect a Miranda warning before they start questioning them.
If they do not, and the suspect gives a confession, that confession could later be thrown out in court.
This means a court could rule that the confession cannot be used as evidence in a trial.
A confession can also be thrown out if the police gave a Miranda warning, but gave it the wrong way, or did not make sure the suspect understood it.
(This is discussed more in the "Problems" section.)
The suspect gave the police evidence during an interrogation
This evidence was information  something the suspect said to police (not a thing, like clothes or a blood sample)
The suspect gave this evidence while in police custody (under arrest, or not allowed to leave the police)
The suspect gave this evidence during a police interrogation
The suspect knew the people questioning him were law enforcement officers
The state uses the suspect's confession during a criminal trial
The suspect was given a Miranda warning;
The suspect understood his Miranda rights; and
The suspect decided not to use his Miranda rights.
Problems with the Miranda warning
Studies of many different versions of the Miranda warning have shown that most of them are complex.
The more complex the Miranda warning is, the harder it is to understand.
For example, one study from 2008 looked at how complex the sentences were in the average Miranda warning.
They found a "sentence complexity" score of 48.96  which meant the sentences were as complicated as the instructions on United States tax forms.
In some of the warnings, the information about Miranda rights was more complex than a college-level accounting textbook.
Some areas have "simplified" versions of the Miranda warning.
However, researchers have found that these versions are not always easier to understand.
A person would need high school-level reading and language skills to understand some of them.
In a study of 560 different English versions of the Miranda warning, researchers found that a person would need 7th-grade reading skills to understand the simplest versions.
To understand the most complicated Miranda warnings, a person would need a doctoral-level education (the highest level of education you can get at a university).
According to the American Psychological Association, people are so used to hearing the Miranda warning on television that they think they understand their rights.
However, a 2011 study by Richard Rogers says that many people do not understand their Miranda rights, or have wrong beliefs about them.
For example, Rogers found that 31% of defendants waiting for trials in Texas and Oklahoma did not understand their right to remain silent.
They believed that if they did not answer questions, the court would use that as evidence of their guilt.
Rogers also found that 36% of college students believed the same thing.
Other studies have shown that most juveniles (children and teenagers)  and many adults  do not understand their rights well enough to decide when to use them and when to waive them (not use them).
For example, in one study, a researcher asked juveniles and adults to repeat back the Miranda warning in their own words.
The researcher also asked them to define six of the most important words in the Miranda warning, like "consult," "appoint," and "attorney."
Finally, the researcher tested whether they could understand different versions of the Miranda warning.
He found:
Only one out of five juveniles (20.9%) understood all four parts of a Miranda warning.
Just over two out of five adults did (42.3%)
Over half of juveniles (55.3%) and almost one quarter of the adults (23.5%) did not understand at least one of the four parts of the warning
Juveniles who did not understand their rights were more likely to waive them (not use them)
Poorer children were most likely to waive their rights
No Supreme Court ruling or federal law has ever said that children must have a parent or lawyer with them while being questioned.
About 12 states have chosen to add extra protections for juveniles in their states, like not letting juveniles waive their Miranda rights without a parent or guardian there.
However, most states have not done this.
This means that in most states, juveniles can waive their rights on their own.
A famous study done by Richard Rogers and others in 2008 looked at Miranda warnings that were meant to be simplified versions for juveniles.
He found that these warnings were longer than the non-simplified versions; some had as many as 526 words.
Understanding them also required higher reading levels and abilities than the adult versions.
Another study, done in 2013, found that 16- and 17-year-olds charged with a felony almost always waived their Miranda rights.
They waived their rights 93% of the time, while adults waived their rights 80% of the time.
Especially when juveniles waive their rights and agree to talk to police without a lawyer, they are much more likely to confess to something they did not actually do.
Looking at people who were proven to be innocent, studies found that one-third to two-fifths of untrue confessions came from juveniles.
Police got almost 7 out of every 10 of these false confessions from children ages 15 and under.
Translating the Miranda warning into other languages brings up special problems.
There have been many cases where suspects' confessions have been challenged and thrown out in court because of problems giving the Miranda warning in other languages.
