Informacije

Peticija pravic - zgodovina

Peticija pravic - zgodovina


We are searching data for your request:

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


Peticija pravic - zgodovina

Indeks spletnih mest ABH

Časovni trak pred revolucijo - 1600

Prišli so v kolonijah, naseljenih okoli Jamestowna, z romarji pri Plymouth Rocku v zalivu Massachusetts in začeli so tisto, kar bi danes poimenovali Amerika. Z indijskimi narodi bi prihajale do dogovorov in med spopadajočimi se plemeni. Med kolonijami bi financirali in ustanovili britanski, španski in francoski koncern. Toda to bi bilo stoletje, ki se je začelo pravo naselitev, za vse svoje čudeže in stiske ter napovedovanje naroda, ki bo prišel.

Več pred revolucijo

Slika zgoraj: Litografija Sarony and Major, 1846, o pristanku Williama Bradforda na Plymouth Rocku in romarjih z Mayflowerjem v daljavi. Pristojna knjižnica kongresa. Desno: slika podpisa Mayflowerjevega dogovora, 1899, Jean Leon Gerome Ferris. Vljudnost Wikipedia Commons.

Časovni trak pred revolucijo - 1600

Sponzorirajte to stran za 75 USD na leto. Vaša pasica ali besedilni oglas lahko zapolni zgornji prostor.
Kliknite tukaj k sponzorju stran in kako rezervirati oglas.

1628 Podrobnosti

7. junij 1628 - Kralj Charles prejme peticijo pravic od angleškega parlamenta za pridobitev kraljevskih subvencij. Peticija za pravice bi vplivala na zbirko svoboščin kolonije Massachusetts Bay Colony in na 3., 5., 6. in 7. spremembo ustave ZDA.

Kolonialna naselja so napredovala v napadih Plymouth Plantation in Jamestown, drugi pa se pripravlja na jadranje proti Novi Angliji, tj Kolonija zaliva Massachusetts. A s krono ni bilo vse v redu. Kralj Charles I., ki je le tri leta po svojem vladanju, 27. marca 1635 povzdignil v kralja in 2. februarja 1636 krunil 2. februarja, je imel težave s parlamentom. in vse, kar je hotel narediti, je, da si dodeli nekaj subvencij, denarja, da živi kraljevski način življenja in vodi vojno. Tako je zaračunaval davke brez soglasja Parlamenta in kršil individualne pravice.

Charles se je odločil za vojno s Španijo, namesto da bi se poročil s špansko princeso, nečakinjo kralja Ferdinanda, da bi pariziral z diplomatsko rešitvijo napetosti med obema narodoma. Namesto tega se je poročil z rimskokatoliško francosko princeso Henrietto Marijo. Angleški protestanti niso bili srečni. Poskusili so mu podeliti pravico do subvencije za eno leto, ko so bili vsi drugi kralji to priznali za vse življenje. Predlog zakona ni sprejel lordskega doma. Novembra 1637 je imel kralj Charles I. dovolj. Uveljavil je davek na prisilno posojilo brez odobritve parlamenta in zaprl tiste, ki niso hoteli plačati. Dodal je, da so najemniki vojnega stanja prisilili zasebnike, da hranijo, oblačijo in hranijo vojake in mornarje.

Za mnoge je bilo presenečenje, da je bila prvotna sodba, da so ta dejanja nezakonita, razveljavljena, kar je Charlesu podelilo številne davčne pravice. Odločitev v zadevi pet pravic je spodbudila Parlament, da poišče boljšo rešitev. Ko so se sestali marca 1628, so razpravljali o resolucijah, odbor pa je do 1. aprila sestavil štiri v zakonu. Charles se s prvim osnutkom ni strinjal. Pogajanja sta se obe strani nadaljevali v naslednjem mesecu. 26. in 27. maja je bila sprejeta spremenjena peticija pravic, ki je bila bolj všeč parlamentu kot kralju. 7. junija 1628 je kralj Charles kapituliral, potreboval je denar za svojo vojno in se strinjal z njenimi pogoji.

In kaj je ta peticija o pravicah pomenila v kratkem. Razglasila je ponovno potrditev Magna Carte in habeas corpos ter razglasila nezakonita določena dejanja krone in države. Prvič, davki so bili nezakoniti, če jih ni pobral Parlament. Drugič, posamezniki ne bi mogli biti zaprti brez sojenja ali pridržani brez obtožbe, bodisi s strani kralja ali tajnega sveta. Tretjič, zasebne državljane ni bilo mogoče prisiliti k nastanitvi vojakov ali mornarjev brez njihovega prostega dovoljenja. Četrtič, vojaško stanje bi bilo omejeno na uporabo le v času vojne ali neposrednega upora.

Kralj Charles I. se je v enem letu zavrnil, da bi se držal najemnikov Peticije pravic, in je v enajstletnem delu izdal osebno pravilo, v katerem je bil razpuščen parlament.

Kljub enajstim letom je bila Peticija pravic sprejeta leta 1641 in ostaja v veljavi v Združenem kraljestvu in različnih drugih angleških skupnostih.

Vpliv peticije pravic na kolonije

Ko je kolonija Massachusetts Bay začela razmišljati o kodifikaciji svojih pravil in predpisov, so 5. marca 1635 ustanovili komisijo za zakone, ki so jo sestavljali guverner John Haynes, Richard Bellingham, John Winthrop in Thomas Dudley. V naslednjih šestih letih so bili vključeni dodatni odbori in več osnutkov, enega Nathanial Ward in drugega Rogerja Cottona, je bilo predloženo Splošnemu sodišču. Temeljile so na elementih Magne Carte in Peticije pravic. Organ svoboščin je bil oblikovan, da bi navedel, katere pravice ima posameznik in ne tiste, ki niso dovoljene.

Ustava ZDA in Bill of Rights vsebujejo vse tri dokumente Magna Carta, Petition of Rights in The Liberties ter Virginijsko deklaracijo o pravicah in angleški Bill of Rights, ki je v telesu dokumenta. njegovih sprememb. Vendar pa so štiri od teh sprememb posebno povezane s peticijo pravic, tretjo, peto, šesto in sedmo.

Sprememba III - Noben vojak se v času miru ne sme stanovati v nobeni hiši brez soglasja lastnika ali v času vojne, vendar na način, ki ga določa zakon.

Sprememba V - Nobena oseba ne sme odgovarjati za kapital ali kako drugače zloglasni zločin, razen na podlagi predstavitve ali obtožnice velike porote, razen v primerih, ki nastanejo v kopenskih ali pomorskih silah ali v milici, ko so v dejanski službi v času vojne ali javne nevarnosti niti nobena oseba ne bo podvržena, da bo za isto kaznivo dejanje dvakrat ogrožena življenje ali okončina, niti v kateri koli kazenski zadevi ne bo priča proti sebi, niti ji ne bodo odvzeti življenja, svobode, ali lastnine brez ustreznega sodnega postopka niti zasebna lastnina ne bo vzeta v javno uporabo brez pravičnega nadomestila.

Sprememba VI - Obdolženi ima v vseh kazenskih pregonih pravico do hitrega in javnega sojenja s strani nepristranske porote države in okrožja, v katerem je bilo kaznivo dejanje storjeno, katerega okrožja je bilo predhodno ugotovljeno z zakonom, in biti obveščen o naravi in ​​vzroku obtožbe, s katero se bodo soočile priče proti njemu, da bo prisoten postopek za pridobivanje prič v njegovo korist in da bo imel zagovornik svojo pomoč.

