text:
Tag: supreme court
WITH THE SUPREME COURT'S PENDING SPORTS GAMBLING DECISION STATES ARE ALREADY PREPPING FOR LEGALIZATION
April 28, 2018 by Herb Ryan, posted in Business, National
A screen shows a baseball game next to various betting lines at the Westgate Superbook in Las Vegas, Nevada. John Locher/AP Photo
Jennifer Roberts,
University of Nevada
The gambling world is waiting with bated breath for the United States Supreme Court decision that could result in an expansion of sports betting. The decision could be announced anytime between today and the end of June.
Since I teach sports betting regulation and gambling law, I've been closely watching the developments as well. Although Nevada has had a robust sports betting industry for decades, New Jersey has been at the forefront of the push to legalize sports betting.
In recent years, many other states have prepared for a ruling from the Supreme Court that would overturn the prohibition of sports betting. Even professional sports leagues – which have emerged as the leading opponents of efforts to legalize and regulate sports betting – are looking to cash in.
According to the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
For this reason, states have traditionally overseen and regulated casino gambling. The Nevada Supreme Court specifically recognized, in a case involving the infamous Frank Rosenthal (portrayed as Ace Rothstein by Robert De Niro in the movie "Casino"), that gaming is "a matter reserved to the states within the meaning of the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution."
However, in 1992, responding to concerns about the spread of state-sponsored sports wagering, Congress enacted the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, also known as the Bradley Act, named after its lead sponsor, then-U.S. Senator Bill Bradley.
The Bradley Act made it unlawful for any governmental entity, such as states, municipalities or Indian tribes, to "sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or compact" any sports betting. In addition, the act prohibited any individual from operating any sort of sports betting enterprise.
However, the Bradley Act exempted four states from the prohibition: Nevada, Oregon, Delaware and Montana. Of these four states, Nevada was – and remains – the only one with full-scale sports wagering. New Jersey was given a one-year window to legalize sports wagering, but the state legislature failed to take action within the allotted time.
Fast forward to 2011. That year, New Jersey government officials decided they wanted to have regulated sports wagering, so the state introduced a referendum on a statewide ballot that would amend the state Constitution to permit wagering on college, amateur, and professional sports at Atlantic City casinos and racetracks across the state.
New Jersey voters supported the ballot referendum, and in 2012 the New Jersey legislature passed a law to legalize sports wagering.
However, the major professional and college sports leagues – NCAA, NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL – opposed the legislation and filed a lawsuit to stop New Jersey from regulating sports wagering.
In response, New Jersey claimed that the Bradley Act was unconstitutional because it violated the state's 10th Amendment rights to regulate gambling in the form of sports wagering. In 2013, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the leagues, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to consider the case. The Bradley Act remained intact.
New Jersey pressed on. Having lost on the argument that legalizing sports wagering is equivalent to "authorizing" it under the existing Bradley Act, New Jersey got creative and decided to simply repeal the state's criminal laws and regulations that prohibited sports book operations in casinos and racetracks.
Once again, the sports leagues sued to stop New Jersey. In response, New Jersey argued that it would be a violation of the 10th Amendment if the state were prevented from repealing an existing law. Again, the lower courts and Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the leagues – but for the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would weigh in.
Prepping for the inevitable?
Now we await the decision.
It's important to note that this case is about more than sports betting, which is simply the subject matter before the Supreme Court. It has more to do with states' rights, and the decision has the potential to affect other areas of dispute, from marijuana legalization to the ability of cities to protect undocumented immigrants to gun control.
There are several possible outcomes. The U.S. Supreme Court could decide in favor of the leagues, which would mean New Jersey – and any other nonexempted state – would remain prohibited from allowing any sports wagering.
At the other end of the spectrum, the court could declare the Bradley Act unconstitutional, and states and Indian tribes would no longer be blocked from authorizing and regulating full-scale sports wagering.
Another possibility is that the court sides with New Jersey and allows the state to decriminalize sports wagering – on an either limited basis (in casinos and racetracks) or entirely – but not regulate it.
Finally, the Supreme Court could strike the prohibition that prevents states and tribes from permitting sports wagering, but keep the restriction so that individuals cannot conduct legal sports wagering. If this were to happen, sports betting could be permitted by states, but individuals would be prevented from operating their own sports betting business.
About 20 states are already preparing for the event that the Bradley Act gets overturned and are gearing up to pass laws (or have already done so) that will give them the ability to offer regulated sports wagering.
However, there are many unknowns and issues that will need to be addressed: Will state-sponsored sports wagering be run by state lotteries or private enterprise such as casinos or racetracks? Will amendments be needed to permit Indian tribes to offer sports wagering? And will information on sporting events for wagering purposes – such as scores, outcomes or game statistics – be restricted to data generated from the leagues?
There are already disagreements over something called an "integrity fee." In states where sports betting will likely become legal, leagues have been pressing to receive 1 percent of all amounts wagered on a sporting event.
In Nevada – where legal, regulated sports wagering has taken place since 1949 – such a fee has never been in place. Instead, casinos simply pay the state up to 6.75 percent in a tax on revenues (which is the same tax paid by casinos on other forms of gambling), in addition to a federal tax of 0.25 percent on amounts wagered. States looking to legalize sports betting are proposing varied rates of taxation.
So how might an integrity fee affect sports books?
If we look at the most recent Super Bowl, over US$158 million was wagered in Nevada on the game. If there was a mandated integrity fee, this means that the NFL would have received $1.58 million from Nevada sports books.
But in the case of the Super Bowl, Nevada sports books only made $1.17 million, or 0.7 percent of the total amount wagered. So that means that if Nevada sports books had to pay an integrity fee on the Super Bowl, it would have lost money even before having to pay state and federal taxes, rent, employee salaries and the other costs of operating a sports book. From the industry's perspective, sports wagering isn't always as lucrative as it's often portrayed to be.
For this reason, states must be educated and informed when considering whether to legalize sports betting. If they think they'll get a tax windfall for schools and roads, they could be sorely mistaken – especially if the leagues end up getting a cut.
Tagged Betting, Gambling, Legislation, Nevada, New Jersey, sports, Sports betting, supreme court, US Supreme CourtLeave a comment
Those Who Administer The Law
November 3, 2017 by Herb Ryan, posted in South Dakota
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard
This week, it was my honor to participate in the investiture of Steven R. Jensen as the newest member of the South Dakota Supreme Court. Justice Jensen is a native of Wakonda and has been a circuit judge in Elk Point for the last 14 years. Rather than come to Pierre, he held his swearing-in ceremony at the USD Law School in Vermillion, so that he could be near to his family, friends and peers in the legal community.
It doesn't get much attention, but one of the governor's most important responsibilities is to appoint Supreme Court justices and circuit court judges. Supreme Court justices are always appointed by the governor. Periodic statewide "retention elections" ask voters to choose "yes" or "no" on retaining each justice. Circuit judges are elected to eight-year terms, but very often they retire mid-term, in which case the governor appoints a successor.
For appointments, a screening committee called the Judicial Qualifications Commission screens applicants to ensure that they are qualified. A governor may appoint only from the list of candidates submitted by the Commission. I typically interview between three and five listed candidates for each open position.
Appointing judges has kept me pretty busy over the years. In South Dakota, judges must retire when they turn 70, and they sometimes retire earlier. As in many other professions, the "baby boomers" are reaching retirement age, and many judges have stepped down in recent years. As of today, 28 of South Dakota's 43 circuit court judges are new since I took office in 2011, and still three more circuit judge positions are soon to be filled.
I have also made three appointments to the South Dakota Supreme Court. My first appointee, Judge Lori Wilbur, was the second woman to serve on the Court when I appointed her in 2011. My second appointee was Janine Kern, who had been a longtime circuit judge in Rapid City. Justice Wilbur retired earlier this year, and Justice Jensen replaced her. Justice Jensen is the 50th justice to serve on our five-member court.
In addition to justices Wilbur and Kern, a new generation of younger judges has also brought more women to the circuit court bench. Since 2011, the 28 new circuit judges have included 11 women. Women today make up more than one-quarter of the circuit judge positions in the state, and their number continues to increase.
South Dakota's judges don't often get much attention, and they don't seek it. But they play an important role in our society. Whether it is a high-profile murder trial, a child custody case, a million-dollar contract dispute, or a small claim, we look to our judges to administer the law in a fair and speedy manner. South Dakota is fortunate to have so many attorneys who are willing to serve the public in this important role.
Tagged Gov. Dennis Daugaard, Judicial Qualifications Commission, Justice Steven R Jensen, South Dakota, supreme courtLeave a comment
Supreme Court Justices In The Pews and On The Bench – Where Neil Gorsuch Fits In
March 22, 2017 by Herb Ryan, posted in National, Religion - Politics
Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. Joshua Roberts
Steven K. Green,
On Jan. 31, President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil M. Gorsuch of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court occasioned by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. The Senate hearing on Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court started on Monday, March 20.
As important as is a Supreme Court confirmation, Congress and the media have focused chiefly on the numerous controversies that have embroiled the new Trump administration. One media outlet even called Gorsuch's confirmation process the "stealth Supreme Court nomination."
Judge Gorsuch has a reputation as a judicial conservative in the mold of Scalia. He has not ruled on several controversial issues such as gun rights, but the conventional wisdom among court watchers is that if confirmed, the "young" (49-year-old) Gorsuch will swing the high court back to the right on many social issues and will impact Supreme Court jurisprudence for decades to come. As a result, progressive interest groups are scrambling to marshal their forces to oppose Gorsuch's confirmation.
Judge Gorsuch has a notably strong record on one controversial subject, that being on church-state matters. His rulings have generally supported a more "accommodationist" approach to resolving church-state controversies, a position advocated by religious conservatives. In addition, during the White House announcement ceremony for his nomination, Judge Gorsuch remarked that he was "thankful for my family, my friends, and my faith."
His statement raises the question of whether a judge is influenced to rule a particular way on church-state controversies by his or her religious faith.
I am a constitutional law professor who specializes in church and state matters. I have also participated in more than 25 church-state cases before the Supreme Court as counsel and through friend-of-the-court briefs.
In my view, the religious faith of a justice, standing alone, tells us little about how he will vote in church-state cases or on other controversial social issues. It is a conservative religious worldview that is more likely to reinforce and validate an existing conservative judicial ideology.
Gorsuch's judicial decisions
Following Trump's announcement, conservative religious groups such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council praised Gorsuch's nomination. The evangelical magazine Christianity Today declared that Gorsuch will be a justice "that evangelicals will love." In contrast, progressive religious groups have voiced opposition to Gorsuch's nomination based on his church-state holdings.
Little is known about Gorsuch's personal faith other than that he is religiously observant. Gorsuch was raised Catholic, attending a private Jesuit school in his youth. He became an Episcopalian while a graduate student at Oxford, the religion of his wife whom he met while in England. Currently the judge attends a mainline Episcopal church in Boulder, Colorado, that takes progressive stances on social issues.
The liberal orientation of Gorsuch's church stands in contrast to his own record of judicial decision-making. During his 10-year tenure on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Gorsuch has taken a firm stance on behalf of protecting religious liberty claims against government regulations, a position that has made him a favorite of religious conservatives. Several of those cases have been highly controversial.