For example, since 1993, there have been lawsuits about:
Suspects who speak Arabic, Cantonese, Dinka, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Somali, and Spanish being given Miranda warnings in English
Suspects who speak Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese being given written Miranda warnings that were not translated correctly
Police using translators who made mistakes, did not know how to translate legal words, or just did not speak the suspect's language very well
Police using translators who did not speak the suspect's language at all
The Miranda warning is also difficult to translate into some languages.
Not all languages have words for the same ideas as English.
For example, American Sign Language has no signs for legal words like "rights."
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution (protects the right to remain silent)
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution (protects the right to a lawyer)
Gideon v. Wainwright (protects the right to have a lawyer for any criminal charge, free if needed)
Escobedo v. Illinois (protects the right to have a lawyer while being questioned by police)
Know Your Rights: Simple English brochures from the American Civil Liberties Union about your Miranda rights
Know Your Rights When Being Questioned by Law Enforcement
Know Your Rights As a Juvenile
Deaf Rights: What to Do if You Are Dealing with the Police  (starring Marlee Matlin)
Information for Non-Citizens
Douglas Wilmer (8 January 1920 – 31 March 2016) was an English actor.
He was best known for playing Sherlock Holmes in the 1965 TV series.
He also appeared in Jason and the Argonauts, the Pink Panther movies A Shot in the Dark (1964) and Revenge of the Pink Panther (1978),  The Vampire Lovers (1970), The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1974), and Octopussy (1983).
Pratyusha Banerjee (10 August 1991 – 1 April 2016) was an Indian movie and television actress.
She started her career with Balika Vadhu as Anandi.
She was also a contestant on Bigg Boss 7.
She had signed as a host with reality-based crime saga Savdhaan India for the special segment on "women against crime".
She had worked in Pyaar Tune Kya Kiya in 2014 and was last seen in Hum Hain Na.
Banerjee committed suicide by hanging herself on April 1, 2016.
She was declared dead at Kokilben Ambani hospital in Mumbai after doctors failed to revive her.
She was aged 24.
He was the former chairman and CEO of NBC from 1981 to 1986.
He is the co-founder of MTM Enterprises.
Tinker was the former husband of actress Mary Tyler Moore.
After leaving NBC, Tinker tried to repeat his success with MTM Enterprises by forming GTG (Grant Tinker-Gannett) Entertainment but the business venture failed and the company closed in 1990.
Tinker was born in Stamford, Connecticut.
His parents were Margaret (née Hessin) and Arthur Almerin Tinker.
Tinker died on November 28, 2016 of natural causes in Los Angeles, California, aged 90.
Christopher "Chris" O'Dowd (born 9 October 1979) is an Irish actor and comedian.
He was best known for his role as Roy Trenneman in the Channel 4 comedy The IT Crowd.
O'Dowd created and starred in the Sky 1 television series Moone Boy, which aired between 2012 and 2015.
He had a recurring role on the drama series Girls and starred in the television series Family Tree.
O'Dowd is also known for his movies, most notably Bridesmaids (2011), This Is 40 (2012), The Sapphires (2012), Thor: The Dark World (2013), Calvary (2014) and St. Vincent (2014).
He will star as Tiger in the 2018 Disney movie Christopher Robin.
In the United States, each of the 50 states has its own state government.
This means there are 50 separate state governments of the United States.
Federal vs. state governments
The state governments are mostly set up in the same way as the federal government of the United States.
However, the state and federal governments are not the same.
Mostly, each state government controls things that have to do with its own state.
The federal government controls things that affect the whole country.
The United States Constitution divides power between the state governments and the federal government.
The Founding Fathers of the United States wrote the Constitution this way to make sure that neither the federal government or the states could get too powerful.
Each of the 50 states, except Nebraska, has a "bicameral" legislature.
This means there are two different parts, called "houses," to the legislature.
Usually, the two houses are called the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Nebraska has a "unicameral legislature, meaning it only has one house: the Senate.
26 states call their legislatures "the Legislature"
19 states call their legislatures "the General Assembly"
North Dakota and Oregon use the name "Legislative Assembly
Massachusetts and New Hampshire use the name "General Court"
Nebraska calls its entire unicameral legislature "the Senate"
One of the two different houses of the state legislatures is called the Senate.