Sprememba VII - V zadevah običajnega prava, kjer sporna vrednost presega dvajset dolarjev, se ohrani pravica do sojenja porote in nobeno dejstvo, ki ga obravnava porota, se drugače ne preuči na katerem koli sodišču Združenih držav , kot v skladu s pravili običajnega prava.

Kupite kronologijo

Celotno besedilo, Peticija pravic

Peticija, ki so jo njegovemu veličanstvu razstavili duhovni in časovni lordovi ter skupnost, ki je bila na tem sedanjem parlamentu zbrana v zvezi s pravicami in svoboščinami subjektov, s kraljevim veličanstvenim odgovorom nanjo v celotnem parlamentu.

Največjemu kraljevemu veličanstvu,

Ponizno pokažite našemu suverenemu gospodu kralju, gospodom duhovnim in časnim ter skupščinskim zborom, da je razglašen in uveljavljen s statutom, ki je bil narejen v času vladavine kralja Edvarda I., običajno imenovanem Statutum de Tallagio non Concedendo , da kralj ali njegovi dediči na tem področju brez dobre volje in privolitve nadškofov, škofov, grofov, baronov, vitezov, meščanov in drugih svobodnjakov tega kralja ali pomoči ne smejo nalagati ali zaračunavati zneskov ali pomoči. kraljestvo in pooblastilo parlamenta v petindvajsetem letu vladavine kralja Edvarda III. je razglašeno in uzakonjeno, da od takrat nobena oseba ne sme biti prisiljena dajati posojila kralju proti njegovi volji, ker posojila so bila v nasprotju z razumom in franšizo zemljišča in po drugih zakonih tega področja je določeno, da se za nobeno ne sme zaračunati nobena dajatev ali uvedba, imenovana dobronamernost, niti takšna dajatev, po kateri so bili omenjeni zakoni in podobno njeni dobri zakoni in statuti tega področja so vaši podložniki podedovali to svobodo, da jih ne bi smeli prisiliti, da v parlamentu prispevajo k kakršnim koli davkom, govoricam, pomoči ali drugim podobnim dajatvam, ki niso določene s skupnim soglasjem.

II. Kljub temu so pozne potapljaške komisije, namenjene različnim komisarjem v več okrožjih, z navodili izdale sredstva, na podlagi katerih so bili vaši ljudje na zbranih različnih mestih in so morali vašemu veličanstvu posoditi določene vsote denarja in mnogi od njih so to zavrnili, so jim dali prisego, ki je ne upravičujejo zakoni ali statuti tega področja, in so bili omejeni, da so vezani, nastopili in govorili pred vašim tajnim svetom in na drugih mestih, drugi pa so imeli so bili zato zaprti, zaprti in na različne načine nadlegovani in vznemirjeni ter različni obtožbe so vaši ljudje v več okrožjih uložili in obtožili lordi poročniki, podporočniki, komisarji za zbiranje, mirovni sodniki in drugi, po ukazu ali navodilih od vi veličanstvo ali vaš tajni svet proti zakonom in svobodnim običajem kraljestva.

III. In ker je tudi v statutu, imenovanem "Velika listina svoboščin Anglije", razglašeno in uveljavljeno, da nobenega svobodnjaka ne smejo odvzeti ali zapreti ali odvzeti njegove prostosti ali svoboščin ali svobodnih običajev ali ga prepovedati oz. izgnan ali kakor koli uničen, vendar po zakoniti presoji vrstnikov ali po deželnem pravu.

IV. V osemindvajsetem letu vladavine kralja Edwarda III je bilo v parlamentu razglašeno in uzakonjeno, da se noben človek, katerega koli premoženja ali stanja, ne sme izločiti iz svojih zemljišč ali stanovanj, niti vzeti, niti zapreti, niti razediti, niti usmrtiti, ne da bi bili odgovorni po zakonitem postopku.

V. Kljub temu, v nasprotju z veljavnostjo omenjenih statutov in drugimi dobrimi zakoni in statuti vašega kraljestva, so bili potapljači vaših podložnikov v zadnjem času zaprti brez kakršnega koli razloga in ko so bili zaradi njihove rešitve privedeni pred vašo sodniki po spisih vašega veličanstva o habeas corpus, ki jih je treba opraviti in prejeti, kot bi sodišče odredilo, njihovi skrbniki pa so ukazali, naj potrdijo vzroke svojega pripornika, noben razlog ni bil potrjen, ampak da jih je pridržal poseben ukaz vašega veličanstva, kar pomeni gospodarji vašega tajnega sveta, vendar so bili vrnjeni nazaj v več zaporov, ne da bi bili obtoženi ničesar, na kar bi lahko odgovorili v skladu z zakonom.

VI. In ker so se pozno velike čete vojakov in mornarjev razpršile po različnih okrožjih kraljestva, prebivalci pa so bili proti njihovi volji prisiljeni sprejeti jih v svoje hiše in jih trpeti, da bi živeli v nasprotju z zakoni in običaji tega kraljestva in na veliko žalost in razburjenje ljudi.

VII. In ker je tudi v petindvajsetem letu vladavine kralja Edwarda III s strani parlamenta razglašeno in uveljavljeno, da noben človek ne sme biti presojen o življenju ali okončinah v skladu z obliko Velike listine in zakona dežele in z omenjeno Veliko listino ter drugimi zakoni in statuti tega vašega kraljestva, nihče ne bi smel biti obsojen na smrt, ampak po zakonih, ki so na tem vašem področju določeni, bodisi po običajih istega kraljestva bodisi z akti parlamenta: in ker noben kršilec kakršne koli vrste ni izvzet iz postopkov, ki jih je treba uporabiti, in kazni, ki jih nalagajo zakoni in statuti tega vašega kraljestva, kljub temu so v zadnjem času različne potapljaške komisije pod velikim pečatom vašega veličanstva izdale, ki so bile določene osebe imenovane in imenovane za komisarje, ki imajo pooblastilo in pooblastilo, da po deželi v skladu z vojaškim pravom nadaljujejo zoper take vojake ali mornarje ali druge razpuščene osebe, ki se jim pridružijo izpustiti kakršen koli umor, rop, kaznivo dejanje, upor ali drugo ogorčenje ali prekršek, in s takšnim povzetkom in redom, ki je v skladu z vojnim stanjem in se uporablja v vojskah v času vojne, za nadaljevanje sojenja in obsodbo storilce kaznivih dejanj in jih usmrtiti po vojnem zakonu.

VIII. Zaradi pretveze, zaradi katere so nekateri izmed omenjenih komisarjev usmrtili nekatere podložnike vašega veličanstva, kdaj in kje, če so si po zakonih in statutih dežele zaslužili smrt, bi po istih zakonih in statutih lahko in nobenega drugega ne bi smeli soditi in usmrtiti.

IX. In tudi številni hudi storilci kaznivih dejanj, po svoji barvi, ki zahtevajo oprostitev, so se izognili kazni, ki jim jih nalagajo zakoni in statuti tega področja, zaradi tega, ker so potapljači vaših častnikov in pravosodnih ministrov neupravičeno zavrnili takšno ravnanje storilci kaznivih dejanj po istih zakonih in statutih pod pretvezo, da so bili ti storilci kaznivi le z vojnim stanjem in pooblastilom takih komisij, kot je navedeno zgoraj, katere provizije in vse druge podobne narave so v celoti in neposredno v nasprotju z omenjenimi zakoni in statuti tega vašega kraljestva.

