Artikel V

Artikel V



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Die kongres sal, wanneer twee derdes van beide huise dit nodig ag, wysigings aan hierdie grondwet voorstel, of, op die toepassing van die wetgewers van twee derdes van die verskillende state, 'n konvensie oproep om wysigings voor te stel, wat in beide gevalle , is geldig vir alle voornemens en doeleindes, as deel van hierdie grondwet, wanneer dit bekragtig word deur die wetgewers van drie kwartale van die verskillende state, of by konvensies in driekwart daarvan, soos die een of ander manier van bekragtiging voorgestel kan word deur die kongres; Met dien verstande dat geen wysiging wat voor die jaar duisend agt honderd en agt aangebring mag word, op enige manier die eerste en vierde klousules in die negende afdeling van die eerste artikel beïnvloed nie; en dat geen Staat sonder sy toestemming sy gelyke stemreg in die senaat ontneem sal word nie.


Hoe om diebordbordgeskiedenis in te skakel en te gebruik Windows 10

Benj Edwards

Windows 10 neem kopieer en plak na 'n ander vlak met 'n funksie genaamd Klembordgeskiedenis, waarmee u 'n lys items kan sien wat u onlangs na die knipbord gekopieer het. Druk net Windows+V. Hier is hoe u dit kan aanskakel en u geskiedenis van u knipbord kan sien.


Die ware verhaal van Henry V, Engeland se vegterkoning

Henry V was 'n man van teenstrydighede.

In die jeug was hy na bewering 'n oorweldigende beoefenaar van waaksaamheid, maar toe hy in die vroeë 15de eeu op die troon van Engeland klim, wen hy lof vir sy vroomheid. Henry was 'n formidabele vegter, miskien die grootste wat die land nog ooit gesien het, maar danksy sy nougesnyde kapsel het hy meer soos 'n priester gelyk as 'n soldaat. Hy het 'n reputasie gehad vir verstandige oordeel en ridderlike gedrag, maar het in die nasleep van sy oorwinning in Agincourt die ongekende stap geneem om die teregstelling van alle ongewapende gevangenes te beveel. Sy nalatenskap is 'n sukses, maar soos historikus Peter Ackroyd betoog, het die triomf van sy militêre verowerings gou vervaag, wat baie min gelaat het om die fees te vier en geloof te gee aan die idee dat alles vir die trots gedoen is van prinse. ”

Die koning, 'n nuwe biografie met Timoth ée Chalamet as sy gelyknamige monarg, ondersoek hierdie oënskynlik onenige aspekte van Henry se lewe deur sy onderwerp te volg van 'n eiesinnige adolessent tot 'n heldhaftige vegter. Soos 'n pas bekroonde Henry in die lokprent van die film verklaar, het 'n nuwe hoofstuk van my lewe begin. … As prins het ek my dae lank gedrink, clown. Nou vind ek myself koning. ”

Losweg gebaseer op Shakespeare ’s Henriad, 'n versameling van drie van die toneelstukke uit die geskiedenis van Bard, Netflix se historiese drama ontwissel en afwisselend die vele groter lewensverhale rondom die onderwerp, waarvan die nege jaar lange koninklike gesag en militêre optrede floreer, maar eindig skielik met sy ontydige dood in 1422. Hoewel Die koning bied die onderwerp meer realisties gebrekkig as die meeste voorstellings, 'n gevoel van sy karakter en hoe hy byvoorbeeld so 'n lojaliteit beveel het, of waarom hy doelwitte nastreef met 'n eensydige vasberadenheid wat grens aan waansin en dat dit ontwykend bly.

'N Nuwe hoofstuk van my lewe het begin,' sê Henry V van Chalamet in die lokprent van die film. Nou vind ek myself koning. ” (met vergunning van Netflix)

Chalamet, veral bekend vir sy Oscar-genomineerde draai in 2017 ’s Noem my op u naam, tree in 'n rol wat voorheen gespeel is deur mense soos Laurence Olivier, Kenneth Branagh en Tom Hiddleston. Sy Henry is jonger, minder gehard as hierdie voorgangers, 'n strydlustige eerder as beslissende kryger, al is dit een met 'n opvallende ooreenkoms met die belangrikste oorlewende gelykenis.

Hy het 'n lang gesig, 'n reguit neus en 'n breë voorkop gehad, skryf die historikus Ian Mortimer in Henry V: The Warrior King van 1415. Sy dik bruin hare was kort aan die kante en agterkant, en sy liggaam was skraal, maar tog atleties. 'N Litteken op sy regterwang die resultaat van 'n pyl wat net onder sy oog getref het by die Slag van Shrewsbury in 1403 en het die onskuld van sy uitdrukking geglo, 'n spoor van die erns van die jeug. ”

Die koning spoor die breë trekke van Henry se lewe na, en lê veral klem op die menslike koste van sy militêre eksploite. Die Slag van Agincourt, 'n face-off in Oktober 1415 wat die status van Henry in die annale van die geskiedenis versterk het, neem die belangrikste plek, maar dit is die vermorsing van liggame wat op die veld oorgebly het na die bloedbad wat meer resoneer as die koning ’s tydrenstoespraak. Soos een ooggetuie later onthou, het die lewendes op die dooies geval, en ander wat op die lewendes geval het, is om die beurt doodgemaak. ”

Dit is verbasend dat die film nie aandag gee aan die jarelange Franse konflik en die grootste slagoffer nie: Henry self. As gevolg van dysenterie, 'n dikwels dodelike infeksie met die bynaam die “bloody vloed, ” terwyl hy die Franse stad Meaux beleër, sterf die koning net skaam van sy 35ste of 36ste verjaardag. Sy seuntjie van 9 maande, Henry VI, volg 'n pa op wat hy nog nooit ontmoet het nie, wat die weg gebaan het vir 'n lang regentskap waarin adviseurs namens die koning van die koning regeer. Die volwasse Henry was bloot 'n skaduwee van sy voorganger, en in 1461 is hy deur sy neef Edward, hertog van York, afgesit. Die drie-generasie-heerskappy van die Lancastriese dinastie was verby, en ironies genoeg, net soos dit ongeveer 60 jaar tevore begin het.

Die toekomstige Henry V, gebore as Henry van Monmouth in 1386 of 1387, het grootgeword tydens die bewind van sy neef Richard II, wat die troon geërf het na die dood van sy grootvader Edward III. Toe Henry ongeveer 13 jaar oud was, het sy pa, Henry Bolingbroke, die mag oorgeneem van 'n toenemend tirannieke Richard, die erfeniswette omseil en die kroon geëis as 'n mede -kleinseun van Edward III. Nou stel Henry IV, die usurpende koninklike, sy oudste seun, wat nooit verwag het om koning te word nie, volgende in die opvolgingsreeks.

Die twee Henrys het 'n ongemaklike verhouding gehad wat gekompliseer is deur die swak gesondheid van die koning. Alhoewel die jonger Henry, prins van Wallis, kort na Henry IV se kroning in 1399, aanvanklik gesag uitgeoefen het in die plek van sy vader, het die egpaar bots met die buitelandse beleid, en die koning het probeer om sy seun op die kantlyn te plaas. Die twee het persoonlik versoen aan die einde van die sieklike koning se lewe, maar Henry se enigste rol in die regering was, volgens Mortimer, om by te staan ​​en te wag dat die koning sterf. ”

Ekstra geskiedenisAnne Curry merk op dat Henry die prins baie ver van Henry the king was. die intieme kringe van die koning weerspieël die toneelstuk se beskrywing van 'n vermiste jeug en laat hartsverandering. ”

Volgens Vita Henrici Quinti, 'n biografie geskryf deur die humanistiese geleerde Tito Livio Frulovisi gedurende die laat 1430's, was die prins 'n vurige soldaat van Venus sowel as van Mars -jeug, en hy is met haar fakkels afgedank. ” Na die Slag van Shrewsbury in 1403, Henry het vyf jaar in Wallis 'n opstand onderdruk. Hier skryf Frulovisi, te midde van die waardige oorlogswerke, [het] hy ontspanning gevind vir die oordrewe wat algemeen is tot die regering sonder ouderdom. ”

Soos Shakespeare ’s Henriad, Die koning beklemtoon die aaklige aspekte van Henry ’s se jeug: As the Washington PostAnn Hornaday skryf in haar resensie van die film dat die jong en impulsiewe prins meestal in die kroeg gevind word. Of slaap dit af. Of iewers tussenin. ” En terwyl sir John Falstaff (gespeel deur Joel Edgerton in die film), 'n sidekick wat deur Shakespeare uitgevind is en bekend is as een van die slimste stripkarakters van Bard, hierdie gedrag aanvanklik aanmoedig, draai hy gou om in 'n verrassend durende mentor figuur, ruil bier en juig vir wyse advies en 'n swaard.

