what are rights in the declaration of independence
3963199
The first Constitution of Vermont was drafted in July 1777, almost five months after Vermont declared itself an independent country, now frequently called the Vermont Republic. It was in effect until its extensive revision in 1786. The second Constitution of Vermont went into effect in 1786 and lasted until 1793, two years after Vermont was admitted to the Union as the fourteenth state. In 1791 Vermont became the fourteenth US state and in 1793 it adopted its current constitution. 1777 Constitution The 1777 constitution was the first in what is now the territory of the United States to prohibit adult slavery, grant suffrage to non-landowning males, and establish free public education. The constitution was adopted on July 8, 1777, at the tavern in Windsor now known as the Old Constitution House and administered as a state historic site. The constitution consisted of three main parts. The first was a preamble reminiscent of the United States Declaration of Independence: It is absolutely necessary, for the welfare and safety of the inhabitants of this State, that it should be, henceforth, a free and independent State; and that a just, permanent, and proper form of government, should exist in it, derived from, and founded on, the authority of the people only, agreeable to the direction of the honorable American Congress. (Here the term "American Congress" refers to the Continental Congress.) Jonas Fay was a delegate to the convention; he was named chairman of the committee appointed to draft the declaration announcing the creation of the Vermont Republic, and received credit as the document's primary author. Chapter 1 The second part of the 1777 constitution was Chapter 1, a "Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont." This chapter was composed of 19 articles guaranteeing various civil and political rights in Vermont: The first article declared that "all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety," echoing the famous phrases in the Declaration of Independence that declared that "all men are created equal" and possess "inalienable rights," including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The article went on to declare that because of these principles, "no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one Years, nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent." This was the first such ban on slavery in the New World. See also History of slavery in Vermont. The second article declared that "private property ought to be subservient to public uses, when necessity requires it; nevertheless, whenever any particular man's property is taken for the use of the public, the owner ought to receive
Constitution of Vermont (1777)
26441648
Liberalism, the belief in freedom, equality, democracy and human rights, is historically associated with thinkers such as John Locke and Montesquieu, and with constitutionally limiting the power of the monarch, affirming parliamentary supremacy, passing the Bill of Rights and establishing the principle of "consent of the governed". The 1776 Declaration of Independence of the United States founded the nascent republic on liberal principles without the encumbrance of hereditary aristocracy—the declaration stated that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". A few years later, the French Revolution overthrew the hereditary aristocracy, with the slogan "liberty, equality, fraternity" and was the first state in history to grant universal male suffrage. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, first codified in 1789 in France, is a foundational document of both liberalism and human rights, itself based on the U.S. Declaration of Independence written in 1776. The intellectual progress of the Enlightenment, which questioned old traditions about societies and governments, eventually coalesced into powerful revolutionary movements that toppled what the French called the Ancien Régime, the belief in absolute monarchy and established religion, especially in Europe, Latin America and North America. William Henry of Orange in the Glorious Revolution, Thomas Jefferson in the American Revolution and Lafayette in the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of what they saw as tyrannical rule. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe, South America and North America. In this period, the dominant ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism later survived major ideological challenges from new opponents, such as fascism and communism. Liberal government often adopted the economic beliefs espoused by Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and others, which broadly emphasized the importance of free markets and laissez-faire governance, with a minimum of interference in trade. During 19th and early 20th century in the Ottoman Empire and Middle East, liberalism influenced periods of reform such as the Tanzimat and Nahda and the rise of secularism, constitutionalism and nationalism. These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within Islam which continues to this day—this led to Islamic revivalism. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further as liberal democracies found themselves on the winning side in both world wars. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism (often called simply "liberalism" in the United States) became a key component in the expansion of the welfare state. Today, liberal parties continue to wield power, control and influence throughout the world, but it still has challenges to overcome in Latin America, Africa and Asia. Later waves of modern liberal thought and struggle were strongly influenced by the need to expand civil rights. Liberals have advocated for gender equality, marriage equality and racial equality and a global social movement for civil rights in the 20th century achieved several objectives towards those goals. Early
History of liberalism
29171
