Podcasts about english bill

This Day in Legal History: Petition of RightOn May 8, 1628, the English Parliament formally presented the Petition of Right to King Charles I, marking a key moment in the development of constitutional law and the rule of law in England. This pivotal document emerged in response to growing discontent over the king's use of extrajudicial practices—most notably, the levying of taxes without Parliament's approval and the imprisonment of individuals without cause. Parliament asserted that such actions violated established legal norms rooted in Magna Carta and the common law. The Petition of Right articulated four principal grievances: non-Parliamentary taxation, arbitrary imprisonment, the quartering of soldiers in private homes, and the imposition of martial law during peacetime.Rather than draft new laws, Parliament framed the Petition as a reaffirmation of ancient liberties, underscoring that even the monarch was not above the law. Although Charles initially resisted, political pressure forced him to accept the Petition—though he would later undermine its principles, contributing to the constitutional crises that led to the English Civil War. The Petition became a foundational text in the Anglo-American legal tradition, influencing later legal milestones such as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the United States Constitution.Its insistence on due process, the separation of powers, and limits on executive authority laid early groundwork for modern democratic governance. In rejecting the idea that the king could rule by prerogative alone, the Petition of Right helped to establish Parliament's role as a co-equal branch of government. The document continues to be cited in legal and political discourse as a seminal assertion of civil liberties. It was a bold challenge to monarchical absolutism at a time when questioning royal authority was fraught with danger. Through its articulation of legal limits on state power, the Petition of Right remains a cornerstone in the long evolution of constitutional democracy.Jenner & Block continues to take on high-profile legal battles against the Trump administration while awaiting a ruling in its own lawsuit challenging one of Trump's executive orders. The firm recently filed a suit in Massachusetts federal court on behalf of universities challenging cost caps imposed by the National Science Foundation on federally funded research. This is one of several legal actions Jenner has brought since Trump's return to the presidency, including lawsuits over restrictions on gender-affirming care and funding cuts to scientific research.Jenner is also seeking to permanently block a Trump executive order that targets the firm due to its ties to Andrew Weissmann, a former partner involved in the Mueller investigation. A judge has already temporarily blocked parts of the order, and other firms like Perkins Coie have secured similar rulings. Critics worry these orders could deter law firms from opposing the administration for fear of retaliation.Jenner is collaborating with former Solicitor General Paul Clement and his firm Clement & Murphy in its newest lawsuit on behalf of major research universities. They've previously teamed up to challenge medical research funding cuts, winning a preliminary court victory. Clement is also representing WilmerHale in its legal fight against Trump. The core argument in these cases is that the administration's actions infringe on constitutional rights, including free speech, due process, and equal protection.Jenner Adds Trump Fights While Fending Off Executive Order (1)The EPA under the second Trump administration is making Superfund site cleanups a central priority, aiming to accelerate remediation efforts across over 1,300 contaminated locations nationwide. EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin emphasized a push for expedited timelines and tangible outcomes, positioning Superfund cleanups as visible and community-focused work that garners public support. The administration has highlighted early actions like major soil removals, enforcement efforts that secured nearly $300 million in cleanups, and the removal of four sites from the Superfund National Priorities List.Observers say this mirrors the Trump EPA's first term, which also emphasized efficiency and redevelopment of polluted sites, often encouraging private investment. However, budget constraints remain a challenge. Superfund appropriations have dropped significantly since 1999, and while the 2021 Infrastructure Act provided a temporary funding boost and reinstated taxes on chemical companies, the current administration's 2026 budget proposes a $254 million cut, claiming tax revenue will suffice.Industry groups oppose the chemical tax, while environmental experts warn that funding and staffing shortfalls could stall progress. Critics caution that setting aggressive timelines without sufficient resources could backfire, leading to missed goals and wasted efforts. To improve the program, experts suggest reforms such as more collaboration with local entities and clearer guidance on common cleanup approaches to reduce delays.Trumps' EPA Shifts to Make Superfund Cleanups a Central MissionFormer Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson has retired from the law firm Paul Weiss to take on a leadership role at Columbia University, where he was elected co-chair of the board of trustees. Johnson, who served under President Obama and spent four decades at Paul Weiss, said he will miss his colleagues but is ready for the new challenge. His departure comes amid tensions between both Paul Weiss and Columbia with the Trump administration.Earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order limiting Paul Weiss's access to federal agencies, citing its ties to a prosecutor from the Russia investigation. To resolve the issue, the firm agreed to provide $40 million in pro bono legal services aligned with the administration's goals—a move criticized by some legal professionals for not challenging the order in court. Paul Weiss's chairman defended the agreement as necessary to protect the firm's future.Columbia University has also faced pressure from the Trump administration, which cut $400 million in federal funding over allegations that the school failed to address antisemitism on campus. In response, Columbia has made concessions to regain funding and recently laid off nearly 180 researchers due to financial strain. The university continues to operate without a permanent president following protests over the Israel-Gaza conflict.Johnson, a known critic of Trump's immigration policies and supporter of Kamala Harris in 2024, becomes the second high-profile departure from Paul Weiss following the firm's controversial deal with the administration.Ex-Obama cabinet secretary leaves law firm Paul Weiss for Columbia post | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Have you done your assigned reading? Because Sarah Isgur and David French are joined by Judges Charles Eskridge and Brantley Starr to take us to law school. Specifically, a class on the origins of the federal constitution. The Agenda: —Why it matters —The Founders' Constitution —The Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights —The origins of “rights” —Positive vs. negative rights —The legacy of “witch hunts” —The anti-federalists —The argument against a Bill of Rights —Civic engagement Show Notes (assigned reading): —Origins Part 1 —Origins Part 2 —Origins Part 7 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode we look at the ultimate alternative to absolutism and check on a monarch's power... the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights. Lyndeurozone.com  Patreon If you use this podcast regularly would you please consider supporting us on Patreon for as little as a dollar a month?  The Euro Simplified Podcast has no advertising revenue and is produced by a public school teacher.  We love and appreciate our supporters on Patreon as our supporters help us meet the costs associated with the production of this free resource for students. Episodes will be released on the following schedule: Unit 1 and Unit 2 - August/September Unit 3: October Unit 4: November Unit 5: November and December Unit 6: January Unit 7: Late January & February Unit 8 : March Unit 9: April   If you have any questions you can contact Robert Lynde at Lyndeurozone.com.   Instagram: @Lyndeurozone  