Die mees onverwagse besluit wat die regisseur David Mich ôd geneem het, is die uitbeelding van Henry as 'n vredeliewende prins wat eers vyandelikheid met Frankryk hervat nadat hy 'n uitlokkende geskenk van Louis, seun van koning Charles VI, ontvang het. Louis, gespeel deur 'n glimlaggende Robert Pattinson, is die hoofantagonis van die film, wat optree namens sy pa, wat aan afwykende skisofrenie en paranoia gely het. Maar terwyl die gefiksionaliseerde Louis aan die Slag van Agincourt deelneem, het die dauphin die belangrikste skermutseling laat vaar en het hy etlike maande later aan dysenterie gesterf, en sy jonger broer Charles (later Charles VII) erfgenaam agtergelaat aan die Franse troon.

Robert Pattinson speel Henry V se nemesis, die Franse dauphin Louis (met vergunning van Netflix)

Die regte Henry, volgens Trevor Royle ’s Lancaster Against York: The Wars of the Roses and the Foundation of Modern Britain, het geglo dat hy op 'n ordentlike wyse verordineer was om God se grootse werk te verrig, naamlik om die trotse nasie Frankryk te verneder met 'n demonstrasie van militêre mag en 'n veldtog voort te sit deur sy oupagrootjie Edward III, wat 'n weliswaar twyfelagtige aanspraak op beide die Franse en Engelse trone.

Henry IV sterf op 20 Maart 1413 op 45 -jarige ouderdom. Mortimer beskryf sy heerskappy, onstabiel van die begin af, as sinoniem met rebellie, ongemak, dwaalleer en twyfel, ondanks die feit dat hy die troon geneem het om 'n tiran te sit, die mense het hom nooit werklik warm gemaak nie, en die stand van sake was so dat Henry V besluit het om sy eie ampstermyn as koning te begin met wat Dan Jones ’ Oorloë van die rose ag beduidende versoeningsgebare, insluitend die herbegrafnis van Richard II in Westminster Abbey en die vergifnis van rebelle wat aktief was tydens die vorige bewind.

In die eerste jare van Henry V ’s se bewind was daar twee moontlike krisisse: 'n godsdienstige opstand onder leiding van die vorige vriend van die koning, sir John Oldcastle, en 'n sameswering wat hom ten doel gestel het ten gunste van 'n ander verre verhouding, Edmund, graaf van Maart. Henry het beide rebellies met gemak verpletter en die fokus verskuif na die hoofprioriteit van sy koningskap: die stryd teen Frankryk.

'N 19de-eeuse illustrasie van Henry V en Catherine van Valois se troue (Publieke domein)

In 1415 vaar Henry en sy leër na Frankryk. Hulle het die stad Harfleur suksesvol verower, maar die beleg van 'n maand lank het groot tol geëis, en ongeveer 'n derde van die koning se mans sterf aan disenterie.

Op 25 Oktober het Henry en 'n groot aantal Engelse soldate in groot getalle met Franse magte in Agincourt bots. Geskiedkundiges verskil oor die presiese grootte van elke leër, maar ramings is geneig om die Engelse troepe tussen 5 000 tot 9 000 man te plaas en die Franse tussen 12 000 en 30 000.

In alle opsigte moes die Franse die stryd gewen het. Maar Henry het 'n geheime wapen gehad: die langboog. Soos Teresa Cole verduidelik vir Ekstra geskiedenis, toe Franse kavalleriste probeer om die Engelse boogskutters te bestorm, vind hulle hul vyande beskerm deur 'n see van skerp stokke. Pyle reën op die ongelukkige Franse soldate en stuur hul perde in 'n waansin en verwoesting in die leër se geledere. Diegene wat die Engelse voorlyne bereik het, is maklik afgekap, hul liggame stap op die veld en blokkeer die pad vorentoe. Almal wat in die modder gegly of geval het, het 'n klein kans om weer op te staan, en het in die plek van versmoring gewig onder die verpletterende gewig van hul kamerade en#8217 lyke.

“Nommerlike voordeel beteken niks as die lug pyle reën nie, ” skryf Jones, en 'n groot slagting het plaasgevind. ”

Ongeveer 6 000 Franse soldate sterf tydens die bloedige geveg, hetsy in die veld of deur die hande van Henry's, wat die ongekende taak gekry het om die gevangenes tereg te stel. (Per Peter Ackroyd ’s Stigting: Die geskiedenis van Engeland van die vroegste begin tot die Tudors'n paar van die Engelse soldate het die bevel van die koning trotseer en die voortbestaan ​​van honderde edele gevangenes verseker, wat dan teruggekoop is na hul gesinne.) Teen alle kanse het Henry 'n dawerende triomf gewen 'n oorweldigende oorwinning het ooit so 'n geringe resultaat gehad. ”

Die koning keer terug na Londen, waar 20 000 burgers hom as die heer van Engeland, die blom van die wêreld, die soldaat van Christus beskou het. ” In die volgende twee jaar konsolideer hy die mag tuis en geniet die toename in invloed wat deur die sy nuutgevonde status. Maar Henry sou nie lank op sy louere rus nie: In Februarie 1417 begin hy met 'n tweede aanval, waar Caen, Normandië en Rouen gevang word en die Franse koning Charles VI aanspoor om vrede te eis.

Die belangrikste oorlewende beeld van Henry V (National Portrait Gallery, Londen)

Op 21 Mei 1420 onderteken Henry en Charles die Verdrag van Troyes, wat die dauphin (die toekomstige Charles VII) onterf het ten gunste van die Engelse koning, Henry genoem as regent van Frankryk, en bepalings uiteensit vir die huwelik van die koning met Charles & #8217 dogter Catherine. Die egpaar trou 'n maand later, en op 6 Desember 1421, baar Catherine 'n seun met die naam Henry.

Teen hierdie tyd was die ouer Henry terug in Frankryk, gevestig in verdere militêre veldtogte wat daarop gemik was om enige spore van plaaslike weerstand te vernietig. Alhoewel hy skynbaar sy doel bereik het om aanspraak te maak op sowel Engeland as Frankryk se krone, skryf Jones dat die taak om dit in 'n politieke werklikheid te verander, elke vesel van sy formidabele wese gespanne het. ” Op 31 Augustus 1422 , is die koning dood aan dysenterie wat waarskynlik tydens die beleg van Meaux opgedoen is.

Met dieselfde verwarrende vinnigheid wat elke lewe in sy lewe gekenmerk het, voeg Jones by, voeg die buitengewone vegter van Engeland weg. ”

Kort na die dood van Henry V ’, het kroniekskrywer Thomas Walsingham hom as eweknieë onder Christelike konings en vorste vereer. Ander tydgenote herhaal hierdie gevoelens en voeg by tot 'n groeiende lofprysing wat Henry se status as een van Engeland se grootste monarge versterk het.

In die eeue na sy bewind het historici die neiging om die koninklike kenmerke van Henry uit te lig, met die oog op meer onaangename eienskappe soos sy merkbare wrede streep en koue, selfs ernstige houding.

Soos Ian Mortimer verduidelik, sy negatiewe eienskappe is vergeet, al die mislukkings van die ouderdom is die skuld vir ander mans en al die suksesse wat aan hom toegeskryf word.

Maar meer onlangse geleerdheid het probeer om die man agter die mite te demystifiseer, met 'n meer afgeronde portret van 'n leier wat in die woorde van Encyclopedia Brittanica C.D. Ross het sy groot geskenke nie net vir konstruktiewe hervorming tuis gebruik nie, maar om sy land aan 'n twyfelagtige buitelandse oorlog te verbind. ”

Skryf in Lancaster Against York, historikus Trevor Royle bied 'n bondige beoordeling van Henry se alomvattende militêre veldtogte: Vir alles wat hy 'n suksesvolle oorlog teen Frankryk gevoer het en vir alles wat hy van sy verslane vyand vereis het, 'n vredesverdrag wat hom die meeste van wat hy gegee het wou, het Henry ’ se veldtogte in Frankryk soveel probleme veroorsaak as wat hulle opgelos het. ”

Die seun van Henry, Henry VI, was 'n rampspoedige onbekwame koning wie se swak besluitneming gelei het tot die Roses Wars en die val van die Lancastrian -dinastie. Tog het die nalatenskap van die krygerkoning nog lank na sy dood voortgeduur, hoofsaaklik via gewilde kennis, maar in indirekte sin deur sy tweede huwelik van die weduwee. Tegen alle protokol en tradisie trou Catherine van Valois in die geheim met 'n Walliese hofmeester omstreeks 1431 of 1432. Haar nuwe man se naam: Owen Tudor, oupa van Henry VII en die onwaarskynlike stigter van een van die bekendste koningshuise in Engeland.


