Podcasts about united states bill

With Remembrance Day and Veterans Day ahead, Vintage Classic Radio presents "We Hold These Truths" from Norman Corwin's acclaimed series Words Without Music. Originally broadcast on December 15, 1941, just days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, "We Hold These Truths" commemorates the 150th anniversary of the United States Bill of Rights. This powerful radio drama brings together an extraordinary ensemble of actors, including Jimmy Stewart, Orson Welles, Edward G. Robinson, and Lionel Barrymore, under the masterful direction of Norman Corwin. "We Hold These Truths" is a stirring tribute to the enduring principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Through a blend of dramatic narratives, historical reflections, and poignant commentary, the episode explores the significance of democratic freedoms in the face of global turmoil. It reminds us of the rights and liberties that define us as a nation—freedom of speech, religion, and assembly; the right to fair trials; and protection against unjust laws. As we honor the brave men and women who have served and sacrificed to protect these freedoms, this broadcast serves as both a celebration and a solemn reflection on the ideals that bind us together. It is a timely reminder of the importance of vigilance in preserving democracy against the threats of tyranny and oppression. Enjoy performances by some of Hollywood's most iconic actors, lending their voices to this patriotic endeavor. Reflect on the values of liberty and justice that remain as relevant today as they were over 80 years ago. Tune it Sunday Night Playhouse this week for "We Hold These Truths" only on Vintage Classic Radio.

In Berkeley Talks episode 196, Ruth Simmons, a longtime professor and academic administrator, discusses how the journey to equal access and fairness in education has reached a critical inflection point — and why educators are essential to the progress we need to see.“History has shown: The failure to resolve satisfactorily the issue of whether and how the state should address the causes and effects of discrimination will continue to impair progress, sow seeds of hatred and despair, and make even more distant the goals and ideals enshrined in the United States Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution,” Simmons said during the Clark Kerr Lecture at UC Berkeley in April. “Yet, as we know,” Simmons continued, “considerable efforts have been undertaken by various branches of government, non-profit institutions, for-profit institutions, educational institutions and activists to reconcile the immense differences over what constitutes appropriate remedies for past and present discrimination. That we have failed to resolve this question adequately almost 250 years after the ratification of the Bill of Rights proves the intractability of the dilemma.”Simmons, currently the president's distinguished fellow at Rice University, served as the eighth president of Prairie View A&M University, an HBCU, from 2017 until 2023. And from 2001 to 2012, she served as the 18th president of Brown University, where she was the first Black president of an Ivy League institution. In closing, Simmons said: “Education makes possible the smoothing out of the unequal circumstances into which many are born. Educators are therefore on the front lines in ensuring that this democracy endures because we are optimistic enough, brave enough and wise enough to create and manage a process in which the public as a whole feels well-served by our work. “And so our efforts to make plain where we stand in regard to evening out unequal circumstances are, in this moment, all-important. So, let's get about the work of making plain where we stand.”This April 18 event was sponsored by the Center for Studies in Higher Education at Berkeley. Listen to the episode and read the transcript on Berkeley News (news.berkeley.edu/podcasts).Music by Blue Dot Sessions.UC Berkeley photo by Brandon Sánchez Mejia. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The significance of the Bill of Rights lies not only in its immediate impact on the legal framework of the United States but also in its enduring ...

Here are some historical events that occurred on December 15:1791: The United States Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, was ratified.1890: Hunkpapa Lakota leader Sitting Bull was killed by Indian agency police on the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.1939: The film "Gone with the Wind" had its world premiere in Atlanta, Georgia.1944: The Battle of the Bulge began during World War II as German forces launched a surprise counterattack against Allied forces in Belgium.1961: Former Nazi official Adolf Eichmann was sentenced to death in Jerusalem, Israel, for his role in orchestrating the Holocaust.1978: U.S. President Jimmy Carter announced the normalization of diplomatic relations between the United States and China, effective January 1, 1979.2001: The Leaning Tower of Pisa reopened to the public after 11 years of stabilization and restoration work.2013: China successfully soft-landed its rover Chang'e-3 on the Moon, becoming the third country to achieve such a feat.These events span a wide range of historical periods and highlight various aspects of world history.Podcast Website:https://atozenglishpodcast.com/a-to-z-this-day-in-world-history-december-15th/Social Media:WeChat account ID: atozenglishpodcastFacebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/671098974684413/Tik Tok:@atozenglish1Instagram:@atozenglish22Twitter:@atozenglish22A to Z Facebook Page:https://www.facebook.com/theatozenglishpodcastCheck out our You Tube Channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCds7JR-5dbarBfas4Ve4h8ADonate to the show: https://app.redcircle.com/shows/9472af5c-8580-45e1-b0dd-ff211db08a90/donationsRobin and Jack started a new You Tube channel called English Word Master. You can check it out here:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2aXaXaMY4P2VhVaEre5w7ABecome a member of Podchaser and leave a positive review!https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-a-to-z-english-podcast-4779670Join our Whatsapp group: https://forms.gle/zKCS8y1t9jwv2KTn7Intro/Outro Music: Daybird by Broke for Freehttps://freemusicarchive.org/music/Broke_For_Free/Directionless_EP/Broke_For_Free_-_Directionless_EP_-_03_Day_Bird/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcodehttps://freemusicarchive.org/music/Scott_Joplin/Piano_Rolls_from_archiveorg/ScottJoplin-RagtimeDance1906/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-a-to-z-english-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

In this episode of “Answers From the Lab,” host Bobbi Pritt, M.D., chair of the Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology at Mayo Clinic, is joined by William Morice II, M.D., Ph.D., CEO and president of Mayo Clinic Laboratories, to discuss locally acquired cases of malaria that have recently occurred in Texas and Florida.Their discussion includes:  Why malaria may be reappearing after being eliminated in the United States in the 1950s. The importance of laboratory diagnostics in identifying and diagnosing different types of malaria. Testing options available through Mayo Clinic Laboratories for malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases. 