Edward Coke was born in Norfolk in 1552. He's best known as a judge and Parliamentarian, the link says Jesse Norman between Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. He was also, the programme claims, an occasionally appalling human being who used his own daughter in a marriage deal to buy himself favour with the King. Joining Jesse Norman in studio, often backing up his claims for Coke's greatness, is Dr Alexandra Gajda of Oxford University. Jesse Norman is a government minister, former paymaster general and one time financial secretary to the Treasury. The presenter is Ian Hislop, the producer Miles Warde

John takes us through a book he recommends, Seven Absolute Rights: Recovering the Historical Foundations of Canada's Rule of Law, by Lakehead University's Ryan Alford. Though it was published in 2020 and written before government lockdowns, John explains why the book gives him hope for the future as we fight to re-establish our rights and freedoms lost in the last few years.Amazon.ca: Seven Absolute Rights: Recovering the Historical Foundations of Canada's Rule of Law by Ryan AlfordRyan Alford TwitterBritannica: Magna Carta, England [1215]British Library Timeline: Habeas Corpus Act 1679History.com: English Bill of Rights (1689)UK Parliament: 1701 Act of SettlementAmazon.ca: Permanent State of Emergency: Unchecked Executive Power and the Demise of the Rule of Law by Ryan AlfordGlenn Greenwald in The Guardian, Feb 5, 2013: Chilling legal memo from Obama DOJ justifies assassination of US citizensBritannica: Star Chamber, English lawNew World Encyclopedia: Edward CokeBritannica: Divine right of kings--political doctrineCanadian Encyclopedia: Constitution Act, 1867CanLII: Roncarelli v. Duplessis, 1959Fraser Institute, Jan 19, 2023: Lockdown: A Final AssessmentFraser Institute, Jan 19, 2023: Why Did Jurisdictions Repeatedly Use Inefficient Lockdowns During the COVID-19 Pandemic?MacDonald-Laurier Institute, Nov 24, 2022: COVID vaccine mandates in Canada were a mistake: Are we ready to learn the right lessons?Frontier Centre for Public Policy, Oct 28, 2022: A Big Picture Look at the Disastrous Public Health Response to COVID-19Theme Music "Carpay Diem" by Dave StevensSupport the show