Sometimes it is called the State Senate, to make it clear that it is different from the federal government's United States Senate.
Until 1964, state senators were often elected from districts that were based on county lines.
Sometimes, many more people would live in one district than another.
In almost all of the states, people in rural areas got much greater representation from their senators.
In other words, an urban county and a rural county would have the same number of senators.
However, the rural county would have far fewer people.
This meant it was easier for these people to get attention from their senators, and get their senators to do what they wanted.
However, in the 1964 decision Reynolds v. Sims'', , the United States Supreme Court ruled that state senators had to cover districts that had about the same number of people in them.
This is different than the United States Senate, where every state gets two United States Senators, no matter how many people live there.
The House of Representatives
Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia call it "the House of Delegates"
California and Wisconsin call it "the State Assembly"
New Jersey uses the name "the General Assembly"
Nevada and New York just call it the "Assembly"
Every state has a Governor, who is in charge of the state's executive branch of government.
The people in that state elect the Governor.
In most states, the people also elect other important members of the executive branch.
These people work for the Governor.
For example, they may include:
A Lieutenant Governor.
This person and the Governor are often elected as a team (like the President and the Vice President)
A state Attorney General
A state Secretary of State
In most state governments, "departments" are the most powerful part of the executive branch.
The secretary of a department is usually a member of the Governor's cabinet (a group of people who give the Governor advice).
The members of the cabinet also keep the Governor up to date on whatever is happening in all the different executive agencies.
Each department may include divisions, offices, and/or agencies.
Every state government is allowed to organize its executive departments and agencies any way it wants.
Because of this, each state government is organized in a different way.
The executive branch may also include many other organizations.
These may include commissions, councils, offices, corporations, or many other things.
A department or division might be in charge of these organizations, or they might be independent.
Example: Arizona
Arizona's government gives an example of how all these people, departments, commissions, and other options might be organized.
Here is a very basic summary of Arizona's executive branch:
Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, and seven other elected officials
State agencies (some of the largest are the Department of Corrections; Department of Health Services; Juvenile Corrections; and Department of Transportation)
Boards and commissions (like the Board of Nursing; Board of Education; and the Commission of Parks)
Trial courts are the first level of state courts.
Here, people can file lawsuits.
People charged with crimes are also tried here and found guilty or not guilty.
There are also special kinds of trial courts, like:
Juvenile courts (for children who have committed crimes or often behave badly)
Divorce courts
Family courts (which deal with problems like child abuse and neglect, and also do adoptions)
In most states, appeals courts (also called "appellate courts") are the next level of state courts.
If someone who went to a trial court thinks that court made the wrong decision, they can appeal to an appellate court.
That court can decide to reverse the lower (less powerful) trial court's decision.
The appeals courts can do this if the trial court made a legal mistake.
Finally, most states have a supreme court.
This is the most powerful court in the state.
If a person has already appealed to the appellate courts, and they still think the court's decision was wrong, they can appeal to the state supreme court.
Once the state supreme court makes a decision, that decision becomes state law.
The decision can only be changed or reversed by federal courts.
That can only happen if the federal courts think the state supreme court made a decision that violated the Constitution.
Each state's constitution or legislature spells out what type of courts the state will have, how they will work, and how judges will be chosen.
Like with state executive departments, state courts can be very different from state to state.
Learn more about state courts and what they do
This page is a list of the amendments to the United States Constitution.
Since the Constitution went into effect on March 4, 1789, twenty-seven amendments have been added to the Constitution.
This page gives just a short summary of each of these amendments.
For more information about each amendment, click on the links in the box at the right of this page.
The amendments are numbered in Roman numerals from I (One) to XXVII (Twenty-seven).
Two-thirds of both the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives approve the amendment.
They "propose" the amendment to the states (they send the amendment to the states to be ratified)
The legislatures of three-fourths of the states must ratify the amendment
The first ten amendments to the Constitution were all approved together.
As a group, they are called the Bill of Rights.
Unratified amendments
Between 1789 and December 2014, about 11,623 amendments were proposed in Congress.
However, most of these suggested amendments "die" in the committees that suggest them.
In total, in the past 227 years, Congress has sent only 33 amendments to the states for ratification  just about one out of every 500 suggested amendments.
Of these 33, the states have set 27.