Artikel V - Geskiedenis

'N Tydlyn met belangrike oomblikke in die verhaal van die COVID-19-pandemie.

Die ebolavirus -siekte bereik ongekende epidemievlakke in 2014. Entstowwe om EVD te voorkom, word in kliniese toetse gedoen.

Wetenskaplikes ontwikkel maniere om die immuunstelsel te benut om kanker te behandel. Baie terapeutiese entstowwe teen kanker is in ontwikkeling.

Waterpokkies is 'n siekte wat veroorsaak word deur die Varicella zoster virus. Dit was eens 'n byna universele kindersiekte. Dit is nou baie minder algemeen as gevolg van wydverspreide inenting.

Gordelroos, of herpes zoster, word veroorsaak deur die Varicella zoster virus. Dit is dieselfde virus wat waterpokkies veroorsaak.


Sosialiste en Soros veg vir artikel V -konvensie

Onlangs, Die New American het verslag gedoen oor die pogings van die radiogeselsprogramaanbieder Mark Levin en ander om 'n grondwetlike konvensie ('n konvensie van die state, in die taal van die voorstanders) aan te dring.

In sy nuwe boek voer Levin aan dat so 'n byeenkoms die laaste hoop is "om die federale regering te hervorm van sy ontaarde, opgeblase, keiserlike struktuur tot by sy (kleiner) republikeinse wortels."

Ongelukkig het baie andersins goed opgeleide en welmenende konserwatiewes geswig voor Levin se sirene-liedjie en het hulle so ver gegaan dat hulle die grondwetlikheid van nietigheid ontken en daarop aangedring het dat 'n artikel V-konvensie die enigste manier is om die balans van federalisme in ons Republiek.

Om vir die Grondwet te veg soos ons dit deur ons stigters gegee het, is 'n edele doelwit en die angs van die konserwatiewe mede-medewerkers is begryplik. Ons by Die New American en The John Birch Society verwelkom die hulp van almal wat moedig genoeg is om deel te neem aan die stryd om die magte van die federale absolutisme te verslaan. Ons skei egter van diegene wat 'n artikel V -konvensie beywer, en ons glo dat 'n grondwetlike konvensie nie die regte manier is om die federale aanslag op ons Grondwet en die vryhede wat dit beskerm te stop nie.

Die New American en baie ander vryheidsgerigte organisasies bevorder nietigheid as die 'regmatige middel' om die konstante federale oorwinning te genees. Ons glo dat die federale regering as agent van die state sy kontraktuele gesag oorskry het en dat die state as prinsipale die reg het om te weier om sodanige gebruik te bekragtig.

Sedert die publikasie van Levin se gewildste boek, is die stryd tussen diegene wat nietigheid bevorder en diegene wat pleit vir 'n grondwetlike konvensie van artikel V 'n onderwerp wat in die alternatiewe media baie dekking kry.

Daar is 'n ander ongemaklike aspek van die artikel V -beweging wat egter nie bespreek word nie, maar dit moet wees, veral in die lig van die goeie mense wat hulle daarmee verbind het.

Binne die geledere van diegene wat 'n beroep doen op 'n artikel V -konvensie, vind talle uiters radikale, progressiewe en sosialistiese organisasies wat andersins min gemeen het met die konserwatiewes wat aan dieselfde kant veg.

Wolf-Pac is een van die groepe wat hierdie verslaggewer vermoed dat baie Levin-luisteraars verbaas sal wees om te weet dat hul landgenoot in 'n oproep om 'n con-con is.

Op sy webwerf dring Wolf-Pac aan op 'n artikel V 'konvensie van die state' as die beste manier om sy 'uiteindelike doel te bereik: “

Om die ware demokrasie in die Verenigde State te herstel deur te druk op ons staatsverteenwoordigers om 'n broodnodige 28ste wysiging van ons grondwet aan te neem wat die korporatiewe persoonlikheid sou beëindig en alle verkiesings in ons land in die openbaar sou finansier.

Om Amerikaners te oorreed om by die saak aan te sluit, sal Wolf-Pac:

stel die publiek in kennis deur televisie -advertensies, radioadvertensies, sosiale media, internetadvertensies te gebruik en die mediaplatform van die grootste aanlyn nuusprogram ter wêreld, The Young Turks, te gebruik.

Die Jong Turke? Die meeste konstitusionaliste (en ek verbeel my die meeste aanhangers van Mark Levin) spandeer nie baie tyd gedurende die dag om na die Young Turks te kyk nie, die YouTube-gebaseerde nuus- en vermaaklikheidskanaal wat homself as die 'grootste aanlyn nuusnetwerk ter wêreld' beskou.

Hoe onbekend dit ook al is met die Jong Turke, dit lyk asof sekere konserwatiewes wat 'n nadeel wil hê, nog onbekender is wie die rekeninge betaal by hierdie aanlyn verskaffer van progressiewe ideologie: George Soros (getoon). Dan Gainor berig:

Trouens, Soros finansier bykans elke groot linkse mediabron in die Verenigde State. Vyf en veertig daarvan word gefinansier deur sy ondersteuning van die Media Consortium. Die organisasie is 'n netwerk van die voorste, progressiewe, onafhanklike media in die land. Die lys is voorspelbaar - alles van Alternet tot die Young Turks.

Dit is reg. George Soros - die finansierder van wêreldwye fascisme - spuit miljoene dollars in dieselfde artikel V -veldtog wat deur Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck en ander gewilde konserwatiewe woordvoerders gepromoveer word.

Wat sal die mense in Wolf-Pac doen as hulle 'hul wysiging' deur 'n artikel V-konvensie kan voorstel en aanvaar?

"Vier die feit dat ons die moed en deursettingsvermoë gehad het om saam iets werklik wonderliks ​​en histories te bereik."

Alles wat 'n groep met hierdie anti-grondwetlike agenda aan ons Grondwet sou doen, sou beslis histories wees-op die ergste manier.

Dit behoort genoeg te wees om alle ware konserwatiewes, konstitusionaliste en vriende van vryheid te oortuig om kop uit die geledere van die artikel V-kon-leër te hardloop, ongeag hoe gewild en oortuigend hulle generaals is.

Dit sal waarskynlik hierdie toegewyde, maar misleide, artikel V voorstaan ​​dat Wolf-Pac net die punt van die ysberg is. Hierdie goeie mense sal verstandig wees om na hierdie swaar verkorte lys van hul radikale medereisigers in die con-con-beweging te kyk, wat elkeen 'n geregistreerde 'stigterslid' van die 'Move to Amend' -koalisie is.

Sentrum vir Media en Demokrasie

Onafhanklike Progressive Politics Network

Progressiewe Demokrate van Amerika

Let wel, honderde ander groepe "wat toegewy is aan sosiale en ekonomiese geregtigheid, die beëindiging van korporatiewe bewind en die opbou van 'n lewendige demokrasie", word onder hierdie sambreel versamel.

Dit blyk skaars 'n korps te wees waarmee die meeste Levin -luisteraars graag skouer aan skouer sou staan ​​in die stryd om 'n 'konvensie van die state'. Om eerlik te wees, deel hierdie bondgenote waarskynlik nie hul konserwatiewe kohorte se liefde en lojaliteit teenoor die Grondwet nie.

Dit is tyd dat hierdie regsgesinde mans en vroue weet met wie hulle assosieer.

Dit is te betwyfel of Mark Levin se legio luisteraars net so gretig sou wees om agter sy artikel V con-con agenda te kom as hulle weet met wie hulle veg en hoe radikaal hul nuwe bondgenote ons geliefde Grondwet wil verander.