An execution warrant (also called death warrant or black warrant) is a writ that authorizes the execution of a condemned person. An execution warrant is not to be confused with a "license to kill", which operates like an arrest warrant but with deadly force instead of arrest as the end goal. United States. In the United States either a judicial or executive official designated by law issues an execution warrant. This is done when a person, in trial court proceedings, has been sentenced to death, after trial and conviction, and usually after appeals are exhausted. Normally when a death warrant is signed and an execution date is set, the condemned person is moved from his or her death row cell to a death watch cell, which is typically located adjacent to the execution chamber. Usually, the government agency charged with carrying out an execution, normally the state's Department of Corrections or the Federal Bureau of Prisons in federal cases, has a limited time frame, normally about 60 days, from the date the warrant is signed, to complete the execution process, or the warrant expires and the condemned person is returned to the death row cell, awaiting another execution date. Stays of execution can be ordered in state cases by the Governor of the State, a trial court, a state appeals court or state Supreme Court or a court in the federal judiciary (including the United States Supreme Court). In federal death penalty cases the trial court, appeals courts, the United States Supreme Court and President may grant a stay of execution. In all cases, the stay may be issued at any time, even when the condemned is being prepared for execution. … Cruel and unusual punishment is a phrase in common law describing punishment that is considered unacceptable due to the suffering, pain, or humiliation it inflicts on the person subjected to the sanction. The precise definition varies by jurisdiction, but typically includes punishments that are arbitrary, unnecessary, overly severe compared to the crime, or not generally accepted in society. History. The words cruel and unusual punishment were first used in the English Bill of Rights 1689. They were later also adopted in the United States by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1791) and in the British Leeward Islands (1798). Very similar words, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment", appear in Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948. The right under a different formulation is also found in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (1950) and in Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) also contains this fundamental right in section 12 and it is to be found in Article 4 (quoting the European Convention verbatim) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000). It is also found in Article 16 of the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), and in Article 40 of the Constitution of Poland (1997). The Constitution of the Marshall Islands, in the sixth section of its Bill of Rights (Article 2), prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment", which it defines as: the death penalty; torture; "inhuman and degrading treatment"; and "excessive fines or deprivations". --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 was passed by Parliament, which means that Parliament can change it at any time. The American Bill of Rights, in contrast, is part of the U.S. Constitution, which is much more difficult to change, as are states' bills of rights. Center for Civic Education

The struggle between the rights of the people and the power of government to deny those rights is one of the great themes of human history. This episode of 60-Second Civics explores two documents that limited the power of government in English history: the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. These documents significantly influenced American conceptions of the limitations on the power of government. Center for Civic Education

Do you want to get that 5?  Enter code “GO4FIVE” at checkout for 25% OFF the Lyndeurozone Online Resources! Online access expires June 15th, 2023. In this episode we look at the ultimate alternative to absolutism and check on a monarch's power... the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights. If you use this podcast regularly would you please consider supporting us on Patreon for as little as a dollar a month?  The Euro Simplified Podcast has no advertising revenue and is produced by a public school teacher.  We love and appreciate our supporters on Patreon as our supporters help us meet the costs associated with the production of this free resource for students. Episodes will be released on the following schedule: Unit 1 and Unit 2 - August/September Unit 3: October Unit 4: November Unit 5: November and December Unit 6: January Unit 7: Late January & February Unit 8 : March Unit 9: April If you have any questions you can contact Robert Lynde at Lyndeurozone.com. Instagram: @Lyndeurozone