Out of the six unratified amendments, two failed when they were not ratified by a set deadline.
The other four are still officially "pending"; they do not have enough votes to pass or fail, but they also do not have deadlines written into them.
Ratified amendments
The Bill of Rights (Amendments IX)
Congress sent twelve amendments to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789.
Ten of these were officially ratified on December 15, 1791: two years, two months, and 20 days after Congress proposed them.
Here is a summary of what those amendments say.
Amendments 1127 (XIXXVII)
Kirtankhola () is a river that  starts from Sayeshtabad in Barisal district and ends into the Gajalia near Gabkhan khal (canal).
The total length of the river is about .
Separate but equal was a legal doctrine that existed in the United States for 58 years.
It was based on the United States Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson.
Here the Court ruled that racial segregation was not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as long as the racially separate facilities were equal.
The Court also said segregation was not discrimination.
Segregation in public accommodations, transportation and schools was legally justified by Plessy until it was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education.
After the American Civil War, the Republican controlled Congress passed three amendments to the Constitution called the Reconstruction Amendments.
The first was the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which abolished slavery in the United States.
The second was the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which provided equal protection of the laws to all citizens.
The third was the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that gave voting rights to African American men.
After the passage of the reconstruction amendments, things began to get worse for black people in the South.
Many whites would not accept the new changes.
The economy in the south was stagnant and taxes were high.
There was a good deal of corruption which was made worse by carpetbaggers from the north and southern supporters of reconstruction called scalawags.
Out of fear and hatred, white supremacy groups such as the Ku Klux Klan were born.
Through the use of violence including lynching, rape, murder and terrorism, they sought to control African Americans and keep them from using their new rights.
Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
It guaranteed African Americans equal treatment in public accommodations, public transportation, and to prevent being excluded from jury duty.
The Court's reasoning was the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited discrimination by states not by individuals.
As a result Congress could not protect against individual cases of discrimination.
Florida was the first to pass a law requiring railroads to provide “equal but separate accommodations for the white, and colored, races”.
Soon, Texas, Mississippi and other states had the same or similar laws.
In 1890, when Louisiana passed a similar law, blacks began resisting.
In 1892 it was agreed Homer Plessy would challenge the laws in order to form a test case.
Plessy "passed" for white and while riding on an East Louisiana train in the "white section" announced he was black and refused to move to the "colored" section.
Plessy was arrested and 1896 his case reached the Supreme Court.
The case was Plessy v. Ferguson, Fergusson being the name of the Judge who first ruled against him in the New Orleans Criminal District Court.
In 1896, the Supreme Court heard the case.
Plessy's lawyers argued Louisiana's Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The Court, in a 7-1 decision decided against Plessy and that the law was constitutional.
Writing the majority opinion, Justice Henry Brown wrote:
The lone dissenter, Justice John Harlan, saw terrible consequences in the judicial opinion rendered by the court.
The problem with Plessy was that separate was almost always never equal.
The public schools and other facilities designed for blacks were always inferior.
Jim Crow era
Beginning in 1890, Southern Democrats began to pass state laws that took away the rights African Americans had gained.
Plessy caused Jim Crow laws to go unchallenged by the federal government for 58 years.
They included laws that made it impossible for blacks to vote.
Other laws required racial segregation so blacks could not go to the same schools, restaurants or hospitals as whites.
They could not use the same bathrooms or drink from the same drinking fountains.
They could also not sit in front of whites on busses or trains.
Many southern Christian ministers taught that whites were the chosen people and blacks were cursed by God.
Lynchings were designed to instill fear in blacks and keep them in their place.
Between 1882 and 1968, 3,440 black men and women were lynched.
Others were burned at the stake, castrated, beaten or murdered.
The Jim Crow era began to end after the Supreme Court’s unanimous Brown v. Board of Education decision overruled Plessy.
US race relations: Six surprising statistics
The Court’s Decision (Brown v. Board of Education)
The Berber calendar is a calendar used most often in the region of North Africa, to control seasonal agricultural works.
An address bus is a computer bus architecture.
It is used to transfer data between devices.
The devices are identified by the hardware address of the physical memory (the physical address).
The address is stored in the form of binary numbers to enable the data bus to access memory storage.