The Declaration of Sentiments, also known as the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments, is a document signed in 1848 by 68 women and 32 men—100 out of some 300 attendees at the first women's rights convention to be organized by women. Held in Seneca Falls, New York, the convention is now known as the Seneca Falls Convention. The principal author of the Declaration was Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who modeled it upon the United States Declaration of Independence. She was a key organizer of the convention along with Lucretia Coffin Mott, and Martha Coffin Wright. According to the North Star, published by Frederick Douglass, whose attendance at the convention and support of the Declaration helped pass the resolutions put forward, the document was the "grand movement for attaining the civil, social, political, and religious rights of women." Background Early activism and the reform movements In the early 1800s, women were largely relegated to domestic roles as mothers and homemakers, and were discouraged from participating in public life. While they exercised a degree of economic independence in the colonial era, they were increasingly barred from meaningfully participating in the workforce and relegated to domestic and service roles near the turn of the 19th century. Coverture laws also meant that women remained legally subordinated under their husbands. The decades leading up to the Seneca Falls Convention and the signing of the Declaration saw a small but steadily-growing movement pushing for women’s rights. Egalitarian ideas within the U.S. had already seen limited circulation in the years following the American Revolution, in the works of writers including James Otis and Charles Brockden Brown. These sentiments began to emerge more widely with the advent of the Second Great Awakening, a period of Protestant revival and debate in the first half of the 19th century that led to widespread optimism and the development of various American reform movements. The first advocates for women’s rights, including Frances Wright and Ernestine Rose, were focused on improving economic conditions and marriage laws for women. However, the growth of political reform movements, most notably the abolitionist movement, provided female activists with a platform from which they could effectively push for greater political rights and suffrage. The involvement of women such as Angelina Grimke and her sister Sarah Moore in the anti-slavery campaigns attracted substantial controversy and divided abolitionists, but also laid the groundwork for active female participation in public affairs. A major catalyst for the women’s rights movement would come at the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Convention in London. With a majority vote from the male attendees, American female delegates were barred from fully partaking in the proceedings. This experience, a vivid illustration of women’s status as second-class citizens, was what motivated prominent activists Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton to begin advocating for women’s rights. By the time of the Seneca Falls Convention, the early women’s rights movement had already achieved several major political and legal successes. Marital legislative reforms and the repeal of coverture in several state jurisdictions such as
Declaration of Sentiments
6335706
The culture of Philadelphia goes back to 1682 when Philadelphia was established by William Penn, founder of the colonial-era Province of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia emerged quickly as the largest and most influential city in the Thirteen Colonies. By the 1750s, Philadelphia was the second-largest city in the British Empire after London, and a center of early American culture, political leadership, intellectual thought, and industry and manufacturing. It served as the capital of both colonial-era British America and then, until 1800, as the first capital of the United States. History Present-day Philadelphia was formerly inhabited by Lenape, a Native American tribe. In the 17th and 18th centuries, Philadelphia was known globally for its freedom of religion and a city where people could live without fear of persecution because of their religious affiliations or practices. Thousands of Quakers, Mennonites, and other Protestant denominations at odds with the pracitices of the Church of England and Catholic Church at the time fled Europe to seek refuge in Philadelphia. Prior to the American Revolution and following it, Philadelphia grew quickly into a major political and economic center of the United States, serving as the nation's capital until 1800. During the Revolutionary War, the First and Second Continental Congress met at what today is Independence Hall at 4th and Chestnut streets. In 1776, 56 delegates to the Second Continental Congress, determined to secure independence from British colonial rule, charged the Committee of Five, including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman, with authoring a declaration to King George III declaring the Thirteen Colonies free and independent states. Adams, a leading proponent of independence, persuaded the Committee of Five to charge Jefferson with writing the document's original draft, which Jefferson largely wrote in isolation between June 11 and June 28, 1776, from the second floor of a three-story home he was renting at 700 Market Street in Philadelphia. The Declaration of Independence was unanimously adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which both formalized and escalated the Revolutionary War. The document has become one of the most inconic statements on human rights and human liberties, particularly its second sentence: "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." Historian Stephen Lucas called the Declaration of Independence "one of the best-known sentences in the English language." Historian Joseph Ellis has written that the document contains "the most potent and consequential words in American history". Following the Battle of Gettysburg, the bloodiest battle of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln famously referenced the Declaration of Independence in the Gettysburg Address, one of the most famous speeches in American history, saying, "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." In the 19th and 20th
Culture of Philadelphia
32288056
The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America is a 2011 non-fiction book by American political writers Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie. Welch is the former editor-in-chief of Reason, a position Gillespie also held from 2000 to 2008. The authors discuss the nature and influence of libertarianism in the United States. It is published by PublicAffairs, an imprint of the Perseus Books Group. The title is a pun referring to both the U.S. Declaration of Independence and independent voters. Contents The authors criticize contemporary American politics and the two-party system of Republicans versus Democrats. They argue that the emphasis on a horse-race between figures on either side is essentially pointless since in their view both parties fundamentally act the same way. They write that a system in which "a majority, however slim, acquires the right to control the lives and property of the minority" creates ever more government spending and control over individuals. They write, "To assume that the hungry will starve, the naked will go unclothed, and the ignorant will remain uneducated if government spending declines as a percentage of GDP is as misguided as assuming no one would