En dit is die probleem. Ongeag die strelende woorde van Levin of ander in die con-con kamp, ​​hulle kan nie die uitkoms van so 'n byeenkoms waarborg nie. In die lig van die lyste van linkse groepe hierbo, kan die uitslae van die konvensie 'n blote skraping van die Grondwet wees wat deur die stigters geskryf is ten gunste van nog een in ooreenstemming met die progressiewe ideologieë van Wolf-Pac, die Sierra Club , Code Pink, en ander.

Onthou dat die afgevaardigdes wat tot die konvensie verkies is, volgens die geskiedenis van konvensies in artikel V-styl, ongeag die staats- of kongreswetgewing wat vereis dat hulle slegs een wysiging moet oorweeg (byvoorbeeld 'n gebalanseerde begrotingswysiging), onbeperk, maar nie ongekend nie , bevoegdheid om hersienings aan die bestaande Grondwet voor te stel, gebaseer op die inherente reg van die Volk in konvensie om hul regering te verander of te hersien.

Die gedagtes verbaas oor die moontlike voorstelle wat kan kom uit 'n konvensie wat bestaan ​​uit sulke radikale verteenwoordigers.

Moenie vergeet nie, die miljarde van George Soros finansier hierdie randgroepe en politici is nie bekend vir hul vermoë om groot veldtogbydraes te weerstaan ​​nie.

Konserwatiewes behoort te sidder oor die spook van 'n konvensie met 'n mag van hierdie omvang, bevolk deur aktiviste wat 'n Soros -kredietkaart in hul sak het en 'n verbintenis tot "sosiale geregtigheid" as hul doel. Al die goeie bedoelings van die konserwatiewes in die artikel V -kamp sou nie genoeg wees om al hierdie verwoestende veranderinge aan die Grondwet terug te dwing in die progressiewe Pandora ’s Box nie.

Lesers word aangemoedig om op die skakels in hierdie artikel te klik en self die agenda van die verskillende artikel V -advokate te ondersoek en vas te stel of dit die risiko vir ons Grondwet werd is wat die teenwoordigheid van hierdie groepe in die & kan inhou. #8220konvensie van die state. ”

Laastens is die verstommende inligting in hierdie artikel nie bedoel as 'n aanval op Mark Levin of iemand anders wat 'n 'konvensie van die state' wil noem nie. Dit is eerder bedoel om die duisende toegewyde konstitusionaliste wat in die artikel V -evangelie glo wat hy verkondig, te help om te besef wie saam met hulle in die banke sit en wie se geld die kerk gebou het.


Verwante

Die legende van Loch Ness

Die kultuur van varswaterpêrels

Die opofferingseremonie

1000 v.C .: Eerste metaalgeld en muntstukke

Brons- en koper -nabootsings is aan die einde van die Steentydperk deur China vervaardig en kan as een van die vroegste vorme van metaalmuntstukke beskou word. Metaalgereedskapgeld, soos mes- en graafgeld, is ook die eerste keer in China gebruik. Hierdie vroeë metaalgeld het ontwikkel tot primitiewe weergawes van ronde muntstukke. Chinese muntstukke is gemaak van onedele metale, wat dikwels gate bevat sodat hulle soos 'n ketting aanmekaar gesit kon word.

500 v.C .: Moderne muntstuk

Buite China het die eerste munte uit silwerklonte ontwikkel. Hulle het spoedig die bekende ronde vorm van vandag aangeneem en is met verskillende gode en keisers gestempel om hul egtheid te bewys. Hierdie vroeë munte verskyn eers in Lydië, wat deel uitmaak van die huidige Turkye, maar die tegnieke is vinnig gekopieer en verder verfyn deur die Griekse, Persiese, Masedoniese en later die Romeinse ryke. Anders as Chinese munte wat van onedele metale afgehang het, is hierdie nuwe munte gemaak van edelmetale soos silwer, brons en goud, wat meer inherente waarde het.

118 v.C.: Leergeld

Leergeld is in China gebruik in die vorm van vierkante stukke wit hert met kleurvolle rande. Dit kan beskou word as die eerste gedokumenteerde tipe banknoot.

AD 800 - 900: The Nose

Die frase "om deur die neus te betaal" kom van Denen in Ierland, wat die neuse van diegene wat onwillig was om die Deense peilingsbelasting te betaal, gesny het.

806: Papiergeld

Die eerste bekende papierbiljette verskyn in China. In totaal het China meer as 500 jaar vroeë papiergeld beleef, wat strek vanaf die negende tot die vyftiende eeu. Gedurende hierdie tydperk het papiernotas in produksie toegeneem tot die punt dat hul waarde vinnig gedaal het en inflasie die hoogte ingeskiet het. Vanaf 1455 het die gebruik van papiergeld in China vir 'n paar honderd jaar verdwyn. Dit was nog baie jare voordat papiergeld in Europa weer sou verskyn, en drie eeue voordat dit as algemeen beskou is.

1500: Potlach

"Potlach" kom van 'n Indiese gewoonte in Chinook wat in baie Noord -Amerikaanse Indiese kulture bestaan ​​het. Dit is 'n seremonie waar geskenke nie net uitgeruil is nie, maar danse, feeste en ander openbare rituele uitgevoer is. In sommige gevalle was potlach 'n vorm van inleiding in geheime stamgenootskappe. Omdat die uitruil van geskenke so belangrik was vir die vestiging van 'n leier se sosiale rang, het potlach dikwels buite beheer geraak namate die geskenke geleidelik meer uitspattig geword het en stamme groter en groter feeste en vieringe gevoer het in 'n poging om mekaar te oortref.

1535: Wampum

Die vroegste bekende gebruik van wampum, wat krale is wat van mosselskulp gemaak is, is in 1535 deur Noord -Amerikaanse Indiane. Dit is waarskynlik dat hierdie geldelike medium lank voor hierdie datum bestaan ​​het. Die Indiese woord & quotwampum & quot beteken wit, wat die kleur van die krale was.

1816: The Gold Standard

Goud is amptelik in 1816 as die standaard van waarde in Engeland gemaak. In hierdie tyd is riglyne gemaak om nie-inflasionêre vervaardiging van standaard banknote moontlik te maak wat 'n sekere hoeveelheid goud verteenwoordig. Sedert hierdie tydperk is bankbiljette al honderd jaar lank in Engeland en Europa gebruik, maar hulle waarde was nog nooit direk aan goud gekoppel nie. In die Verenigde State is die Gold Standard Act amptelik in 1900 aangeneem, wat daartoe bygedra het dat 'n sentrale bank gestig is.

1930: Einde van die Gold Standard

Die massiewe depressie van die dertigerjare, wêreldwyd gevoel, was die begin van die einde van die goue standaard. In die Verenigde State is die goudstandaard hersien en die goudprys gedevalueer. Dit was die eerste stap om die verhouding heeltemal te beëindig. Die Britse en internasionale goudstandaarde het ook gou geëindig, en die kompleksiteite van internasionale monetêre regulering het begin.

Die huidige:

Vandag bly die geldeenheid steeds verander en ontwikkel, soos blyk uit die nuwe $ 100 Amerikaanse Ben Franklin -rekening.

Die toekoms: elektroniese geld

In ons digitale era vind ekonomiese transaksies gereeld elektronies plaas, sonder om 'n fisiese geldeenheid te ruil. Digitale kontant in die vorm van stukkies en grepe sal waarskynlik die geldeenheid van die toekoms bly.


Artikel V - Geskiedenis

Ons redakteurs gaan na wat u ingedien het, en bepaal of hulle die artikel moet hersien.

MTV, tenvolle Musiek televisie, kabeltelevisienetwerk wat begin het as 'n 24-uur-platform vir musiekvideo's.

Waarvoor staan ​​MTV?

Die naam MTV staan ​​vir Music Television. MTV is 'n kabeltelevisienetwerk wat begin het as 'n 24-uur-platform vir musiekvideo's.

Wanneer is MTV bekendgestel?

MTV is net na middernag op 1 Augustus 1981 in New York, New York, Verenigde State bekendgestel.

Wat was die eerste musiekvideo wat op MTV gespeel is?

Die eerste musiekvideo wat op MTV gespeel is, was "Video Killed the Radio Star" deur die Buggles.

Wanneer is MTV2 vrygestel?

MTV Networks het MTV2 in 1996 van stapel gestuur, met die bedoeling om die gees van die reklame -veldtog “I want my MTV” in die 1980’s te verower.