X. Zato ponižno molijo vaše najodličnejše veličanstvo, da v prihodnje nihče ne bo prisiljen dati ali podariti darila, posojila, dobrodelnosti, davka ali podobnih dajatev brez skupnega soglasja z aktom parlamenta in naj nihče ne bo poklican odgovoriti ali priseči, ali prisostvovati, biti omejen ali kako drugače razburjen ali zaskrbljen zaradi istega ali zavrnitve tega in da nobenega svobodnjaka na kakršen koli način, ki je že omenjen, ne bodo zaprli ali pridržali in da vaše veličanstvo bi z veseljem odstranil omenjene vojake in mornarje ter da se vaši ljudje v prihodnje ne bodo tako obremenjevali in da bi se lahko omenjene provizije za izvajanje vojnega stanja preklicale in razveljavile ter da v nadaljevanju ne smejo biti takšne komisije izročite kateri koli osebi ali osebam, ki naj bi bile usmrčene, kot je navedeno zgoraj, da po njihovi barvi kateri koli podložnik vašega veličanstva ne bo uničen ali usmrčen v nasprotju z zakoni in franšizo dežele.

XI. Vse, kar najbolj ponižno molijo za vaše najodličnejše veličanstvo za njihove pravice in svoboščine, v skladu z zakoni in statuti tega področja, in da bi tudi vaše veličanstvo jamčilo, da razglasi, da bodo nagrade, dejanja in postopki v škodo vašega ljudje v nobenem od prostorov ne bodo v nadaljevanju vpleteni v posledico ali zgled in da bi bilo vaše veličanstvo tudi milostivo zadovoljno, za dodatno udobje in varnost vašega ljudstva, da izjavite svojo kraljevo voljo in užitek, da v zgoraj omenjenem vaši častniki in ministri vam bodo služili v skladu z zakoni in statuti tega kraljestva, ko bodo izkazovali čast vašemu veličanstvu in blaginji tega kraljestva.

Slika zgoraj: Slika kralja Charlesa I, 1628, Gerard van Honthorst. Vljudnostna nacionalna galerija portretov prek Wikipedia Commons. Spodnja slika: Prizor podpisa ustave Združenih držav, Vzhodno krilo, Predstavniški dom, Kapitol ZDA, 1940, Howard Chandler Christy. Vljudnost Kapitola ZDA prek Wikipedia Commons. Vir informacij: archives.par Parliament.uk Državna knjižnica Massachusettsa billofrightsinstitute.org archive.gov Wikipedia.

Zgodovina Foto bomba


Slikanje Kralj Charles I., 1628, Gerard van Honthorst. Vljudnostna nacionalna galerija portretov prek Wikipedia Commons.


Pripis

Leta 1628 se je položaj angleškega Charlesa I. poslabšal. Neredna podjetja, razkošni in nezakoniti izdatki ter zlomljene obljube o boljši vladi so skoraj porušili odnose med monarhom in njegovimi podložniki. Kralj je ponudil podelitev "potrditve velike listine", kakršno so nekdanji monarhi pogosto izdali, nato pa zanemarjali. Commons je to ponudbo zavrnil in pod vodstvom Sir Edward Coke so člani sestavili in sprejeli Peticija pravice. Charles se je večkrat poskušal izogniti ratifikaciji na zakonit način. Končno je bil prisiljen dati svojo privolitev v ustrezni obliki.

"Peticija pravice", 1628, Svoboda, enakost, bratstvo.

PETICIJA, KI JA GOSPODOVI DUHOVNO IN ČASNO RAZSTAVLJAJO SVOJEM VELIČANSTVU, IN SKUPNO V TEM PREDSTAVLJENEM PARLAMENTU, KI SE VSEBUJE PRAVIC IN SVOBODNOSTI PODMETNIKOV S PREDSTAVNIKOM S KRALJEM MAJSTALJEMOM VELJETJAJOM VLADARJEM VLADARJEM MOJSTAROM VLADNJIM VLADARJEM MOJSTARJEM VLADARJEM MOJSTAROM VILJEM.

Najvišjemu kraljevemu veličanstvu.

Ponizno pokažite našemu suverenemu gospodu kralju, gospodom duhovnim in časnim ter skupščini v parlamentu, da je razglašen in uveljavljen s statutom, ki je bil narejen v času vladavine kralja Edvarda Prvega, običajno imenovanega Statutum de Tallagio non concedendo, da kralj ali njegovi dediči na tem področju ne smejo dajati ali zaračunavati nobene zmene ali pomoči brez dobre volje in privolitve nadškofov, škofov, grofov, baronov, vitezov, meščanov in drugih svobodnjakov, ki so skupni na tem področju. : in s pooblastilom Parlamenta, ki je potekal v petindvajsetem letu vladavine kralja Edvarda Tretjega, je razglašeno in uzakonjeno, da od takrat nobena oseba ne bo prisiljena dajati posojila kralju proti njegovi volji, ker taka posojila so bili v nasprotju z razumom in franšizo zemljišča in po drugih zakonih tega področja je določeno, da se za nobeno ne sme zaračunati nobena dajatev ali uvedba, imenovana dobrodelnost, ali podobna dajatev, po kateri so prej omenjeni statuti in drugi dobri zakoni in statuti tega področja so vaši podložniki podedovali to svobodo, da jih ne bi smeli prisiliti, da prispevajo k kakršnim koli davkom, zneskom, pomoči ali drugim podobnim dajatvam, ki niso določene s skupnim soglasjem v parlamentu:

Kljub temu pa so izdane zapoznele potapljaške komisije, naslovljene na različne komisarje v več okrožjih, z navodili, na podlagi katerih so bili vaši ljudje zbrani na različnih mestih in so morali vašemu veličanstvu posoditi določene vsote denarja, mnogi pa so jih zavrnili zato so jim dali prisego, ki je ne upravičujejo zakoni ali statuti tega področja, in so bili omejeni, da so se morali prijaviti in se udeležiti svojega tajnega sveta ter na drugih mestih in drugih so bili zato zaprti, zaprti in na različne načine nadlegovani in vznemirjeni: in različni obtožnici so bili vaši ljudje v več okrožjih vloženi in obtoženi s strani lordov poročnikov, podporočnikov, komisarjev za zbiranje, mirovnih sodnikov in drugih, po ukazu ali navodila vašega veličanstva ali vašega tajnega sveta v nasprotju z zakoni in svobodnimi običaji tega področja:

In kjer je tudi s statutom, imenovanim "Velika listina svoboščin Anglije", razglašeno in uveljavljeno, da nobenega svobodnjaka ne smejo odvzeti, zapreti ali odvzeti njegovih prostorov ali svoboščin ali svobodnih običajev ali ga prepovedati. ali izgnan ali kakor koli uničen, vendar po zakoniti presoji vrstnikov ali po deželnem pravu:

V osmem in dvajsetem letu vladavine kralja Edvarda Tretjega je bilo v parlamentu razglašeno in uzakonjeno, da nobenega človeka, katerega posestva ali stanja, ne bi smeli odstraniti s svojega zemljišča ali stanovanj ali ga odvzeti , niti v zapor, niti v dediščino, niti v smrt, ne da bi bili po zakonu odgovorni:

Kljub temu so v nasprotju z veljavnostjo omenjenih statutov in drugih dobrih zakonov in statutov vašega kraljestva potapljači vaših podložnikov v zadnjem času zaprti brez kakršnega koli razloga in ko so bili zaradi njihove rešitve privedeni pred vašo Sodniki po pisanju vašega veličanstva Habeas Corpus, ki jih je treba opraviti in prejeti, kot je odredilo sodišče, njihovi skrbniki pa so ukazali, naj potrdijo vzroke svojega pridržanja, noben razlog ni bil potrjen, ampak da jih je pridržalo posebno poveljstvo vašega veličanstva, kar pomeni gospodov vašega tajnega sveta, vendar so bili vrnjeni nazaj v več zaporov, ne da bi bili obtoženi ničesar, na kar bi lahko po zakonu odgovorili:

In ker so bile pozno velike čete vojakov in mornarjev razpršene po različnih okrožjih kraljestva in so bili prebivalci proti njihovi volji prisiljeni sprejeti jih v svoje hiše in jih tam pustiti, da bi prebivali, v nasprotju z zakoni in običaji to področje ter na veliko žalost in razburjenje ljudi:

In ker je tudi pooblastilo Parlamenta v petindvajsetem letu vladavine kralja Edvarda Tretjega razglasilo in uzakonilo, da noben človek ne sme biti presojen o življenju ali okončinah v skladu z obliko Velike listine in zakona dežele: in z omenjeno Veliko listino in drugimi zakoni in statuti tega vašega kraljestva nikogar ne bi smeli obsoditi na smrt, ampak po zakonih, ki so na tem vašem področju določeni, bodisi po običajih istega kraljestva bodisi po zakonih Parlamenta: in ker noben storilec kaznivih dejanj ni izvzet iz postopkov, ki jih je treba uporabiti, in kazni, ki jih nalagajo zakoni in statuti tega vašega kraljestva: kljub temu so v zadnjem času razpisane komisije različnih potapljačev pod velikim pečatom vašega veličanstva, s katerim so bile določene osebe imenovane in imenovane za komisarje, ki imajo moč in pooblastila, da v skladu z vojaškim stanjem ravnajo po deželi proti takšnim vojakom ali mornarjem ali drugim razpuščenim osebam, ki se jim pridružijo, kot je sh bi morali storiti kakršen koli umor, rop, kaznivo dejanje, upor ali drugo ogorčenje ali prekršek ter s takšnim povzetkom in redom, ki je v skladu z zakonskim pravom in se uporablja v vojski v času vojne, za nadaljevanje sojenja in obsodbe takšnih storilcev kaznivih dejanj in jih po vojaškem zakonu usmrtili:

Na podlagi tega so nekateri izmed navedenih komisarjev usmrtili nekatere podložnike vašega veličanstva, kdaj in kje, če so si po zakonih in statutih dežele zaslužili smrt, po istih zakonih in statutih bi lahko tudi nihče drug ne bi smel biti presojen in usmrčen:

In tudi številni hudi storilci kaznivih dejanj po svoji barvi, ki uveljavljajo oprostitev, so se izognili kazni, ki jim jih nalagajo zakoni in statuti tega področja, zaradi tega, ker so potapljači vaših častnikov in ministrov za pravosodje neupravičeno zavrnili ali pa jim je bilo prepovedano nadaljevati takšni storilci kazni po istih zakonih in statutih, češ da so bili ti storilci kaznivi le z vojnim stanjem in pooblastilom zgoraj omenjenih komisij, ki so provizije in vse druge podobne narave v celoti in neposredno v nasprotju z omenjenimi zakoni in statuti tega vašega kraljestva:

Zato ponižno molijo, vaše najodličnejše veličanstvo, da v prihodnje nihče ne bo prisiljen dajati ali dajati daril, posojil, dobrodelnosti, davkov ali podobnih dajatev brez skupnega soglasja po zakonu Parlamenta in da nihče ne bo poklican na odgovor ali sprejeti takšno prisego ali prisostvovati ali biti omejen ali kako drugače nadlegovan ali vznemirjen v zvezi z istim ali zaradi zavrnitve tega in da nobenega svobodnjaka na kakršen koli način, ki je že omenjen, ne bodo zaprli ali pridržali in da vaše veličanstvo z veseljem bo odstranil omenjene vojake in mornarje ter da se vaši ljudje v prihodnje ne bodo tako obremenjevali in da se lahko omenjene provizije za zakonsko zakonodajo prekličejo in razveljavijo ter da v nadaljevanju ne morejo biti izdane nobene komisije podobne narave pošljite kateri koli osebi ali osebam, naj se izvršijo, kot je navedeno zgoraj, da po njihovi barvi kateri koli podložnik vašega veličanstva ne bo uničen ali usmrčen v nasprotju z zakoni in franšizo dežele.

Vse, kar najbolj ponižno molijo vaše Najodličnejše veličanstvo, kot njihove pravice in svoboščine v skladu z zakoni in statuti tega področja: in da bi vaše veličanstvo tudi jamčilo, da razglasi, da so nagrade, dejanja in postopki v škodo vašega ljudje v nobenem od prostorov ne bodo v nadaljevanju vpleteni v posledico ali primer: in da bi bilo vaše veličanstvo tudi milostno zadovoljno, da bi za dodatno udobje in varnost vašega ljudstva razglasili vašo kraljevo voljo in užitek, da v stvareh omenjeno vam bodo služili vsi vaši častniki in ministri v skladu z zakoni in statuti tega področja, ko bodo izkazovali čast vašemu veličanstvu in blaginji tega kraljestva.

Krediti

Guy Carleton Lee, Source-Book of English History (New York: Henry Holt, 1901), 348–52.


Državna ustava Izvor ameriškega zakona o pravicah

Vsebina zakona o pravicah
Nobena uveljavljena vera/favorizirana sekta
Pravice vesti/Brezplačna vadba
Svoboda govora
Svoboda tiska
Svoboda zbiranja
Svoboda peticije
Držite in nosite orožje/milico
Četrtletstvo čet
Dvojno tveganje
Samoobtoževanje
Pravni postopek
Jemanje/samo odškodnina
Brez pretirane varščine in glob
Brez krutih in/ali nenavadnih kazni
Brez nerazumnih iskanj/zasegov
Hitro/javno sojenje v kazenskih zadevah
Narava obtožbe
Soočenje prič
Obvezna priča
Pomoč odvetnika
Pravice, ki jih obdržijo ljudje
$ Omejitev pri pritožbah
Sodno pravo in sojenje poroti
(Lokalna) Nepristranska porota za vse zločine
Velika žirija za izgubo življenja ali uda
Pridržek nedelgiranih pooblastil
Skupaj 17 6 20 19 17 17 7 8 6 20 20 5 2 5 8

Uvod

15. maja 1776 je drugi celinski kongres trinajstim kolonialnim skupščinam izdal “Reši ”: “ sprejel takšno vlado, ki bo po mnenju predstavnikov ljudstva najbolje prispevala k sreči in varnosti zlasti njihovih volivcev in Amerike nasploh. ” Med letoma 1776 in 1780 so se izvoljeni predstavniki sestali v posvetovalnih telesih - kot ustanovitelji - in izbrali republiške vlade. Connecticut in Rhode Island sta ohranila svoje kolonialne listine, preostalih enajst pa je ponovno potrdilo ameriško zavezo o zavezah in ustanovilo vlade, namenjene zagotavljanju pravic. Izkazalo se je najobsežnejša dokumentacija o pravicah ljudi, ki jih je svet doživel.

Reproducirali smo tri državne ustave: Virginia, prva, ki je bila napisana in sprejeta teden dni pred razglasitvijo neodvisnosti New Jerseyja, sprejeto 2. julija 1776, in prva, ki je izključila predhodni zakon o pravicah, in Pennsylvania, tretja ustava sprejet in velja za najbolj radikalnega. Skupaj ujamejo raznolikost in enotnost revolucionarnega pogovora o dvodomnosti, delitvi oblasti, delovni dobi in o tem, kako naj bi pravice bile zagotovljene z republikanskim vladnim okvirom. Izražajo ameriško zavezujočo tradicijo, okrepljeno z razsvetljensko doktrino naravnih pravic, da je pravica ljudi, da izberejo svojo obliko vladavine. Te ustave so praktični izrazi ideala, ki bi ga morala vlada temeljiti na premisleku in privolitvi, ne pa na nesreči in sili.

