#right to petition the government for a redress of grievances | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

todaysdocument · 1 year

Photo

It’s Bill of Rights Day! Articles 3 through 12 were ratified on 12/15/1791, and became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Article 2 became the 27th Amendment in 1992!

Record Group 11: General Records of the United States Government

Series: Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress

Image description:

A zoomed-in portion of the document, reading:

No law, varying the compensa--

Congress shall make no law resp--

--asemble, and to petition the Gov--

A well regulated militia, bein--

Transcription:

Congress of the United States began and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... 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.

Article the fourth... 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.

Article the fifth... 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.

Article the sixth... 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.

Article the seventh... 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.

Article the eighth... 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.

Article the ninth... 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.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... 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.

ATTEST, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

#archivesgov #December 15 #1791 #1700s #Early America #Bill of Rights #Bill of Rights Day #Constitution #Amendments #Freedom of speech #freedom of assembly #freedom of religion #right to petition the government for a redress of grievances #right to bear arms #search and seizure #right to a speedy and public trial #right to trial by an impartial jury #cruel and unusual punishment

55 notes · View notes

racefortheironthrone · 3 months

Note

is lobbying just basically legalized bribing, or is there any other difference?

The difficulty is that lobbying is simultaneously "legalized bribery" and "influence peddling," and the core of the First Amendment's guarantee of "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Whether it's done by an environmental group trying to preserve endangered species or a deeply corrupt corporation that wants to strip-mine public lands for pennies on the dollar while poisoning the planet, or by a civil rights group trying to achieve equal rights or a hate group trying to legalize oppression of minorities, it's all lobbying.

Now, professionalized lobbying is actually a fairly recent phenomenon. Back in the 19th century, wealthy elites simply just bought elected officials or entire branches of government outright, but during the Progressive Era this was uncovered by muck-raking journalists and led to a lot of people going to jail, so something had to take its place - and that was lobbying.

Even as late as 1945, there were barely 400 lobbying groups in the U.S compared to 17,000 today. The cause of the explosion of lobbying as an industry was a combination of the post-war expansion of the U.S government and changes to campaign finance law in the wake of Watergate. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) sought to regulate campaign spending and campaign finance in response to perceived corruption in Federal elections, and was further strengthened by major amendments in 1974 that set hard limits on contributions and spending and created the Federal Elections Commission to enforce FECA.

The Supreme Court, which had begun its slide to the right thanks to LBJ massively fumbling the ball with his Supreme Court nominations and letting Nixon get a bunch of Justices on the Court, struck down a lot of those limits in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 - which started us down the road to Citizens United. Corporate lobbies very quickly realized that they could expand their influence enormously by acting as the middle-men between corporate cash and elected officials, which now meant that they could wield enormous carrots and sticks to get elected officials to comply with their wishes.

Now, I think there will always be problems with lobbying that come down to the issue of concentrated vs. diffuse interests. There are all kinds of political issues where the majority of the people are on one side of a debate, but where they aren't particularly aware of or engaged with that debate, and even though they have a stake in the outcome, it's rather vague and abstract not something they care about very much. But a lobbying group for a particular "special interest" that is on the other side of that debate and is very aware and engaged and cares about the outcome very much because they stand to gain or lose a lot of money from the outcome. So that lobbying group, which represents a minority position and should lose in the democratic process, will invest the necessary resources in order to win.

The only way to fight this, sadly, is for social movements to be just as organized as lobbyists. For the longest time, it was the labor movement that acted as the "countervailing power" in American politics, because they had the manpower and the money to effectively lobby the Federal government not just on behalf of unions but also on behalf of low-wage workers or racial minorities or consumers and so forth. The problem is that the labor movement doesn't really have that manpower and money any more, but nothing has really replaced it in American politics, in no small part because the left is not immune to America's instinctive hatred of politics and institutions.

And yes, the other major thing that we could do to fight "legalized bribery" is to break up the nexus between campaign finance and lobbying, but in order to do that, we'd have to overrule about fifty years of Supreme Court precedents, and that's not going to happen without the Democratic Party successfully taking back control of the Supreme Court.

#u.s politics #u.s history #political history #political science #lobbying #political economy #labor history #campaign finance

51 notes · View notes

firealder2005 · 2 months

Text

hey all - I don't normally do this but if you want to stop this bill this is an easy way to sign the petition. the current next goal is 35,000 signatures and they are currently at 29,887.

Real quick and easy to do, I promise! I've been skimming the news about this for a bit and finally gotten around to signing.

What I put down as my comment if you're unsure what to talk about:

As a content creator, KOSA is my enemy. As a teenager, KOSA is my enemy. As an older sister, KOSA is my enemy. As a queer citizen, KOSA is my enemy.

I have Zero desire for my sister to have to give out her own personal information just to use the internet. That SHOULD NOT be happening, let alone CONSIDERED.

We. Deserve. Privacy. Should I say it louder?

WE DESERVE PRIVACY! What we do on the internet is OUR business, no one else's - and certainly not the government's! You have no business knowing what sites I frequent, the people I communicate and connect with!

You have no right to censor our voices. That is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the Constitution. It is a DIRECT VIOLATION of the VERY FIRST AMENDMENT!

Do I need to cite it for you?

"The First Amendment…protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=The%20First%20Amendment%20provides%20that,the%20right%20to%20bear%20arms.)

Taken directly from the White House website^

Communication is how we connect with others! In-person and online! I only have one close friend in-person, but I have many online friends who I converse with on the daily because of our shared interests! Because of the content we create!

KOSA will DENY US this connection! KOSA will DEPRIVE US of forming these relationships! It's BECAUSE of these people that I create content! KOSA will prevent me from doing what I love!

Censorship is NEVER the answer. Censor ONLY HURTS US. Doesn't matter WHO we are - queer, POC, ect - we all have a RIGHT to privacy, and this bill will INFRINGE on that right!

If you REALLY care about us, the youth, the next generation? You wouldn't vote for KOSA.

It's as simple as that.

-------

Mention the things that mean a lot to you. Mention how KOSA will endanger queer youth. Talk about how it will prevent you from creating and sharing the content you've been making.

#kosa bill #stop kosa #kosa #kids online safety bill #kids online safety act #stop kids online safety act #bad internet bills

24 notes · View notes

certainunknownlove · 2 months

Text

I did some of the math and if I'm right it should take about 6 weeks to get 400,000 signatures on the anti KOSA petition. Sign now to keep you right to the first amendment (The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)

https://www.badinternetbills.com/

#Stop kosa #Kosa #Anti KOSA #first amendment

19 notes · View notes

nightdncer · 11 days

Text

it is honestly so idiotic for the police to arrest and basically harm students at universities and colleges, just because they are protesting for the rights of people in Gaza. Truly, there isn’t a true protest if you don’t have peoples opinions in their speeches, having their own opinions without being harmed. Physically or emotionally. The first amendment in the Bill of Rights, says “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 rights of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition of the Government for a redress of grievances.” This amendment is about the freedom speeches of people, to give their opinion to the government, so they can make changes within the problem. And for students being arrested or harmed because they are giving their opinions is a violation of the first amendment. Dialogues are peoples opinions of a certain subject, and the police forcibly making them say what they want them to say isn’t a true dialogue in protesting. No matter how moderate our strength is, how weak, how powerful, we all should have a dialogue. That is why the Bill of Rights were created, for us citizens to have a voice, have our rights and protections.

Such as, some have said that Gaza is the one that is truly the enemy, playing victim. But in reality, Israel is the one. They have bombed and done cruelty to the people, not only in Gaza, but in the country of Palestine in general. They have traumatized young children, as many children have grown ptsd, due to the sounds of bombs, screaming and crying of those being killed. There have been a young girl, or women, that has their bone sticking out of their leg. And a teenage girl blood vessels in her eyes popped. Such as, Israel, who is the true enemy and evil one in this situation, causing the pain and traumas of people in Gaza and Palestines itself.

Such as, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”

#nightdncer #free gaza #free palestine

7 notes · View notes

cherokeefrank · 2 years

Text

youtube

tumblr

Always check back to the actual original post, I'm always adding stuff.

Amendment I

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.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

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.

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment V

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 offense 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.

Amendment VI

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.

Amendment VII

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 reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

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.

#Youtube

161 notes · View notes

simonalkenmayer · 1 year

Text

Do we need to go over the constitution? Of course we do. Here. Let’s do that. I’ll try to summarize swiftly. I’ll put the text in on the ones you ought to know the text of.

AMENDMENT I

“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.”

In other words, the government cannot make any laws that inhibit your ideas, beliefs, faith, or right to disagree or seek compromise or apology. It doesn’t mean you have the right to do and say as you please and ripple are just supposed to put up with it. The government alone is prohibited from making or enforcing laws that inhibit your rights, and it can force others to comply with that hands off policy. This one is in hot debate right now courtesy of Musk, but the fact remains that he thinks “free speech” means he can be a jackass with complete impunity. Ravage business and world do not have to accept your opinion.

AMENDMENT II

“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.”

As I’ve said before, this refers to the old practice of raising an army from the men of the colonies, because we had no standing army employed specifically to care about defense. That was later. Notice that in no way does the second amendment imply that you must have a gun to stand up to your government. In fact it says the government cannot deny redress. It also referred to Muskets. So unless you’re in the military, I see no reason why anyone can claim a right to carry an assault weapon.

AMENDMENT III

“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.”

This had to do with a common practice of the time, called quartering. When an army was raised, it was necessary to move them around and feed them. In the colonies, the British troops ran roughshod over that rule and just moved in with families, taxing people’s inclined by leeching off them. Even worse, they used this tactic to keep tabs on people and intimidate them, and that was what the founders wanted to avoid.

AMENDMENT IV

“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.”

This means you are protected, because in order to search, sieze, or otherwise compromise your property, the government must use rules that protect you, or they lose that evidence. This was a way of hamstringing the government to keep it from harming citizens with overzealous prosecution or outright fascism.

AMENDMENT V

“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.”

This amendment has 3 parts, first the presumption of innocence, and second the right to ignore questions if you feel they can either be used against you, or twisted to be used against you. Thirdly, that the government cannot seize your property without fair compensation.

First, the presumption of innocence cannot be minimized. You would know the other system, if you saw it. If you are accused of a crime here, the state has to prove you did it to a reasonable degree of certainty. The defense doesn’t have to argue any specific theory. It can just say “that is made up”. Flip it, and the entire state and all the officials see you as guilty if you can’t pony up the money to defend yourself or find evidence on your own. The difference is important.

Second point: the right to not incriminate oneself is there to protect you in all things. Remember that this is just after a time that torture was widely used to get people to admit to being witches (something these men did not believe in). To them, torture was near, and men having their families held as bargaining chips. This was there to prevent coercion.

Third point: No one can just move onto your land and take it without you agreeing and being compensated…I think it’s obvious why they might be a bit sensitive about that one eh?

AMENDMENT VI

“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.”

If your eyes just glazed over scanning that, my apologies. This is the amendment that sets up how trials must go in order that everyone has the right to a) be allowed to fight back, b) is not kept in prison for years with no defense, c) that juries are of peers, and so on and so forth

AMENDMENT VII

Has to do with which crimes are considered worthy of jury and how that jury would be selected

AMENDMENT VIII

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Meaning the government cannot charge someone so much money that it puts you in debt. It has to give you reasonable punishments—not prison for life for steal bread.

AMENDMENT IX

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

In other words, no right can conflict with any other. No right can be used to take away another right.

AMENDMENT X

“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.”

Anything that isn’t illegal needs to be decided by the people or their duly elected state representatives. If the feds haven’t, the states are allowed, until feds step in

AMENDMENT XI -

“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

We won’t disallow others to charge you with a crime, but we will do so based on our laws and diplomacy. You will essentially be protected by the US but subject to foreign law. See the case of Britney Griner, still held captive in accordance with Russian marijuana laws, being used as a political pawn by Putin

AMENDMENT XII -

This is just how the votes work for the electoral college.

AMENDMENT XIII -

“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

No slaves except in prisons (we need to change this as it over-incentivized the justice system to funnel cheap labor into the market.)

AMENDMENT XIV -

Section 1.

How citizenship gets decided, and an edict that no state can make laws that deprive people of their human rights

Section 2.

Further proof they only counted men. But essentially this is how Congress and so forth is put together

Section 3.

You can’t represent the people if you’ve ever been convicted of abandoning an oath or post

Section 4.

We decide what we pay for and we aren’t paying any debts that have to do with us preserving our state from the crown

We reserve the right to make laws

AMENDMENT XV -

Everyone eligible cannot be stopped from voting, no discrimination based on race or previous status (slaves given right to vote)

AMENDMENT XVI -

Income tax

AMENDMENT XVII -

Senators are two per state, we decide them thus and these are the rules etc. state reps. Congress blah blah

AMENDMENT XVIII -

I won’t even dignify this one with anything other than “prohibition”, in other words, the government giving us organized crime

AMENDMENT XIX -

Suffrage for women!

AMENDMENT XX -

Establishes Election Day for executive branch and defines their term. When Congress assembles and for how long etc

AMENDMENT XXI -

Prohibition, The repeal.

AMENDMENT XXII -

Presidents only get two terms. Thank god we learned this with FDR and not Trump

AMENDMENT XXIII -

DC gets a representative

Further rules about how reps work

AMENDMENT XXIV -

No poll tax. Voting rights.

AMENDMENT XXV -

How the executive branch is organized

AMENDMENT XXVI -

Voting age is 18

AMENDMENT XXVII -

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

The reps meet to decide their salary. You can’t just decide not to pay senators.

97 notes · View notes

red1sg0n3 · 8 months

Text

Aggressive reminder that we do in-fact have a constitutional right to overthrow the government if unjust or unlawful laws are passed.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

- The Preamble, The Constitution of the United States

- Amendment One, The Constitution of the United States

“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.”

- Amendment 10, The Constitution of the United States

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

- Section one, Amendment 14, The constitution of the United States

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

- Amendment 19, The constitution of the United States

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.--That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

- The Declaration of Independence

https://www.cga.ct.gov/asp/content/constitutions/Declaration.htm#:~:text=%2D%2DThat%20to%20secure%20these,government%2C%20laying%20its%20foundation%20on

#stop kosa #kosa bill #kosa act #kosa #fuck kosa #transgender #trans #lgbtq community #lgbt pride #lgbtqplus #lgbtqiia+#lgbtqa #america #reblog the shit out of this #reblog #add tags #people need to know

13 notes · View notes

1americanconservative · 9 months

Text

John Eastman, the so-called "Co-Conspirator 2," just made a GREAT point on our program: The First Amendment doesn't just include a right to freedom of speech. It also includes a right to petition the government for redress of grievances. Now, Jack Smith wants to criminalize the act of contesting an election through the courts and by lobbying legislators. Every step of this indictment is a war on the Constitution.

12 notes · View notes

todaysdocument · 1 year

Text

Brigadier General Moses Hazen wrote to Congress on April 8, 1783, asking for benefits and compensation for Canadians who fought for the U.S. during the Revolutionary War.

Record Group 360: Records of the Continental and Confederation Congresses and the Constitutional Convention

Series: Papers of the Continental Congress

File Unit: Petitions Addressed to Congress

Transcription:

457

To the Honourable the Congress of the United States of America:

The Memorial of Brigadier-General Moses Haren, in behalf of himself, Officers, and others, Canadian Refugees, at present Objects of the Honourable Congress, as in the Subsequent Memorial will more fully appear,

Sheweth,

That there are now serving in the Regiment under his Command, Officers and Men chiefly Refugees from Canada, and not of the proportional Part of any particular State, as will appear by the Returns now lodged in the War Office of these States:

The exclusive of the aforesaid Officers and Men now in Service, there are a considerable Number of Canadian Officers and others, Men, Women and Children, Refugees from Canada, that [waive?] Provisions from the Public, and some other small Supplies, as the only Means for them to obtain a present moderate [Sustenance?]:

That the People of Canada living in a conquered County, their Liberties had not been infringed, their Properties endangered by Innovations from Government - nor had there been any Violation of [Charters?] - Subjects of real Complaint from the good People of these States - before the present great and important Revolution:

That the several Branches of [Commerce?] formed, and intimate Connections [subsisting?] between the United States and Canada, before the Commencement of the late War, together with the Weight and Interest of the Protestant Whigs in Canada, made great Progress, at an early Period, in that County in favour of the present Revolution, insomuch, that on the first approach of a small Body of undisciplined Men under the Command of the late brave General Montgomery, the Governor of Canada, and all his Emissaries, under the then System of British Policy, were not able, either by Force, Entreaty or [Flattery?], to bring any considerable Number of Canadians under arms, to oppose the Small Force, but by these States into that Country - But on the contrary, many of the Canadians fled to the American Standard, and assisted in the Siege of St. John's, and Blockade of Quebec, whilst others supported them with Provisions, Clothing, Carriages, &c. on the Faith and Credit of these States:

That the then Honourable the Continental Congress did in the Month of January 1776 send into Canada a pleasing Proclamation, inviting the People of that Country to join in arms to oppose the

[page 2]

453 and under the Sovereignty of the United States, but to draw out of the present Limits of Canada such other Sufferers by this COntest as [shall?] remain in that Country, together with such other & their Friends and Connections are willing to become Settlers in a new Country, and Subjects of these States, and thereby to enjoy in Time those Liberties and advantages in common with the Citizens of this new and rising Empire:

Your Memorialist therefore humbly prays, That the Honourable the Congress - the Sovereign Power in these States, will please to grant to the said Canadian Officers, Men, and Others, now serving in the Regiment, who are not considered as a Part of the Quotas of any or either of these States, together with all the Refugees from Canada, and such of our Friends and Sufferers in that Province, with other associates as may be willing to become Settlers in a new Country, and Subjects of these States, a certain Tract of Land, beginning at the Mouth of the River Huron, which empties itself into Lake St. Clair, which said Lake is on the Water [Communication?] between the Lake Huron and the Lake Erie - thence down the said Water [Communication?] along the Boundary between Great Britain Lake Erie to the Mouth of the River [Miamis?] - thence across the said Mouth of the River [Miamis?] along the Border of the said Lake Erie six Miles from the said River - hence up the said River - preserving the Said Constance of six Miles from the Bank of the said River as its several Courses run, 'til a right Line down shall comprehend the Distance of six Miles above [Miamis?] Fort - thence on a direct Line to the Mouth of the River St. Joseph - thence up the said River St. Joseph to its Source - thence in a direct Line to a Station on the Banks of the River, twelve Miles from the Mouth of said River - thence down the said River to the Place of Beginning - or in such Proportions, Places, and Situations within the said Limits as shall be judged right, having regard to their several Ranks and Pretensions - thereby at the same time ratifying and confirming in their quiet Possessions all such Persons already established within the above Limits as have not, during the Course of this War, behaved inimical to these States, by bearing arms, or otherwise - and who are willing to take the Oaths of Allegiance to these States and become their Subjects: and further, that you would be graciously pleased to afford such assistance to the Persons in the Memorial mentions, as may enable them the more speedily to form the said

[page 3]

tyrannical measures of Great-Britain; {illegible] promising them Protection, and pledging the Faith of the United States for the farms; to which Proclamation we beg leave refer:

452 That a large proportion of the said Canadian Officers and Men now serving in the Regiment under your Memorialist's Command, were not only employed in arms under the late General Montgomery at the Siege of St. John's, and Blockade of Quebec, but voluntarily enlisted into the said Regiment on the small bounty of six dollars and two thirds of a dollar then offered by Congress to serve during the War: They retreated out of Canada with the American Troops; some with their wives and children; leaving their connections and properties- not however without hopes of returning in arms victorious to their own country and that the same idea has been encouraged and kept alive, not only by the Articles of Confederation, and the Proclamation sent into Canada by Count D'Estainy, but by many other circumstances down to the present [illegible]:

That the said Canadian Officers and Men have honestly and faithfully served several hard campaigns, constantly employed in the most arduous and dangerous services- not by any means on an equal footing with the other parts of the army- without complaint or murmur:

That the supplies of clothing, Vc, as well as a late settlement with these Canadian Officers and Men have not been equally advantageous with them, as it has been to the other parts of the army of these States:

That the said Canadians in general were reputable inhabitants in Canada, who had property of their own, and lived at their Estate in that Country; and that they have been constantly buoyed up with the Hopes of repossessing their Estates, and returning to their Families and Connections, until the late news of the Treaty of Peace:

That however honorable or advantageous the Peace may be to the United States of America- yet these very men who have largely [illegible] in every Danger, Foil, and Fatigue- who have been faithful and constant in their Duty- will not equally partake of the Blessings of Peace which the Citizens of the United States will perfectly enjoy- they being secluded from their native country. They therefore, still attached to the cause in which they have fought and bled, rather than return neglected and depressed; willing to partake of those blessings of Liberty, which they have with unremitted Pain and Fatigue assisted to obtain, wish not only to settle and establish themselves on some part of the engranted Lands, which formerly belonged to the Province of Canada, but now within the

[page 4]

454

Settlement not in the least doubting but from the various connections of your Memorialist in Canada, and the general decided sentiments of that people in favor of this Empire, they will soon form a populous and flourishing establishment:

Your Memorialist further prays that the Honourable the Congress will please to direct that the interest due to the Canadian Officers and Men, and others, now serving in the Regiment, and not of the Quota of any of these States may be paid:

And your Memorialist shall ever pray.

Moses Hazen

Memorial Brig Gen Hazen

April 8 1783

Referred to W. Osgood, W. Wilson, W. Madison, W. Carroll, W. Williamson.

#archivesgov #April 8 #1783 #1700s #American revolution #Revolutionary War #Canada #right to petition the government for a redress of grievances

21 notes · View notes

shadowmaat · 5 months

Text

IS it free speech? At what cost?

The substack bullshit is only the latest in a long line of companies choosing profit over people. As has become familiar, they cite the excuse of "free speech" as the reason why they won't deplatform (or demonetize) Nazis.

Where I'm having trouble is how "free speech" fits into things like this. First of all, censorship is done by a government, not a privately owned company. I also have issues with using "free speech" to excuse a multitude of crimes. Hate speech hurts. Doesn't matter if it contains "specific threats" or not, the words and the attitudes behind it are meant to cause harm and they do. Is speech of that type really free when it comes at the cost of the safety of others?

Hate groups, death cults, and other extremists are taking full advantage of the First Amendment and it seems like a lot of corporations are letting them get away with it by using the broadest possible definition of part of that Amendment.

"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 people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Substack, Twitter, Meta, etc. are not part of Congress. They are not establishing national laws. They are supposed to be upholding a code of conduct for the people who choose to use their platform; a code that every user must agree to before they can post.

The problem is that they're not really doing that. Or at least they're being very selective of what bits they consider an actionable violation and what bits are just "free speech."

Calling on people to rise up and kill a CEO or political figure would almost certainly be ruled a violation, but calling on people to rise up and exterminate an entire group, well, I guess that isn't specific enough.

If someone hasn't published a study yet about how corporate "morality" is tied directly to their profit margins, I hope one get published soon because we all know that's what this is about: money. Violent extremists bring in a whole lot of dividends, so the CEOs aren't going to ban them. Gotta think of the shareholders, right?

I understand that it isn't always a black-and-white situation, and I know those kind of moral judgement calls can be tricky at times, but sometimes it's very obvious who's in the wrong. Pretending that banning one hate group will "set a bad precedent" and be used to try and ban other, benign groups is bullshit. Even if there IS a chance that someone would try to use that to try and get, like, the National Puppyhuggers Club banned, so what? It's the company's decision. So unless the Puppyhuggers are going around advocating for cat lovers to be put to death or sent to conversion camps so they can learn to love puppies instead, I don't think it's going to be an issue.

I also know there's an issue of "how do you define hate speech?" but again, even if something like that can be weaponized it doesn't mean you should just... not do anything.

I'm tired of people getting away with abhorrent behavior in the name of "free speech." Or deliberately spreading misinformation because "free speech." I know morals are anathema in the corporate world, but FFS people, grow a spine.

#politics #political manipulation #fascism apologia

4 notes · View notes

themagical1sa · 1 year

Text

Regarding the SIM Card and Social Media Registration Act

because people still reblog these posts on it, and it's time I personally update everyone about it.

For those unaware: the SIM Card and SocMed Registration Act was a bill initially intended as counteraction against trolls and spreaders of misinformation on social media.

It was, however, found to be unconstitutional, criminalizing the right to anonymity and pseudonymity on the Internet and is a violation of Filipinos' rights to privacy, freedom of speech, and freedom of association (Democracy.Net.PH).

c. For using fictitious identites to register SIM cards or social media accounts. — The penalty of imprisonment of no less than six (6) years, or a fine of up to Two hundred thousand pesos (₱200,000.00), or both, shall be imposed upon anyone who uses a fictitious identity to purchase and register a SIM cards or social media account.

This is a direct violation of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Article III Sections 3 (1) and 4.

Above is a screenshot of Microsoft Edge from my laptop. The tab is showing a webpage from the Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines. The text shown is from Article III, the Bill of Rights, but the highlighted text are Sections 3 (1) and 4. They read, “SECTION 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law,” and “SECTION 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

With this in mind, it was imperative that word spread of how dangerous the Act was and to have the then-President Rodrigo Duterte veto it.

It was vetoed on April 15, 2022.

This was, as @katsurolle said, "half a win for online anonymity." It was only vetoed because the this bill would also endanger and penalize paid political trolls in the Philippines.

Half a win as it was... there was a collective sigh of relief from the Filipino people.

This half-victory had been only short-lived.

Four months into presidency, President Bongbong Marcos signed a revised SIM Card Registration bill into law on October 10, 2022.

It is meant to reduce cybercrime — spam and scam texts, more especially.

According to Office of the Press Secretary officer-in-charge Cheloy Garafil, the SIM Card Registration Act aims to provide “accountability in the use of SIM cards and aid law enforcers to track perpetrators of crimes committed through phones.”

The signing of the measure will likewise “significantly boost government initiatives against scams committed through text and online messages, which have become more prevalent this year.”

This, however, brings forth a new concern: data leaks.

Scam texts in the Philippines have been containing the receiver's names, and it's been very likely that private information on the internet has been leaked.

I have more that go as far as July.

There are certainly many issues that need to be resolved first, but as far as the SIM Card Registration Law is concerned, its execution is well underway. Globe Telecom's subscribers have already been receiving a text that looks like this:

Hi! Get ready to start your Globe Prepaid SIM registration journey on December 27, 2022. For more info, please visit https://glbe.co/simregfaq

I just hope the SIM Card Registration Law will be as effective as national goverment officials claim it to be.

Thank you to everyone who spread awareness of the SIM Card and Social Media Registration Act — I'm very grateful.

That will be all, and thank you for reading.

39 notes · View notes

blondietalks · 7 months

Text

Twitter censorship of Donald Trump, is it a violation of the “free speech” principle and democracy?

Hey guys! This week on my Digital Communities thread, I’ll be writing regarding political engagements on social media – more specifically, Twitter’s censorship of Donald Trump. Does banning Donald Trump violate the First Amendment of the Constitution regarding free speech?

This post will investigate whether or not this controversial figure should exercise their freedom of speech. It is important to explore the implications of Twitter's censorship on the political engagement of Donald Trump and the public sphere.

Before the Storm: Trump’s Uproar on Twitter

Trump made his debut appearance on Twitter on the 4th of May 2009 – a bland tweet to remind his followers to tune in the show Late Night with David Letterman as he was the show guest. As per all important figures, the start of their presence on social media were usually handled by their hired staff. But once Trump learned to voice his opinion on the platform, his Twitter insanity started in 2011 where he encapsulates his true persona for the rest of the world to see.

Trump was notoriously acknowledged on Twitter for his constant targeting of celebrity drama at the start of 2011 (Singer & Emerson, 2018). Back in 2012 when the Twilight lead actors broke up, Trump was fully invested in their relationship as shown on his Twitter account below.

According to The Economist (2021), Trump had tweeted over 46,000 times up until the start of 2021. Even when you purposely avoid his account on Twitter, the 45th U.S. President will take it as a challenge to creep up into your feed. Nobody tweets more than Donald J. Trump, not even a person going through the five stages of grief.

Trump’s Twitter Ban

On the 8th of January 2021, Trump was suspended on multiple social media accounts such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitch and TikTok – but this post will focus on his Twitter ban. Twitter staff had banned his account and over 70,000 accounts for spreading acts of far-right extremism (Romano 2021).

The tweet that got him permanently suspended is his support for Capitol rioters who infiltrated the United States Capitol on the 6th of January 2021. The riot started due to Trump’s claim that the 2020 election was not legitimate when Biden won. According to Duignan (2021), the rioters smashed the windows and vandalised the offices in the capitol to show their rage against the election.

Does banning Trump Violate the Freedom of Speech?

Many audiences have debated whether it is fair or not to suspend Trump from his audiences following the incident, some claiming that it violates the First Amendment regarding the freedom of speech.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “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”.

In simpler words, the First Amendment ensures you the freedom to speak without any consequences from the government. In my opinion, banning Trump on Twitter does not violate the freedom of speech because Twitter, or any other social platforms are not the government. The First Amendment has no leverage on whether or not these social media platforms must allow everyone to use them. Twitter is owned by a company which in turn makes it a private property with the privilege of making their own regulations on what people can do on their site.

Deplatforming Donald Trump and its kind

So, what is the rationale of banning Trump in the first place anyway?

All of these events that went down which resulted in the ban of Donald Trump and thousands of other far-right accounts on Twitter unveil one simple fact: kicking people off social media isn’t about free speech, it’s about deplatforming extremist communities from mainstream Internet spaces to decrease their influence and take away their ability to recruit violent behaviour as shown by the Capitol attack. Demonstrating zero tolerance towards bad behaviour by banning people off social media sets a reminder to everyone to just behave better online. One of the examples of how deplatforming helped reduce hate speech online is when Reddit banned multiple infamous subreddits in 2015 (Romano 2021). In 2017, a study done on the communities on Reddit showed a decreased amount of hate speech when the platform is regulated and is restrictive in allowing toxic spaces on their platform.

However, deplatforming does not fully cleanse the online public sphere from hate speech. These extremists will find a way, a different platform that is less restrictive and much laxer to continue their “prophecies”. It’s the very existence of these alternate channels that proves that free speech still exists and is not violated.

The Conclusion

To conclude this week’s topic, Trump’s evolution on Twitter in the end got him banned from the platform. It is important to recognise that deplatforming does not violate free speech, but it is an effort done by responsible tech companies to eradicate forms of hate speech, violence and extremism. Whether or not my opinion is correct, it is ultimately my opinion, and it is ultimately up to Tumblr to rationalise if I am allowed to spread my intervention on their platform.

List of references

Duignan, B 2021, ‘January 6 U.S. Capitol attack’, Britannica, 4 August, viewed 9 October 2023, <https://www.britannica.com/event/January-6-U-S-Capitol-attack>.

Romano, A 2021, ‘Kicking people off social media isn’t about free speech’, Vox, 21 January, viewed 9 October 2023, <https://www.vox.com/culture/22230847/deplatforming-free-speech-controversy-trump>.

Singer, PW Emerson, B 2018, ‘The little-known story of Donald Trump’s first tweet’, Time, 2 October, viewed 9 October 2023, <https://time.com/5412016/donald-trump-realdonaldtrump-twitter-first-tweet/>.

The Economist 2021, ‘How Donald Trump evolved into a prolific, angry Twitter user’, The Economist, 12 January, viewed 9 October 2023, <https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/01/12/how-donald-trump-evolved-into-a-prolific-angry-twitter-user>.

#MDA20009 #Week5

6 notes · View notes

saiyanprincessswanie · 2 years

Text

Oh Amber, freedom of speech is also not freedom from consequences. You really need to go to school and learn about the first amendment. I studied Criminal Justice, got 2 degrees in the field and can tell you that you’re wrong in this.

You’re NOT a victim. I listened to both sides of testimony. You abused your girlfriend, then Mr Depp. Was Johnny an Angel? No. But did he lay hands on you? No, cause coming from someone who was abused his rings would have left you battered worse than Rhianna.

First Amendment: “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.”

Defamation: “Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements, known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.”

Again, you can speak as “freely” as you want but it doesn’t keep you from consequences. Something that people need to understand. Really disappointed Selma Blair had jumped on Heard the Turds side even though there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt that what Amber did was wrong. She needs anger management and psychological help.

#missy speaks #heard the turd #justice for johnny depp

48 notes · View notes

simonalkenmayer · 1 year

Text

“Freedom of speech” means freedom from government censure or control—“CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW” Freedom of faith, belief, peaceable assembly and speech. Meaning you can believe what you want and act on it in protest or support, and the government cannot oppress you for it. IT DOES NOT MEAN FREEDOM FROM THE DISGUST OTHERS OR THE TERMS OF SERVICE FOR PRIVATE BUSINESSES—something that has been upheld by the Supreme Court repeatedly.

The first amendment does not entitle you to say whatever you want by compelling others to put up with you. You teach people who you are and the first amendment allows you to do so. You are allowed by it, to be an asshole, so that we will see you coming.

So really, the first amendment means “the right to be completely despicable within the law, and be hated honestly for your own behavior.”

14 notes · View notes

robert-c · 1 year

Text

Bill of Rights – With Some Interpretive Comments

I. 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.

This specifically means religiously motivated laws under the guise “general morality”, “Natural Law”, “offense to believers” etc. In order to ensure all beliefs are protected there can be no banning of actions by others that some feel offended by because it conflicts with their beliefs.

Freedom of speech does not permit the call for armed uprising against the government nor should it allow “hate speech” which incites to violence or promotes the idea the some citizens have less rights. A live and let live attitude is the best way to preserve everyone’s freedom to believe what they wish without pushing their beliefs on others.

II. 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.

“A well regulated Militia” a phrase almost always omitted by some is the key to this right. At the very minimum regulation should include a basic level of proficiency and safety. While this was intended to be how we recruited citizen armies, today’s only reason for keeping it is to allow a person (in the absence of the police or military) to defend themselves and their home. Nothing in this amendment could reasonably be construed to allow any citizen to possess any sort of weapon they choose, especially if they have violent or antisocial history.

III. 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.

IV. 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 standard for “probable cause” should not be something as vague as their presumed affiliations based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender etc, There is no reason to presume that the search can be destructive. It shouldn’t be a method of intimidation, destroying or completely scattering one’s belongings around the premises.

V. 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.

While it has been common for some people to claim that “taking the fifth” is tantamount to guilt (at least until they themselves are under suspicion of a crime) the clear purpose of this amendment was to prevent coerced confessions, i.e. torture. The Founders were well aware of the kinds of dangers the republic would face which would elicit excuses for an exception, but did not feel that such excuses would warrant the long term damage to the freedom and rights of citizens.

VI. 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 right to a speedy trial does not offer exceptions for a public unwilling to pay the taxes for additional courts or judges. Being as how these are among the most important functions for a free society the complaints about their taxes shouldn’t be a deciding force in providing a chance for the innocently accused to clear their name and be on about their business, as one would expect under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

VII. 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.

VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

This should be considered in connection with the Sixth Amendment. There is a tendency for high bail to be set for poor defendants which essentially deprives them of their freedom, often their livelihood as well as their right to a speedy trial. The entire point of bail was to ensure the accused’s appearance at trial. If a speedy trial cannot be assured then some method other than incarcerating someone presumed to be innocent until convicted by a jury should be employed. Requiring bail only for violent offenders, prior felons, etc. may be a step in the right direction, but avoiding the imprisonment of people for long periods prior to trial simply because they cannot afford bail seems in complete opposition to this amendment.

IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

X. 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.

This is a very interesting amendment, largely in the way that it and the one preceding it have been deliberately misinterpreted by “State’s Rights” advocates almost from the beginning of the republic. It doesn’t and shouldn’t be a cover for each state to enact their own version of religious laws and observances, as it has in many cases. Those laws that claim some citizens cannot have the same rights as others simply because of their race, beliefs, sexuality etc. which are all based on religious notions, are a good example of what is wrong with the common right wing interpretation of these two amendments.

#constitution #bill of rights

7 notes · View notes