Protesters rally outside the Supreme Court against President Donald Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 31. Yuri Gripas
The infamous Hobby Lobby case is one example. In that case, the Supreme Court held that for-profit corporations may assert a religious liberty defense against having to comply with the contraceptive care insurance mandate under the Affordable Care Act. Judge Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion in the Tenth Circuit's decision that went even further, urging that courts should defer to a person's subjective claim that a law burdens his religious beliefs, regardless of how tangential that burden appears objectively.
Little Sisters of the Poor is another example of a case that involved the question of a religious exemption from complying with the ACA. In that case, the Catholic order that operates nursing homes claimed that even applying for an exemption under the ACA from the government violated their religious beliefs. Gorsuch dissented when the Tenth Circuit declined to reconsider its decision rejecting the Little Sisters' religious liberty claims. That dissent argued that the court had given insufficient deference to the Little Sisters' own articulation of the burden on their religious beliefs.
He has also written or joined on opinions siding with the ability of governments to display religious symbols on public property, such as a Ten Commandments monument on courthouse lawns. According to one bipartisan analysis of Gorsuch's record:
"The common thread in these cases is one that matters very deeply to conservatives: a sense that the government can permit public displays of religion – and can accommodate deeply held religious views – without either violating the religion clauses of the Constitution or destroying the effectiveness of government [nondiscrimination] programs."
Religious affiliations in Supreme Court
The question many people are asking is, will Gorsuch's religious affiliation matter? First, let's look at the religious makeup of the Supreme Court.
Currently, the Supreme Court comprises five Catholics and three Jews (Justice Scalia was also Catholic). This has led some commentators to speculate on what this means for issues such as abortion regulations and church-state matters.
The vast majority of justices have been Protestants, which is not surprising considering the Protestant dominance of the culture until recently. President Andrew Jackson appointed the first Catholic to the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Roger Taney) in 1836, a fact that did not go unnoticed. The next Catholic justice, Edward D. White, was appointed in 1894, some 58 years later. (White was more controversial for being a former Confederate officer than for being Catholic)
The first Jewish justice was appointed in 1916 (Louis Brandeis), to be followed by Benjamin Cardozo in 1932, which established the unofficial "Jewish seat" on the court. From 1940 forward, there has always been at least one Catholic and one Jewish justice on the high court (absent a hiatus from 1969 to 1993 of a Jewish justice).
Those demographics have changed significantly over the past two decades. With the resignation of Justice John Paul Stevens in 2010, the court was left without a Protestant member for the first time in its history.
Here's what history tells us
In most instances, research shows, a justice's religious faith has been a poor predictor of his or her judicial philosophy (and that would assume that one can draw accurate conclusions about what any religion requires of its adherents).
For example, is it safe to assume that a Catholic justice will vote against abortion and gay marriage because of the teachings of the Catholic Church?
Catholic Justice Frank Murphy (1940-1949) was a staunch New Deal liberal, whereas Catholic Justice William Brennan (1956-1990) was likely the Supreme Court's fiercest supporter of church-state separation and reproductive choice during his long tenure.
Currently, Catholic Justice Sonia Sotomayor is considered to be part of the court's liberal wing. Another notable liberal was Justice Hugo Black (1937-1971), who was a Southern Baptist, while two conservative justices were William Howard Taft (1921-1930) (Unitarian) and William Rehnquist (1972-2005) (Lutheran).
And though Catholic Justice Anthony Kennedy usually sides with the conservatives, he has voted to uphold abortion rights and gay marriage. Likely the closest religious indicator of judicial philosophy has been among the court's Jewish justices, who have overwhelmingly been liberal.
To be sure, there have been some exceptions. Justice William Strong (1870-1880) was an evangelical Presbyterian who served briefly as president of a religious organization that sought to amend the Constitution to declare the United States a "Christian nation."
Similarly, Justice David J. Brewer (1889-1910) was an evangelical Congregationalist who declared in a court opinion that America was a Christian nation, a matter he wrote about at length off the bench. And Justice Felix Frankfurter (1938-1962), a secular Jew, frequently referenced his religious/ethnic heritage in his strong support for church-state separation.
But those instances have generally represented the exceptions.
The safest conclusion to draw from history is that religious affiliation is probably a poor indicator of judicial philosophy. It generally does not preordain any judicial holdings. However, a conservative religious outlook may reinforce an existing conservative judicial ideology, and vice versa, particularly on social issues.
Steven K. Green, Professor of Law, Director of the Center for Religion, Law & Democracy, Willamette University
Tagged Catholics, Episcopalians, Evangelicals, Jews, Neil Gorsuch, Religious freedom, SCOTUS, supreme court, US Supreme CourtLeave a comment
The Best Legal Arguments Against Trump's Immigration Ban
February 1, 2017 February 1, 2017 by Herb Ryan, posted in National, Religion - Politics
Steven Mulroy,
Is President Trump's recent executive order on immigrants and refugees legal?
It's a surprisingly tricky question.
The order arguably violates both a federal statute and one or more sections of the Constitution – depending on whether the immigrant is already in the U.S. In the end, opponents' best hope for undoing the order might rest on the separation of church and state.
Trump's order bars the entry of any refugee for 120 days, and Syrian refugees indefinitely. It also bans citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen from entering the U.S. for 90 days. This order potentially affects more than 20,000 refugees, along with thousands of students nationwide. Depending on how it is enforced, it could also impact as many as hundreds of thousands of green card holders, or immigrants with permanent residency.
Many opponents have challenged the order in court.
A U.S. District Court judge in Brooklyn, New York, issued a ruling that halted the enforcement of Trump's executive order the day after he signed it. Judges in at least four other states followed suit.
Trump's supporters defend the order's legality based on a federal immigration statute passed in 1952 that allows the president to suspend the U.S. entry of "any class of aliens." But, as a former U.S. Justice Department lawyer and a law professor, I believe there are at least four possible arguments challenging the legality of the order.
Anti-discrimination statute
There is, critically, another federal statute that outlaws discriminating against a person regarding issuing visas based on the person's "nationality, place of birth, or place of residence," which Trump's order clearly does. This second statute was passed in 1965 and is more specific than the 1952 statute. What's more, courts have enforced this anti-discrimination ban strictly. This is the strongest legal argument against President Trump's order.
But Congress can amend or repeal the 1965 statute, as it can any law. A Republican-controlled Congress might do that, although concerns raised by some GOP lawmakers may make that unlikely.
Due process and equal protection
The recent court orders halting enforcement of the Trump order relied on a legal argument that it violated due process or equal protection under the Constitution. Due process means that people get procedural safeguards–like advance notice, a hearing before a neutral decision-maker and a chance to tell their side of the story–before the government takes away their liberty. Equal protection means the government must treat people equally, and can't discriminate on the basis of race, alien status, nationality, and other irrelevant factors.
As the Supreme Court has said, even immigrants who are not citizens or green card holders have due process and equal protection rights, if – and only if – they are physically here in the U.S. That's why the recent court orders on due process and equal protection help only individuals who were in the States at the time the court ruled.
Given the rushed, chaotic manner in which the recent order was drafted and enforced, with no set chance for affected individuals to plead their case, maybe there are some valid due process arguments against the ban. But presumably, those can be fixed by slowing down and letting people have their say. Once that's done, the remaining issue is whether the executive order violates equal protection by intentionally discriminating against Muslims.
Trump denies the order is a "Muslim ban," even though he called for exactly that during the campaign, and each of the seven countries subject to the ban is majority Muslim. In explaining why those seven countries were chosen, the order itself cites the Obama-era law stating that persons who in recent years have visited one of these seven terrorism-prone nations would not be eligible under a "visa waiver" program. Similarly, says Trump, the defining characteristic here is terrorist danger, not religion. That's why only seven of more than 40 majority Muslim countries are affected. (Note that the Obama-era rule isn't based on nationality, but rather on whether someone of any nationality visited the danger zone since 2011 – a criterion not outlawed by the 1965 statute.)
One problem with Trump's argument is that the order also seems to prioritize admitting Christian refugees. It does this by saying that once the 120-day ban on all refugees expires, priority goes to those of "a minority religion in the individual's country."
Supporters can rightly argue this "minority religion" language is neutral. It never mentions Muslims or Christians. But, as that neutral language interacts with the country-specific ban targeting seven Muslim countries, the two can't help but disproportionately help Christians. Indeed, just days before signing the order, Trump told the Christian Broadcasting Network he intended to prioritize Christian refugees.
That brings us to the final legal argument against the president's order. By picking favorites among religions, it violates the separation of church and state under the Constitution's Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Though Establishment Clause law is often murky, one clear point is that the government can't favor one religious denomination over another.
This may be the most important of the constitutional theories involved in this case because it may have the broadest scope.
The due process and equal protection arguments only help persons who are already in the United States. Theoretically, a court ruling on those arguments might invalidate the order only as it applies to such persons. But if the order violates the Establishment Clause by making a statement favoring Christianity, a court could strike it down entirely.
Steven Mulroy, Law Professor in Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Election Law, University of Memphis
Tagged constitution, Iran, Iraq. Somalia, Refugees, Sudan, supreme court, Syria Libya Muslims, Trump, Trump administrationLeave a comment
Federal District Court Denies Rhines' Motion for Relief in Capital Case
July 7, 2016 by Herb Ryan, posted in Rapid City, South Dakota
PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announces the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota has denied Charles Russell Rhines' motion for habeas corpus relief and to amend the judgment. Rhines filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking to overturn his conviction and death sentence for the murder of 22-year-old Donnivan Schaeffer in Rapid City on March 8, 1992.
"The Federal Court's ruling affirms that Charles Russell Rhines' murder conviction and capital sentence for the horrific murder of Donnivan Shaeffer are constitutional. My thoughts and prayers are with the Schaeffer family, who have waited 24 years for justice in this case," said Jackley.
A Pennington County jury convicted Rhines of first degree murder in 1993 and returned a sentence of death. Rhines' conviction and death sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by the South Dakota Supreme Court in 1996. Rhines' conviction and sentence were also affirmed on state habeas proceedings by the state trial court and South Dakota Supreme Court.
With the conclusion of his federal trial court habeas corpus proceedings, Rhines can file a notice of appeal within 30 days to the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and, ultimately, to the United States Supreme Court. Rhines must obtain permission from the federal court to pursue an appeal.
From the latter part of 1991 through February 1992, Charles Russell Rhines worked at the Dig 'Em Donut Shop on West Main Street in Rapid City, South Dakota. In February 1992 Rhines was terminated from this job.
On March 8, 1992, the body of Donnivan Schaeffer, an employee of Dig 'Em Donuts, was found in the storeroom of the donut shop on West Main Street. Schaeffer's hands were bound, and he had been repeatedly stabbed. Approximately $3,300 in cash, coins, and checks was missing from the store.The State charged Rhines with third-degree burglary of the store and first-degree murder of Schaeffer. A jury convicted him of these crimes. The jury recommended a sentence of death for the first-degree murder conviction. The trial court entered a judgment and warrant of execution.
Tagged appeal, Donnivan Schaffer, habeas corpus, murder, Rapid City, Rhines, supreme courtLeave a comment