Sedem držav je pripravilo predhodno izjavo o pravicah k vladnemu okviru: Virginia (junij 1776), Delaware (september 1776), Pennsylvania (september 1776), Maryland (november 1776), Severna Karolina (december 1776), Massachusetts (marec 1780) in New Hampshire (junij 1784). Te izjave so bile dejansko preambula, v kateri so bili navedeni nameni, za katere so ljudje izbrali posebno obliko vladavine. Med sedmimi državami obstaja izjemna enotnost glede vrst državljanskih in kazenskih pravic, ki bi jih bilo treba zagotoviti. Deklaracije iz Virginije, Delawareja, Pennsylvanije in Massachusettsa zajemajo tako podobnost kot subtilne razlike, ki so nastale zaradi prostega izvajanja vere, vzpostavljanja vere, svobode tiska, desnice peticija, pravica do nošenja orožja, četrtinjenje vojakov, zaščita pred nerazumnimi preiskavami in zasegi, osrednje sojenje pri poroti, pravica do soočenja prič in pravica do zagovornika, pomen pravočasnega postopka , ” in zaščito pred previsokimi globami ter krutimi in nenavadnimi kaznimi.

Štiri države so se odločile, da ne bodo predpisale zakona o svojih novo ustanovljenih republikanskih ustavah: New Jersey (julij 1776), Georgia (februar 1777), New York (april 1777) in Južna Karolina (marec 1778) . Kljub temu je vsak imel uvodne izjave, ki so potrjevale avtoriteto zavezujoče tradicije in vključevale tudi individualno zaščito v telo svojih ustanov.

Virginia. Hiša Burgesses je junija 1776 sprejela deklaracijo o pravicah v Virginiji. Med delegati so bili najpomembnejši avtor George Mason in petindvajsetletni James Madison, ki je pripravil razdelek o “ brezplačnem izvajanju vere. « njihova oblika vladanja. Šesti do štirinajsti odsek pokriva znana področja. Večina naštetih državljanskih pravic in kazenskih postopkov je bila del amerikanizirane različice tradicije Angležanov. Petnajsti odsek odraža tradicionalni republikanski argument, da bi svobodna vlada lahko preživela le, če bi bili ljudje krepostni. Ker se je kolonialna Amerika za opravljanje te pomembne politične funkcije obrnila k veri, je obstajala domneva, da ima vera status, ki je bil uveljavljen. Leta 1776 je bila anglikanska cerkev uveljavljena cerkev v Virginiji in v Virginijskem zakonu o pravicah ni ničesar, kar bi izpodbijalo to ustanovo. On the other hand, Madison’s natural right argument, incorporated in section sixteen, challenged the public dimension of religion on the ground that the exercise of religion should be “free” of “force or violence.”

The same Convention also framed and adopted the Virginia Constitution. The first, and longest, section anticipates the Declaration of Independence: Twenty-one separate indictments are listed against King George. Section two provides the authorization for establishing a new foundation. Sections three through thirteen pertain to the bicameral legislature and the remainder focuses on the election of executive officers. Section twenty-one lays the foundation for the Northwest and Southwest Territories.

New Jersey. The 1776 New Jersey Constitution, framed by a convention that met from May 26 through July 3, was the second to be adopted and the first to omit a prefatory Bill of Rights. Nevertheless, the constitution appeals to “the nature of things” and the American covenanting tradition. Moreover, civil rights and criminal procedures are addressed in four of the thirty-nine articles. Article XVI provides that “all criminals shall be admitted to the same privileges of witness and counsel, as their prosecutors doe or shall be entitled to,” and Article XXII confirms the common law tradition with the trial by jury being given permanent protection. Two articles address the issue of religious rights. Article XVIII guarantees to all “the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience,” and proclaims that no one shall ever be obliged to support financially any ministry “contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged himself to perform.” Article XVIX states that there “shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another,” and that all persons of “any Protestant sect…shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.” New Jersey was the first state to prohibit the establishment of a specific sect as the official religion.

Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Constitution, prefaced by a Preamble and Declaration of Rights, was framed by a specially-elected convention that met from mid-July to the end of September 1776. Although the document was not submitted to the people for ratification, it expresses the radical dimension of the conversation over what frame of government would best secure the rights of the people: Pennsylvania was the only state to choose a unicameral rather than a bicameral legislature. Although the legislature was very powerful, the constitution calls for an “open” assembly with policymaking taking place under the full scrutiny of an informed electorate. In section forty-seven, the framers created an elected Council of Censors to provide periodic review of the operation of the laws and institutions “in order that the freedom of the commonwealth may be preserved inviolate for ever.” This model was subsequently praised by Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia and criticized by Madison in Federalist 47-51.

John Adams’s 1779 judgment that the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights “is taken almost verbatim from that of Virginia” is correct as far as it concerns the common law tradition. Nevertheless, all sixteen deserve to be reproduced in their entirety in order to appreciate the remarkable uniformity and subtle differences among the states. It is particularly important to note that Pennsylvania repeats the claim that “a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty,” and that only Christians are eligible to hold office. Also noteworthy are the sections dealing with searches and seizures, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, “the natural inherent right to emigrate,” and the right to assemble.

Delaware. The Delaware Declaration of Rights followed Pennsylvania and appealed to natural rights and the common law tradition. Of particular interest is the concern for the political rights of the people: the right to hold officials accountable, the right to participate in government and to petition for redress of grievances, and the right to no ex post facto laws.

Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Declaration of Rights and Constitution, drafted over a six-month period, was adopted in spring 1780. It was the first to be ratified by the people rather than by the people’s representatives. Actually, the 1780 Constitution was a revised version of the 1778 Constitution rejected in large part because of the absence of a Bill of Rights. The town of Boston declared “that all Forms of Government should be prefaced by a Bill of Rights in this we find no Mention of any.” Eleven towns also objected to the denial of the right of suffrage to free “negroes, Indians, and mulattoes” in Article V. The Essex Result–the combined judgment of the twelve towns of Essex County reached at a county convention–also expressed concern that the foundation was illegitimate because the people were excluded from the adoption process.

The Massachusetts Preamble confirmed the “right of the people to set up what government they believe will secure their safety, prosperity, and happiness.” The provisions in “Part the First” dealing with search and seizure, self-incrimination, confrontation of witnesses, self-incrimination, cruel and unusual punishments, freedom of press, the right to petition, and that no one shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or estate, but by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land,” were common among all the states that adopted a Bill of Rights. Massachusetts, also included specific political rights of the people: the right to no ex post facto laws, frequent elections, an independent judiciary, and the right to a strict separation of governmental powers “to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men.” As was the case in Virginia and Pennsylvania, the need for “piety, justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality” was listed in the Bill of Rights. What is distinctive about Massachusetts is that the virtue of the people was to be secured by established religion. The third “right” was that of the citizens to support, financially, the establishment of Protestantism as the public religion. To be sure, no one particular sect would be given preference over another all were “equally under the protection of the law” and the “free exercise” of religion was protected.