Les amateurs de séries policières sont habitués à cette scène, devenue familière. Quand les acteurs incarnant des policiers arrêtent un suspect, ils ne manquent jamais de les avertir qu'ils ont le droit de "garder le silence" et que tout ce qu'ils diront pourra "être retenu contre eux". Ces éléments de langage sont obligatoires et leur emploi remonte au début des années 1960. En 1963, un certain Ernesto Miranda est arrêté par la police de Phoenix, en Arizona. Il est soupçonné d'avoir agressé et violé des jeunes filles. Ce qu'il avoue lors de l'interrogatoire mené par la police. Et ses aveux seront retenus contre lui au cours du procès qui, en 1965, se termine par sa condamnation. Mais l'avocat de Miranda conteste le verdict. Il sait à quel point un suspect non averti peut craquer au cours d'un interrogatoire et faire, dès lors, des aveux compromettants. L'affaire est donc portée devant la Cour suprême des États-Unis. L'argumentation de l'avocat d'Ernesto Miranda, qui s'est adjoint l'aide d'un collègue, s'appuie sur deux amendements de la "Déclaration des droits", ou "United States Bill of Rights". Ce document regroupe les dix premiers amendements à la Constitution américaine. Ceux visés par la défense de Miranda sont les 5e et 6e amendements. Le 5e amendement précisant que "nul ne peut être forcé de témoigner contre lui-même", les avocats en déduisent que, pour éviter ce danger, un suspect doit être autorisé à garder le silence durant la garde à vue précédant l'interrogatoire mené par un magistrat. Ils se fondent ensuite sur le 6e amendement, qui stipule que "tout accusé a droit à un avocat", pour réclamer que le suspect puisse demander l'assistance d'un avocat, qui resterait à ses côtés tout au long de l'interrogatoire. Dans un arrêt du 13 juin 1966, la Cour suprême fait droit à ces demandes. Désormais, une personne arrêtée est informée qu'elle peut garder le silence durant la garde à vue et qu'elle a le droit de consulter un avocat. De ce fait, les aveux d'Ernesto Miranda seront annulés en tant qu'éléments de preuve. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Les amateurs de séries policières sont habitués à cette scène, devenue familière. Quand les acteurs incarnant des policiers arrêtent un suspect, ils ne manquent jamais de les avertir qu'ils ont le droit de "garder le silence" et que tout ce qu'ils diront pourra "être retenu contre eux".Ces éléments de langage sont obligatoires et leur emploi remonte au début des années 1960. En 1963, un certain Ernesto Miranda est arrêté par la police de Phoenix, en Arizona.Il est soupçonné d'avoir agressé et violé des jeunes filles. Ce qu'il avoue lors de l'interrogatoire mené par la police. Et ses aveux seront retenus contre lui au cours du procès qui, en 1965, se termine par sa condamnation.Mais l'avocat de Miranda conteste le verdict. Il sait à quel point un suspect non averti peut craquer au cours d'un interrogatoire et faire, dès lors, des aveux compromettants.L'affaire est donc portée devant la Cour suprême des États-Unis. L'argumentation de l'avocat d'Ernesto Miranda, qui s'est adjoint l'aide d'un collègue, s'appuie sur deux amendements de la "Déclaration des droits", ou "United States Bill of Rights".Ce document regroupe les dix premiers amendements à la Constitution américaine. Ceux visés par la défense de Miranda sont les 5e et 6e amendements.Le 5e amendement précisant que "nul ne peut être forcé de témoigner contre lui-même", les avocats en déduisent que, pour éviter ce danger, un suspect doit être autorisé à garder le silence durant la garde à vue précédant l'interrogatoire mené par un magistrat.Ils se fondent ensuite sur le 6e amendement, qui stipule que "tout accusé a droit à un avocat", pour réclamer que le suspect puisse demander l'assistance d'un avocat, qui resterait à ses côtés tout au long de l'interrogatoire.Dans un arrêt du 13 juin 1966, la Cour suprême fait droit à ces demandes. Désormais, une personne arrêtée est informée qu'elle peut garder le silence durant la garde à vue et qu'elle a le droit de consulter un avocat.De ce fait, les aveux d'Ernesto Miranda seront annulés en tant qu'éléments de preuve. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

The purpose of Congress is to check the executive branch. That's a fact. And this is an opportunity to review the executive branch, which has I mean, let's be honest, spent trillions and trillions of dollars giving you an inflation crisis and a number of other things that are out there. So as we sit back, and we take a look at what it is that we're going to see in the next 2448 72 hours, it's essential to understand sort of what the stakes are and how it is that we got here. It's interesting to know that you have a current president, the most recent former president, the president before that President, and the President before that President. So that's a fancy way of saying the people that have been out there on the campaign trail are Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Bill Clinton. The Clintons have the highest possible stakes in this race next to Joe Biden. And in some ways, I think the Clintons are maybe carrying a much greater burden than even Joe Biden because Joe Biden will wake up on Wednesday, and will still be President of the United States Bill and Hillary Clinton, this is really your last hurrah for any kind of relevancy. She's, she's not going to run for 2024. If, if it appears that she's run out of real estate, and run out of energy. And so that's, that's the problem. I think a Democrat wipeout opens the doorway, to the Hillary Clinton wing of the party to come in and say, All right, you know what, we tried it this way, it didn't work, we went way too radical. It's not working. In many ways. It's a test of the Obama legacy. And remember, Joe Biden is an extension of the Obama legacy that's that much is not in dispute. But there are a couple of things that really are not being addressed that I wanted to talk about, sort of in this closing kind of look at this election. And one of these things is the intelligence community.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