go to church absent a state religion." Reviews Economist Tyler Cowen praised the book in his blog Marginal Revolution as "well written throughout", and he stated that it "never ventures into the absurd or makes indefensible claims." He wrote, "This is the up-to-date statement of libertarianism. Not warmed-over right-wing politics, but real, true-blooded libertarianism in the sense of loving liberty and wanting to find a new path toward human flourishing." Cowen also criticized the "murky" recommendations and lack of specific detail on issues such as health care reform. Kirkus Reviews summed up the book as "An enthusiastic, entertaining libertarian critique of American politics, brimming with derision for the status quo and optimism for the future and confident of the right direction, but disappointingly silent about which roads to take." The review argued as well that, despite the "rambunctious" criticism of the current two party system, the authors "leave unstated" many reform concepts, and other proposals for changing education and social insurance seem "discouragingly shopworn". See also 2011 in literature Free to Choose – 1980 book by Milton Friedman References 2011 non-fiction books Libertarian books Collaborative non-fiction books PublicAffairs books
The Declaration of Independents
41698925
The Spirit of '76 is a patriotic sentiment typified by the zeitgeist surrounding the American Revolution. It refers to the attitude of self-determination and individual liberty made manifest in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Meaning The Spirit of '76 is a sentiment explored by Thomas Jefferson. According to the text published at Monticello, "The principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence promised to lead America—and other nations on the globe—into a new era of freedom. The revolution begun by Americans on July 4, 1776, would never end. It would inspire all peoples living under the burden of oppression and ignorance to open their eyes to the rights of mankind, to overturn the power of tyrants, and to declare the triumph of equality over inequality." Thomas Jewett wrote that at the time of the American Revolution, there was "an intangible something that is known as the 'Spirit of '76.' This spirit was personified by the beliefs and actions of that almost mythical group known as the Founding Fathers, and is perhaps best exemplified by Thomas Jefferson." Jefferson and the Second Continental Congress believed the Spirit of '76 "included the 'self-evident' truths of being 'created equal' and being 'endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights' including 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'" According to the New York Times, in a review of What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States: Jefferson's core conviction was that what might be called "the spirit of '76" had repudiated all energetic expressions of government power, most especially power exercised from faraway places, which included London, Philadelphia or Washington. In terms of domestic policy, he believed the states were sovereign and the federal government established by the Constitution was, as he put it, 'a foreign government.' Marshall's core conviction was that the spirit of '87 had trumped the spirit of '76, transforming the loose confederation of states into a coherent nation guided by a duly elected federal government empowered to make laws for all the American people. According to the Adam Smith Institute, "The spirit of '76 was animated by the desire for personal freedom, both in our relations with others and in our transactions with them... Ultimately, if Americans are to restore constitutionally limited government instituted to guarantee their personal liberty, then they must revive the Spirit of '76." Usage In an 1806 court case, a Philadelphia judge wrote in his opinion: "General and individual liberty was the spirit of '76." The Spirit of '76 is a well-known painting by the Ohio artist and Union Civil War veteran Archibald Willard. The painting, originally titled Yankee Doodle, was created in 1875 for the Centennial Exposition. The piece acquired the name "Spirit of 76" while it was on tour in Boston. The painting was initially commissioned to be "semi-humorous," but the death of Willard's father, the model for one of the painting's figures, changed the direction of its tone. It depicts three soldiers of the American Revolutionary
Spirit of '76 (sentiment)
59115202
The Human Rights Measurement Initiative finds that the Federated States of Micronesia are fulfilling 94.9% of what it should be fulfilling for the right to health based on its level of income. When looking at the right to health with respect to children, the Federated States of Micronesia achieve 97.1% of what is expected based on their current income. In regards to the right to health amongst the adult population, the country achieves only 91.9% of what is expected based on the nation's level of income. The Federated States of Micronesia fall into the "good" category when evaluating the right to reproductive health because the nation is fulfilling only 95.8% of what the nation is expected to achieve based on the resources (income) it has available. Life expectancy at birth in the Federated States of Micronesia was 66 for men and 69 for women in 2018. Pingelap in Pohnpei State is notable for the prevalence of an extreme form of color blindness called achromatopsia, and known locally as maskun. Approximately 5% of the atoll's 3000 inhabitants are afflicted. Healthcare The healthcare system developed under the US naval administration after World War II when the US Navy sponsored students to train as medical and nurse assistants in Guam. There was a program of dispensary building in the 1960s, followed by the construction of hospitals, both financed and staffed by the US government. Under the Pacific Island Health Care Program patients were sent to Tripler Army Medical Center in Hawaii for treatment not available in Micronesia. After independence the government had difficulty in meeting these costs, and cut back on local facilities in order to pay for referrals, which still had financial and technical support from the United States. Total expenditure on health in the country was $473 per head in 2014. This was about 13.7% of GDP. Hospitals in the Federated States of Micronesia. Chuuk State Hospital in Weno in Chuuk State Kosrae State Hospital in Tofol, Lelu municipality on Kosrae island in Kosrae state Pohnpei State Hospital in Kolonia on Pohnpei in Pohnpei State Yap State Hospital in Colonia on Yap in Yap State Genesis Hospital, Pohnpei, a private 36-bed hospital These hospitals have a total of 362 beds. Tertiary health services are generally referred outside the country. In the territory there are also 5 health centers and 92 dispensaries. State of Emergency Declared A report of 5 April 2022 announced that some 40 doctors and nurses at Yap State Hospital complained to the state governor, Jesse Salalu, of severe understaffing, ineffective recruitment of staf, lack of contracts, and the Yap State Legislature’s refusal to release JEMCO-approved Office of Insular Affairs grant funds for wage increases. The governor refused to meet with a delegation of health professionals on 29 March 2022, and a large number of staff submitted resignations. The governor declared a state of emergency, saying “There is no sufficient pool of qualified nurses and doctors available on island for immediate recruitment to help prevent or minimize disruptions to