Address buses are made up of a collection of wires connecting the CPU with main memory that is used to identify particular locations (addresses) in main memory.
The width of the address bus (that is, the number of wires) determines how many unique memory locations can be addressed.
Modern personal computers and Macintoshes have as many as 36 address lines.
This theoretically allows them to access 64 gigabytes of main memory.
However, the actual amount of memory that can be accessed is usually much less than this theoretical limit due to chipset and motherboard limitations.
An address bus is part of the system bus architecture, which was developed to decrease costs and enhance modular integration.
However, most modern computers use a variety of individual buses for specific tasks.
An address bus is measured by the amount of memory a system can retrieve.
A system with a 32-bit address bus can address 4 gigabytes of memory space.
Newer computers using a 64-bit address bus with a supporting operating system can address 16 exbibytes of memory locations, which is virtually unlimited.
24th round
28th round
30th round
31st round
33rd round
Avolar was a Mexican low-cost airline.
Its headquarters and largest hub were in Tijuana.
It started on September 7, 2005 with one Boeing 737-500 airplane.
By 2008, the airline had 10 Boeing 737 airplanes.
It flew to 21 cities throughout Mexico.
Avolar suspended flights for 3 days in August 2008 and for 1 day in October 2008.
This was due to large debts.
Avolar asked to fly to the United States on October 28, 2008.
Avolar finally stopped flying on that same day - October 28, 2008.
The airline has never flown again since then.
Defunct companies of North America
Drag kings are female performance artists who dress in male clothes.
They play male gender roles as part of an individual or group routine.
Drag kings may be straight, lesbian or transgender.
They often perform as macho male characters, like construction workers and rappers.
In the late 1800s/early 1900s, several drag kings became British music hall stars.
British pantomime has preserved the tradition of women in male roles.
Starting in the mid 1990s, drag kings started to have the fame and attention for which drag queens are known.
The term drag king was first used in print in 1972.
Drag kings are mostly a part of lesbian culture.
They can be most often seen at lesbian festivals or bars.
However, not all drag kings are lesbians.
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is a United States federal law.
It controls what drugs American people and companies can have, make, import, and use.
It also controls what drugs doctors can prescribe.
"Controlled substances" include illegal drugs, chemicals that are used to make illegal drugs, and some medications.
If a government has rules or laws about a certain drug, then that drug is called a controlled substance.
The United States Congress passed the law as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970.
President Richard Nixon signed the bill into law on October 27, 1970.
Which drugs are controlled substances
When it is illegal to make, sell, or have controlled substances
What kinds of importation and exportation of controlled substances is illegal
The punishments for breaking these laws
The CSA divides controlled substances up into five groups, called Schedules.
Drugs are put into these categories based mostly on:
How easily and commonly they are abused;
Whether they have any accepted medical uses;
International treaties
For example, the United Nations may make a treaty to control a new drug.
If the United States agrees to that treaty, then the CSA has to be amended (changed) to add that drug to one of the Schedules
Since the CSA was created in 1970, many new illegal drugs and medications have been developed.
Because of this, the Act has been amended many times to add on new types of drugs.
In 1978, to include barbiturates, benzodiazepines, psychedelic drugs like LSD, and amphetamine-type stimulants
In 1986, to add designer drugs like MDMA (Ecstasy)
In 1988, to include chemicals and machines that were being used to make cocaine
In 1990, to add anabolic steroids (man-made steroids that act like testosterone in the body)
In 1993, to try to control methamphetamine trafficking
In 2008, to prevent people from getting drugs from online pharmacies without having prescriptions
The Schedules
There are five different Schedules of controlled substances, numbered IV (one through five in Roman numerals).
The CSA describes the different Schedules based on three things:
Potential for abuse: How likely is this drug to be abused?
Accepted medical use: Is this drug used as a treatment in the United States?
Safety and potential for addiction: Is this drug safe?
How likely is this drug to cause addiction?
What kinds of addiction?
Schedule I
The CSA says that no doctor in the United States can write a prescription for a Schedule I drug.
Some states have passed laws allowing doctors to prescribe marijuana for diseases like cancer and AIDS.
Even though those prescriptions are legal in those states, they are still illegal under the CSA.