text:
Q: how to add script in html/jsx reactjs I'm trying to add a style to a html element only when the property of an array of object has a certain value. but I got an error like this instead:
/src/App.js: Unexpected token, expected "..." (35:25)

here's my code: codesandbox
export default function App() {
  const data = [
    {
      id:1,
      score:10,
    },
    {
      id:2,
      score:20,
    },
    {
      id:3,
      score:50,
    }
  ];

  return (

Hello CodeSandbox

      {
        data.length > 0
        ? (

                No.
                value

              {
                data.map((item, index) => (

                    {index+1}.
                     10 ? 'style=\'backgroundColor:"red"\'' : ''}>
                      {item.value}

                ))
              }

        )
        : (

            No data

        )
      }
      {
        data.map((item, index) => (

        ))
      }

  );
}

A:  10 ? { backgroundColor: "red" } : ""}>

The style attribute in React accepts a JavaScript object with camelCased properties rather than a CSS string. You can find more details here.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
About Us Our Team Partners and Supporters Financial and Legal
About Woody
Woody's Bio Woody's Citation USS Hershel Woody Williams Woody and the News Speaking Request Woody-Medal of Honor Initiatives
Gold Star Family Mem. Monument Outreach Education
News Photos Videos
Push begins for Jefferson City Gold Star Families memorial
A group of civic leaders has kicked off a campaign to raise money for a Gold Star Families memorial to be raised in Jefferson City.
Joe Gamm | News Tribune
After more than 15 years since his death, Sandy Deraps' voice sometimes still breaks when she speaks about her son, Leon.
An Eagle Scout, Leon Deraps joined the U.S. Marine Corps right after high school, when he was 17.
In 2006, at only 19 years old, he died while conducting combat duties in Iraq.
Shortly after his death, Sandy Deraps joined a Marines parents group and packed boxes for soldiers overseas.
"When you lose somebody that's dear to you, you want to continue what their mission was," Deraps said. "Helping veterans and helping others is where you truly find happiness."
She soon joined American Gold Star Mothers, an organization that finds "strength through fellowship of other Gold Star Mothers who strive to keep the memory of our sons and daughters alive" through its work with veterans and those who are currently serving in the military and their families, according to the organization's website, goldstarmoms.com.
Deraps is a member of a committee dedicated to creating a Mid-Missouri Gold Star Families Monument and raising awareness of families' sacrifices.
The committee is helmed by civic leaders; state Rep. Dave Griffith, R-Jefferson City; and Operation Bugle Boy.
It has begun fundraising for a $125,000 monument to be placed at the entrance for the new Bicentennial Bridge — adjacent to the Missouri Veterans Memorial on the north side of the Capitol in Jefferson City.
Each year, on the last Sunday of September, communities across the country recognize Gold Star Mothers' Day.
A ceremony honoring Gold Star Mothers is to be at 2 p.m. Sept. 27 (Gold Star Mothers' Day). It will kick off a campaign to create a monument to families who have lost loved ones during military service.
While the ceremony will recognize the sacrifices families have made, it will also feature speakers who can discuss the importance of celebrating the support family back home provide to their loved ones.
All are invited to attend, especially anyone considering joining Gold Star Moms or who may know a potential Gold Star Mom.
Meant to honor their sacrifices, Gold Star Families are those who have a family member in the military who died in the line of duty. The honor dates back to World War I, when families of service members displayed flags featuring a blue star for every member of the immediate family who was serving in the war. If one of those family members died, the star's color would be changed to gold.
Following that, grieving mothers formed a group of American Gold Star Mothers.
Based in Washington, D.C., American Gold Star Mothers, a membership-based organization, is devoted to keeping the memory of deceased service members alive by working to help the military community, according to the organization's website.
The monument is intended to "increase public respect and appreciation for the tremendous sacrifice made by members of our Armed Forces who have given their lives in defense of our country; help make us more mindful of the great sacrifices made also by the families these heroes left behind; and inspire us to do more to make our country worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf," according to a news release.
The country already has 65 monuments completed and 75 in progress, according to the Hershel Woody Williams Medal of Honor Foundation website.
The organization trying to bring a monument to Jefferson City is committed to having it in place by Aug. 10, 2021, in time for Cole County's bicentennial celebrations.
To donate to the cause, go to hwwmohf.org and specify the Jefferson City monument, or mail or drop off a donation to Legends Bank, c/o Rosie Verslues, 130 E. McCarty St., Jefferson City, MO, 65101. Checks should be made payable to "MMGSFMM."
All donations are tax-deductible.
Operation Bugle Boy helped get the process underway with a donation it sent Thursday.
WOODY WILLIAMS FOUNDATION
12123 Shelbyville Road, Ste 100
This recognition shows our Foundation's commitment to financial transparency to all our donors and sponsors. Click for more information.
Stay up to date with our latest news and product releases by signing up to our newsletter.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The First 19-Numbers (0-18) Roulette. Exciting and Space-Saving. House-Edge 5.26%!
Roulette-18® uses a 0 to 18 Roulette-Wheel and a unique Roulette-Layout that does not require a Roulette-sized table.
2. A Roulette-Wheel numbered 0-18 is spin.