We Hold These Truths, a celebration of the 150th anniversary of the United States Bill of Rights, and shared 'American values.' Broadcast on all four major networks (CBS, NBC Red, NBC Blue, and Mutual). This episode aired live on December 15, 1941. Written and producer, Norman Corwin, won a Peabody Award for the show, which commemorated the ratification of Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. Pearl Harbor was attacked a week before on December 7, 1941 . Corwin asked if the program should still air following December 7th, the President's office replied, "The President thinks it's more important now than ever to proceed with the program." (parts from Wikipedia) : : : : : My other podcast channels include: MYSTERY x SUSPENSE -- DRAMA X THEATER -- SCI FI x HORROR -- COMEDY x FUNNY HA HA -- VARIETY X ARMED FORCES. Subscribing is free and you'll receive new post notifications. Also, if you have a moment, please give a 4-5 star rating and/or write a 1-2 sentence positive review on your preferred service -- that would help me a lot. Thank you for your support. https://otr.duane.media/ (https://otr.duane.media) | Instagram https://www.instagram.com/duane.otr/ (@duane.otr)

The United States Bill of Rights by James Madison audiobook. The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, and were ratified on December 15, 1791

Audra Buras voices countless television commercials, radio ads, internet video narrations, and more. She is also a part-time professor and loan officer. Last but not least, one of my childhood friends. Today we sit down for our first casual conversation about some current events, property rights, the purpose of different spaces, protests, and much else!+ https://audraburas.com/+ https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Dissent+in+Organizations-p-9780745651408+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_food_printing+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Los_AngelesDON'T FORGET TO LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, AND SHARE!Become a Patreon Patron at https://www.patreon.com/cyberdandySupport the show

Privacy laws in different countries. Privacy laws apply to both public and private sector actors. United States. The Constitution of the United States and United States Bill of Rights do not explicitly include a right to privacy. Currently no federal law takes a holistic approach to privacy regulation. In the US, privacy and associated rights have been determined via court cases and the protections have been established through laws. The Supreme Court in Griswold v Connecticut, (1965) found that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy against governmental intrusion via penumbras located in the founding text. In 1890, Warren and Brandeis drafted an article published in the Harvard Law Review titled "The Right To Privacy" that is often cited as the first implicit finding of a U.S. stance on the right to privacy. Right to privacy has been the justification for decisions involving a wide range of civil liberties cases, including Pierce v Society of Sisters, which invalidated a successful 1922 Oregon initiative requiring compulsory public education; Roe v Wade, which struck down an abortion law from Texas, and thus restricted state powers to enforce laws against abortion; and Lawrence v Texas, which struck down a Texas sodomy law, and thus eliminated state powers to enforce laws against sodomy. Legally, the right of privacy is a basic law which includes: 1. The right of persons to be free from unwarranted publicity 2. Unwarranted appropriation of one's personality 3. Publicizing one's private affairs without a legitimate public concern 4. Wrongful intrusion into one's private activities In 2018, California set out to create a policy promoting data protection, the first state in the United States to pursue such protection. The resulting effort is the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), reviewed as a critical juncture where the legal definition of what privacy entails from California lawmakers' perspective. The California Consumer Protection Act is a privacy law protecting the residents of California and their Personal identifying information. The law enacts regulation over all companies regardless of operational geography protecting the six Intentional Acts included in the law. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

with Rev. Clay Nelson Recorded at Auckland Unitarian Church 22nd May 2022 I was never a big fan of magicians because I don't enjoy feeling conned or suspending my disbelief. Then I encountered Penn and Teller. Who couldn't love magicians with a TV show called Bullshit? They are scientific sceptics and atheists who love making mince out of sacred cows. I particularly enjoyed their trick of making an American flag seem to disappear by wrapping it in a copy of the United States Bill of Rights, and apparently setting the flag on fire, so that the flag is gone but the Bill of Rights remains. I saw the trick first on West Wing. If their unique routine weren't enough they have written numerous books. I am most drawn to two of their titles: God, No!: Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales and Every Day is an Atheist Holiday!: More Magical Tales from the Author of God, No! To find out more visit:- https://aucklandunitarian.org.nz/stewardship-is-more-about-magic-than-money/

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure. Petit jury and venue provisions—both traceable to enumerated complaints in the Declaration of Independence—are included in Article Three of the United States Constitution. More criminal procedure provisions are contained in the United States Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. With the exception of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and (maybe) the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, all of the criminal procedure provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to apply to the state governments. Several of these rights regulate pre-trial procedure: access to a non-excessive bail, the right to indictment by a grand jury, the right to an information (charging document), the right to a speedy trial, and the right to be tried in a specific venue. Several of these rights are trial rights: the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses at trial, the right to confront witnesses at trial, the right to a public trial, the right to a trial by an impartial petit jury selected from a specific geography, and the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself. Others, such as the assistance of counsel and due process rights, have application throughout the proceeding. If a defendant is convicted, the usual remedy for a violation of one of these provisions is reversal of the conviction or modification of the defendant's sentence. With the exception of structural errors (such as the total denial of counsel), constitutional errors are subject to harmless error analysis, although they must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. With the exception of a Double Jeopardy or Speedy Trial violation, the government will usually be permitted to retry the defendant. Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), these provisions are the source of nearly all reviewable errors in federal habeas review of state convictions.

Freedom of association encompasses both an individual's right to join or leave groups voluntarily, the right of the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of its members, and the right of an association to accept or decline membership based on certain criteria. It can be described as the right of a person coming together with other individuals to collectively express, promote, pursue and/or defend common interests. Freedom of association is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 22 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work by the International Labour Organization also ensures these rights. Freedom of association is manifested through the right to join a trade union, to engage in free speech or to participate in debating societies, political parties, or any other club or association, including religious denominations and organizations, fraternities, and sport clubs and not to be compelled to belong to an association. It is closely linked with freedom of assembly, particularly under the U.S. Bill of Rights. Freedom of assembly is typically associated with political contexts. However, (for example the U.S. Constitution, human rights instruments, etcetera.) the right to freedom of association may include the right to freedom of assembly. In the United States, since the Civil Rights Act of 1968, freedom of association was largely curtailed regarding housing, education, and business when it comes to race or ethnicity.