It is no longer a slippery slope fallacy to claim that after guns, they will come for metal knives, and after the metal knives, they will come for the plastic ones. Great Britain has seen a string of knife bans, to the point that it is not even legal to carry a knife if the authorities do not think that your reason is good enough. (Story from the hstoday.us below) The Church of England is literally using language like “pointy knifes” must be banned, letter below. To further the point, they are literally attempting to ban plastic cutlery for purposes of carbon footprint reduction (How will we prepare food at this rate?), again new story below. This may seem silly, but it is actually happening to knives. Many conservatives have been laughed at for even suggesting that this is the logical end of the gun debate, that all guns will be banned and knives will be next. We see that occurring in Britain in real time. When discussing the topic of Gun Control, one can easily run into the weeds of stats and lose the war for winning the battle. We need to remember from where does this type of ideology stem, and what has it produced. Note, I am a stats guy. I believe in knowing the facts, but that is only a small percentage of the conversation if you wish to win someone on the other side of the Gun Control Debate. Last week we discussed stats and common arguments, so now let's look at the origins of gun control and what the philosophy of gun control has produced in societies that have implemented it. In America, it bears merit to look at why gun control was even considered in a society that had recognized a citizen's common law right to own a firearm since the English Bill of Rights of 1688. This Bill of Rights, by the way, reinstated the rights of all to keep and bear arms. Protestants, specifically, had been stripped of this right under persecution by James II. So why would a Protestant nation even consider gun control laws, they had just left violent persecution in Europe. Many of them fought for these very reforms. So why would some of these refugees employ similar tyrannical policies? For the same reasons those in Europe oppressed the Protestants, sin and power. Looking at American History is like looking at the tale of two Americas. One America was fighting for Christ's Liberty for all, and the other living in the same sin nature in which the rest of the world wallows. The gun control issue is one of many debates that has serious philosophical implications. Either all have the right to defend themselves, as God has declared in His Word, or Man has the right to pick and choose if man has the right to self defense. When man usurps God's authority, tragedy inevitably strikes. One of the first gun laws in America was written in Virginia in 1640 specifically against the African Slaves who had been brought to the New World: “Prohibiting negroes, slave and free, from carrying weapons including clubs." (The Los Angeles Times, "To Fight Crime, Some Blacks Attack Gun Control," January 19, 1992) Also passed in 1640 Virginia was this statute: "That all such free Mulattoes, Negroes and Indians...shall appear without arms." [7 The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619, p. 95 (W.W. Henning ed. 1823).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 67) Virginia continued to institute such laws and was joined by South Carolina in 1712 when the latter codified a statute banning:"An act for the better ordering and governing of Negroes and slaves." [7 Statutes at Large of South Carolina, p. 353-54 (D.J. McCord ed. 1836-1873).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 70) In 1791 the 2nd Amendment was ratified, codifying the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is important to note that the first congress almost split over the issue of slavery during our battle for independence from Britain, which truly didn't end until January 8, 1815 in New Orleans. Benjamin Franklin after having returned from France to broker the end of the French Revolutionary War brought a petition before Congress that read as such: ““Mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness.” All people were entitled to the “blessings of liberty . . . without distinction of color.” It noted the contradiction of slavery and freedom in the American experiment while seeking the means “for removing this inconsistency from the character of the American people,” and it called on Congress to grant “liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage.” It advocated not only the end of the slave trade, as the Quaker petition had the day before, but the end of slavery itself.” billofrightsinstitute.org The Abolitionist case took a back seat to survival and rested until the decadespreceding the Civil War which, however complex, was at least in part foslavery. In those decades marching up to the Civil War many states passed other egregious gun laws. In 1825 Florida enstated a law allowing local authorities to ransack Melanated homes (slave or free) for the purposes of confiscating any weapons of any sort (even a cane could be considered contraband. In 1828 Florida did in fact reverse somewhat to allow Free Melanated people to own firearms, only with a license. (Because you know you can't trust some sorts of people so we need licenses. This argument has become no less immoral with time.) In 1831 Florrida reversed again and repealed all licenses held by melanated people. (If God is not the one endowing us with our rights, and government is, then our rights are based on elections and political whimsy.) In 1857 the Dredd Scott vs Sandford case, one of the worst cases of jurisprudence ever seen in America, the court upheld the following: Fro Chief Justice Taney: “if members of the African race were "citizens" they would be exempt from the special "police regulations" applicable to them. "It would give to persons of the negro race...full liberty of speech...to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went." (Id. p. 417) U.S. Supreme Court held that descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves were not included nor intended to be included under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, whether emancipated or not, and remained without rights or privileges except such as those which the government might grant them, thereby upholding slavery. Also held that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state; that Congress cannot bar slavery in any territory; and that blacks could not be citizens.” After the Civil War, the reconstruction era saw the above laws “Slave Codes” become “Black Codes”. These often banned Melanated ownership of firearms without a license. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was meant to overturn these and the 14th Amendment reinforced the CRA of 1866, but states continued in their sin. “Opponents of the 14th Amendment objected to its adoption because they opposed federal enforcement of the freedoms in the bill of rights. Sen. Thomas A. Hendricks (D-Ind.) said "if this amendment be adopted we will then carry the title [of citizenship] and enjoy its advantages in common with the negroes, the coolies, and the Indians." [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 3, 2939 (4 June 1866)]. Sen. Reverdy Johnson, counsel for the slave owner in Dred Scott, opposed the amendment because "it is quite objectionable to provide that 'no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States'." Thus, the 14th Amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the Civil Rights Act of 1866, especially since the act "is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South," e.g. Florida has as "a misdemeanor for colored men to carry weapons...and the punishment...is whipping..." [CONG GLOBE, 39th Con., 1st Session, 504, pt. 4, 3210 (16 June 1866)].” The KKK was formed the same year in 1866, primarily by Democrats who felt as Thomas Hendricks did. This organization and those who held hate in their hearts towards the freed slaves wanted gun control to make their business of oppression easier. Saturday Night Special Laws were concocted and enacted to make inexpensive firearms “Saturday Night Specials'' difficult to obtain. This made it difficult to afford a firearm for all of those who the left saw as undesirable, especially the melanated individuals, but also the Appalachian and Italian, who were also connoted with “higher criminality and lower breeding”. Remember, these were the same people who were enthralled with eugenics and thought the poor and slaves were in these circumstances because of their genetics and nature. In 1911, the Sullivan Law was enacted. This law required police permission to obtain a permit to own a handgun. Again, the Southern Italian was also specifically singled out as particularly criminal in nature, as well as the more melanated African American. In 1934 the National Firearms Act was passed to prevent the ownership of firearms that were considered too dangerous to be left in the hands of the common folk. Firearms under this law were still available if you were to ask for a license and pay a tax equal to that of a used automobile. In 1941 Florida a judge admitted to the unequal administration of a gun control law: “In concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford stated the 1893 law "was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State....The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers....The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied...". Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69)” After MLK was assasinated in 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed and Robert Sherril, an avowed anti-gun journalist admitted that: “that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was "passed not to control guns but to control Blacks." [R. Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 80) "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one piece but was a combination of two laws. The original 1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include the control of rifles and shotguns after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun.... The moralists of our federal legislature as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen not merely by the handgun/long-gun shellgame, but from the inapplicability of the law to their deaths." (The Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)” In 1994 Clinton introduced HR 3838 to ban firearms in government housing, people who need to be able to protect themselves more than most. All of this to say, Britain's gun and knife bans have not worked, Australia's bans have done little, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao's bans accomplished exactly what they wished. Why would we in America continue the regressive and Anti-God philosophy of Gun Control. Let us live in Liberty, but with responsibility. Those who commit heinous acts should be held to account, but we can also deter them with an armed populace. Knife Crackdown: https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/border-security/u-k-launches-nationwide-crackdown-on-knife-crime/ Pointy Knife Ban: https://www.rochester.anglican.org/communications/news/government-urged-to-restrict-the-sale-of-pointed-knives.php Plastic Cutlery Ban: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/20/single-use-plastic-plates-and-cutlery-could-be-banned-in-england List of Gun Laws: https://www.sedgwickcounty.org/media/29093/the-racist-origins-of-us-gun-control.pdf Bill of Rights Institute: https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/benjamin-franklin-and-the-first-abolitionist-petitions NY State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen Debate: https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/08/a-historians-assessment-of-the-anti-immigrant-narrative-in-nysrpa-v-bruen/