text:
2296: Holy Trinity, meeting in Ermita de San Fernando, Puerto de Mogán, Canary Islands
Mystery Worshipper: Galadriel.
The church: Holy Trinity, meeting in Ermita de San Fernando, Puerto de Mogán, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Canary Islands.
Denomination: Church of England, Diocese in Europe.
The building: This Anglican congregation has its own church building, but on Fridays they meet in the Roman Catholic Ermita de San Fernando Puerto de Mogán, a small chapel built by a local family in 1936. It is simply furnished, with wooden pews on either side of a central aisle. The altar stands in front of a wooden reredos that includes a statue of Mary, mother of Jesus, above a statue of her Son on the cross. Other statues include San Fernando, in 16th century Spanish costume. The décor also includes stations of the cross along the walls on either side.
The church: On their website they state that they are "the English speaking church for all Anglicans" and that "members of other Christian denominations are very welcome." They maintain close ties with other island churches. They sponsor a lunch club and an opera group as well as a mission in Peru.
The neighbourhood: Gran Canaria is one of the more central of the Canary Islands, situated in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of northwest Africa. Puerto de Mogán is a former fishing village whose canals and bridges have earned it the sobriquet "the Venice of the Canaries." Its small village charm and volcanic mountain scenery make it a popular tourist attraction, as do its good local restaurants featuring fresh-caught seafood.
The cast: The Revd Peter Ford, chaplain.
The date & time: Friday, 2 December 2011, 12.00pm.
Holy Communion.
Nine in the congregation, including a lector from the Spanish Episcopal church, who also administered the chalice during communion.
Everyone, including your Mystery Worshipper, was welcomed outside the church by the priest, who was clearly waiting there to greet his congregation. He acknowledged each individual or group as they arrived. Some were clearly well known to him but he was equally friendly to all.
Hard, especially the kneeler built into the back of the pew in front. But no worse than many another I have experienced.
Quiet and reverential, permeated by the noise of shoppers in the street market outside, but not to the point of distraction.
"Welcome!" The priest then proceeded to say it was good to welcome newcomers and to welcome back those with previous connections to the church. He added that everyone should sit, kneel or stand as they felt most comfortable – there were no expectations about these things.
The priest handed everyone a laminated service sheet with the outline of the service, including all congregational responses. At the end of the service he also handed out the Chaplaincy's December newsletter.
There was no music.
The paschal candle, next to which was the church's fire extinguisher. I wondered whether this was serendipitous or good risk assessment! Immediately above the extinguisher there was a statue of Christ, which offered further distraction about risk assessment.
It was a traditional Anglican said communion service, well ordered but at neither extreme of Anglican worship. The version of Common Worship that they followed is frequently used in the Diocese of Europe. It was a formal order of service with the usual elements of a communion service, where the congregation said the Gloria, the creed, and sundry responses.
9 – Tremendously enthusiastic. He used notes but addressed the congregation directly most of the time. And he smiled frequently.
The theme of the day's gospel, which was the opening verses of St Mark. This cuts to the heart of the story of the Christian good news. Mark does not spend time on the early years of Christ's life but goes directly to the main theme of his ministry, that "Jesus Christ is good news." Christians tend to forget the good news and worry about peripheral things like the state of their church's roof. They can lack joy. People go into church looking like miserable sinners and come out looking like miserable sinners. Their lives do not reflect Jesus' challenge to carry the good news. Even if we cannot forget about financial worries, we should at least leave the service with smiles on our faces as we take the gospel message with us.
The obvious enthusiasm of the preacher for the joy of the gospel message.
The absence of music, apart from the distant strains of popular songs from the street market outside.
So small a congregation does not admit of being overlooked! The priest and people chatted outside after the service in a very friendly way.
The church does not have facilities for providing its own coffee. Refreshments are taken in a local tapas bar and this information is printed at the end of the service sheet with an invitation to attend. Presumably one could spend the rest of the day there if one so chose!
6 – The welcome was friendly but I would miss singing hymns and the support of a larger congregation. Presumably if one lived in Puerto de Mogán, one could find transport up to the Chaplaincy's other churches in Maspalomas or Las Palmas, where there is a larger English-speaking population.
Yes. We may have been a small group, but everyone there was willing to find time on a weekday for worship despite the attractions of a holiday destination. It was good to be together.
Two things. The friendliness of the congregation and the sincerity of the sermon.