Cruel and unusual punishments. General aspects. The Constitution was amended to prohibit cruel and unusual punishments as part of the United States Bill of Rights as a result of objections raised by people such as Abraham Holmes and Patrick Henry. While Holmes feared the establishment of the Inquisition in the United States, Henry was concerned with the application of torture as a way of extracting confessions. They also feared that the federal government would misuse its powers to create federal crimes as well as to punish those who committed them under the new Constitution and thus use these powers as a way to oppress the people. Abraham Holmes, a member of the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention for the federal constitution, for example noted in a letter from January 30, 1788 that the new Constitution would give the U.S. Congress the power "to ascertain, point out, and determine, what kind of punishments shall be inflicted on persons convicted of crimes." He added with respect those who would belong to the new government under the new Constitution: "They are nowhere restrained from inventing the most cruel and unheard-of punishments, and annexing them to crimes; and there is no constitutional check on them, but that racks and gibbets may be amongst the most mild instruments of their discipline." Relying on the history of the Eighth Amendment and its own case law the Supreme Court stated in Ingraham v Wright (1977) that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause was designed to protect those convicted of crimes. The Supreme Court consequently determined in Ingraham that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause limits the criminal process in three ways: "irst, it limits the kinds of punishment that can be imposed on those convicted of crimes, for example, Estelle v Gamble, supra; Trop v Dulles, supra; second, it proscribes punishment grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime, for example, Weems v United States, supra; and third, it imposes substantive limits on what can be made criminal and punished as such, for example, Robinson v California, supra." In Louisiana ex rel. Francis v Resweber, (1947), the Supreme Court assumed arguendo that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Robinson v California, (1962), the Court ruled that it did apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Robinson was the first case in which the Supreme Court applied the Eighth Amendment against the state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. Before Robinson, the Eighth Amendment had been applied previously only in cases against the federal government. Justice Potter Stewart's opinion for the Robinson Court held that "infliction of cruel and unusual punishment is in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, such as John Bingham, had discussed this subject: Many instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guaranteed privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatsoever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, "cruel and unusual punishments" have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.

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 Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied most of the protections of this amendment to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment grants criminal defendants the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury consisting of jurors from the state and district in which the crime was alleged to have been committed. Under the impartial jury requirement, jurors must be unbiased, and the jury must consist of a representative cross-section of the community. The right to a jury applies only to offenses in which the penalty is imprisonment for longer than six months. In Barker v Wingo, the Supreme Court articulated a balancing test to determine whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated. It has additionally held that the requirement of a public trial is not absolute, and that both the government and the defendant can in some cases request a closed trial. The Sixth Amendment requires that criminal defendants be given notice of the nature and cause of accusations against them. The amendment's Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, while the Compulsory Process Clause gives criminal defendants the right to call their own witnesses and, in some cases, compel witnesses to testify. The Assistance of Counsel Clause grants criminal defendants the right to be assisted by counsel. In Gideon v Wainwright and subsequent cases, the Supreme Court held that a public defender must be provided to criminal defendants unable to afford an attorney in all trials where the defendant faces the possibility of imprisonment. Text. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime. The amendment is a response to the Quartering Acts passed by the British parliament during the buildup to the American Revolutionary War, which had allowed the British Army to lodge soldiers in private residences. The Third Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison as a part of the United States Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1, 1792. The amendment is one of the least controversial of the Constitution and is rarely litigated, with criminal justice writer Radley Balko calling it the "runt piglet" of the U.S. Constitution. To date, it has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision, though it was the basis of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case Engblom v Carey in 1982. Text. The complete text of the amendment is: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.. Background. In 1765, the British parliament enacted the first of the Quartering Acts, requiring the American colonies to pay the costs of British soldiers serving in the colonies, and requiring that if the local barracks provided insufficient space, that the colonists lodge the troops in alehouses, inns, and livery stables. After the Boston Tea Party, the Quartering Act of 1774 was enacted. As one of the Intolerable Acts that pushed the colonies toward revolution, it authorized British troops to be housed wherever necessary, including in private homes. The quartering of troops was cited as one of the colonists' grievances in the United States Declaration of Independence.

The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime. The amendment is a response to the Quartering Acts passed by the British parliament during the buildup to the American Revolutionary War, which had allowed the British Army to lodge soldiers in private residences. The Third Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison as a part of the United States Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1, 1792. The amendment is one of the least controversial of the Constitution and is rarely litigated, with criminal justice writer Radley Balko calling it the "runt piglet" of the U.S. Constitution. To date, it has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision, though it was the basis of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case Engblom v Carey in 1982. Text. The complete text of the amendment is: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.. Background. In 1765, the British parliament enacted the first of the Quartering Acts, requiring the American colonies to pay the costs of British soldiers serving in the colonies, and requiring that if the local barracks provided insufficient space, that the colonists lodge the troops in alehouses, inns, and livery stables. After the Boston Tea Party, the Quartering Act of 1774 was enacted. As one of the Intolerable Acts that pushed the colonies toward revolution, it authorized British troops to be housed wherever necessary, including in private homes. The quartering of troops was cited as one of the colonists' grievances in the United States Declaration of Independence.