MDMA ("Ecstasy")
Schedule II
Schedule II drugs are the most-controlled type of drugs that a doctor can write a prescription for.
Some drugs that are usually illegal are on Schedule II.
They are on Schedule II instead of Schedule I because sometimes, they can be used for medical reasons.
For example, Schedule II includes cocaine, because it can stop bleeding and kill pain in the mouth, throat, and nose.
Schedule II also includes methamphetamine, because it is sometimes used to treat Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and severe obesity.
Amphetamine, Adderall, and other medications used to treat ADHD
Methylphenidate (also called Ritalin or Concerta): Used to treat ADHD
Opiate painkillers: fentanyl, oxycodone, morphine, hydromorphone, hydrocodone, and pure codeine
Methadone, which is used to treat severe pain or opiate addiction
Phencyclidine (PCP), which used to be used as an anesthetic for people and animals
Short-acting barbiturates, like pentobarbital (a sedative and strong anti-seizure medication)
The CSA puts limits on prescriptions for Schedule II drugs.
For example, prescriptions for these drugs cannot be refilled.
The patient cannot get more of the medication at the pharmacy without getting a new prescription.
Also, the doctor must write the prescription  they cannot call or fax the prescription to the pharmacy.
The pharmacy needs an original copy of the prescription.
Schedule III
Schedule III drugs are less controlled than Schedule II drugs.
Doctors can send these prescriptions to a pharmacy by fax or phone.
These prescriptions can be refilled five times in six months without the patient needing a new prescription.
Anabolic steroids: Used to treat many medical problems, like growth failure (when a child does not grow normally)
Buprenorphine (also called Suboxone or Subutex): Used to treat opiate addiction
Ketamine: Used as an anesthetic
Marinol: Man-made tetrahydrocannabinol (THC, a chemical in marijuana): Used to treat nausea and vomiting from chemotherapy, and loss of appetite from AIDS
Schedule IV
Schedule IV drugs have the same rules for prescriptions and refills that Schedule III drugs do.
Examples of Schedule IV drugs include:
Benzodiazepines, like clonazepam (Klonopin), diazepam (Valium), and lorazepam (Ativan): Used to treat anxiety
Benzodiazepine-like drugs used for insomnia, like zolpidem (Ambien)
Long-acting barbiturates like phenobarbital: Used to control seizures
Schedule V
Schedule V drugs are the least strictly controlled of all the controlled substances.
A doctor can call or fax the prescription to the pharmacy.
There is no limit on the number of times a prescription can be refilled.
Cough medicines with small amounts of codeine in them
Mixtures with a small amount of opium in them (used to treat diarrhea)
Some anti-seizure medications, like pregabalin (Lyrica)
The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is in charge of enforcing the CSA.
The DEA is part of the United States Department of Justice.
Usually, only two government agencies can add or remove drugs from a Schedule.
These agencies are the (DEA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
However, sometimes Congress passes special laws to add a drug to the CSA.
Anyone can ask the DEA to add a drug, remove a drug, or change a drug to a different Schedule in the CSA.
Even a regular person can petition the DEA for a change.
After it gets a petition, the DEA starts an investigation of the drug.
During these investigations, the DEA gathers a lot of information, talks to different government agencies, gets the FDA's opinion, and does research.
Because all of this takes time, a federal law allows the Attorney General of the United States to put a drug on Schedule I for a year.
The law only allows this when there is "an imminent hazard" (an immediate threat) "to the public safety."
For example, in 2011, the Attorney General used this law to put synthetic cannabinoids on Schedule I.
"Pop!
Goes the Weasel" is an English nursery rhyme and singing game.
All around the mulberry bush
The monkey chased the weasel
The monkey stopped to pull up his sock
Goes the weasel
A nursery rhyme is a traditional poem for young children.
The term has been used since the 18th century or early 19th century.
In North America, the term Mother Goose Rhymes, first used in the mid-18th century, is often used.
An amicus curiae (literally, friend of the court; plural, amici curiae) is someone who is not a party to a case and offers information that affects the case but who has not been asked by any of the parties to assist a court.
This may take the form of legal opinion, testimony or learned treatise (the amicus brief).
It is a way to introduce concerns that might be overlooked by the parties directly involved in the case.
The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court.
The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin.