text:
Emer de Vattel, Adolf Hitler, America's Youth, and the Natural Born Citizen Clause
I read with interest the story published on December 10, 2011 at WND entitled, "4th-graders brainwashed with Occupy 'propaganda'-Student's dad complains to Scholastic News publisher." The 4th grade child's father, who I will call "father Edward," complained to Scholastic because in his view the publisher only provided one side of the "Occupy Wall Street" debate, only putting forth the view that those who are protesting are innocent victims of American society's oppression but not reporting the conduct of those protesters and who is politically behind those protesters. Read more: 4th-graders brainwashed with Occupy 'propaganda' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=376177#ixzz1gFmocVmk. One probably would then say why would I write about that and how does the title to his article really all stay together. Well, let us take a look at how such events are really part of a much bigger picture and why I used the title that I did.
Emer de Vattel, gave us a time-honored definition of a "natural born Citizen" which the Founders and Framers used when drafting the Constitution. That definition is a child "born in the country, of parents who are citizens." Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212-231 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Accepting natural law and the law of nations of which Vattel wrote and reported, the Founders and Framers gave the critical task of being President and Commander in Chief only to future "natural born Citizens." These were to be the children born in the United States to parents who were born or naturalized Citizens of the United States.
This natural law and law of nations definition has been adopted as part of American common law as confirmed by the following decision of our United States Supreme Court and lower courts:
(1) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814): Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens and said: "Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says 'The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'"
(2) Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 3 Pet. 99, 7 L.Ed. 617 (1830): The majority cited Vattel on the right of election to change one's allegiance and thus citizenship in the context of the new nation being formed after revolution. The Court found on principles consistent with Vattel's jus sanguinis and not on the English common law rule of jus soli, that simply being born in New York, after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, when the British took possession of New York, was not sufficient to establish one's status as an American citizen, for a child of minor years is incapacitated from making any citizenship election but rather followed the citizenship held or chosen by the father. On the contrary, relying upon principles of the English common law, Justice Johnson and Justice Story, who wrote separate minority concurring opinions, would have found the child born in New York during the same time period a citizen of the State of New York, regardless of the citizenship of his parents. Id. 136 and 164. This case shows what the majority rule was on citizenship and that it followed the Vattelian doctrine that a child when born took on the national character of his or her father (meaning father and mother under the doctrine of merger of the wife's citizenship into the husband) and did not acquire his or her citizenship from the territory in which he or she was born.
(3) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830): same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, stated: "If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country."
(4) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): Justice Daniel concurring cites Vattel and The Law of Nations and provides his definition of natural born citizens and takes out of Vattel's definition the reference to "fathers" and "father" and replaced it with "parents" and "person," respectively, stated: "The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights." Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . ."
(5) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875): Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a "natural born Citizen" or a "citizen." Rather, it applied the American "common-law" definition of those terms. Providing Vattel's law of nations definition of a "natural-born citizen," but without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it laid down the definition of a "natural-born citizen" as follows:
"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens." Id., at 167-68.
(6) Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879): same Vattelian definition and cites Vattel, said: "[T]he offspring of free persons…follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. 1 Bouv. Inst., 198, § 502; 31 Barb. 486; 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 147; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 242. This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen -- as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law… No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486, the court says: 'The universal maxim of the common law being partus sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother.' The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: 'As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.' Again, on page 102, Vattel says: 'By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.' This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case."
(7) Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1883): In this case, it appeared that Richard L. Ludlam, a citizen of the United States domiciled in New York, went at the age of eighteen to Peru for business purposes, but took no steps toward naturalization in Peru, or toward a permanent change of domicil. He remained in Peru fourteen years and when in Peru married a Peruvian woman, who also was a native of that country. A child was born to him in Peru. This child was held by the Court of Appeals to be a citizen of the United States, domiciled in New York. From the opinion of the court which was delivered by Selden, J., we learn the following:
"It seems to me to result of necessity from these principles, that the children of English parents, though born abroad, are nevertheless regarded by the common law as natural born citizens of England. The decision upon the plea in Calvin's case, which was merely repeating what was decided in Cobbledike's case, as early as the reign of Edw. I, see Calvin's case, p. 9 b., necessarily implies that a child may owe allegiance to the king (i.e., not merely local or temporary, but natural and permanent allegiance), although born out of the king's dominions; and also that this was a broad general rule, not confined to a few exceptional cases, because if this was an exception the plea could not have been held bad on demurrer, as it was in both Cobbledike's and Calvin s cases; but the exception must have been pleaded.
Now, upon what ground can allegiances in such cases be claimed ? If natural allegiance or allegiance by birth, does not depend upon boundaries or place, as Calvin's case asserts, upon what does it depend? There can be but one answer to the question. It is impossible to suggest any other ground for the obligation than that of parentage. It must, I apprehend, be transmitted from the parents to the child, or it could not exist. This being then the nature of permanent allegiance, it follows that the king of England may properly claim allegiance from the children of his subjects, wherever born. If then the child of English parents, though born abroad, is subditus natus a born subject of the king, he must also be a born citizen of the kingdom. Allegiance and citizenship are as we have seen, correlative terms, the one being the consideration of the other. So long therefore as the parents continue to owe allegiance to the crown of England, so long will their children, by the rules of the common law, whether born within or without the kingdom, owe similar allegiance, and be entitled to the corresponding rights of citizenship.
I suppose the doctrine that children, if legitimate, follow in regard to their political rights and duties, the condition of their fathers, to be found in natural law, and to be substantially the same in most, if not all, civilized countries. Vattel says: " Society not being able to subsist and perpetuate itself, but by the children of its citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights." B. 1, ch. 19, § 212. In a subsequent action the same author says: " It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens, the laws have decided this question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations. By the. law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him. I say of itself, for the civil law, or politics, may order otherwise from particular views. Id., § 215.
It is shown by Vice Chancellor Sandford, in Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583, 675, that the law of France, Spain, and Portugal is in accordance with this doctrine, by express enactment it is true, as it is now in England and in this country. But the uniformity goes to show that it is founded upon a law of nature, and of course prevails in every country, unless, as Vattel says, it is changed from the municipal law from particular views."
(8) Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884): "This section [Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired."
(9) United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same Vattelian definition and cites Vattel): "At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
(10) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898): It distinguished between an Article II "natural born Citizen" and a Fourteenth Amendment "born . . . citizen of the United States." It relied on the English common law and Calvin's Case (1608) to hold that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a "born . . . citizen of the United States" under the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment. But concerning a 1787 Article II "natural born Citizen," it cited Minor and quoted its American common law definition of a "natural-born citizen."
Minor, clearly stating what the firmly established American common law rule (not the British common law rule) was by which the Founders and Framers were guided, had no doubts about who a "natural-born citizen" was, defining one as a child born in the country to citizen parents. Minor said that under that same American common law rule there were doubts as to whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is even a "citizen." Wong Kim Ark resolved those doubts and held that Wong, who was born in the United States to domiciled alien parents, was a Fourteenth Amendment "born . . . citizen of the United States." But in so doing, it did not alter or amend the original and long-standing American common law rule of what a "natural born Citizen" was and therefore did not hold that Wong was an Article II "natural born Citizen." There is no other U.S. Supreme Court case following Wong Kim Ark which changed the Minor original American common law definition of a "natural-born citizen."
We have seen that Vattel informed us what a "natural born Citizen" is and, as our U.S. Supreme Court and some lower courts have confirmed throughout the span of American history, our Founders and Framers, when drafting the presidential eligibility requirements included in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, adopted that definition. But there is another important message in what Vattel wrote which is really the basis for the Founders and Framers choosing Vattel's definition of a "natural born Citizen." Vattel also warned us that we cannot preserve our society but through the children of its citizens. Vattel said in Section 212 The Law of Nations that a society cannot fundamentally preserve itself other than through the children of its citizens who he calls the "natives, or natural-born citizens." Vattel told us that it is the youth of any society that will eventually, upon reaching the age of majority (then it was 21 and today it is 18), assume the power to administer and preserve that society. Vattel was perfectly correct in what he said and Adolf Hitler knew it also.
Hitler, who was not born in Germany and was therefore not a "natural born citizen" of that nation, made his plans for the youth of Germany publicly known when he said: "He alone who owns the youth, gains the future." -- Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935. "One of the most important functions of the Hitler Jugend was to prepare the youth for membership in the Party and its formations. Hitler said at the Reichsparteitag, 1935:
'He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future! Practical consequences of this doctrine: The boy will enter the Jungvolk (boy 10-14) and the Pmpf (members of the Jungvolk) will come to the Hitler Youth, and the boy of the Hitler Youth will join the SA, the SS and the other formations, and the SA man and the SS man will one day join the Labor Service, and from there he will go to the Armed Forces, and the soldiers of the people will return again to the organization of Movement, the Party, the SA, the SS, and never again will our people be so depraved as they were at one time.' (2656-PS; 2401-PS). "
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-0… Almost the same words were said by Vladmir Lenin, when he said: "Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world."
Hitler knew that it was not going to be easy for him to win the hearts of all Germans. "He realized that he would never be able to convert all Germans to National Socialism. He converted many, but many others saw through the official propaganda. The younger generation was a different matter. They came to the Hitler Youth as more of a clean slate which were much more vulnerable to ideological manipulation. He was skeptical about the schools, especially the schools he inherited in 1933. The Hitler Youth was a program that the NAZIs could completely control. Not only did the Hitler Youth provide the vehicle which the future generation of Germans could be shaped, but the youth could be used in many other ways by Hitler and the NAZIs." http://histclo.com/youth/youth/org/nat/hitler/hitler.htm.
From what Vattel teaches, we can see that allegiances and values are nurtured in the family. And Hitler knew that, too. He also knew that "Youth is easily deceived, because it is quick to hope."—Aristotle. The First Hitler Youth Law proclaimed: "The future of the German people depends on its youth. Therefore, all of the German youth must be prepared for its future duties." Two subsequent Hitler Youth Laws were designed mostly to prevent families from evading the requirement to enroll their children in the HJ. http://histclo.com/youth/youth/org/nat/hitler/hitler.htm. In studying the Hitler Youth, we find that "[f]amily attitudes are especially interesting because part of the purpose of the HJ [Hitler Jugend] was to break down family allegiances and cement loyalty to the Party and Führer." "The boys were encouraged to question or even reject some authority figures, such as parents or church leaders, which appealed to many boys. They were required, however, to accept NAZI principles without question." http://histclo.com/youth/youth/org/nat/hitler/hitler.htm.
It also does not take much time to fundamentally transform a nation's youth. NAZI youth organization began in 1922. The NAZIs seized power in 1933. Independent youth groups were absorbed into the Hitler Youth or abolished. The NAZIs by 1935 had enrolled 60 percent of Germany's youth into their youth movement. http://histclo.com/youth/youth/org/nat/hitler/hitler.htm. The Hitler Youth consisted of two sections, the Deutsche Jugend for the younger (10-14) boys and the Hitler Jugend proper for the older (15-18) boys. "The Hitler Youth grew from a group with a handful of boys to one of the most important uniformed youth group in Europe. No group so thoroughly succeeded in their stated purpose. Had the NAZIs succeeded, the elite of Europe would have been raised and trained through the Hitler Youth. Membership increased from about 1,000 boys in 1923 to nearly 8 million in 1939 when Hitler launched World War II." http://histclo.com/youth/youth/org/nat/hitler/hitler.htm.
Arthur Axmann, a Hitler Youth Leader, presented Hitler with a newly formed division--the 12th SS Panzer Division Hitlerjugend--on his birthday in April 1944. The Division was composed of HJ youth born in 1926, making them 17-18 years old. The senior NCOs and officers were mostly SS veterans from the Eastern Front. This Division played a prominent role in the Normandy fighting.
How does any of this relate to America? The message that we should learn is that we should not take so lightly the Occupy Wall Street, text messaging, text+, iPhones, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Droid, etc. movements and networks, especially if someone attempts to use those channels of education and communication to influence and manipulate American youth the way Hitler did German youth. While Scholastic states on its web site that it is committed to publishing all information for the sake of preserving a free society (see the WND article) and it has perceived that there is an important need to "educate" our children about the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, I have not seen one word in its publications about the ongoing national debate about whether President Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen." Omission of the "natural born Citizen" issue from its publications, but inclusion therein of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, should surely raise grave suspicions on the part of any sound thinking concerned American.
What our nation's youth learns through any medium is, indeed, vital to the survival of our nation as we known it. Therefore, let us be, as father Edward is, forever vigilant about what someone is trying to teach our children, no matter what that subject or the professed motivation for teaching that subject might be.
Labels: Adolf Hitler, Article II, Barack Obama, Emer de Vattel, Mario Apuzzo, natural born citizen, presidential eligibility, Section 1, youth
Puzo1 quoted:
"(7) Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1883)....
Now, upon what ground can allegiances in such cases be claimed ? If natural allegiance or allegiance by birth, does not depend upon boundaries or place, as Calvin's case asserts, upon what does it depend? There can be but one answer to the question. It is impossible to suggest any other ground for the obligation than that of parentage. It must, I apprehend, be transmitted from the parents to the child, or it could not exist."
Mario, this is supported by Coke in Calvin's case where Coke says:-
"Calvin the plaintiff, naturalized by procreation and birth right"
Calvin being ruled a 'natural born subject', with pure, absolute and indefinite allegiance "due by nature and birthright"
The notion that an alien parent produces a natural born subject, has been (conveniently) cherry-picked and is only a part of the truth, the most crucial part has been omitted in discussions, i.e. that the alien parent father of a child born in England, must be a 'subject', so the child may be "born under the ligeance of a subject".
Without the parent father being a 'subject', then the child cannot be a 'subject' or a 'natural born subject' even if born in England.
It is completely irrelevant as to how or why the parent father is himself a 'subject'.
The English common law as regards qualification as 'natural born subject' has ALWAYS been about the subject status of the parent father.
There is an excellent written piece by the Historian and Constitutional expert researcher P.A. Madison pertaining to the Occupy Wall Street issues. It is titled, "There is No Constitutional Right to Occupy."
It can be reviewed in full at: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=5867093233794772942
Well worth the read.
Additionally,
P.A. Madison writes a wonderful piece titled: "Historical Analysis of the Meaning of the 14th Amendment's First Section."
Can be reviewed at: http://www.federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm
And another titled: "Defining Natural-Born Citizen."
Which can be reviewed at: http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
I continue to always enjoy your prolific well historical documented writings Mario and look forward with full enthusiasm to your future articles.
I am familiar with P.A. Madison's early writings on the Fourteenth Amendment and the "natural born Citizen" clause. He did some very good work. I recommend reading his articles to everyone.
This might interest you quite a bit as you live and in New Jersey.
http://obamaballotchallenge.com/new-jersey-citizen-to-file-obama-ballot-challenge
In his work on Conflict of Laws, § 48 (1834), Mr. Justice Story, treating the subject as one of public law, said:
"Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed to be citizens of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health or curiosity, or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert that, in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established."
Why is this query in Conflicts of Law? Because Joseph Story recognizes that the law, and reason, only allow children of citizens to be citizens at birth . . . HOWEVER, he recognizes a trend in the 'public law' that ignores his 'reasonable qualification' that citizenship did not fall to children of non-citizens.
If one reads Sec. 3 of the 1795 Uniform Naturalization Act, minor children of aliens become citizens upon naturalization of the father . . . one of particular Bias towards the JUS SOLI must really read between the lines of the Act to insist that this section only referred to foreign-born children, as one judge did.
While this section of Conflicts discusses naturalization law, Article II is specifically discussed in §1473 of his Commentaries: "It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe."
Common Law and the Calvin's Case relied on Jus Soli, but the 1772 British Nationality Act AND the 1790 Uniform Nationality Act, et seq 1855, relied on the national condition of the father.
Under jurisprudence, legislated Act supersedes foreign case law and the common law . . . so, in time, the judiciary took it upon itself to ignore Art I, Sec 8 in order to re-write Naturalization law, as occured in Wong Kim Ark.
Is there a specific statute in NJ Election codes that allows challenge of eligibility by an elector?
Hi Mr. Apuzzo,
This article looks like our answer to the deceitful CRS report that recently came out. It is very well done.
Thank you for another superb article on this subject.
Could you check your email? I would like to get in touch with you about representing our group in MS.
Notice how in the Elk case, the 14th Amendment 'born or naturalized' aids in conflating 'natural born' with 'native born,' as most consider a child born on U.S. soil of alien parents not naturalized per se.
Therefore, they are raising statutory Jus Soli to the level of natural law.
In his work on Conflict of Laws, § 48 (1844), Mr. Justice Story, treating the subject as one of public law, wrote:
Of course, the conflict is the public law concept of jus soli undermining the 'reasonable qualification' that was, since 1790, an integral part of legislated Act requiring aliens to first naturalize before their minor children could become U.S. citizens.
Sec. 3. Uniform Naturalization Law by Congress "And be it further enacted, That the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:"
The champions and defenders of the Jus Soli insist that Sec. 3 applied only to children born abroad . . . yet cannot prove this when challenged.
Justice Story's Commentaries describes the reason for making Naturalization law Uniform through Federal legislation. See http://www.constitution.org/js/js_316.htm
Uniform Law relies heavily on the Plenary Powers Doctrine. The courts in each state were limited to administering oaths and keeping records. Later, that part of Naturalization Law was given over to the Executive Branch. As cases and controversies in suit against the Secretary of State ensued, the courts declared Article III power over naturalization law and the liberal courts began rewriting it.
I recommend Mark R. Levin's article at http://www.cis.org/CitizenshipSupremeCourt
Congress has the power to 'fix' the Wong Kim Ark interpretation of the 14th Amendment, merely by adding a brief definition of 'under the jurisdiction thereof' to 8 USC 1401, but our congressmen are, almost unanimously, misinformed and uneducated on the subject.
Indeed, a President Gingrich could address congress and teach them, and encourage them to challenge the SUPREME (or not so supreme) Court.
Vattel's observations about the constitution of societies and nations is best describable as a description and not a definition. He was not presenting his observation as a definitive authoritarian final word on the subject of citizenship, but merely as a general principle that was true in practically all cases, but he didn't bother including or excluding the exceptions to the general rule, namely, those born abroad to parents who were not emigres. They also are citizens, and more than mere statutory citizens, they are natural citizens via citizenship by descent, -natural inheritance. So, place of birth is irrelevant and should not be asserted as a necessary element of natural citizenship because that would violate the very principle upon which it is based.
http://obama--nation.com
As to place of birth:
Vattel in Section 215 of The Law of Nation said that nations are free to pass municipal laws to regulate how they will treat persons born abroad to citizen parents.
First, Vattel asked whether these persons are "citizens," not whether they are "natural-born citizens."