On 20th November, some of the interesting events that took place were:  1789  : New Jersey ratified United States Bill of Rights.  1866 :  Howard University was founded in Washington, D.C.  https://chimesradio.com    http://onelink.to/8uzr4g   https://www.facebook.com/chimesradio/   https://www.instagram.com/vrchimesradio/   Support the show: https://www.patreon.com/chimesradio See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Corporations are invariably classified as "legal persons" by all modern systems of law, meaning that like natural persons, they may acquire rights and duties. A corporation may be chartered in any of the 50 states (or the District of Columbia) and may become authorized to do business in each jurisdiction it does business within, except that when a corporation sues or is sued over a contract, the court, regardless of where the corporation's headquarters office is located, or where the transaction occurred, will use the law of the jurisdiction where the corporation was chartered (unless the contract says otherwise). So, for example, consider a corporation which sets up a concert in Hawaii, where its headquarters are in Minnesota, and it is chartered in Colorado, if it is sued over its actions involving the concert, whether it was sued in Hawaii (where the concert is located), or Minnesota (where its headquarters are located), the court in that state will still use Colorado law to determine how its corporate dealings are to be performed. All major public corporations are also characterized by holding limited liability and having a centralized management. When a group of people go through the procedures to incorporate, they will acquire rights to make contracts, to possess property, to sue, and they will also be responsible for torts, or other wrongs, and be sued. The federal government does not charter corporations (except National Banks, Federal Savings Banks, and Federal Credit Unions) although it does regulate them. Each of the 50 states plus DC has its own corporation law. Most large corporations have historically chosen to incorporate in Delaware, even though they operate nationally, and may have little or no business in Delaware itself. The extent to which corporations should have the same rights as real people is controversial, particularly when it comes to the fundamental rights found in the United States Bill of Rights. As a matter of law, a corporation acts through real people that form its board of directors, and then through the officers and employees who are appointed on its behalf. Shareholders can in some cases make decisions on the corporation's behalf, though in larger companies they tend to be passive. Otherwise, most corporations adopt limited liability so that generally shareholders cannot be sued for a corporation's commercial debts. If a corporation goes bankrupt and is unable to pay debts to commercial creditors as they fall due, then in some circumstances state courts allow the so-called "veil of incorporation" to be pierced, and so to hold the people behind the corporation liable. This is usually rare and in almost all cases involves non-payment of trust fund taxes or willful misconduct, essentially amounting to fraud. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Bill Bunkley speaks with Joshua Mitchell about his book, "American Awakening: Identity Politics and Other Afflictions of Our Time." See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The United States Constitution contains several provisions regarding the law of criminal procedure. Petit jury and venue provisions—both traceable to enumerated complaints in the Declaration of Independence—are included in Article Three of the United States Constitution. More criminal procedure provisions are contained in the United States Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. With the exception of the Grand Jury Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Vicinage Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and (maybe) the Excessive Bail Clause of the Eighth Amendment, all of the criminal procedure provisions of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated to apply to the state governments. Several of these rights regulate pre-trial procedure: access to a non-excessive bail, the right to indictment by a grand jury, the right to an information (charging document), the right to a speedy trial, and the right to be tried in a specific venue. Several of these rights are trial rights: the right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses at trial, the right to confront witnesses at trial, the right to a public trial, the right to a trial by an impartial petit jury selected from a specific geography, and the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself. Others, such as the assistance of counsel and due process rights, have application throughout the proceeding. If a defendant is convicted, the usual remedy for a violation of one of these provisions is reversal of the conviction or modification of the defendant's sentence. With the exception of structural errors (such as the total denial of counsel), constitutional errors are subject to harmless error analysis, although they must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. With the exception of a Double Jeopardy or Speedy Trial violation, the government will usually be permitted to retry the defendant. Pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), these provisions are the source of nearly all reviewable errors in federal habeas review of state convictions. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Video on BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Vmj2sDFilqem/ Video on Rumble: https://rumble.com/vdrgon-human-rights-live-stream-open-discussion-un-declaration-us-bill-of-rights-g.html AUDIO: Reading United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Article #1 to #30 [ASMR, Male] https://soundcloud.com/chycho/human_rights_chycho_reading SEGMENTS: Ten Short Video Segments from Our Human Rights Live Stream https://www.patreon.com/posts/ten-short-video-47388632 PLAYLIST: Current Events https://soundcloud.com/chycho/sets/current-events-news-politics-1 PLAYLIST: ASMR https://soundcloud.com/chycho/sets/asmr PLAYLIST: Soft-Spoken Readings https://soundcloud.com/chycho/sets/soft-spoken-readings ***SUPPORT*** ▶️ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/chycho ▶️ Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/chycho ▶️ Subscribe Star: https://www.subscribestar.com/chycho ▶️ Streamlabs at: https://streamlabs.com/chycholive ▶️ YouTube Membership: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe4HBBAeK0CYoir4LjXU8fA/join LINKS: 1) UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html 2) United States Bill of Rights https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights 3) Guide to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/how-rights-protected/guide-canadian-charter-rights-freedoms.html 4) Magna Carta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta ***WEBSITE*** ▶️ Website: http://www.chycho.com ***LIVE STREAMING*** ▶️ Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/chycholive ***VIDEO PLATFORMS*** ▶️ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/chychochycho ▶️ BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/chycho ▶️ Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/c-508765 ▶️ Odysee: https://odysee.com/@chycho:9 ▶️ Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/chycholive ***FORUM*** ▶️ Discord: https://discord.gg/MXmS7B9 ***SOCIAL MEDIA*** ▶️ Minds: https://www.minds.com/chycho ▶️ Gab: https://gab.ai/chycho ▶️ Ello: https://ello.co/chycho ▶️ Vk: https://vk.com/id580910394 ▶️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/chycho ▶️ Parler: https://parler.com/profile/chycho ***AUDIO/PODCASTS*** ▶️ SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/chycho ***MARKETPLACE*** ▶️ Ebay Page: https://www.ebay.ca/usr/chycho ***CRYPTO*** ▶️ As well as Cryptocurrencies: Bitcoin (BTC): 1Peam3sbV9EGAHr8mwUvrxrX8kToDz7eTE Bitcoin Cash (BCH): 18KjJ4frBPkXcUrL2Fuesd7CFdvCY4q9wi Ethereum (ETH): 0xCEC12Da3D582166afa8055137831404Ea7753FFd Ethereum Classic (ETC): 0x348E8b9C0e7d71c32fB2a70DcABCB890b979441c Litecoin (LTC): LLak2kfmtqoiQ5X4zhdFpwMvkDNPa4UhGA Dash (DSH): XmHxibwbUW9MRu2b1oHSrL951yoMU6XPEN ZCash (ZEC): t1S6G8gqmt6rWjh3XAyAkRLZSm9Fro93kAd Doge (DOGE): D83vU3XP1SLogT5eC7tNNNVzw4fiRMFhog Peace. chycho http://www.chycho.com