MTV debuteer net na middernag op 1 Augustus 1981 met die uitsending van "Video Killed the Radio Star" deur die Buggles. Na die formaat van die Top 40 -radio, het video -skyfjoggies (of “veejays”) video's bekendgestel en geknip oor musieknuus tussen snitte. Na 'n aanvanklike spat, het die netwerk in die beginjare gesukkel. Die musiekvideo -reservoir was toe ietwat vlak, wat gereeld knipsels herhaal, en kabeltelevisie was 'n luukse wat nog nie sy mark gevind het nie. MTV het sy programmering uitgebrei tot ritme- en blues -kunstenaars, en die netwerk het begin. Singels soos "Billie Jean" en "Beat It" van Michael Jackson's Riller (1982) not only showcased the strengths of the music video format but proved that exposure on MTV could propel artists to superstardom.

The network brought success to such newcomers as Madonna and new wave icons Duran Duran, who used increasingly sophisticated techniques to make the visual elements of the video as important as the music. MTV also gave renewed life to veteran performers such as ZZ Top, Tina Turner, and Peter Gabriel, each of whom scored the biggest hits of their careers thanks to heavy rotation of their videos. By the mid-1980s, MTV had produced a noticeable effect on motion pictures, commercials, and television. It also changed the music industry looking good (or at least interesting) on MTV became as important as sounding good when it came to selling recordings.

In 1985 entertainment conglomerate Viacom Inc. purchased MTV Networks, the parent corporation of MTV, from Warner Communications Inc., and the shift in content was both dramatic and immediate. Instead of free-form playlists of music that covered a veejay’s entire shift, videos were packaged into discrete blocks based on genre. This gave rise to specialty shows such as 120 Minutes (alternative rock), Headbangers Ball (heavy metal), and Yo! MTV Raps (hip-hop). Before long, game shows, reality shows, animated cartoons, and soap operas began to appear in the MTV lineup, and the network shifted its focus from music to youth-oriented pop culture.

By the mid-1990s, the majority of MTV’s daily schedule was devoted to programming that was not related to music. Its sister station VH1 had been broadcasting adult-oriented rock videos since 1985, and it soon filled the vacuum, with original content such as Pop Up Video and the documentary series Behind the Music. MTV Networks launched MTV2 in 1996, with the intention of recapturing the spirit embodied by their “I want my MTV” advertising campaign in the 1980s. MTV2 started with the same free-form structure that characterized early MTV, but it soon shifted to genre-specific programs. By 2005 MTV2 had followed the same course as its parent network, with the bulk of its schedule consisting of reality shows, celebrity coverage, and comedies.

While music had a reduced presence on MTV, videos remained important to the network and its image. Beginning in 1984, MTV honoured achievement in the format with its annual Video Music Awards. Totale versoek regstreeks (TRL), an hour-long interview and music video show, debuted in 1998 and anchored the weekday lineup. By the early 21st century, however, MTV increasingly sought to position itself as a destination for music on the Internet. Its Web site offered streaming video and audio content, and in 2007 it launched Rhapsody America, a joint venture with RealNetworks and Verizon Wireless, as a subscription-based alternative to Apple Inc.’s wildly popular iTunes service in 2010 it was spun off as the independent company Rhapsody International. Partly because of the popularity of viewing music videos on the Internet, TRL was canceled in 2008, though it returned in 2017.


Is Nationalism still Europe’s Dominant Political Ideology?

Four historians consider whether the continent that gave the world the nation state still remains in its thrall.

Desperate Measures

Driven to extremes by the expectations loaded on them, some men turned to self-castration.

Stop Press

It is often claimed that press censorship came to an end in England at the close of the 17th century. But it persisted, thanks to an unsavoury network of government spies.

Asia’s Great Survivors

Thailand’s monarchy is today one of the world’s wealthiest and most powerful, but it has faced a constant struggle for survival.

All Change

The century that changed London forever.

Baby Boom or Bust?

The Covid pandemic seems to have caused a birth dearth. Historically, how have countries responded to falling birthrates?

Melusine: The Myth that Built Europe

A symbol of female power in an age of patriarchy became a tool of propaganda for two prominent queens.

Springs Eternal

The image of Roman Bath was the creation of 18th- and 19th-century archaeologists. Only now are new perspectives revealing a more complex and accurate history of the city.


Supreme Court allowed Times to continue publication

In a 6-3 decision, the Court dissolved the restraining order and allowed the Times to continue with publication. Citing Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), Near v. Minnesota (1931), and Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971), the three-paragraph per curiam lead opinion noted that &ldquoany system of prior restraints comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity&rdquo and &ldquothe Government thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.&rdquo In this case, the government had failed to carry that burden.


History of the Cast Courts

When the Architectural Courts – or Cast Courts as they are now known – opened in 1873, The Builder magazine compared the experience of seeing them to a first glimpse of Mont Blanc, creating one of those 'impressions that can scarcely be effaced'. Since then, these two enormous rooms and the reproductions they contain have continued to impress and inspire visitors to the Museum.

For centuries, antiquarian interest in world architecture and sculpture led to reproductions – or copies – being made of outstanding national monuments and notable sculptures. When the Museum was founded, it collected and displayed reproductions of great art and architecture from across the world in order to offer objects for study and tell a complete story of the history of art and design.

Casts are made by placing several plaster moulds upon the surface of the original structure. Once hardened and removed, the moulds are then enclosed in an outer casing, the interior coated with a separating agent and the wet plaster poured in. When set, the pieces are then assembled and the joints and surfaces finished off, to make a complete reproduction of the original work. The finished product – as well as being a formidable technical achievement in its own right – enables admirers to study faithful reproductions of important monuments and works of art.

Cast Courts, Room 46b, The Weston Cast Court, photograph by Isabel Agnes Cowper, about 1872, England. Museum no. 72507. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London Tomb of St Peter Martyr (detail), plaster cast, Edoardo Pierotti, about 1869, Italy. Museum no. Repro.1869-68. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Casts formed a substantial and highly regarded part of the V&A's early collections. When the Museum of Manufactures (as the V&A was first known) was established in 1852, casts were already regarded as an essential part of the collection. The 'improvement of public taste in Design' and the 'application of fine art to objects of utility', which were among the Museum's primary aims, meant that casts of architectural and ornamental work were necessary educational tools. The pieces were regarded as 'superior to drawings', and students (including at one point the 'female class for wood engraving') made use of the casts for sketching and drawing practice. The Government School of Design began collecting casts of ornamental art of all periods and countries from 1837. This collection was taken over by the Museum of Manufactures when it was installed at Marlborough House.

Cast Courts, Room 46a, The West Court, viewed from Gallery 111, drawing, Henry Edward Tidmarsh, England. Museum no. E.2384-1983. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

The earliest acquisitions, including the holdings of the Government School of Design, were classical casts as well as ornamental architectural details from French and Italian Renaissance originals. By the 1860s the collecting policy had broadened to include figurative sculpture. When the collection moved to South Kensington in 1857 to form the 'South Kensington Museum' (now the V&A), the space available for their display was regarded as inadequate – the antique and Renaissance casts were displayed in a corridor and the Gothic examples on the gallery above. Many monumental casts, including the 12th-century Pórtico de la Gloria from the Cathedral at Santiago de Compostela in Spain, which arrived in 1866, had to be shown in several parts scattered throughout the building.

Installation of the Puerta de la Gloria Gateway, 1872, England. Museum no. REPRO.1866-50. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

The Museum commissioned new purpose-built galleries to solve the problem.
Designed by General Henry Scott, the 'Architectural Courts' opened in 1873, at last allowing the collection to be shown to proper effect. The Courts were built to a height of 25 metres, specifically to fit the two enormous plaster casts of Trajan's Column, which were acquired in 1864, made from a cast commissioned by Emperor Napoleon III. These copies were added to the vast displays of architectural models, electrotypes and photographs. Original objects were also shown alongside, most notably the enormous early 17th-century marble choir screen from the Cathedral of St John, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands.

Installation of Trajan's column, photograph by Isobel Agnes Cowper, about 1873. V&A Archive, MA/32/29, Guardbook negative 9876. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Originally, the Northern European, Italian and Indian casts were spread across the West and East courts, with the classical casts placed in a separate room. The central corridor between the two courts was reserved for reproductions of mosaics. The West court was painted purple-red below the balcony and olive green above it, whereas in the East court, the colours were reversed. Stencilled decoration of the names of cities celebrated in the history of art 'from Ahmedabad to Zurich' – designed and painted by Reuben Townroe – ran around the walls of the West court, while a similar band with names of artists ran around the room a little above ground level.