Health in the Federated States of Micronesia
30160731
The Liberian Declaration of Independence is a document adopted by the Liberian Constitutional Convention on 26 July 1847, to announce that the Commonwealth of Liberia, a colony founded and controlled by the private American Colonization Society, was an independent state known as the Republic of Liberia. History The Declaration was written by Hilary Teague and adopted simultaneously with the first Constitution of Liberia. The anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration and accompanying Constitution is celebrated as Independence Day in Liberia. The Declaration articulates the history of the Americo-Liberians who settled the original colony and lays out the aspiration of Liberia to be accepted as a free and independent state within the "comity which marks the friendly intercourse of civilized and independent communities." Listing the injustices committed against African Americans as a result of slavery in the United States, the Declaration notes the foundation of the colony by the American Colonization Society, as well as their gradual withdrawal from governance in favor of increasing self-governance by the colonists. The noted goal of Liberia is both to establish a state built upon the structure and principles of the law of nations and to modernize the indigenous peoples of the region, including converting them to Christianity. The Declaration partially relied upon the United States Declaration of Independence, in particular its discussion of natural law: We recognize in all men certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the right to acquire, possess, enjoy, and defend property. Its listing of injustices perpetrated by the United States parallels the charges set forth in the US Declaration of Independence against King George III. However, the Liberian Declaration asserts no right of revolution but frames its independence as the planned purpose of the colony by the American Colonization Society. The Society, having surrendered all control of the colony in January 1846, fully encouraged the independence of Liberia. The Commonwealth of Liberia declared its independence from the American Colonization Society on 26 July 1847, as the Republic of Liberia. On 3 January 1848, Joseph Jenkins Roberts, a free man of color born in Norfolk, Virginia, United States, was sworn in as Liberia's first president. The Liberian constitution and flag were modeled after the United States Constitution and flag because nearly all of Liberia's founders were either free people of color and former slaves who had emigrated as colonists from the United States. Liberia was founded as a colony of the American Colonization Society, a private organization established in Washington, D.C. in 1816. On 5 February 1862, after 15 years of avoiding the issue, the United States officially recognized Liberia's independence. Signatories Eleven delegates and one secretary, representing the three counties of Liberia, gathered in the Providence Baptist Church in Monrovia to sign the Declaration along with the Constitution of Liberia: Montserrado County 1. Samuel Benedict 2. Hilary Teague 3. Elijah Johnson 4. John Naustehlau Lewis 5. Beverly R. Wilson 6. John B. Gripon Grand Bassa County 7. John Day 8. Amos Herring 9. Anthony William Gardiner
Liberian Declaration of Independence
53155026
Bal Raksha Bharat (), commonly known as Save the Children India, is a non-profit organization working to improve the lives of marginalized children in India since 2008. Headquartered in Gurugram, and registered as Bal Raksha Bharat in India (under Societies Registration Act, 1861), the organization is a member of the international Save the Children Alliance. While Save the Children has been working in India since the 1940s, Save the Children India formally came into being as Bal Raksha Bharat in April 2008. Since then it has reached 10.1 million children. The organization implements sustainable, community-driven projects across India from remote locations to urban areas. The goal of these projects is to provide children with quality education and healthcare, protection from harm and abuse, and life-saving aid during emergencies. Bal Raksha Bharat also works through Advocacy and Campaigning, liaising with government stakeholders and civil society in support of children’s rights. History As World War I drew to an end in 1919, Eglantyne Jebb launched a movement named Save the Children Fund to cater to the needs of children whose lives were affected by the war. She was driven by the belief that all children have the right to a healthy, happy, and fulfilling life. Three years later in 1922, she drafted a document named ‘Declaration of the Rights of the Child’. The declaration contained a number of proclamations intended to provide and safeguard certain universal rights for children. It was this declaration that would become the axis around which the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) would revolve. In 1924, the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations adopted Jebb’s declaration. What started as an emergency relief fund went on to become a major worldwide movement for protecting the rights of children. The first connection between Save the Children and India was made when Mahatma Gandhi signed Jebb’s declaration in 1931. In the early 1940s, when World War II broke out, Save the Children provided relief and rehabilitation to the affected children. Hundreds of thousands of children received relief in the form of clothing and shoes. More than 800,000 books were distributed in schools. In India, a child welfare centre in Kolkata was supported and this marked the entry of the organization in India. After the war ended, Save the Children began work with displaced children, refugees and concentration camp survivors in the devastated areas of France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Austria, and Poland. In the 1950s and 1960s, Save the Children worked extensively in Asia. Children affected by the Korean War were provided essential relief. In 2004, when a devastating Tsunami struck the South-East coast of India, Save the Children provided a rapid relief response that continued for several months. Four years later, in April 2008, Save the Children started functioning as an independent Indian member of the Save the Children International Alliance under the name Bal Raksha Bharat. Campaigns #EveryLastChild In 2016, Save the Children launched a global campaign to reach out to the most