I read from billionaire to bilocation.   The first confirmed billionaire was John D. Rockefeller in 1916.    My apologies to both Viggo Mortensen and Hugh Jackman!  I said that Hugh was in Captain Fantastic (even though I couldn't think of his name because I have a hard time coming up with info in the moment) but it was actually Viggo.  Yes, I mix them up sometimes.  SORRY!  But I think both of them are awesome.  Maybe they should make a movie together to make it even more complicated for people like me.  Anyway, Captain Fantastic is great and then Bill of Rights scene is wonderful.     The word of the episode is "bill of rights". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights     dictionarypod@gmail.com Facebook Twitter Instagram Patreon 917-727-5757

The First Amendment protects so much of what is going on (although the public after a mass attack do not like to hear that). One thing is certain - the days are over of law enforcement issuing warnings to people making threats that might be made with the intent to intimidate others. TRUE THREATS AND STUDENTS - ACT OF TERRORISM. It is absolutely critical that schools overtly and bluntly make students aware that a threat to bring harm to their schools might result in arrest and prosecution as a Federal act of terrorism. Yes, the courts would need to consider the mental state and cognitive capacity of the student, but that's likely done after the student has been taken into custody. TRUE THREATS PROSECUTIONS. “There has definitely been an increase in the visibility of true-threats prosecutions,” says Jennifer Kinsley, a law professor at Northern Kentucky University who litigates First Amendment cases. She explains that many of these arise from social media posts and from the domestic arena, where divorce parties make angry statements. These individuals may claim that their spoken words are protected by the First Amendment, that their offensive expressions were merely crude political opinions, jokes or rants not meant to be taken seriously—or misguided attempts to blow off steam. But in an age beset with mass shootings and fear of terrorism, government officials likely will contend that such utterings or mutterings fall into the category of true threats—a type of unprotected speech.” (Hudson, 2018, ABA Journal). FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and right to petition. WHAT COUNTS AS SPEECH? Think far beyond the spoken word or written notes. Courts have identified speech as expression in: online posts; theater and dance, art, political yard signs, handing out flyers, and clothing. At least one federal appeals court has found that liking something on Facebook qualifies as speech! Some types of computer code may be considered speech, but the limits of that is still an open question. DEFINITION OF A TRUE THREAT. In legal parlance a true threat is a statement that is meant to frighten or intimidate one or more specified persons into believing that they will be seriously harmed by the speaker or by someone acting at the speaker's behest. (Yelling “fire” in a theater is not protected public expression) True threats constitute a category of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment (O' Neill, K. F., (2017) True Threats. MTSU.Edu). CONFUSION IN THE COURTS. The Supreme Court's true-threat jurisprudence is less than clear. A review of lower court decisions indicates a hodgepodge of different results: (A) The Supreme Court of South Dakota recently upheld the conviction of a man for threatening a judicial officer by stating: “Well, that deserves 180 pounds of lead between the eyes,” and “Now I see why people shoot up courthouses.” State v. Draskovich (Nov. 21, 2017); (B) The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a man's statement to his brother—“If you go into the attic, I will hurt you”—could be considered a true threat and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss. State v. Pelella (Oct. 10, 2017); (C) An Illinois appeals court reversed the threat conviction of a man who left the following voicemail on a public defender's phone: “There is not a day that goes by since I was sentenced at that courthouse that I have not dreamed about revenge and the utter hate I feel for the judge. There's not a day that goes by that I don't pray for the death and destruction upon the judge and upon every single person who sentenced me.” People v. Wood (Nov. 20, 2017). FOLLOW DR. PERRODIN: Twitter @SafetyPhD and subscribe to The Safety Doc YouTube channel & Apple Podcasts. SAFETY DOC WEBSITE & BLOG: www.safetyphd.com. The Safety Doc Podcast is hosted & produced by David Perrodin, PhD. ENDORSEMENTS. Opinions are those of the host & guests. The show adheres to nondiscrimination principles while seeking to bring forward productive discourse & debate on topics relevant to personal or institutional safety. LOOKING FOR DR. TIMOTHY LUDWIG, PHD? Dr. Perrodin's “Safety Doc Podcast” negotiates school and community safety. To be informed about industrial safety, please contact Appalachian State University Professor Dr. Timothy Ludwig, PhD, at www.safety-doc.com. This is episode 115. Purchase Dr. Perrodin's Book: School of Errors – Rethinking School Safety in America. www.schooloferrors.com

In this round, Mike and Kurt take a look at the 2nd Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, which protects the basic right of every American to own firearms. Due to mass shootings and the general high level of gun violence in America, many want tighter restrictions. But others argue that restricting the right to bear arms is simply unconstitutional. Is the 2nd Amendment a barrier to common-sense gun regulations? What would the United States look like without it? Join us as Mike and Kurt debate these questions - and more - on this week's episode of Right Brain Left Brain!