Second, the First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 said that such persons "shall be considered as natural born citizens." Under the definition of "naturalization" at that time, such language connoted naturalization. Also, the act was a naturalization statute. Furthermore, the statute was only retroactive.
Third, the Third Congress, repealing the Naturalization Act of 1790 and replacing it with the Naturalization Act of 1795, considered such persons to be only "citizens of the United States." This is critical given that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 distinguishes between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen of the United States," with only the former being eligible to be President after the adoption of the Constitution.
These early Congresses would have known how the Founders and Framers defined a "natural born Citizen." Our U.S. Supreme Court has given great weight to early Congressional statutes in interpreting terms in the Constitution.
Hence, we can see that place of birth was, indeed, a controlling factor in defining a "natural born Citizen."
The other necessary element, as stated by Vattel in Section 212 and confirmed by several U.S. Supreme Court cases (see, for example, Minor v. Happersett and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark), was that the child be born to citizen parents.
It is obvious that citizenship is either inherited or statutory. The two can coincide, but may not be in conflict.
Two U.S. parents = Inherited
One U.S. parent = Statutory
No U.S. parents = Statutory
Mr. Apuzzo adds a subsection to Two U.S. parents thanks to the 1795 revision, Two parents foreign born = Statutory
A Wong Kim Ark citizen has two nationalities at birth by constitutional amendment as (mis)interpreted by the Supreme Court, thus a conflict of laws exists until statute dealienages one citizenship. The statutes were revised later to comply with Wong Kim Ark, i.e., 8 USC 1401(a).
Only a natural born citizen is solely a U.S. citizen at birth by force of natural law, inheritance.
English law describes the two conditions as 'citizen by descent' and 'citizen otherwise than by descent.'
If Gingrich became president, I'd like to see him lecture congress on the 14th Amendment (after all, Gringrich is a Civil War Era scholar) and promise congress he would sign any bill revising 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) to follow legislative history and case law prior to Wong Kim Ark.
Natural citizens are such via birth to citizens, just as tigers are tigers via birth to tigers. Law has nothing to do with it, other than an inviolable Law of Nature. That is the principle of natural citizenship. It's an unalienable right which one is born with if their parents are citizens. Therefore, location has no relevance. Natural citizenship is not a concept of legislated statute, but of the common sense principle of group membership based on Natural Law. It is not found anywhere in U.S. legislated law or the Constitution itself because it precedes them in every way. It is an element of Natural Rights along with Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. It, like they, can be revoked due to criminal or other behavior but that doesn't mean that it isn't a right that humans are born with.
You said; "Under the definition of "naturalization" at that time (1790), such language ("considered as natural born citizens") connoted naturalization."
I can't believe I'm reading that you're saying that they viewed natural born citizens as "naturalized". Something isn't making any sense.
The 1790 Act states: "... the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States,...; and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:"
It is very important to grasp who this language was addressed to. It was not written for anyone other than the administrators of immigration policy who could easily misconstrue the truth about the mentioned citizens and treat them as aliens in violation of their constitutional rights. It made sense to place that language in the Naturalization Act because it was the Act aimed at the immigration authorities.
Understand this, the children of naturalized citizens were automatically U.S. citizens by the traditional policy of derivative citizenship and that statutory language was written only to protect their rights, not to define them nor grant them anything.
Similarly with the natural citizens born to American outside of U.S. territory. They not only were citizens but were natural born citizens and the Act meant to insure that they were treated as what they were. But it need not have mentioned their type of citizenship because presidential eligibility was not at issue, (unless one of them later sought to run for President). That was why that language was dropped in 1795, -only citizenship or no citizenship was the issue.
Mario, Pt. 2
It's a logic error to assume that the 1795 Act "defined" them as "only" citizens, rather it limited itself to dealing solely with the issue of "citizenship or no citizenship". It was the intent of the framers of the Constitution that children of Ambassadors, Diplomats and Consuls should be considered as future material for the presidency since they were born to true-blue American patriots in serve to their country. It would have been viewed as a gross injustice to deny the sons of such faithful servants the same honor as their fellow countrymen simply because of the location of their birth. That is the reason why they only required 14 years residency out of a minimal life-span of 35 years. That means they could have spent 21 years of their life abroad! That's three fifths. McCain could have live 58 years abroad!
You use the words "other necessary element" in regard to natural citizenship requiring a domestic birth but it is a logic error to consider that element as necessary. It is merely concomitant in essentially all cases, with the rare exceptions of citizens born abroad, therefore it need not have been mentioned that there are rare exceptions to that general "rule" which is nothing more than an observation and NOT a rule. Every reference to domestic birth is given not as a definition but as an observation, and observations only cover that which is being discussed in a general sense, not in a comprehensive and all-inclusive sense. It's not legalese covering every possible base and scenario.
There is a principle, there is a PRINCIPLE beneath natural citizenship and it is not an arbitrary assumption of what one or more people presume to make a semblance of sense. Natural citizenship follows a Law but none of the authorities through the years and centuries has bothered to identify it. The British did in regard to being a natural subject, but their bastardized reasoning was based on the limitless right of the King to be boss of everyone born within his domain. That is not the reasoning to be followed in America. We must follow the principle of natural law and by it only parentage matters. Under jus soli only location matters and not parentage, but there is nothing natural about jus soli. A natural American Citizen is not created by a bastardized combination of jus soli and jus sanguinis. There is nothing natural about such a combination. Keep focused on that which is natural and resist the siren call of the song of the soil. It will draw one onto the rocks of confusion.
paraleaglenm
I don't see any conflation of native born and natural born in the 14th A because it contains no reference to nbc. It's words describe both types of citizenship but was not written to address the nbc class, only the native born class. The nbc class needs no law or Amendment to secure its rights because they are a fundamental element of Natural Rights.
The 14th's all-inclusive wording sacrificed clarity for brevity, and clarity was the big loser. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof": undefined but not undefineable. Perhaps its definition seemed self-evident to the authors but others are afraid to read their logical minds. But I'm not. Foreigners are not subject to U.S. jursidiction, whether they are inside or outside of the U.S. Only citizens and legal immigrants are subject. Domiciled illegal immigrants could also be ruled to be subject, or not.
They did something unusual with the Amendments wording by throwing in "or naturalized" where it doesn't really belong because its presence creates a meaning of "All persons naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States" That would be a ridiculously obvious statement to deliberately make except for one thing, no law of Congress can change that stated fact. It would require a repeal or rewrite of the Amendment to change that.
I Love the Justice Story quote about exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction because it reflects that same common sense logic that I've imputed to jurisdiction. How can anyone possibly take any stance against it? They would have to be dunderheads or deliberately intellectually dishonest about what the authors thought, meant, and intended. Such an interpretation makes the jurisdiction requirement unnecessary and superfluous because it views EVERYONE within U.S. borders to be subject. Then why the need to say it? No answer. Obfuscation.
You wrote: "Congress has the power to 'fix' the Wong Kim Ark interpretation of the 14th Amendment, merely by adding a brief definition of 'under the jurisdiction thereof' to 8 USC 1401"
I'm not a constitutional lawyer but I'm pretty sure Congress can't define anything in the Constitution and its amendments, only the courts. But if only the 1866 Civil Rights Act existed, they could change or clarify that.
Today,while perusing official U.S. Code Interpretations I came across mentions of native and natural born citizens. I was surprised to find that because I've never read any mentioned of their existence in U.S. law in such a form. Let me share: http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html
Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.
(b) Naturalization . At one time or another since September 22, 1922, women who expatriated themselves under the circumstances set forth in INTERP 324.1 have been able to regain citizenship by means of a simplified form of naturalization,
[paragraph 6] The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if NATURALIZED, NATIVE, or NATURAL-BORN citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss."
WOW! Where has this been hiding all through the three years that PhoxarRed has been declaring that the native born are natural born? This is equivalent to an iron skillet to the head of his lying position. I wish I'd known of this statement 6 months ago so I could have whacked him on the head with it each time he claimed there was no difference.
This sentence is preceded by another one also using the same terminology. Time to spread the word. Obama's entire claim of eligibility is premised on a Hawaiian birth making him a native born American. This section of law shows that the native born are distinct from the natural born. Check-Mate.
The reason I was perusing "Expatriation by Marriage" was to find out if U.S. law allowed derivative citizenship for Obama at birth with his mother being married to an alien. I learned that the Attorney General who construed a Supreme Court decision regarding loss of citizenship (expatriation) when American women marry foreign men had ruled that they didn't lose their citizenship without a willful act, which marriage isn't, even though the scotus has never ruled on his opinion. The 1907 Act could still be controlling.
So it isn't truly "settled" law that Obama was even a U.S. citizen at birth though the view of scotus might uphold the A.G.s finding.
But that still leaves the question about Obama and the source of his citizenship. I've never heard anyone opine on whether or not a child born of a foreign male decades ago would have had only his father's citizenship or not. It seems that every other conceivable bush has been beaten about except this one. Were children born of alien fathers deemed to have inherited their American mother's citizenship or only the father's? We need answers people! Was he even a citizen at birth? What question is more important than that? My final essay on his eligibility needs an answer before it can be finalized. It's working title is: A Britain by Birth; An American by Naturalization Please help.
YJ Draiman said...
Can we charge politicians with treason for violating oath of office?
Swearing exclusive loyalty, fealty, allegiance to the United States
YOU SWORE ON THE BIBLE: WHAT AN OATH MEANS
A promise is always an important thing. But an oath is not just an ordinary promise. An oath is a promise made in such a way as to accentuate its importance, and to make it binding, as much as is possible to do.
An oath has been defined thus:
"Invocation of a supernatural or holy being called to verify the veracity of a statement… An oath was a special appeal, an expression of sincerity backed up by the threat of divine retribution should the uttering prove false — hence the term 'oath-breaker'. An oath breaker was assumed to have committed a crime against God or of some divine entity, which would lead to damnation or another form of severe penalty."