In episode 5 of Rooted to Truth, we took a look at the first two documents, out of five, that had an incredible impact on the drafting of our Constitution. Episode 6 continues with that conversation by analyzing the Petition of Rights, the Grand Remonstrance, and the English Bill of Rights. These political documents didn't come into existence without the influence of a cultural transformation though. The divine inspiration that brought about the Reformation period was a huge contributing factor to the stance for freedom expressed by a newly awakened people. Tune in to hear about all of this and more! Contact: email: rootedtotruth@gmail.com instagram: @mackenziedickason Resources: 1).https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/who-coined-government-of-the-people-by-the-people-for-the-people/2017/03/31/12fc465a-0fd5-11e7-aa57-2ca1b05c41b8_story.html 2). https://revolution.chnm.org/d/266 3).https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/humanrights/1500-1760/doc-remonstrance-transcript.htm soundstripe code: 6TDT8KOTCAXNYGV1 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/mackenzie-dickason/support

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the United States Bill of Rights. The Amendment serves as a limitation upon the federal government to impose unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants before and after a conviction. This limitation applies equally to the price for obtaining pretrial release and the punishment for crime after conviction. The phrases in this amendment originated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments has led courts to hold that the Constitution totally prohibits certain kinds of punishment, such as drawing and quartering. Under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, the Supreme Court has struck down the application of capital punishment in some instances, but capital punishment is still permitted in some cases where the defendant is convicted of murder. The Supreme Court has held that the Excessive Fines Clause prohibits fines that are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law". The Court struck down a fine as excessive for the first time in United States v Bajakajian (1998). Under the Excessive Bail Clause, the Supreme Court has held that the federal government cannot set bail at "a figure higher than is reasonably calculated" to ensure the defendant's appearance at trial. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to the states as well as to the federal government, but the Excessive Bail Clause has not been applied to the states. On February 20, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Timbs v Indiana that the Excessive Fines Clause also applies to the states. Text. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, along with nine other articles of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". In McDonald v City of Chicago (2010) the Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing upon this right. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Any labels of rights as auxiliary must be viewed in the context of the inherent purpose of a Bill of Rights, which is to empower a group with the ability to achieve a mutually desired outcome, and not to necessarily enumerate or rank the importance of rights. Thus all rights enumerated in a Constitution are thus auxiliary in the eyes of Sir William Blackstone because all rights are only as good as the extent they are exercised in fact. While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "a standing army ... would be opposed to a militia." He argued that state militias "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition". By January 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to the Bill of Rights to assure ratification. In United States v Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." In United States v Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

In this episode we look at the ultimate alternative to absolutism and check on a monarch's power... the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights. Lyndeurozone.com If you use this podcast regularly would you please consider supporting us on Patreon for as little as a dollar a month?  We also have subscription tiers at our Patreon that allow you to access the Lyndeurozone study files, slides that correspond to the podcast episodes, and video tutorials to help you prepare for your essay exams.  Head on over to our Patreon and check out what we have to offer our subscribers. Remember, Robert Lynde offers tutoring services to help you master the skills required to succeed in AP Euro and tutoring sessions can be offered online and in person. You can get more information at Lyndeurozone.com. Would you please consider giving the show a rating on Apple Podcasts and leaving a comment on Apple Podcasts/iTunes? It takes less than 60 seconds and it really makes a difference helping to get the word out about the podcast. Episodes will be released on the following schedule: Unit 1 and Unit 2 - August/September Unit 3: October Unit 4: November Unit 5: December Unit 6: January Unit 7: February Unit 8 : March Unit 9: April If you have any questions you can contact Robert Lynde at Lyndeurozone.com. Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook: @Lyndeurozone

Our heritage as American citizens includes hundreds of years of history going back to the English Bill of Rights and even further, to the Magna Charta.

The English Bill of Rights of 1689 was passed by Parliament, which means that Parliament can change it at any time. The American Bill of Rights, in contrast, is part of the U.S. Constitution, which is much more difficult to change, as are states' bills of rights. Center for Civic Education

The struggle between the rights of the people and the power of government to deny those rights is one of the great themes of human history. This episode of 60-Second Civics explores two documents that limited the power of government in English history: the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights. These documents significantly influenced American conceptions of the limitations on the power of government. Center for Civic Education

The right to keep and bear arms in the United States is a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, and by the constitutions of most U.S. states. The Second Amendment declares: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In the United States, which has an English common law tradition, the concept of a right to keep and bear arms was recognized prior to the creation of a written national constitution. When colonists in the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against British control during the American Revolution they cited the 1689 English Bill of Rights as an example. English precedent. The American understanding of the right to keep and bear arms was influenced by the 1689 English Bill of Rights, an Act of Parliament, which also dealt with personal defense by Protestant English subjects. The Bill of Rights did not create a new right to have arms but rather rescinded and deplored acts of the deposed King James II, a Roman Catholic, who had forced the disarming of Protestants, while arming and deploying armed Catholics contrary to Law (among other alleged violations of individual rights). The Bill of Rights provided that Protestants could bear arms for their defense as permitted by law. It also established that the power to regulate the right to bear arms belonged to Parliament, not the monarch. Sir William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century about the right to have arms being auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", but conceded that the right was subject to their suitability and allowance by law. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Episode details the concepts of limited, ordered, and representative government along with details around the Magna Carta, Petition of Right, and the English Bill of Rights

Thomas continues with his series on the Foundation of American Political Thought with a discussion of the Declaration of Independence, two-hundred and forty-four years after it was written. Music Credits to Tide Electric - Cascades of Love Whitney Houston - Star Bangled Banner In honor of Independence Day: Ray Charles - America the Beautiful Please consider donating or supporting the West Essex First Aid Squad: https://secure.givelively.org/donate/west-essex-first-aid-squad-inc?fbclid=IwAR00crshFCr534Yjs2tt3e3CwkxnR4KeLNlDwOFWo5fyJ_EvDEURWswkub4  https://www.signupgenius.com/go/9040b4daeaf22a1fc1-west Also, my sincerest gratitude to Claremont Distillery in Fairfield for providing free hand sanitizer to first responders and the community. https://claremontdistillery.com A big show out to Magnify Brewery for their special Round of Applause IPA that they were giving out to first responders, healthcare workers, and other essential workers. https://www.magnifybrewing.com  Any businesses who would like to be featured on The Thomas Salandra Show or Thomas Salandra Radio, please reach out to us at info@thethomassalandrashow.com.  Episode Sources:  The Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776) English Bill of Rights (1689) Visit our website: thethomassalandrashow.com Visit our Libsyn page: thethomassalandrashow.libsyn.com Email us about sponsorship, questions, or topics for future shows: info@thethomassalandrashow.com