Taken from: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/bor/origins-chart/

Preparing to Teach this Lesson

Prior to teaching this lesson the teacher should cover content related to the Articles of Confederation and its weaknesses. The teacher should familiarize her/himself and students with Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Gordon Lloyd has presented the content of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as a Four Act Drama. Students and teacher should also be familiar with Ratification of the Constitution, and the Federalist and Antifederalist Debates.

Analyzing primary sources:

If your students lack experience in dealing with primary sources, you might use one or more preliminary exercises to help them develop these skills. The Learning Page at the American Memory Project of the Library of Congress includes a set of such activities. Another useful resource is the Digital Classroom of the National Archives, which features a set of Document Analysis Worksheets. Finally, History Matters offers pages on “Making Sense of Maps” and “Making Sense of Oral History” which give helpful advice to teachers in getting their students to use such sources effectively.

Suggested Activities

Introductory Activity: KWL

Time required for activity: In class activity 20 minutes.

Students will complete a KWL chart to determine what students know about the origins of the U.S. Bill of Rights in relation to English, colonial America, and revolutionary America.

Students should record their responses on the KWL graphic organizer lesson resource. First, students should complete the K column to demonstrate what they vedeti about the origins of the U.S Bill of Rights. The teacher should debrief with students and then provide students time to complete the W portion of the graphic organizer. The W portion of the graphic organizer allows students to reflect on kaj additional information they would like to know about the origins of the U.S. Bill of Rights. Students should use the tables Content Bill of Rights and State Constitutions and Content Bill of Rights and English and Colonial Roots or the Excel spreadsheet/chart on the Origins of the Bill of Rights to complete the W portion of the graphic organizer.

After the activity on the Origins of U.S. Bill of Rights has been completed, students should complete the L section of the graphic organizer to indicate what they learned about the origins of the U.S. Bill of Rights from analyzing English and colonial America documents and State Constitutions.

Depending on student content vocabulary readiness the teacher may need to review vocabulary used in English and colonial America documents and State Constitutions. One way to review is to use a word wall. The teacher will tell students that the class will be adding several words to the word wall today. Word walls are a literacy strategy that may be used before reading (explicit teaching and modeling), during reading (guided practice) and after reading (guided practice). For guidance on how to use “word walls” with secondary students please see the U.S. Government lesson plan on the CCSSO Adolescent Literacy Toolkit Social Studies page:

http://programs.ccsso.org/projects/adolescent_literacy_toolkit/resources_for_teachers/10620.php

Activity: Structured Academic Controversy

Time required for activity: In class activity three 45-minute class periods or two 45-minute class periods with homework.

The purpose of a Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) is to utilize structure in order to facilitate instructional conversation. Participating in a SAC allows students to actively participate in a conversation/class discussion, develop a deeper understanding about a topic, and reflect on their learning. The topic of debate for this lesson is, “Are the origins of the U.S. Bill of Rights more English, colonial America or revolutionary America?” The lesson will conclude by students responding to a document-based essay question in which students are asked to analyze English documents, colonial America documents, and State Constitutions and justify if the rights within the U.S. Bill of Rights are more inherited from the English and/or Colonial traditions or created during the revolutionary period (1776 – 1787) in the United States.

To prepare for the SAC, the teacher should divide the class into three large groups representing the English, colonial America, and revolutionary America. Each group is responsible for drafting an argument that cites how their group’s historical documents were the most influential in determining the rights included in the U.S. Bill of Rights. The question for the SAC is: Are the rights within the U.S. Bill of Rights more inherited from the English and/or Colonial traditions or created from the revolutionary period (1776 – 1787) in the United States?

Based on group assignment, students will read either the full text, portions of text or summarized text (based on teacher discretion). The English group will read the Magna Carta, Petition of Right, and English Bill of Rights. The Colonist will read: the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, Pennsylvania Frame of Government, and Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges. The American group will read the following Declarations and/or State Constitutions: Virginia Declaration of Rights and Constitution, Constitution of New Jersey, Pennsylvania Bill of Rights, Delaware Declaration of Rights and Constitution, and Declaration and Constitution of Massachusetts.

All summaries are written by Gordon Lloyd and can be accessed from the TeachingAmericanHistory.org Bill of Rights website. In addition to accessing the summaries on the website, relevant portions of the primary source documents have each been included with this lesson in order for teachers to modify them to address different needs of students.

Depending on student content vocabulary readiness the teacher may need to review vocabulary used in English and colonial America documents and State Constitutions. One way to review is to use a word wall. The teacher will tell students that the class will be adding several words to the word wall today. Word walls are a literacy strategy that may be used before reading (explicit teaching and modeling), during reading (guided practice) and after reading (guided practice). For guidance on how to use “word walls” with secondary students please see the U.S. Government lesson plan on the CCSSO Adolescent Literacy Toolkit Social Studies page:

http://programs.ccsso.org/projects/adolescent_literacy_toolkit/resources_for_teachers/10620.php

Prior to participating in the SAC, the teacher should review the norms of the SAC.

The Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) Norms

  • Be respectful of each other.
  • Disagree with another person’s position and ideas but don’t be critical of the person.
  • Don’t take criticism of your ideas as a personal attack.
  • Listen to everyone’s ideas, especially if you don’t agree with them.
  • Change your mind when the evidence supports this.
  • Try to understand both sides of the controversy.
  • Understand the position differences before trying to reach consensus.
  • Focus on reaching the best outcome, not on winning.

Preparing for the SAC

(A SAC PowerPoint has been included that summarized the steps and can be shared with students).

Step 1:Preparing your position

In small groups, read your assigned primary source documents based on your role. As a team, agree on the three key documents and JOT DOWN your key arguments supporting your assigned position on the SAC topic. You are preparing to collaboratively present your ideas to the groups opposing your position so use these notes to assist you with your presentation. Final ideas should be summarized on the SAC Handout.

2. korak: Presenting positions and listening for understanding

English, Colonists, and American groups will have 5 minutes to present and explain their key ideas and arguments. When your assigned group is not presenting, group members will LISTEN and TAKE NOTES on the SAC Handout with the goal of understanding the other positions. Once each group has presented their ideas, other group members may ask questions for clarification.

3. korak: Presenting the opposing viewpoint

The “American” group now has 3 minutes to present their understanding of the position and arguments of the “English” group. This is done using notes taken previously on the SAC Handout. “English” group members can clarify as needed.

The “English” group now has 3 minutes to present their understanding of the position and arguments of the “Colonist” group. This is done using notes taken previously on the SAC Handout. “Colonist” group members can clarify as needed.

The “Colonist” group now has 3 minutes to present their understanding of the position and arguments of the “American” group. This is done using notes taken previously on the SAC Handout. “American” group members can clarify as needed.

4. korak: Consensus-Building: Open conversation about the SAC topic within the small group

English, Colonists, and American group members will shed their assigned positions and the group discusses the SAC topic from group members’ individual perspectives. The goals are identifying areas of agreement and disagreement and possible solutions to the SAC topic. Note for teacher: Keep in mind the solution may be that the origins of the Bill of Rights blend the ideas of English, Colonial, and American. After the SAC, students may or may not be completely tied to his/her assigned group related to the origins of the Bill of Rights.

5. korak: Large group discussion of SAC topic and debrief the SAC process

Adapted from: http://teachinghistory.org/teaching-materials/teaching-guides/21731

After completing the activity, students should return to their KWL chart and complete the L portion of the KWL graphic organizer.