Cast Courts, Room 46a, The West Court, about 1873, England. Museum no. D.564-1905. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

For Londoners without the means of travelling abroad, these casts provided a fascinating glimpse into the marvels of European sculpture. One of the earliest major casts of Italian figure sculpture – Michelangelo's David – sets the tone for the scale and breadth of the objects to be found in the courts. David, which was constructed by the Florentine cast-maker Clemente Papi in the 1850s, is more than five metres tall and was created from hundreds of pieces of a plaster mould taken directly from the original.

Plaster cast of David by Michelangelo, unknown maker, about 1857, Italy. Museum no. REPRO.1857-161. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Acquired by chance, it was sent to Queen Victoria by Leopold II, Grand Duke of Tuscany, supposedly in an attempt to placate the British following his refusal to allow the National Gallery to export from Florence a painting by Domenico Ghirlandaio. The Queen, shocked by the nudity of the cast, requested that a suitably proportioned fig leaf be made (by the London firm D. Brucciani & Co), and hung on the cast using a pair of hooks when dignitaries visited. Today the plaster fig leaf is a popular exhibit on its own.

Fig Leaf for David, plaster cast, D. Brucciani & Co., about 1857, England. Museum no. REPRO.1857A-161. Photograph by George Eksts. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

Throughout the years following the turn of the 20th century, the V&A continued to add to its cast collection, but educators and museum administrators soon began to doubt the effectiveness and importance of reproductions. Many worried about the damage done to the originals during the casting process, and others argued that modern painting and sculpture schools relied less heavily on academic teaching using casts. A report in 1928 given to the V&A's Advisory Council proposed that the Museum dispose of the cast collection in its entirety, suggesting that it was actually 'injurious to students'. Displaying Trajan's Column in two sections, for example, would give 'an utterly wrong idea of the effect of the column as it is'. The advice was thankfully disregarded, and today the Cast Courts are a firm visitor favourite.

View of Trajan's column, Cast Courts, Room 46a, The West Court. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

The importance of the cast collection has increased over time. In a few cases, such as the late 15th-century relief of Christ washing the Apostles' feet, the original has been destroyed and the cast is unique record of a lost work. More often, the cast shows details that can no longer be seen on the original due to poor restoration, pollution or weathering. The casts are also once again being used for teaching as they give an impression of scale and three-dimensional qualities that no photograph can convey. Many similar holdings formed by other European museums have since been destroyed or dispersed, making the V&A's collection a rare survival of a remarkable 19th-century phenomenon.

Lamentation (detail), Andrea del Verrocchio, 1889, plaster cast. Museum no. REPRO.1889-97. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

In November 2014, the east Cast Court, Room 46b, was renovated and a similar project is currently underway on the west side. Room 46b has been renamed The Weston Cast Court in recognition of The Garfield Weston Foundation's longstanding and generous support of the V&A. The Weston Cast Court features more than 60 of the V&A's finest 19th-century reproductions of Italian Renaissance monuments. Highlights from this gallery include Michelangelo's David the seven-and-a-half-metre tall set of electrotype doors known as the Gates of Paradise at Florence Cathedral a plaster cast of a pulpit from Pisa Cathedral by Giovanni Pisano and the monumental cast of Jacopo della Quercia’s great arch from the Basilica of San Petronio, Bologna.

Cast Courts, Room 46b, The Weston Cast Court, 2014. © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

When the west court is finished, the Museum's spectacular Architecture Courts will have been returned to their original magnificence. Visitors will once again be able to view the treasures of Room 46a, including the mighty Trajan's Column, the 12th-century Pórtico de la Gloria and many other historic casts, from medieval reliefs from Spain, to Celtic crosses and major French and German Renaissance sculptures. Highlights include the 16th-century tomb by Peter Vischer from Nuremberg, figures and reliefs by the South German sculptor Tilman Riemenschneider, as well as works by the French artist Jean Goujon.

Conservation work carried out in the Cast Courts has also included extensive research into the original decorative scheme of the galleries, reinstating the Cast Courts' original colours, architectural details and finishes. The 19th-century ceramic tiled floor (executed by the women inmates of Woking Female Prison - and so described by original Museum Director Henry Cole as the 'opus criminale') has also been restored and repairs to the glazed roof, ceiling and walls have returned the court to its original splendour. The exhibits have been reconfigured with new interpretation to provide a wider understanding of the history of the objects and reveal the processes behind the creation of the casts. No doubt Henry Cole would be delighted at the display.

Audio descriptions of historic locations in the Museum are available for blind and partially sighted visitors to listen to online at home or during a visit to the V&A.


History of the Death Penalty

As far back as the Ancient Laws of China, the death penalty has been established as a punishment for crimes. In the 18th Century BC, the Code of King Hammurabi of Babylon codified the death penalty for twenty five different crimes, although murder was not one of them. The first death sentence historically recorded occurred in 16th Century BC Egypt where the wrongdoer, a member of nobility, was accused of magic, and ordered to take his own life. During this period non-nobility was usually killed with an ax.

In the 14th Century BC, the Hittite Code also prescribed the death penalty. The 7th Century BC Draconian Code of Athens made death the penalty for every crime committed. In the 5th Century BC, the Roman Law of the Twelve Tablets codified the death penalty. Again, the death penalty was different for nobility, freemen and slaves and was punishment for crimes such as the publication of libels and insulting songs, the cutting or grazing of crops planted by a farmer, the burning [of] a house or a stack of corn near a house, cheating by a patron of his client, perjury, making disturbances at night in the city, willful murder of a freeman or a parent, or theft by a slave. Death was often cruel and included crucifixion, drowning at sea, burial alive, beating to death, and impalement (often used by Nero). The Romans had a curious punishment for parricides (murder of a parent): the condemned was submersed in water in a sack, which also contained a dog, a rooster, a viper and an ape. [1] The most notorious death execution in BC was about 399 BC when the Greek philosopher Socrates was required to drink poison for heresy and corruption of youth. [2]

Mosaic Law codified many capital crimes. In fact, there is evidence that Jews used many different techniques including stoning, hanging, beheading, crucifixion (copied from the Romans), throwing the criminal from a rock, and sawing asunder. The most infamous execution of history occurred approximately 29 AD with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ outside Jerusalem. About 300 years later, the Emperor Constantine, after converting to Christianity, abolished crucifixion and other cruel death penalties in the Roman Empire. In 438, the Code of Theodosius made more than 80 crimes punishable by death. [3]

Britain influenced the colonies more than any other country and has a long history of punishment by death. About 450 BC, the death penalty was often enforced by throwing the condemned into a quagmire. By the 10th Century, hanging from gallows was the most frequent execution method. William the Conqueror opposed taking life except in war, and ordered no person to be hanged or executed for any offense. However, he allowed criminals to be mutilated for their crimes. During the middle ages, capital punishment was accompanied by torture. Most barons had a drowning pit as well as gallows and they were used for major as well as minor crimes. For example, in 1279, two hundred and eighty nine Jews were hanged for clipping coin. Under Edward I, two gatekeepers were killed because the city gate had not been closed in time to prevent the escape of an accused murderer. Burning was the punishment for women’s high treason and men were hanged, drawn and quartered. Beheading was generally accepted for the upper classes. One could be burned for marrying a Jew. Pressing became the penalty for those who would not confess to their crimes. The executioner placed heavy weights on the victim’s chest. On the first day he gave the victim a small quantity of bread, on the second day a small drink of bad water, and so on until he confessed or died. Under the reign of Henry VIII, the numbers of those put to death are estimated as high as 72,000. Boiling to death was another penalty approved in 1531, and there are records to show some people boiled for up to two hours before death took them. When a woman was burned, the executioner tied a rope around her neck when she was tied to the stake. When the flames reached her she could be strangled from outside the ring of fire. However, this often failed and many were literally burnt alive. [4]

In Britain, the number of capital offenses continually increased until the 1700’s when two hundred and twenty-two crimes were punishable by death. These included stealing from a house in the amount of forty shillings, stealing from a shop the value of five shillings, robbing a rabbit warren, cutting down a tree, and counterfeiting tax stamps. However, juries tended not to convict when the penalty was great and the crime was not. Reforms began to take place. In 1823, five laws passed, exempting about a hundred crimes from the death [penalty]. Between 1832 and 1837, many capital offenses were swept away. In 1840, there was a failed attempt to abolish all capital punishment. Through the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, more and more capital punishments were abolished, not only in Britain, but also all across Europe, until today only a few European countries retain the death penalty. [5]