Matt Christiansen talks with Dave Rael about moral self-righteousness, societal norms, government, and giving advice Chapters: 0:52 - The nature of disagreement and the moral superiority of modern disourse4:22 - The power of "I don't know" and the virtue of alternative solutions6:01 - The axes on which we describe worldviews8:22 - Matt's evolving outlook12:50 - Forced participation17:43 - Gay marriage and the nuclear family28:05 - Views of the human ability to make good choices32:41 - Unsolicited advice34:55 - Voting, Trump, and shutting down events by force42:12 - The appropriate role of government50:08 - The divisive Democrats54:27 - Charlottesville, white nationalists, and Black Lives Matter Resources: Matt's YouTube Channel Socratic Wisdom "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" 1984 (Signet Classics) - George Orwell Gary Johnson on forced cake baking Trump Cake A Story about Applying "Must Participate" to Sexuality 2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest Federalist 51 Gary Johnson and Aleppo General welfare clause United States Bill of Rights Sally Boynton Brown on Shutting White People Down Uncle Tom Pepe the Frog Richard B. Spencer Non-aggression principle Pro-Trump Protesters Interrupt 'Shakespeare in the Park' Performance of 'Julius Caesar'

Thursday’s episode ended with 12 proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution being sent to the states for ratification. What we now know as the First Amendment was actually the third proposed article of the Bill of Rights. The first article dealt with how to determine the size of Congress. Because it was never ratified, the total number of seats in the House of Representatives has been determined by specific acts of Congress. The most recent, in 1929, capped the size of the House at 435 seats. We’ll come back to the second proposed amendment in a moment. The third proposal was the first to be ratified. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The second was: “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.” The third: “No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The fourth: “The right of the People to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The fifth: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The sixth: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” The seventh: “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by Jury shall be preserved, and no fact, tried by a Jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.” The eighth: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The ninth: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The tenth and final amendment of the Bill of Rights: “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.” Three states didn’t act on the Bill of Rights when it was initially proposed. Georgia refused to ratify any amendments. Massachusetts never sent official notice of ratification. Connecticut failed to reconcile their bills after disagreeing over whether to ratify the first and second articles. As part of the 150th anniversary of the Bill of Rights in 1939, the three states ratified the 10 amendments. Now back to the story of the second article passed by Congress in 1789. It prevented Congress from raising its pay until the next election. It also didn’t contain any ratification time limit. The proposed amendment was largely forgotten until 1982, when Gregory Watson, a student at the University of Texas, began campaigning for its ratification. Besides Wyoming’s ratification in 1978, it had been more than 100 years since the most recent ratification. Over the course of the next 10 years, 29 states ratified it and it became the 27th amendment on May 25, 1992, after pending more than 202 years. It’s the most recent amendment to the Constitution. Our question: Of the 27 total amendments, which is the only one to be repealed? Today is National Day in Bahrain, and Republic Day in Kazakhstan. It’s unofficially National Chocolate Covered Anything Day, National Ugly Christmas Sweater Day, and Underdog Day. It’s the birthday of composer Ludwig van Beethoven, who was born in 1770; writer Jane Austen, who was born in 1775; and playwright Noel Coward, who was born in 1899. Because our topic happened before 1960, we’ll spin the wheel to pick a year at random. This week in 1969, the top song in the U.S. was “Leaving on a Jet Plane” by Peter, Paul and Mary. The No. 1 movie was “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?,” while the novel “The Godfather” by Mario Puzo topped the New York Times Bestsellers list. Links Follow us on Twitter, Facebook or our website. Also, if you’re enjoying the show, please consider supporting it through Patreon.com Please rate the show on iTunes by clicking here. Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_16 https://www.checkiday.com/12/16/2016 http://www.biography.com/people/groups/born-on-december-16 http://www.bobborst.com/popculture/numberonesongs/?chart=us&m=12&d=15&y=1960&o= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_1969_box_office_number-one_films_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Fiction_Best_Sellers_of_1969 iOS: http://apple.co/1H2paH9 Android: http://bit.ly/2bQnk3m

This is part one of a a two-part episode. On this date in 1791, the United States Bill of Rights became law when the state of Virginia ratified it. Here are some things you may not have known about the story behind the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States is the result of hard fought negotiations between federalists and antifederalists during the summer of 1787. Originally, the meeting that became the Constitutional Convention was intended to revise the Articles of Confederation, which had been in place since 1777. The Articles of Confederation established how the individual states would work together, and it created a weak national government. The national government had no president, executive agencies, judiciary or right to tax. Federalists such as James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton argued in favor of throwing out the Articles of Confederation in favor of a new constitution which would establish a strong national government, known as a federal system. A proposal to add a bill of rights during the convention was defeated. Hamilton, among many, believed such an addition would be dangerous. It was his belief that the inclusion of some rights would imply that rights not specifically mentioned didn’t exist. The Constitution required ratification by nine of the 13 states before it came into effect. Five states ratified the constitution with little trouble. Massachusetts on the other hand, was a different story. A contentious convention from the start, the low point of the Bay State’s meeting was a fist fight between federalist Francis Dana and anti-federalist Elbridge Gerry. Cooler heads prevailed as the convention agreed to ratify under the condition that the group also propose amendments. Massachusetts’ suggestions included the basis for what would become the fifth and 10th amendments. Ratifications by Maryland, South Carolina and New Hampshire pushed the Constitution over the nine-state requirement. Shortly after, Virginia and New York ratified, while North Carolina and Rhode Island waited until after the document came into effect in 1788. By the time the first Congress was seated in 1789, James Madison had come around on the idea of a bill of rights. Although his reasoning was largely strategic. He pledged to introduce a bill of rights as amendments to the Constitution as part of his effort to defeat James Monroe for a seat in the House of Representatives. He also believed that introducing a bill of rights would help preempt a second constitutional convention that could lead to the dissolution of the new federal government. Madison wrote what would become 20 proposed amendments. The House whittled this down to 17 amendments, while the Senate condensed it to 12. The 12 proposed amendments were then referred to the states for ratification. On tomorrow’s episode, we’ll delve into the amendments themselves. Today’s question: What document is seen as the world’s first bill of rights?   Today is International Tea Day, Kingdom Day in the Netherlands, and Remembrance Day of Journalists Killed in the Line of Duty in Russia. It’s unofficially Cat Herders Day, National Cupcake Day, and National Regifting Day. It’s the birthday of engineer Gustave Eiffel, who was born in 1832; actor and comedian Tim Conway, who is 83; and actor Don Johnson, who is 67. Because our topic happened before 1960, we’ll spin the wheel to pick a year at random. This week in 1989, the top song in the U.S. was “We Didn’t Start the Fire” by Billy Joel. The No. 1 movie was “The War of the Roses,” while the novel “Daddy” by Danielle Steele topped the New York Times Bestsellers list. Weekly question What wireless technology was named after a Danish king’s nickname? Submit your answer at triviapeople.com/test and we’ll add the name of the person with the first correct answer to our winner’s wall … at triviapeople.com. We'll reveal the correct answer on tomorrow’s episode. Links Follow us on Twitter, Facebook or our website. Also, if you’re enjoying the show, please consider supporting it through Patreon.com Please rate the show on iTunes by clicking here. Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbridge_Gerry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/statehood.shtml https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_15 https://www.checkiday.com/12/15/2016 http://www.biography.com/people/groups/born-on-december-15 http://www.bobborst.com/popculture/numberonesongs/?chart=us&m=12&d=15&y=1960&o= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_1989_box_office_number-one_films_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Fiction_Best_Sellers_of_1989 iOS: http://apple.co/1H2paH9 Android: http://bit.ly/2bQnk3m