Assessment:

After completing this lesson, students should individually be able to write a response to the following question:

Origins of the Bill of Rights

English Documents Colonial Documents State Constitutions
Velika karta Massachusetts Body of Liberties Virginia Declaration of Rights and Constitution
Petition of Right Pennsylvania Charter of Privileges Constitution of New Jersey
English Bill of Rights Pennsylvania Frame of Government Pennsylvania Bill of Rights
Declaration and Constitution of Massachusetts

Use the tables Content Bill of Rights and State Constitutions and Content Bill of Rights and English and Colonial Roots or the Excel spreadsheet/chart on the Origins of the Bill of Rights and select three documents from the Origins of the Bill of Rights table above that you feel had the greatest influence on the U.S. Bill of Rights. Analyze the tables and your selected three documents and justify by citing evidence from your selected documents, if the rights within the U.S. Bill of Rights are more inherited from the English and/or Colonial traditions or created from the revolutionary period (1776 – 1787) in the United States.

Scoring Criteria:

Note: A general look-for document has been provided for the teacher highlighting the rights found in English, Colonial, and State Constitutions and their alignment with the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Credit will be fully rewarded if the response:

  1. thoroughly addresses all aspects of the task by accurately interpreting the tables and documents, plus incorporates outside information related to the documents.
  2. discusses all aspects of the task and supports with accurate facts, examples and details.
  3. weighs the importance, reliability and validity of the evidence.
  4. analyzes conflicting perspectives presented in the documents and weaves the documents into the body of the essay.
  5. includes a strong introduction and conclusion.

Credit will be reduced if the response:

  • does not recognize the reliability, validity, or perspectives of the documents.
  • reiterates the content of the documents with little or no use of outside information.
  • discusses the documents in a descriptive rather than analytic manner.
  • shows little recognition of the tasks, lacked an introduction or conclusion.

Extending the Lesson:

Extension 1: Create a visual representation of the 26 rights contained within the Bill of Rights and the origin of each right.

Extension 2: Write an editorial that summarizes the 26 rights included within the Bill of Rights and makes the public question the origins of the rights as more British (English tradition or colonial America) or revolutionary America by citing English, Colonial, and State Constitution historical documents to support your perspective.


Dec. 17, 1951: “We Charge Genocide” Petition Submitted to United Nations

On December 17, 1951, Paul Robeson and William Patterson submitted a petition from the Civil Rights Congress (CRC) to the United Nations. Titled, “We Charge Genocide: The Crime of Government Against the Negro People,” the petition was signed by almost 100 U.S. intellectuals and activists. Robeson led a delegation to present the document at U.N. Headquarters in New York, while CRC Secretary Patterson delivered it to a U.N. meeting in Paris.

W. E. B. Du Bois was scheduled to accompany Patterson to Paris, but the U.S. State Department prevented him from leaving the country.

The book-length petition documented hundreds of lynching cases and other forms of brutality and discrimination, evincing a clear pattern of government inaction and complicity.

It charged that in the 85 years since the end of slavery more than 10,000 African Americans were known to have been lynched (an average of more than 100 per year), and that the full number can never be known because the murders are often unreported.

The petition cited the UN’s definition of genocide: “Any intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, racial, or religious group is genocide.” The petition concluded therefore, that

. . .the oppressed Negro citizens of the United States, segregated, discriminated against, and long the target of violence, suffer from genocide as the result of the consistent, conscious, unified policies of every branch of government. If the General Assembly acts as the conscience of mankind and therefore acts favorably on our petition, it will have served the cause of peace.

With the Cold War raging, the U.S. government maneuvered to prevent the United Nations from formally debating or even considering the charges brought in the petition. Working behind the scenes, they were able to prevent any discussion of the petition by the U.N. Commission on Human Rights.

When one of the American delegates to the U.N. criticized William Patterson for “attacking your government,” Patterson replied, “It’s your government. It’s my country. I am fighting to save my country’s democratic principles.”

The U.S. corporate media gave scant coverage to the petition or the crimes it documents. The CRC is labeled a “Communist front organization,” and the few Government officials who comment on the petition describe it as “Communist propaganda.” Elsewhere in the world, however, it was well received and extensively covered in the press. In Europe, Africa, and Asia where the U.S. is competing against the Soviet Union and China for political influence, the document weakens American “Free World” claims and its assertion of global moral leadership, particularly among nonwhite peoples struggling against colonial rule.

As the Black Freedom Movement gathered strength in the following years, Cold War geo-politics influenced Washington’s reaction to major events like the Sit-ins, Freedom Rides, ‘Ole Miss, and so on.

On his return to the United States, Patterson’s passport was seized by the State Department so he could no longer speak to foreign audiences about the denial of human rights endured by African Americans and other people of color.

Robeson too was prevented from leaving the country. They and other CRC leaders were harassed and persecuted by the FBI and other federal agencies for the rest of their lives.

Learn more from the related resources below.

Sorodni viri

How to Make Amends: A Lesson on Reparations

Poučevalna dejavnost. By Ursula Wolfe-Rocca, Alex Stegner, Chris Buehler, Angela DiPasquale, and Tom McKenna.
Students meet dozens of advocates and recipients of reparations from a variety of historical eras to grapple with the possibility of reparations now and in the future.

Burning Tulsa: The Legacy of Black Dispossession

Članek. By Linda Christensen. If We Knew Our History Series.
Students need to learn the hidden history of the 1921 Tulsa Massacre and how this links to racial wealth inequality today.

Disguising Imperialism: How Textbooks Get the Cold War Wrong and Dupe Students

Članek. Avtor: Ursula Wolfe-Rocca If We Knew Our History series.
Too often, when it comes to U.S. Cold War interventions, the official curriculum is sanitized and disjointed, leaving students ill-equipped to make sense out of their nation’s global bullying.

Remembering Red Summer — Which Textbooks Seem Eager to Forget

The racist riots of 1919 happened 100 years ago this summer. Confronting a national epidemic of white mob violence, 1919 was a time when Black people defended themselves, fought back, and demanded full citizenship in thousands of acts of courage and daring, small and large, individual and collective.

Ballad of an American: A Graphic Biography of Paul Robeson

Book – Non-fiction. Written and illustrated by Sharon Rudahl. Edited by Paul Buhle and Lawrence Ware. 2020. 142 pages. The first-ever graphic biography of Paul Robeson charts Robeson’s career as a singer, actor, scholar, athlete, and activist who achieved global fame.

Eslanda: The Large and Unconventional Life of Mrs. Paul Robeson

Book — Non-fiction. By Barbara Ransby. 2013. 373 pages.
This biography of cosmopolitan anthropologist Eslanda Cardozo Goode Robeson explores her influence on her husband’s early career, their open marriage, and her life as a prolific journalist, a tireless advocate of women’s rights, and an outspoken anti-colonial and antiracist activist.

News for All the People: The Epic Story of Race and the American Media

Book – Non-fiction. By Juan González and Joseph Torres. 2011.
The history of media in the United States, through the lens of race.

June 12, 1956: Paul Robeson Testifies Before HUAC

Paul Robeson testified before the House Committee on Un-American Activities, where he was questioned about his political speech, associations, and party affiliation.


Famous Petitions in History

GoPetition now lists petitions of historical significance. These petitions are of great interest to historians, genealogists, census experts and social scientists. Photo images of the petitions are attached if available. Famous petitions in history have often changed the world in significant ways.

Women's Suffrage Petition (1891) : Victoria, Australia

In an extraordinary effort to gain the right to vote for all Victorian women, a handful of dedicated women took to the streets in 1891 to collect signatures for a petition to present to the Parliament of Victoria. The result was an impressive collection of close to 30,000 signatures from… more

The Olive Branch Petition 1775

& quot. the apprehensions which now oppress our hearts with unspeakable grief, being once removed, your Majesty will find your faithful subjects on this continent ready and willing at all times. to assert and maintain the rights and interests of your Majesty and of our Mother Country." - Extract from the Olive Branch… more

Bendigo Goldfields Petition 1853

The 1853 Bendigo Goldfields Petition from Victoria, Australia, is 13 metres in length and bound in green silk. Drawn up in mid-1853, the petition was signed by over 5000 diggers on the Victorian goldfields who were angry about the mining licence fees imposed by the government and the system by which… more

The Women's Petition Against Coffee 1674

When coffee was first introduced into England in the late 1600s, it was largely drunk by men only, and in coffeehouses rather than at home. Doctors welcomed this as a substitute for drinking alcohol in taverns, but married women were not so happy with the new drink. In 1674 a… more

Yirrkala Bark Petitions 1963

The Yirrkala bark petitions 1963 of Australia are the first documents bridging Commonwealth law as it then stood, and the Indigenous laws of the land. These petitions from the Yolngu people of Yirrkala were the first traditional documents recognised by the Commonwealth Parliament and are thus the documentary recognition of… more

Petition for Reprieve of Ned Kelly 1880

After the infamous Australian bushranger and iconic legend, Ned Kelly, was sentenced to death by Irish-born judge Sir Redmond Barry, Ned Kelly's friends and family, along with David Gaunson (the parliamentarian) organised a petition for reprieve and did their best to obtain as many signatures as possible to try and save… more

The Great Chartist petitions of 1839 to 1848

Chartism was a movement for political and social reform in the United Kingdom during the mid-19th century between 1838 and 1848. It takes its name from the People's Charter of 1838, which stipulated the six main aims of the movement as: * Suffrage for all men age 21 and over… more

1897 Petition Against the Annexation of Hawaii

The Republic of Hawaii was the formal name of Hawaii from 1894 to 1898 when it was run as a republic. The republic period occurred between the administration of the Provisional Government of Hawaii which ended on July 4, 1894 and the adoption of the Newlands Resolution in Congress in… more


The Petition of Right

From shortly after his accession, King Charles I (r. 1625&ndash49) found himself in a series of confrontations with his Parliaments, notably over the management of his war with Spain. In 1626, having failed to receive a grant of taxation for the war, Charles resorted to a forced loan, effectively a tax which had not been authorised by Parliament. This forced loan met substantial resistance, with some prominent gentlemen being imprisoned for their refusal to comply. When five of those men (the Five Knights) tried to secure their freedom by issuing a writ of habeas corpus, the Crown argued that it had the power to commit people to prison at its own discretion, without stating a specific, legal reason.

By 1628 Charles had no option but to turn again to Parliament. When it met, the House of Commons expressed its determination to secure a strong commitment from the King to observe the rule of law, since the Crown was held to have breached the spirit of clause 39 of Magna Carta. The Commons asserted their interpretation of the law by presenting Charles with a &lsquoPetition of Right&rsquo, rather than a formal bill, implying that they were claiming the subject&rsquos existing rights, rather than creating new ones. The idea of the Petition of Right was suggested by Edward Coke, and it made explicit reference to the imprisonment of the Five Knights being contrary to &lsquoThe Great Charter of the Liberties of England&rsquo. Once it had the reluctant assent of Charles &ndash endorsed in his hand &lsquosoit droit fait comme est desiré&rsquo &ndash the Petition was regarded as having the same status as an Act of Parliament, and was therefore as strong a guarantee of the subject&rsquos rights as Magna Carta itself.


HISTORY OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Originally, people had rights only because of their membership in a group, such as a family. Then, in 539 BC, Cyrus the Great, after conquering the city of Babylon, did something totally unexpected—he freed all slaves to return home. Moreover, he declared people should choose their own religion. The Cyrus Cylinder, a clay tablet containing his statements, is the first human rights declaration in history.

The idea of human rights spread quickly to India, Greece and eventually Rome. The most important advances since then have included:

1215: The Magna Carta—gave people new rights and made the king subject to the law.

1628: The Petition of Right—set out the rights of the people.

1776: The United States Declaration of Independence—proclaimed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

1789: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen—a document of France, stating that all citizens are equal under the law.

1948: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the first document listing the 30 rights to which everyone is entitled.

For a more in-depth look at the history of human rights, go to the United for Human Rights website.


Disability Rights History at American Landmark Needs to be Told

The FDR Memorial is a landmark for the disability rights movement. In 1995, over 50 disability rights organizations, non-profits, and activists launched a battle to add a depiction of FDR in his wheelchair to the larger FDR Memorial that was under construction in Washington, DC at the time.

When the Memorial was dedicated in 1997, FDR's disability was hidden. This changed in 2001 when the disability community prevailed and a statue of FDR seated in a wheelchair was added. Now 20 years later, the Memorial remains an epicenter that embodies the power and pride of the disability community however, there is no information about the epic fight led by people with disabilities. Our history is missing. And to make matters worse, the Memorial needs accessibility improvements and is in need of major repairs.

The National Park Service is responsible for the Memorial. Its non-profit partners, the Trust for the National Mall and the congressionally chartered National Park Foundation, also play a large role.

We need your help to push them to:

  1. Tell the National Park Service to use the FDR Endowment Fund for an education program to tell the story about the disability community’s epic and historic fight for representation! (Not a penny from that Fund, which was set up for education and extraordinary repairs, has been used for education.)
  2. Improve and upgrade the access and inclusion for all visitors.
  3. Prioritize maintenance and repairs at the Memorial using funds available from the newly signed Great American Outdoors Act.

The mission of the FDR Memorial Legacy Committee (FDR Committee) is to document, share and preserve the leadership and legacy of the disability community’s campaign for disability representation at the FDR Memorial in DC, and to promote education on other underrepresented stories and research about FDR, Eleanor and their times.

The FDR Committee brings together historians, disability and civil rights advocates, artists, academics, leaders in government, business and non-profits, and interested people across the country, and operates under the non-profit status of the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL), which serves as a fiscal sponsor.

Visit us to learn more about the FDR Memorial Legacy Committee:
Spletna stran
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram
LinkedIn


Petition of Right

1628, a statement of civil liberties sent by the English Parliament to Charles I Charles I,
1600�, king of England, Scotland, and Ireland (1625󈞝), second son of James I and Anne of Denmark. Zgodnje življenje

He became heir to the throne on the death of his older brother Henry in 1612 and was made prince of Wales in 1616.
. Click the link for more information. . Refusal by Parliament to finance the king's unpopular foreign policy had caused his government to exact forced loans and to quarter troops in subjects' houses as an economy measure. Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment for opposing these policies had produced in Parliament a violent hostility to Charles and George Villiers, 1st duke of Buckingham. The Petition of Right, initiated by Sir Edward Coke Coke, Sir Edward
, 1552�, English jurist, one of the most eminent in the history of English law. He entered Parliament in 1589 and rose rapidly, becoming solicitor general and speaker of the House of Commons. In 1593 he was made attorney general.
. Click the link for more information. , was based upon earlier statutes and charters and asserted four principles: no taxes may be levied without consent of Parliament no subject may be imprisoned without cause shown (reaffirmation of the right of habeas corpus) no soldiers may be quartered upon the citizenry martial law may not be used in time of peace. In return for his acceptance (June, 1628), Charles was granted subsidies. Although the petition was of importance as a safeguard of civil liberties, its spirit was soon violated by Charles, who continued to collect tonnage and poundage duties without Parliament's authorization and to prosecute citizens in an arbitrary manner.


Poglej si posnetek: 1 урок Выйди из коробки - Торбен Сондергаард. (Maj 2022).