The first recorded execution in the English American colonies was in 1608 when officials executed George Kendall of Virginia for supposedly plotting to betray the British to the Spanish. In 1612, Virginia’s governor, Sir Thomas Dale, implemented the Divine, Moral, and Martial Laws that made death the penalty for even minor offenses such as stealing grapes, killing chickens, killing dogs or horses without permission, or trading with Indians. Seven years later these laws were softened because Virginia feared that no one would settle there. [6]

In 1622, the first legal execution of a criminal, Daniel Frank, occurred in Virginia for the crime of theft. [7] Some colonies were very strict in their use of the death penalty, while others were less so. In Massachusetts Bay Colony the first execution was in 1630, but the earliest capital statutes do not occur until later. Under the Capital Laws of New-England that went into effect between 1636-1647 the death penalty was meted out for pre-meditated murder, sodomy, witchcraft, adultery, idolatry, blasphemy, assault in anger, rape, statutory rape, manstealing, perjury in a capital trial, rebellion, manslaughter, poisoning and bestiality. Early laws were accompanied by a scripture from the Old Testament. By 1780, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts only recognized seven capital crimes: murder, sodomy, burglary, buggery, arson, rape, and treason. [8]

The New York colony instituted the so-called Duke’s Laws of 1665. This directed the death penalty for denial of the true God, pre-meditated murder, killing someone who had no weapon of defense, killing by lying in wait or by poisoning, sodomy, buggery, kidnapping, perjury in a capital trial, traitorous denial of the king’s rights or raising arms to resist his authority, conspiracy to invade towns or forts in the colony and striking one’s mother or father (upon complaint of both). The two colonies that were more lenient concerning capital punishment were South Jersey and Pennsylvania. In South Jersey there was no death penalty for any crime and there were only two crimes, murder and treason, punishable by death. [9]

However under the direction of the Crown, harsher penal codes were execution there until 1691 [sic]. In Pennsylvania, William Penn’s Great Act (1682) made passed in the colonies [sic]. By 1776, most of the colonies had roughly comparable death statutes which covered arson, piracy, treason, murder, sodomy, burglary, robbery, rape, horse-stealing, slave rebellion, and often counterfeiting. Hanging was the usual sentence. Rhode Island was probably the only colony which decreased the number of capital crimes in the late 1700’s.

Some states were more severe. For example, by 1837, North Carolina required death for the crimes of murder, rape, statutory rape, slave-stealing, stealing bank notes, highway robbery, burglary, arson, castration, buggery, sodomy, bestiality, dueling where death occurs, hiding a slave with intent to free him, taking a free Negro out of state to sell him, bigamy, inciting slaves to rebel, circulating seditious literature among slaves, accessory to murder, robbery, burglary, arson, or mayhem and others. However, North Carolina did not have a state penitentiary and, many said, no suitable alternative to capital punishment. [10]

The first reforms of the death penalty occurred between 1776-1800. Thomas Jefferson and four others, authorized to undertake a complete revision of Virginia’s laws, proposed a law that recommended the death penalty for only treason and murder. After a stormy debate the legislature defeated the bill by one vote. The writing of European theorists such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Bentham had a great effect on American intellectuals, as did English Quaker prison reformers John Bellers and John Howard. [11]

On Crimes and Punishment, published in English in 1767 by the Italian jurist Cesare Beccaria, whose exposition on abolishing capital punishment was the most influential of the time, had an especially strong impact. He theorized that there was no justification for the taking of life by the state. He said that the death penalty was “a war of a whole nation against a citizen, whose destruction they consider as necessary, or useful to the general good.” He asked the question what if it can be shown not to be necessary or useful? His essay conceded that the only time a death was necessary was when only one’s death could insure the security of a nation — which would be rare and only in cases of absolute anarchy or when a nation was on the verge of losing its liberty. He said that the history of using punishment by death (e.g., the Romans, 20 years of Czaress Elizabeth) had not prevented determined men from injuring society and that death was only a “momentary spectacle, and therefore a less efficacious method of deterring others, than the continued example of a man deprived of his liberty….” [12]

Organizations were formed in different colonies for the abolition of the death penalty and to relieve poor prison conditions. Dr. Benjamin Rush, a renowned Philadelphia citizen, proposed the complete abolition of capital punishment. William Bradford, Attorney General of Pennsylvania, was ordered to investigate capital punishment. In 1793 he published An Enquiry How Far the Punishment of Death is Necessary in Pennsylvania. He strongly insisted that the death penalty be retained, but admitted it was useless in preventing certain crimes. In fact, he said the death penalty made convictions harder to obtain, because in Pennsylvania, and indeed in all states, the death penalty was mandatory and juries would often not return a guilty verdict because of this fact. In response, in 1794, the Pennsylvania legislature abolished capital punishment for all crimes except murder “in the first degree,” the first time murder had been broken down into “degrees.” In New York, in 1796, the legislature authorized construction of the state’s first penitentiary, abolished whipping, and reduced the number of capital offenses from thirteen to two. Virginia and Kentucky passed similar reform bills. Four more states reduced its capital crimes: Vermont in 1797, to three Maryland in 1810, to four New Hampshire in 1812, to two and Ohio in 1815, to two. Each of these states built state penitentiaries. A few states went the opposite direction. Rhode Island restored the death penalty for rape and arson Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Connecticut raised death crimes from six to ten, including sodomy, maiming, robbery, and forgery. Many southern states made more crimes capital, especially for slaves. [13]

The first great reform era occurred between 1833-1853. Public executions were attacked as cruel. Sometimes tens of thousands of eager viewers would show up to view hangings local merchants would sell souvenirs and alcohol. Fighting and pushing would often break out as people jockeyed for the best view of the hanging or the corpse! Onlookers often cursed the widow or the victim and would try to tear down the scaffold or the rope for keepsakes. Violence and drunkenness often ruled towns far into the night after “justice had been served.” Many states enacted laws providing private hangings. Rhode Island (1833), Pennsylvania (1834), New York (1835), Massachusetts (1835), and New Jersey (1835) all abolished public hangings. By 1849, fifteen states were holding private hangings. This move was opposed by many death penalty abolitionists who thought public executions would eventually cause people to cry out against execution itself. For example, in 1835, Maine enacted what was in effect a moratorium on capital punishment after over ten thousand people who watched a hanging had to be restrained by police after they became unruly and began fighting. All felons sentenced to death would have to remain in prison at hard labor and could not be executed until one year had elapsed and then only on the governor’s order. No governor ordered an execution under the “Maine Law” for twenty-seven years. Though many states argued the merits of the death penalty, no state went as far as Maine. The most influential reformers were the clergy. Ironically, the small but powerful group which opposed the abolitionists were also clergy. They were, almost to a person, members of the Calvinist clergy, especially the Congregationalists and Presbyterians who could be called the religious establishment of the time. They were led by George Cheever. [14]

Finally, in 1846, Michigan became the first state to abolish the death penalty (except for treason against the state), mostly because it had no long tradition of capital punishment (there had been no hanging since 1830, before statehood) and because frontier Michigan had few established religious groups to oppose it as was the case in the east. In 1852, Rhode Island abolished the death penalty led by Unitarians, Universalists, and especially Quakers. In the same year, Massachusetts limited its death penalty to first-degree murder. In 1853, Wisconsin abolished the death penalty after a gruesome execution in which the victim struggled for five minutes at the end of the rope, and a full eighteen minutes passed before his heart finally quit. [15]

During the last half of the century the death penalty abolition movement ground to a half, with many members moving into the slavery abolition movement. At the same time, states began to pass laws against mandatory death sentences. Legislators in eighteen states shifted from mandatory to discretionary capital punishment by 1895, not to save lives, but to try to increase convictions and executions of murderers. Still, abolitionists gained a few victories. Maine abolished the death penalty, restored it, and then abolished it again between 1876-1887. Iowa abolished the death penalty for six years. Kansas passed a “Maine Law” in 1872 which operated as de facto abolition. [16]

Electrocution as a method of execution came onto the scene in an unlikely manner. Edison Company with its DC (direct current) electrical systems began attacking Westinghouse Company and its AC (alternating current) electrical systems as they were pressing for nationwide electrification with alternating current. To show how dangerous AC could be, Edison Company began public demonstrations by electrocuting animals. People reasoned that if electricity could kill animals, it could kill people. In 1888, New York approved the dismantling of its gallows and the building of the nation’s first electric chair. It held its first victim, William Kemmler, in 1890, and even though the first electrocution was clumsy at best, other states soon followed the lead. [17]

The Second Great Reform era was 1895-1917. In 1897, U.S. Congress passed a bill reducing the number of federal death crimes. In 1907, Kansas took the “Maine Law” a step further and abolished all death penalties. Between 1911 and 1917, eight more states abolished capital punishment (Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oregon, Arizona, Missouri and Tennessee — the latter in all cases but rape). Votes in other states came close to ending the death penalty.