The amicus curiae practice was found in Roman law.
It played an important part in both English common law and the American legal system.
Later, it was introduced in international law, in particular, concerning human rights.
Today, it is used by the European Court of Human Rights.
It is also used in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.
The situation most often noted in the press is when an advocacy group files a brief in a case before an appellate court to which it is not a litigant.
Appellate cases are normally limited to the factual record and arguments coming from the lower court case under appeal.
Usually attorneys focus on the facts and arguments most favorable to their clients.
Where a case may have broader implications, amicus curiae briefs are a way to introduce those concerns, so that the possibly broad legal effects of court decisions will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case.
In prominent cases, amici curiae are generally organizations with sizable legal budgets.
In the United States, for example, non-profit legal advocacy organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Landmark Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, and others, frequently submit such briefs to advocate for or against a particular legal change or interpretation.
If a decision could affect an entire industry, companies other than the litigants may wish to have their concerns heard.
In the United States, federal courts often hear cases involving the constitutionality of state laws.
Hence states may file briefs as amici curiae when their laws are likely to be affected, as in the Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago, when thirty-two states under the aegis of Texas (and California independently) filed such briefs.
Amici curiae who do not file briefs often present an academic perspective on the case.
Newspaper editorials, blogs, and other opinion pieces arguably have the capability to influence Supreme Court decisions as de facto amici curiae.
They are not, however, technically considered amicus curiae, as they do not submit materials to the Court, do not need to ask for leave, and have no guarantee that they will be read.
United States Supreme Court rules
The Supreme Court of the United States has special rules for amicus curiae briefs sought to be filed in cases pending before it.
Supreme Court Rule 37 states, in part, such a brief should cover "relevant matter" not dealt with by the parties which "may be of considerable help".
The cover of an amicus brief must identify which party the brief is supporting, or if the brief supports only affirmance or reversal.
The Court also requires that, inter alia, all non-governmental amici identify those providing a monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of the brief.
Briefs must be prepared in booklet format, and 40 copies must be served with the Court.
In the United States Supreme Court, unless the amicus brief is being filed by the federal government (or one of its officers or agents) or a U.S. state, permission of the court (by means of motion for leave) or mutual consent of the parties is  generally required.
Allowing an amicus curiae to present oral argument is considered "extraordinary".
In the World Trade Organization
The role of amicus curiae briefs in the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement system is controversial.
The controversy arises due to the governmental nature of WTO disputes.
As only WTO members have access to the system, any non-members such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are excluded and have no right to be heard.
Thus the only way for them to contribute to a WTO decision is through amicus curiae briefs.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Dictionary – MSN Encarta  (Archived 2009-10-31)
Definitions from Dictionary.com
The Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia
In the early part of the 20th century, railroads did not provide dining facilities for African-Americans.
But public pressure in the 1930s and 1940s forced railroads to provide some kind of dining arrangement for black passengers.
In response, they set up one or two tables for African-Americans.
No matter how many needed to eat, there were only a few chairs available to them.
On May 17, 1942, Elmer W. Henderson, an African-American passenger, was travelling first-class on the Southern Railway from Washington, D.C. to Atlanta, Georgia.
He was a lawyer traveling as part of his duties for President Roosevelt's Fair Employment Practice Committee.
At about 5:30 pm, while the train was in Virginia, the first call to dinner was announced and he went promptly to the dining car.
Under practices then in effect, the two end tables nearest the kitchen were to be reserved initially for Negroes.
As the tables were partly occupied by white passengers (with at least one seat at them unoccupied) the dining-car steward would not seat Henderson in the dining car.
Instead, the steward offered to serve him at his pullman seat.
Henderson said no and the steward agreed to send him word when space was available.
No word was sent and he was not served, although he twice returned to the diner before it was closed at 9 pm.
Interstate Commerce Commission hearings
Henderson filed a complaint with the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in October 1942.
He alleged this conduct violated provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.
While the Commission agreed that he had suffered undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage, it dismissed the occurrence as a casual incident brought about by the bad judgment of an employee.
A three-judge United States District Court for the District of Maryland found the practice was in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act but remanded the case on February 18, 1946 back to the ICC.
On March 1, 1946, the company announced a change in their rules for dining cars.