Thomas begins Part 1 of his series on the Foundation of American Political Thought, with a discussion of the English Bill of Rights (1689), Common Sense, and the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) Music Credits to Tide Electric - Cascades of Love Whitney Houston - Star Bangled Banner This week's song of Country Sunday: Brooks & Dunn - Only in America Please consider donating or supporting the West Essex First Aid Squad: https://secure.givelively.org/donate/west-essex-first-aid-squad-inc?fbclid=IwAR00crshFCr534Yjs2tt3e3CwkxnR4KeLNlDwOFWo5fyJ_EvDEURWswkub4  https://www.signupgenius.com/go/9040b4daeaf22a1fc1-west Also, my sincerest gratitude to Claremont Distillery in Fairfield for providing free hand sanitizer to first responders and the community. https://claremontdistillery.com A big show out to Magnify Brewery for their special Round of Applause IPA that they were giving out to first responders, healthcare workers, and other essential workers. https://www.magnifybrewing.com  Any businesses who would like to be featured on The Thomas Salandra Show or Thomas Salandra Radio, please reach out to us at info@thethomassalandrashow.com.  Episode Sources:  English Bill of Rights (1689) Common Sense - Thomas Paine (1776) Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) Visit our website: thethomassalandrashow.com Visit our Libsyn page: thethomassalandrashow.libsyn.com Email us about sponsorship, questions, or topics for future shows: info@thethomassalandrashow.com

The guys dive into the Second Amendment, but not in the way you might think. They explore human kind’s hunting history. They talk about how taking up arms was required by law for hundreds of years in England before monarchs began civilian disarmament to prevent an uprising. Other topics include: the Game Act of 1671, the English Bill of Rights, armed citizens during the Revolutionary War, how hunting and the 2nd Amendment are inextricably linked, and much more. 

Phrases, idioms, expressions... These are just a small part of the English language! Why do we need to know expressions in English? Bill explains why and how to use them! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/english-grammar-review/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/english-grammar-review/support

In this episode we look at the ultimate alternative to absolutism and check on a monarch's power... the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights.

We talk a great deal of our rights as we define and then redefine them for our present age and way of thinking.  This is not necessarily something that is new. It did not just suddenly start with the Emancipation Proclamation or Universal Suffrage, it did not begin with the Civil Rights Movement, the Warren Court or the Civil Rights Act. No, this has been something that we have discussed, debated, and even go to war over. Since before there was an American nation and an American people, before the Republic was born and the institutions of it came into being we have talked about our rights, at times even struggling with the theory versus the practical experience with them. But what is the American tradition of rights and where did the Bill of Rights come from? The truth? To truly appreciate our rights, and understand what they are and what they mean. We need to study them so that we can truly appreciate them. We need to do this from a perspective that transcends just our modern age and our modern understanding as we look at them through the context and the scope of history. It is only in this way that we will be able adequately protect our rights and stand firm for our liberties as we seek to answer the dominate questions that we face as a nation and a people. In this first Episode of an ongoing series about the Bill of Rights host Wyatt McIntyre begins the journey into the history of the document. Tracing back to the Magna Carta of 1215 and moving through the British Petition of Right and the English Bill of Rights, the three major Constitutional Documents join him as he explore the deeper questions of the history of liberty in America, drawing from the perspective of past, and tie it to our present age and our present thinking so that we can draw from the deeper lessons that are offered.

·   Founding Documents, and Other Influential Documents The Four Founding Documents are the Articles of Association, The Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation, and The United States Constitution.  Many other documents were also a great influence on the Constitution.     ·   Holy Bible, Old Testament, Torah     ·   The Laws of the Twelve Tables of the Roman Republic (About 450 B.C.)     ·   Magna Carta (1215)     ·   English Bill of Rights (1689)     ·   Connecticut Fundamental Orders (1689)     ·   Articles of Association (1774)     ·   Declaration of Independence (1776)     ·   Articles of Confederation (1781)     ·   Northwest Ordinance (1787)     ·   United States Constitution (1787) Join Douglas V. Gibbs of Political Pistachio, Constitution Radio on KCAA 1050AM, and the Constitution Association, as he journeys through the United States Constitution. We will study the concepts, principles, and direct text of the U.S. Constitution from the original point of view of the Founding Fathers. New episodes each Sunday Morning at 9:00 am Pacific Time. The link above is also good for listening to the podcasts of passed episodes.