However, between 1917 and 1955, the death penalty abolition movement again slowed. Washington, Arizona, and Oregon in 1919-20 reinstated the death penalty. In 1924, the first execution by cyanide gas took place in Nevada, when Tong war gang murderer Gee Jon became its first victim. The state wanted to secretly pump cyanide gas into Jon’s cell at night while he was asleep as a more humanitarian way of carrying out the penalty, but, technical difficulties prohibited this and a special “gas chamber” was hastily built. Other concerns developed when less “civilized” methods of execution failed. In 1930, Mrs. Eva Dugan became the first female to be executed by Arizona. The execution was botched when the hangman misjudged the drop and Mrs. Dugan’s head was ripped from her body. More states converted to electric chairs and gas chambers. During this period of time, abolitionist organizations sprang up all across the country, but they had little effect. There were a number of stormy protests against the execution of certain convicted felons (e.g., Julius and Ethel Rosenberg), but little opposition against the death penalty itself. In fact, during the anti-Communist period with all its fears and hysteria, Texas Governor Allan Shivers seriously suggested that capital punishment be the penalty for membership in the Communist Party. [18]

The movement against capital punishment revived again between 1955 and 1972.

England and Canada completed exhaustive studies which were largely critical of the death penalty and these were widely circulated in the U.S. Death row criminals gave their own moving accounts of capital punishment in books and film. Convicted kidnapper Caryl Chessman published Cell 2455 Death Row en Trial by Ordeal. Barbara Graham’s story was utilized in book and film with I Want to Live! after her execution. Television shows were broadcast on the death penalty. Hawaii and Alaska ended capital punishment in 1957, and Delaware did so the next year. Controversy over the death penalty gripped the nation, forcing politicians to take sides. Delaware restored the death penalty in 1961. Michigan abolished capital punishment for treason in 1963. Voters in 1964 abolished the death penalty in Oregon. In 1965 Iowa, New York, West Virginia, and Vermont ended the death penalty. New Mexico abolished the death penalty in 1969. [19]

Trying to end capital punishment state-by-state was difficult at best, so death penalty abolitionists turned much of their efforts to the courts. They finally succeeded on June 29, 1972 in the case Furman teen Georgië. In nine separate opinions, but with a majority of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the way capital punishment laws were written, including discriminatory sentencing guidelines, capital punishment was cruel and unusual and violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. This effectively ended capital punishment in the United States. Advocates of capital punishment began proposing new capital statutes which they believed would end discrimination in capital sentencing, therefore satisfying a majority of the Court. By early 1975, thirty states had again passed death penalty laws and nearly two hundred prisoners were on death row. In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme Court upheld Georgia’s newly passed death penalty and said that the death penalty was not always cruel and unusual punishment. Death row executions could again begin. Another form of execution was soon found. Oklahoma passed the first death by lethal injection law, based on economics as much as humanitarian reasons. The old electric chair that had not been used in eleven years would require expensive repairs. Estimates of over $200,000 were given to build a gas chamber, while lethal injection would cost no more than ten to fifteen dollars “per event.” [20]

The controversy over the death penalty continues today. There is a strong movement against lawlessness propelled by citizens’ fears for their security. Politicians at the national and state levels are taking the floor of legislatures and calling for more frequent death penalties, death penalties penalty [sic] for more crimes, and longer prison sentences. Those opposing these moves counter by arguing that tougher sentences do not slow crime and that crime is little or no worse than in the past. In fact, FBI statistics show murders are now up. (For example 9.3 persons per 100,000 population were murdered in 1973 and 9.4 persons per 100,000 were murdered in 1992). The battle lines are still drawn and the combat will probably always be fought. [21]

A number of important capital punishment decisions have been made by the Supreme Court. The following is a list of the more important ones along with their legal citations:

Wilkerson v. Utah 99 U.S. 130 (1878) — Court upheld execution by firing squad, but said that other types of torture such as “drawing and quartering, embowelling alive, beheading, public dissection, and burring alive and all other in the same line of…cruelty, are forbidden.”

Weems v. U.S. 217 U.S. 349 (1910) — Court held that what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment had not been decided, but that it should not be confined to the “forms of evil” that framers of the Bill of Rights had experienced. Therefore, “cruel and unusual” definitions are subject to changing interpretations.

Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber 329 U.S. 459 (1947) — On May 3, 1946, convicted seventeen year old felon Willie Francis was placed in the electric chair and the switch was thrown. Due to faulty equipment, he survived (even though he was severely shocked), was removed from the chair and returned to his cell. A new death warrant was issued six days later. The Court ruled 5-4 that it was not “cruel and unusual” to finish carrying out the sentence since the state acted in good faith in the first attempt. “The cruelty against which the Constitution protects a convicted man is cruelty inherent in the method of punishment,” said the Court, “not the necessary suffering involved in any method employed to extinguish life humanely.” He was then executed.

Tropp v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1958) — The Court Ruled that punishment would be considered “cruel and unusual” if it was one of “tormenting severity,” cruel in its excessiveness or unusual in punishment “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

Furman teen Georgië 408 U.S. 238 (1972) — The Court looking at three cases struck down the death penalty in many states and set up the standard that punishment would be considered “cruel and unusual” if any of the following were present: 1) it was too severe for the crime 2) it was arbitrary (some get the punishment and others do not, without guidelines) 3) it offends society’s sense of justice 4) it was not more effective than a less severe penalty.

Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. 153 (1976) — [The] Court upheld Georgia’s newly passed death penalty and said that the death penalty was not always cruel and unusual punishment.

Tison v. Arizona 481 U.S. 137 (1987) — [The] Court upheld Arizona’s death penalty for major participation in a felony with “reckless indifference to human life.”

Thompson v. Oklahoma 108 S. Ct. 2687 (1987) — The Court considered the question of execution of minors under the age of 16 at the time of the murder. The victim was the brother-in-law, who he accused of beating his sister. He and three others beat the victim, shot him twice, cut his throat, chest, and abdomen, chained him to a concrete block and threw the body into a river where it remained for four weeks. Each of the four participants were tried separately and all were sentenced to death. In a 5-3 decision, four Justices ruled that Thompson’s death sentence was cruel and unusual. The fifth, O’Connor, concurred but noted that a state must set a minimum age and held out the possibility that if a state lowers, by statute, the minimum death penalty age below sixteen, she might support it. She stated, “Although, I believe that a national consensus forbidding the execution of any person for a crime committed before the age of 16 very likely does exist, I am reluctant to adopt this conclusion as a matter of constitutional law without better evidence that [sic] we now possess.” States with no minimum age have rushed to specify a statute age.

Penry v. Lynaugh 492 U.S. [sic] (1989) — [The] Court held that persons considered retarded, but legally sane, could receive the death penalty. It was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment if jurors were given the opportunity to consider mitigating circumstances. In this case, the defendant had the mental age of approximately a six-year old child.

[1] John Laurence, A History of Capital Punishment (N.Y.: The Citadel
Press, 1960), 1-3.

[2] Michael Kronenwetter, Capital Punishment: AReference Handbook (Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc., 1993), 71.

[4] Ibid., p.72 Laurence, op.cit., 4-9.

[7] Hugo Adam Bedau, The Death Penalty in America (N.Y.: Oxford
University Press, 1982).

[9] Phillip English Mackey, Voices Against Death: American Opposition to
Capital Punishment, 1787-1975
(N.Y.: Burt Franklin & Co., Inc., 1976),
xi-xii.

[12] Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment, trans. Henry Paolucci
(Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1963).


Kyk die video: #10 Впереди холодная зима Отключение сотовой связи при ЧС Год без Тесака