Save the Children India
24535376
The National Coalition of American Nuns (NCAN) was founded in 1969 by Margaret Traxler and Audrey Kopp. The organization is known for its advocacy for women's rights, support for the Equal Rights Amendment, opposition to the Catholic Church hierarchy, including Pope Francis, as well as its positions on abortion, LGBT rights, and women's ordination. History NCAN was founded by Margaret Traxler in 1969. In 1963, Margaret Traxler joined a group of priests and sisters marching for civil rights in Selma, Alabama. This led to her involvement with the National Catholic Conference for Interracial Justice, and thus her creation of the NCAN. At the height of their membership in the early 1970s, NCAN had roughly eighteen hundred members. Women's ordination The NCAN has long advanced the idea that women should be fully welcomed into the church including the priesthood. In 1972, the organization published a “Declaration of Independence for Women,” a document which outlined a five-year plan to achieve gender equality within and outside the Church. This declaration advocated for full equality for women, reformation of the economic and power systems, and simple living. The Declaration offered the following statement, "We reaffirm Jesus and his gospel as our life focus and that being said, the National Coalition of American Nuns puts society on notice that women refuse to accept any longer the straw for bricks that we are forced to make." Political positions The NCAN is partnered with the Women-Church Convergence, which promotes "diverse feminist, faith-filled voices." Support for reproductive justice The NCAN is most well-known for their strong support of reproductive justice, or the right of a woman to choose what is best for her own body, including the use of contraceptives and abortions, if needed. The organization also supports the contraception mandate in the Affordable Care Act. The NCAN's position on the issues of abortion, LGBT rights, and women's ordination have put it at odds with the U.S. Roman Catholic Bishops and official Church teaching. The NCAN was at odds politically with other Catholic groups when they began challenging the Affordable Care Act by refusing insurance coverage for contraceptives for women. The NCAN believes that this violates the inherent rights and equality given to all men and women of this nation. After the pope declared that priests could forgive women who have had abortions as long as they admitted to sinning, the NCAN realized there was a lot to be done in order to "make women equal members of the Catholic Church." While the NCAN acknowledged the attempts of pope to act in a pastoral manner and soften his stance on the issue, many women within the church did not find these comments satisfactory and felt as though their right to autonomy was still not recognized by the Church. The nuns argued that "sperm from males was responsible for these unplanned pregnancies." Other Catholic feminist groups, such Catholics for Choice, joined the NCAN and spoke out against the pope as well. A member of the NCAN, Sister Donna Quinn,
National Coalition of American Nuns
408682
The Declaration of Independence of Lower Canada () was written in French by the patriot rebel Robert Nelson on February 22, 1838, while in exile in the United States, after the first rebellion of 1837. The 1838 declaration was primarily inspired by the 1776 United States Declaration of Independence and the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, but it also included some other political ideas that were popular in the 19th century. The movement for the independence of Lower Canada (today Quebec) ultimately failed, as it did not result in the creation of an independent nation-state. Excerpt ...whereas we can no longer suffer the repeated violations of our most dearest rights, and patiently support the advanced outrages and cruelties of the Government of Lower Canada, WE, in the name of the people of Lower Canada, acknowledging the decrees of a Divine Providence, which permits us to put down a Government, which hath abused the object and intention for which it was created, and to make choice of that form of Government which shall re-establish the empire of justice — assure domestic tranquility — provide for common defense — promote general good, and secure to us and our posterity the advantages of civil and religious liberty, SOLEMNLY DECLARE:— That from this day forward, the PEOPLE OF LOWER CANADA are absolved from all allegiance to Great Britain, and that the political connection between that Power and Lower Canada, is now disbanded. That a REPUBLICAN form of Government is best suited to Lower Canada, which is this day declared to be a REPUBLIC. That under the Free Government of Lower Canada, all persons shall enjoy the same rights: the Indians shall no longer be under any civil disqualification, but shall enjoy the same rights as all other citizens in Lower Canada. See also Lower Canada Rebellion History of Quebec Timeline of Quebec history External links Déclaration d'indépendance du Bas-Canada (in French) Political history of Quebec Lower Canada Rebellion Separatism in Canada Lower Canada 1838 in Lower Canada 1838 documents Quebec sovereignty movement
Declaration of Independence of Lower Canada
21809332
Edward Dumbauld (October 26, 1905 – September 6, 1997) was a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Education and career Born in Uniontown, Pennsylvania, Dumbauld received an Artium Baccalaureus degree from Princeton University in 1926, a Bachelor of Laws from Harvard Law School in 1929, and a Master of Laws from the same institution in 1930. He received a Juris Doctor from the Leiden University in The Netherlands on June 17, 1932. He was in private practice in Uniontown from 1933 to 1935. From 1936 to 1949, he served as a special assistant in the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice. He returned to private practice in Uniontown from 1949 to 1957, when he became a judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Uniontown, serving until 1961. Federal judicial service On August 2, 1961, Dumbauld was nominated by President John F. Kennedy to a new seat on the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania created by 75 Stat. 80. He was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 2, 1961, receiving his commission on August 3, 1961. He assumed senior status on December 31, 1976, serving in that capacity until his death on September 6, 1997, in Uniontown. Scholarship and writings In addition to his legal and judicial duties, Dumbauld wrote extensively for scholars and general readers about the life and work of Thomas Jefferson, the United States Declaration of Independence, and the United States Constitution and United States Bill of Rights, as well as the Renaissance legal philosopher and treatise-writer Hugo Grotius. He was a longtime member of the American Society for Legal History. His books, many of them standards of American legal-historical literature, include: Thomas Jefferson, American Tourist... (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1946) The Declaration of Independence and What It Means Today (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950) The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1957; reprint ed., Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1979) The Constitution of the United States (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1964) The Life and Legal Writings of Hugo Grotius (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1969) Thomas Jefferson and the Law (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1978), References Sources 1905 births 1997 deaths Judges of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania United States district court judges appointed by John F. Kennedy 20th-century American judges Harvard Law School alumni 20th-century American lawyers Princeton University alumni People from Uniontown, Pennsylvania Leiden University alumni
Edward Dumbauld
46638053
The Martin Declaration () is the name usually given to the Declaration of the Slovak Nation () that was proclaimed in the town of Turčiansky Svätý Martin (now Martin, Slovakia) on 30 October 1918. The declaration was effectively a declaration of independence from the Kingdom of Hungary (within the Austro-Hungarian Empire) and presaged Slovakia's unification with the Czech lands as part of the new state of Czechoslovakia. Slovak separatist ambitions were largely suspended during World War I, when the leading Slovak nationalist party, the Slovak National Party (SNP), proclaimed its loyalty to the empire. The final months of the war saw a gradual disintegration of the empire, which led to the party deciding to resume its drive for a separate Slovak state. Its chairman, Matúš Dula, chose Martin, a centre for Slovak cultural and political life since the 19th century, as the venue for a general meeting of the party. On the morning of 30 October 1918, 108 delegates attended the meeting in the Tatra Bank in Martin and elected a twelve-member Slovak National Council, drawn mainly from the Slovak National Party. In the afternoon, the newly-constituted council issued the declaration and sent it to Prague. The declaration announced: "The Slovak Nation is a part of the Czecho-Slovak Nation, united in language and in the history of its culture" and declared that only the Slovak National Council, not the Hungarian government or any other authority, was authorised to speak for the Slovak nation. The declaration came two days after the declaration of Czechoslovak independence by the Czech National Committee in Prague and two weeks after Czechoslovak declaration of independence in Washington and Paris. The Slovaks acted independently, as news of the Czech declaration had not reached Martin by the time of the Slovak declaration. The council attempted to take control of Slovakia but was thwarted by a Hungarian military intervention, which seized Martin on 15 November. Czech troops soon took the town, and the new government in Prague appointed Vavro Šrobár as minister for Slovakia. Some Slovak representatives argued for autonomy for Slovakia and for the country to have its own devolved assembly, but that was rejected by the Czechoslovak government, and Šrobár dissolved the Slovak National Council in January 1919. The delegates at Turčiansky Svätý Martin had not defined exactly what they meant by the "Czecho-Slovak Nation" but seemingly had in mind a definition that upheld the distinct national identity and individuality of the Slovak people. The Slovaks had been promised to become equal partners in what Edvard Beneš, the foreign minister of the Provisional Czechoslovak government, had declared would be a Swiss-style federated state. Beneš soon afterward broke his promise, and the Slovaks soon found themselves being relegated to the status of a national minority. Thereafter, Slovakia was governed as part of the centralised Czechoslovak state, which had been established by the Czechoslovak National Assembly in Prague. References 1918 in Austria-Hungary Declarations of independence 20th century in Slovakia Political history of Slovakia Slovak independence movement October 1918 events
Martin Declaration
13634062
The Constitution of Azerbaijan () was adopted on 12 November 1995 by popular referendum. This Constitution was the first Constitution of independent Azerbaijan. The first Constitution of independent Azerbaijan consists of 5 chapters, 12 sections and 147 articles. It was amended on 24 August 2002 and again on 18 March 2009. It carries the "highest legal force" in Azerbaijan as per article 147. The most recent amendments to the Constitution were approved after the Constitutional referendum held on 26 September 2016. In 2002, 31 amendments were made to 22 articles; in 2009, 41 amendments were made to 29 articles; and in 2016, 23 articles were amended and 6 new articles were added. History The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic founded in 1918 and existed 23 months until 1920 was not able to adopt its constitution. Therefore, the history of Constitution building in Azerbaijan generally starts from the period of Azerbaijan being part of Soviet Union. The first Constitution of Azerbaijan SSR was adopted in 1921 and was in accordance with the Constitution of USSR. The last Constitution of Azerbaijan SSR was adopted on 21 April 1978 and also was in line and form of USSR Constitution. Azerbaijan declared its independence in 1991, and the preparation of a new constitution to replace the 1978 document began in 1992. The adoption of a new constitution was repeatedly delayed by civil and political turmoil. Pending the adoption of a new constitution, the fundamental document in the early 1990s was the October 18, 1991, Act of Independence, which government authorities described as the basis for a new constitution. During this interim period, the provisions of the 1978 constitution were valid if they did not violate or contradict the Act of Independence. The act declared that Azerbaijan is a secular, democratic, and unitary state, with equality of all citizens before the law. Freedoms enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights documents were to be upheld, and the right to form political parties was stipulated. The Act of Independence also proclaimed Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and its sovereignty over all its territory. Preamble The Preamble to the Constitution specifies, in order to "provide prosperity and welfare of the whole society and each individual", that the following objectives be declared: protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity a constitutional democracy establish a civil society a secular state based upon the rule of law a "worthy life level" for citizens and "just" economic and social order observance of "universal human values", peace and international cooperation Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1, People's Power Section 1 establishes the source of state power being the Azerbaijani people and their unity, and states that most political issues are to be solved by referendum, defining as en exception taxation, state budget, amnesty and pardon. It defines that only authorized representatives elected by people have the right to represent the people, speak on behalf of people and to make statements on behalf of people. It also bans the usurpation of
Constitution of Azerbaijan
71514754
The Colombian–Peruvian territorial dispute was a territorial dispute between Colombia and Peru, which, until 1916, also included Ecuador. The dispute had its origins on each country's interpretation of what Real Cedulas Spain used to precisely define its possessions in the Americas. After independence, all of Spain's former territories signed and agreed to proclaim their limits in the basis of the principle of uti possidetis juris, which regarded the Spanish borders of 1810 as the borders of the new republics. However, conflicting claims and disagreements between the newly formed countries eventually escalated to the point of armed conflicts on several occasions. The dispute between both states ended in the aftermath of the Colombia–Peru War, which led to the signing of the Rio Protocol two years later, finally establishing a border agreed upon by both parties to the conflict. Spanish era At the beginning of the 18th century, the Spanish Empire's possessions in the Americas were initially divided into two viceroyalties: the Viceroyalty of New Spain and the Viceroyalty of Peru. From these viceroyalties, new divisions would be later established to better administer the large territories in Central America, South America and the Caribbean. On May 27, 1717, the Viceroyalty of New Granada was established on the basis of the New Kingdom of Granada, the Captaincy General of Venezuela and the Royal Audience of Quito. It would be temporarily dissolved on November 5, 1723, and its territories reincorporated into the Viceroyalty of Peru, but in 1739 it was re-established again and definitively, with the same territories and rights that it had according to the Royal Decree of 1717. A series of royal decrees followed in the following century until 1819. The decree of 1802 would later serve as the basis of the conflict between Ecuador and Peru, with its existence being disputed by the former. The decree of 1740 has also been called into question by the latter, with some historians also questioning its existence. After the wars of independence, the new republics in South America agreed to proclaim their limits in the basis of the principle of uti possidetis juris, which regarded the Spanish borders of 1810 as the borders of the new states. Wars of Independence The formal independence of Guayaquil was declared on October 9, 1820, establishing the Free Province of Guayaquil and beginning the proclaimed state's independence campaign. Public opinion was divided into three: one part supported annexation to the Protectorate of Peru, another annexation to the Republic of Colombia, and another supported independence. Around the same time, a newly independent Republic of Colombia established three provinces in October 1821: the northern, central, and southern provinces. The latter nominally included the Jaén de Bracamoros Province. The province, however, had declared itself part of the Presidency of Trujillo on June 4, alongside Tumbes on January 7 and Maynas on August 19. With the entry of San Martín's troops into Lima on June 9, the Peruvian proclamation of independence took place on July 28 of the same year, and Trujillo,
Colombian–Peruvian territorial dispute
18065369
Forewick Holm is a island in the Sound of Papa, between Papa Stour and the Mainland of Shetland. It lies adjacent to a skerry called Scarf's Head, and the two are connected at low tide. Forewick Holm has gained notoriety through its association with Stuart "Captain Calamity" Hill, who claims that the island is a sovereign micronation named "Forvik". The Forvik project's stated purpose is to show Shetlanders what they could achieve if they asserted their legal rights and seceded from the United Kingdom. History The SS Highcliffe was wrecked on the island on 6 February 1940. It was carrying a cargo of iron ore from Narvik, bound for Immingham. Forvik Forvik's founder, Stuart Hill, is a native of Essex who was shipwrecked in Shetland in 2001 during a failed attempt to circumnavigate the British Isles, earning him the nickname "Captain Calamity". He subsequently settled in Shetland and became an advocate for the islands' independence. Hill argues that Shetland was never formally ceded to Scotland or Great Britain, making the British government's exercise of sovereignty over the islands illegal. In order to draw attention to his cause, he acquired the islet of Forewick Holm and on 21 June 2008 declared it to be an autonomous Crown dependency known as "Forvik". The declaration invited Shetlanders to add their own properties to the dependency in order to create a new federation "free of liars, thieves and tyrants in government". On 23 February 2011, Hill issued a further declaration stating that Forvik had severed its ties to the Crown and become a fully independent state known as the "Sovereign State of Forvik". Hill's right to Forewick Holm has been contested by Mark King, the island's original owner. Hill claims to have a signed, witnessed document confirming King's intention to donate the island to him, but King says that he signed this during a manic episode and that the land registry still lists him as the owner. In 2008, Hill began work on an "official residence" on the island, its first and only permanent structure. He also laid claim to the surrounding seabed and invited companies to bid for oil exploration rights. "Citizenships" were made available for purchase, costing between one and five Forvik guldens (i.e. £60 to £360). Membership was later set at £20 per annum, and in 2015 Hill claimed there were 218 members. Hill travelled to and from the island on a flat-bottomed plywood boat of his own creation. In September 2008, he had to be rescued by a Coastguard helicopter and RNLI lifeboat after his vessel began to sink. His boat was described as "ramshackle" and as a "floating wardrobe", and he was criticised by his rescuers for having no lifejacket or radio aboard. Hill has refused to pay road tax or insurance to the British government, instead creating documents issued by Forvik. In 2011, he was found guilty of driving offences arising from this. References External links Official website of the Sovereign State of Forvik Uninhabited islands of Shetland