A PROMISE MADE TO GOD
A connection is explicitly made between the promise (relating to earthly matters) and the sacred realm. The promise is thus made a sacred thing. The result is that nothing can legitimately overrule the promise. It is stated in an unequivocal way — unequivocal, literally, in that there is no other "voice" that can equal, let alone supplant, the voice of the promise.
Historically, the taker of the oath consents to the severest of judgments should he violate that oath: "a crime against God…which would lead to damnation or another form of severe penalty."
That is a part of the background for the "oath of office" which every member of the United States Congress takes.
A TREASONOUS OFFENSE
And of the oath of office, it is said:
"Oaths of office are usually a statement of loyalty to a constitution or other legal text, as well as an oath to the state or religion the office holder will be serving. It is often considered a treasonous or highly illegal offense to betray one's oath of office."
"A treasonous or highly illegal offense…" Taking this oath is supposed to be no small thing.
And so, just what is it that Members of Congress promise that they will do? Here's what they swear:
'"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."'
Today I was inspired to write what may be the final word on natural citizenship: A Dissection of the "Definition" of Natural Born Citizen" I dissect the logic errors that clouds the issue.
Here's a sample from near the end: A born citizen is anyone who is a citizen from birth and not one born abroad to foreign parents, nor naturalized into citizenship during adulthood. They are born into citizenship but that citizenship can be either natural citizenship inherited from the parents, or naturalized citizenship granted by the laws of the government.
If that citizenship is inherited from the parents then it is natural citizenship and therefore can be called the natural-type of born citizenship as opposed to the naturalized-type. Natural citizens should not be called born-citizens because some are foreigner-born to foreign immigrants (-not naturalized immigrants). Their citizenship is not natural, but instead is statutory citizenship via the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which subsequently became Constitutional Citizenship via the 14th Amendment (1868) as interpreted by a Supreme Court ruling in 1898. Natural citizens do not possess constitutional citizenship. They possess natural citizenship and it is not found anywhere in the Constitution or it's amendments.
Natural citizenship is via natural law, and no law exists which grants it because it is an unalienable right.
The framers of the Constitution did not feel they had the right and authority to make statutes regarding rights that are universally viewed as unalienable. That was why they did not write a Bill of Rights into the Constitution. cont...
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/dissection-of-nb/ a.r. nash
Barack Obama is a United States constitutional citizen! Therefore he has ALL of the rights of ALL citizens!…uhhhh…with one tiny little insignificant caveat, -he just has to recuse himself from serving as the Commander-in-Chief because that job was singled out by our founding fathers to be off-limits to constitutional citizens. -a slight minor footnote, a detail hardly worthy of attention because no one who wasn't qualified to be President would ever have the audacity to run for an office that he's unqualified to serve in. Right?
~~~Holy Crap! Rip Van Winkle just woke up and can't believe what he's seeing! A foreigner by birth is seating in the White House? How the hell did that happen? Isn't anyone going to do something about it? Or at least say something about it? What are our national leaders and our guardians in the Press saying?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Dear Rip Van Winkle, you should be shocked because one was elected and took office who holds it in violation of the Constitution. He may be a Constitutional Citizen of the United States, or a Naturalized citizen, or a....
That makes him ineligible to be the President. No one who is a Constitutional Citizen, nor a Statutory Citizen, nor a Naturalized Citizen, nor an Administrative Policy "Derivative" Citizen is allowed to be President by the Constitution because they are not NATURAL Citizens but instead are various types of Naturalized Citizens. That means that they had one or both foreign parents. Natural citizens have only American parents. The office of the President can be entrusted only to them even though naturalized citizens may be even more patriotic, Constitution-love and defending citizens, but they aren't Constitution-qualified to be President.
And yet some people don't give a tinker's damn about abiding by the Constitution, nor even understanding it. Whatever seems preferable to achieve their idealistic humanitarian, elitist autocratic goals is OK because after all, the ends DO justify the means, right? Why let a piece of paper stand in the way of all that social good that redistributionism can produce? Anyone who can't see that wisdom is must be a simpleton. Simpletons think that the government doesn't know what's best for everyone. How dare they question the wisdom and intelligence and integrity, and morals of the government? After all, their existence is for the sake of the government, not the other way around, right?
a.r. nash http://obama--nation.com
Did Putative President, Barack Obama, At the Behes...
Emer de Vattel, Adolf Hitler, America's Youth, and...


text:
Socialist Party By Election Manifesto
Three years of austerity, four austerity budgets, and every year, every budget, the deficit and the crisis has gotten worse. The more they take out of the economy, the worse the crisis gets.
The people of Dublin West can use this election to say: Enough is Enough – No more austerity cutbacks that are destroying the economy and jobs. Labour & Fine Gael have 113 TDs. A victory for them in this by-election would encourage worse austerity & arrogance. They promised change but betrayed that promise. Don't trust them again!
Use this election to say:
YES to reversing all the cuts to Connolly Hospital.
YES to a write down of rip-off mortgages & repayments, to lift the strain of debt and keep people in their homes.
Elect Ruth Coppinger and help us launch a new party to really represent ordinary working class people.
To find out more about the alternative to austerity, check out the centre pages of our manifest below.
Socialist Party TDs on Occupy Dame Street
Dublin West By Election Final Message: Elect Ruth Coppinger
Joe Higgins elected as MEP!
"The Best Fighter Money Can't Buy"Socialist Party candidate Joe Higgins has won the third seat in the European…
New mass party for working class needed
By Paul Murphy
"IRELAND NEEDS a new political party; one that reflects the sweeping reassessments that have taken place in the past six months, ever since the old order started to disintegrate…. One popular, coherent movement is what is required."
Justine McCarthy, writing in the Sunday Tribune (3 May), expressed an essential truth that the Socialist Party believes about the political situation in Ireland – there is a desperate need for a new mass party to represent working class people.
Anti Austerity Alliance – leading the resistance
The government hope that the signs of economic recovery will signal a recovery in the polls for Labour and Fine Gael. But the reality is, any recovery will not mean an easing of austerity. Indeed austerity is here to stay, and the Anti Austerity Alliance is here to resist it.
Socialist Party Election Manifesto
The Socialist Party's 8 point manifersto sets out our alternative to cuts and crisis. As well as being available here, it has been delivered into almost every single house in the 9 constituencies in which we are standing.


_Amma'trisha and OmaKayuel provide private sessions to read and heal specific parts of you on a physical, emotional, mental and spiritual level. You can book a session with Amma'trisha, OmaKayuel or a session with us together.
When we work together we combine our individual gifts. This way the issues that you hold can be identified and lifted on several levels at the same time. Both of us work with what your Higher Self is presenting. The beauty of a combined session is the fullness of the experience that is created by working together at the same time.
OmaKayuel and Amma'trisha provide sessions in person (Wijk bij Duurstede, Utrecht) or via Skype.
The session duration is 90 minutes.


Pedro Resende created EZP-24158 - Undefined repository ''. Did you forget to configure it in ezpublish_*.yml?
Pedro Resende changed the status to Confirmed on EZP-24158 - Undefined repository ''. Did you forget to configure it in ezpublish_*.yml?
André Rømcke started progress on EZP-24158 - Undefined repository ''. Did you forget to configure it in ezpublish_*.yml?
André Rømcke changed the status to InputQ on EZP-24158 - Undefined repository ''. Did you forget to configure it in ezpublish_*.yml?


We are pleased to welcome another new face to our expanding Head Office team. Patrick Emslie joins us as our Commercial Manager. With over 15 years of experience in the construction industry, Patrick will be responsible for the commercial performance of all projects across our business.


The International Relations Committee of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) is pleased to announce a special opportunity for international ACS Chapters provided by the Dr. Pon Satitpunwaycha Fund.
The Dr. Pon Fund, as it is known, will allow international chapters to create a local educational course that includes faculty from the ACS. The deadline for applications is January 16, 2017.
used to support those expenses.
• The title of the proposed course.
• A description/purpose of activity explaining why such a course is needed in the country, the targeted audience (surgeons, trainees, nurses, or other), and learning objectives.
•Duration of the course (one to 2. 5 days) and the proposed date for presentation.
• Course format (lectures, hands-on sessions, or other). Submission of a preliminary program is required.
•Names of proposed faculty, both local and international. International faculty will ideally support or represent 50 percent to 60 percent of the faculty. U.S.-based ACS Fellows will ideally represent 40 percent to 50 percent of the faculty.
•A conflict of interest form must be submitted for each faculty member.
• Costs broken out by category (travel, materials, and so on).
•A letter of support from the organizing institution or university.
• It is appropriate for chapters to apply for this award as a matching fund to their own contribution.
• Preference will be given to proposals from chapters that demonstrate additional funds from other sources. Preference will also be given to proposals for programs that can be replicated in other international chapters.
• The chapter must demonstrate ways it will encourage surgical trainees and medical students to attend and participate in their event.
•A detailed report of activities must be submitted at the conclusion of the event. In addition, a detailed financial breakdown of grant use is required.


text:
Le Margnès est une ancienne commune française, située dans le département du Tarn en région Occitanie.

Elle est, depuis le , une commune déléguée de la commune nouvelle de Fontrieu.

Géographie

Localisation
Commune du Massif central située dans les monts de Lacaune.

Communes limitrophes

Toponymie

Histoire

 1789 : communauté du Margnès-d'Anglès, sénéchaussée de Carcassonne, diocèse de Saint-Pons; communauté du Margnès-de-Brassac, sénéchaussée de Castres, diocèse de Castres.
La paroisse du Margnès-d'Anglès est Sainte-Madeleine de la Grange.
 1790 : commune du Margnès-d'Anglès, canton d'Anglès, district de Saint-Pons; commune du Margnès-de-Brassac, canton de Brassac, district de Lacaune.
 An V : le Margnès-d'Anglès est cédé au département du Tarn. Le canton d'Anglès est échangé avec le canton de Saint-Gervais.
 An X : commune du Margnès-d'Anglès, canton d'Anglès, arrondissement de Castres; commune du Margnès-de-Brassac, canton de Brassac, arrondissement de Castres.
 Loi du  : fusion des communes du Margnès-d'Anglès et du Margnès-de-Brassac.

Politique et administration

Démographie

Économie

Activités économiques basé sur l'élevage (bovins viandes et ovins lait) et la forêt (conifères et feuillus)
Depuis 2007 un parc éolien a été implanté sur les hauteurs de la commune ( Singladou), pour profiter d'une énergie abondante et inépuisable , le vent.

Lieux et monuments

Personnalités liées à la commune

Voir aussi

 Liste des communes du Tarn
 Anciennes communes du Tarn

Liens externes
 Le Margnès sur le site de l'Institut géographique national
 Communauté de communes des Vals et Plateaux des Monts de Lacaune

Notes et références

Notes

Références

Ancienne commune dans le Tarn

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia