“AN ACT declaring war between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories.”
The War of 1812 started on 6/18/1812.
File Unit: Public Law, 12th Congress, 1st Session: An Act Declaring War Between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Dependencies Thereof and the United States of America and Their Territories, June 18, 1812, 1789 - 2013
Series: Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789 - 2013
Record Group 11: General Records of the United States Government, 1778 - 2006
Transcription:
[cropped image]
AN ACT declaring war between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories.
[whole page]
TWELFTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES;
At the First Session,
Begun and held at the city of Washington, in the territory of Columbia, on Monday the fourth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and eleven.
-
AN ACT declaring war between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories.
-
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That war be, and the same is hereby declared to exist between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the dependencies thereof, and the United States of America and their territories: And that the President of the United States is hereby authorized to use the whole land and naval force of the United States ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, to carry the same into effect; And to issue to private armed vessels of the United States Commissions or Letters of Marque and General Reprisal, in such form as he shall think proper, and under the seal of the United States, against the vessels, goods and effects of the Government of the Said United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the subjects thereof.
[signed] June 18. 1812
approved
James Madison
[signed] H Clay, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
[signed] Wm H. Crawford, President of the Senate, pro tempore.
[signed]I certify that this act did originate in the House of Representatives
Draft induction authority expired in 1973. It would take an act of Congress to reinstate the draft. The president would then be authorized to induct civilians through the Selective Service Administration into the armed forces under an amendment to the Military Selective Service Act.
Stop the bill, sign as many petitions as possible, protest and help organize protests, mail and email representatives, bombard your reps and your government with demands to stop KOSA.
We won't let this pass, we won't.
Do everything you can, spread this message, to other platforms other than [tumblr].
To people with voices, to everyone, to stop it.
It will not pass with our collective effort.
Don't vote red, don't let any censorship pass. Stop KOSA
On Thursday, the Kids Online Safety Act is currently slated for markup in the Commerce Committee. If we don't speak up now, the bill may end up passing committee and given the amount of bipartisan support it has through its cosponsors, it may end up passing the Senate and House as well. After that, it'll be abused by multiple groups to chill various kinds of artistic expression online, especially queer expression.
If you live in the US, this is your chance to keep the internet safe. I've already posted Fight For The Future's Bad Internet Bills website multiple times, but you can click here just in case you need to have a link again. In any case, tomorrow, you have to visit the website, sign the petitions if you haven't done so already, and then use the website to call your lawmakers to tell them NOT to support KOSA or any of the other bills listed on the website. The future of the free internet depends on you, me, and everyone else here and beyond.
I just think that if your work is getting scraped, you should be paid. Not the host website. The actual creator of the work.
If you cover a song and you try to sell that cover, you still have to pay the original songwriter their mechanical royalty. Sure, the publisher will take a cut for doing the administrative work but the writer still gets theirs too.
You can't have it both ways. It can't be art on one side of the transaction and then not be art on the other. You don't get to only use copyright law as protection to benefit corporations, and then turn around and demand it not benefit the artists making the works.
And honestly? Do you really think the AI bubble could withstand needing to actually compensate the artists that've been ripped off and rehashed? I don't.
The lady circled in red was Lucy Higgs Nichols. She was born into slavery in Tennessee, but during the Civil War she managed to escape and found her way to 23rd Indiana Infantry Regiment which was encamped nearby.
She stayed with the regiment and worked as a nurse throughout the war. After the war, she moved north with the regiment and settled in Indiana, where she found work with some of the veterans of the 23rd. She applied for a pension after Congress passed the Army Nurses Pension Act of 1892 which allowed Civil War nurses to draw pensions for their service.
The War Department had no record of her, so her pension was denied. Fifty-five surviving veterans of the 23rd petitioned Congress for the pension they felt she had rightfully earned, and it was granted. The photograph shows Nichols and other veterans of the Indiana regiment at a reunion in 1898. She died in 1915 and is buried in a cemetery in New Albany, Indiana.
Hey guys as you may have heard Ao3 has been down because of an attack against the website. I don’t know who’s behind it but I’ve been hearing somethings that Russia is behind all of this but I really don’t know.
I feel very violent rn
I just hope the volunteers are ok and are finding ways to defend against these attacks because this is especially hard for them and it sucks that they have to deal with people like this. Remember that if ao3 comes back up remember to donate and thank the volunteers for putting up with this and fixing this website for us.
Also congress is currently debating on bills to try and make kids safer which sounds good right?
What they don’t tell you is that these bills involves a lot of censorship and privacy issues.
Some child safety groups like design it for us might be currently lobbying for bills like KOSA (KidsOnlineSafetyAct)
This bill would give more power to politicians to decide what people could see and may also have age verification as well
I’ve also been hearing that they could put this bill in a package along with the EARNIT act
Please guys call your senators and representatives to oppose these censorship bills
Email them, call them , fax them! There is also petitions and link trees you could sign as well
And if you guys want more information check out my pinned post where I talk more about these bills and what’s been happening
Worried about KOSA. Incase if it passes. A Tout Le monde, A tous mes amis, je vous amis, Au revoir, it was fun while it lasted, thank you all. VIVA LA FREE INTERNET!!!
I don't normally post about this stuff, but I feel like this needs to be said or else, everything we know could be utterly eradicated in the name of "security".
For anyone in the know, you're probably aware that the US Government had been trying to either restrict or even ban TikTok. Well, they've crafted a full bill for it and...well...it's even worse than anyone could imagine.
Bill S. 686, otherwise known as the RESTRICT Act, essentially enables the government to look into anything that could access the internet and I do mean ANYTHING. Computers, phones, TVs, tablets, video game consoles, appliances, modems, even things like your Ring light.
More shockingly, it could also criminalize the use of VPNs and if you're caught doing that or breaking any part of the bill, you could have your property seized, be fined for $1M, and even face jail time for up to 20 YEARS. And this could be used for anything, not just TikTok. If the government sees it fit to block any foreign platform, they will not only make it happen, but they could punish anyone who dares to access these sites no matter the reason.
This bill has only just been introduced in the Senate, but there's no point in waiting. For anyone who needs to know what to do, it's a given that you should call up your senators and representatives. However, I feel like we need to take more urgent action. Currently, the bill has been referred to the Senate Committee for Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Here's the list of all the committee members. Please call them or email them. For the sake of it, I'll give everyone a script of sorts to base your statements on.
"Hello [Name of Senator/Representative/Committee member you're calling here],
My name is [Your name]. I am a constituent of the US and I am calling to tell you that you need to oppose Bill S. 686 AKA the RESTRICT Act for it does not sufficiently address the problem it was written for, being the issues with TikTok, and is instead written in a way that could irreparably damage our right to privacy and freedom of expression online.
The government should not be given unfettered access to everyone's devices to ensure the ban of an app. There are other safer ways for Congress to address the privacy issues with TikTok and other apps like it that should be considered.
In any case, if you wish to keep my support for you as a politician, I implore you to reconsider the bill in its current form for it could violate not only my First Amendment rights, but also my Fourth Amendment rights. It is extremely unreasonable for the government to look through everyone's devices just to block an app and people should not be subjected to mass surveillance of this scale. I understand that you wish to keep your citizens safe, but please consider other options.
Do NOT support the RESTRICT Act. Please value the privacy and freedom of your citizens by voting NO on Bill S. 686."
A bipartisan group of former national security officials and lawyers is calling for new restrictions on a president's ability to deploy troops on U.S. soil, arguing that existing law is "antiquated" and grants too much power to one person.
The group convened at the invitation of The American Law Institute to examine the Insurrection Act of 1807, which former President Donald Trump has threatened to invoke should he return to the White House, ostensibly to address what are now-declining rates of crime in major cities.
In a statement, Bob Bauer, who served as White House counsel under former President Barack Obama, argued that the Insurrection Act itself is “poorly drafted" and full of "vague or obsolete language." It "has been clear for decades that this antiquated law needs serious revision," he said.
As it stands, the Insurrection Act permits the president to deploy U.S. armed forces domestically in response to outbreaks of violence, including rebellion against federal or state governments. It was last used by former President George H.W. Bush in 1992 in response to riots in Los Angeles sparked by the acquittal of police officers in the Rodney King case.
Jack Goldsmith, who served as an assistant attorney general under former President George W. Bush, said in a statement that he agrees the law “gives any president too much unchecked power." He and others in the group would like to see Congress eliminate outdated language, such as references to "obstructions" and "assemblages," that could be cited to justify another deployment; they would also like to see deployments subject to a statutory limit of 30 days, with any extension requiring lawmakers' consent.
Included among those calling for reform is a former member of the Trump administration. John Eisenberg, who served as a lawyer for the National Security Council under Trump, told The New York Times that the Insurrection Act, as currently written, should alarm Democrats and Republicans alike.
“This is something of great importance regardless of what party you are in because, obviously, it is an area that can abused,” Eisenberg said. “If the triggers, for example, are too vague, the risk is that it can be used in circumstances that do not really warrant it. So it is important to tighten up the language to reduce that risk.”