The U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1788, but the people were calling for more definitive listing of liberties, or a Bill of Rights.To download, right-click here and then click SaveWe Hold These Truths, a celebration of the 150th anniversary of the United States Bill of Rights, is an hour-long radio program that explored American values and aired live on December 15, 1941, the first to be broadcast on all four major networks (CBS, NBC Red, NBC Blue, and Mutual). It was written and produced by Norman Corwin, who won a Peabody Award for the show, which commemorated the ratification of Bill of Rights on December 15, 1791. The attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 — a week before the scheduled broadcast — may have contributed to what the Crosley Rating Service estimated to be 63 million listeners (almost half of the U.S. population), the largest audience in history for a dramatic performance.Also FeaturingThe Rest Is History with Simon SaltSimon Salt has been a student of history since he had his imagination sparked by a High School history teacher who brought the subject to life for him. Every since he has been an avid reader, amateur historian and consumer of all things historical. He is a professional photographer, an author & Keynote speaker.He is originally from England and moved to the US 12 years ago. A fan of all things vintage, mechanical and technical he can often be found in his garage making props for photography shoots. He currently lives outside of Atlanta, Georgia, where he is submersing himself in both the colonial and civil war history of the area.Related Links:Video of "Bill of Rights (Shake It Off)" song Music used in this production:"Feelin Good" by Kevin MacLeodTheme music by Man In SpaceTo comment on this story, journey on over to the Forums

On this episode of Barefoot Radio the Warrior Queen Tish Bowling will be discussing the 3rd Amendment: The Third Amendment (Amendment III) to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime. The amendment is a response to Quartering Acts passed by the British parliament during the build up to the American Revolutionary War, which had allowed the British Army to lodge soldiers in private residences. The Third Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison as a part of the United States Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress proposed the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on March 1, 1792.    

The history of the United States can be traced through the significant documents that have guided and inspired generations of Americans. This document is the ten original amendments of the United States Constitution, authored by James Madison, passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified on December 15, 1791.

Attorney-Client Privilege predates US history and is a fixture of Western Law. Pro advocates of its proliferation declare its necessity to a fair and adequate defense. According to many legal experts, NSA monitoring of privileged attorney-client communications stands in direct violation to the United States Bill of Rights and yet others disagree. In this episode of Lawyer 2 Lawyer, hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams shed light on this issue with guests Dean Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of California, Irvine School of Law and Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University Fowler School of Law. Erwin Chemerinsky is the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law, and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at the University of California, Irvine School of Law. His areas of expertise include, but are not limited to, constitutional law, federal practice, and civil rights. Erwin is a renowned author of seven books and nearly 200 articles in top law reviews. He has argued before the nation's highest courts and has been counsel to detainees in Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp in the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba. He is also a regular commentator on legal issues before the national and local media. Dr. John Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service at Chapman University Fowler School of Law. He was the School's Dean from June 2007 to January 2010, when he stepped down to pursue a bid for California Attorney General. John is the Founding Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, former law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, and has served as the Director of Congressional and Public Affairs at the United States Commission on Civil Rights during the Reagan administration. He is also a regular commentator on legal issues before the national and local media. Special thanks to our sponsor, Clio.

The Fourth of July fell on podcast night, but never fear! We're here to kick some knowledge, American History style. Also, fireworks safety. Show Notes: The United States Bill of Rights - http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html The National Council on Fireworks Safety - http://fireworkssafety.org

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.Second Amendment to the United States ConstitutionJUVENILE CRIME » Let's TALK: Radio # 1-619-639-4634 Time every night 10pm- 12am CSTGo to this link to learn how you can help your community JUVENILE CRIME http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2370      

Howdy! Welcome back for another round of The Janine Turner Radio Show. Tonight Janine talks to U.S. Senate candidate from Texas Craig James. We need fresh faces in the U.S. Senate! Preferrably ones who actually read proposed bills lol! Rebecca Kleefish is the Lieutenant Governor of Wisconsin. She and Governor Scott Walker are the subjects of a recall election, and it's getting a little nasty in a "purple" state (a state that is about evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans) that will be important to the presidential election this fall. A two-part interview with Brian McClanahan, whose new book, "Forgotten Conservatives in American History", comes out in May. Do you know what the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says? If you don't, you're in company--most of our elected representatives in Congress don't either! So listen to the show and Janine and Brian will explain what it is and why it's so important. In fact, you should listen to the show EVERY Saturday evening from 9p-11p CST on her home studio at News and Information 570 KLIF-AM in Dallas, TX. Or, listen live from anywhere in the world on KLIF.com. Follow Janine on Facebook and Twitter, on her website --and with Mother's Day coming up, her book "Holding Her Head High" would make a great gift! -- check out Constituting America, and text "Janine" to 90210 for daily news updates. See ya'll next week! :)