Forewick Holm
62640688
Party of Ivan Pernar (Croatian: Stranka Ivana Pernara or SIP) is a political party in Croatia, formed on 7 July 2019 by former members of the political party Human Shield. It is named after its leader, Ivan Pernar. Foundation Pernar was elected as the party's President during the party's inaugural conference in the village of Kašina by receiving 148 votes from party delegates. Branimir Bunjac received 57 votes and was elected as the party's Vice President. During the conference, eight different names were proposed for the party, which chose to name itself after its leader with a three-quarters supermajority. Prior to 9 October 2019, the party was organized by General-secretary Ivan Despetović, who subsequently left the party as he felt it had strayed away from his roots and into what he described as "cheap populism". Ideology Economics and tax SIP has declared itself to be in opposition to the privatization and concession of resources and enterprises it deems to be of public importance. It also declared that it seeks a reduction in value-added tax (VAT) and opposes property taxes. It opposes the introduction of the Euro as Croatia's currency. Foreign policy The party is firmly opposed to Croatia's membership of the European Union and NATO, as it sees Croatian membership in both organizations as incompatible with sovereignty. It instead proposes that Croatia should be militarily neutral. The party opposes the sanctions against Russia and has instead declared its support for "de-escalation of conflicts". It supports the recognition of the State of Palestine as an independent and sovereign state and calls on Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories. Social, civil and environmental issues The party has expressed support for freedom of religion, explicitly including the rights of atheists. It supports the legalization of cannabis and some support for LGBT rights, while opposing mandatory vaccination. It has declared an opposition to the use of 5G telecommunications, which it deems would increase the amount of "unnecessary radiation" to which Croatians are exposed. Instead it supports the expansion of fiber-optic communication as a means of increasing internet speeds. The party held a protest in Osijek against the introduction of a 5G telecom network in the town. The party opposes nuclear power. Immigration The party strongly opposes illegal immigration and has expressed support for the construction of a physical border barrier along the parts of the border affected by illegal immigration, as well as involving the Croatian Army in border patrols. Election results Legislative President of Croatia The following is a list of presidential candidates endorsed by the SIP in elections for President of Croatia. References External links Political parties established in 2019 Political parties in Croatia
Party of Ivan Pernar
3664780
Founded in Madrid in 2001, Sociologists Without Borders/Sociólogos Sin Fronteras (SSF) is a Non-Governmental Organization that advances a cosmopolitan sociology and its activities are considered to be public sociology. The organization has active chapters in Brazil, Chile, Italy, Spain the U.S., Canada, and Iran. The Spanish and U.S. chapters each have international members. Each of the chapters has regular meetings and organizes sessions at national sociological conferences, and there is an affiliated online, peer-reviewed journal. Overview The group's central pedagogical aim is to develop a globally inclusive sociological curriculum. Its epistemological premise is that human rights and collective goods (including sustainable natural resources and participatory democracy) are two aspects of the same concept. As Sociologists, the group advances human rights by working through communities, societies, the workplace, and other social institutions. They advance the right to decent employment, social security, education, housing, food security, health care, the rights to cultural, racial, religious, and to an identity and sexual preference. Human rights also includes gender equality and the principle that vulnerable groups need special protections, including children, the aged, the disabled, oppressed racial and ethnic minorities, migrants, and indigenous peoples. These principles are drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) that recognizes "the inherent dignity" and "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family," from various United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization's treaties and declarations on culture. Human rights are realized with the advance and protection of common (collective) goods, including a sustainable environment, transparent laws and government, natural resources, the internet and information grids, fair trade, food sovereignty (the rights of farmers and fishers to manage their own resources), and participatory democracy. Indeed, human rights are themselves common goods because they are indivisible and inclusive. The group's framework is considered utopian, and Sociologists Without Borders takes the view that this is necessary in a world in crisis: wars, civil strife, diminishing environmental resources, epidemics, and the growing economic gap between the Global North and the Global South. What this pessimistic account leaves out, and what Sociologists without Borders stresses, is that there are growing interdependencies and solidarities around the world and these draw less from nation-states than they do from the capabilities and resourcefulness of ordinary people. The SSF Think Tank On July 25, 2008, the SSF US Chapter released an online discussion platform for reflection and discussion among concerned sociologists, other social scientists, NGOs, governments, academics, students, activists, journalists, and individuals who want to discover and hopefully help fight the "Challenges to Human Rights" in a global environment. This has since been taken over by The Development Cafe and is now run as Global Sociology Network, independent of the SSF. 2010 Arizona Boycott In response to Arizona SB 1070, SSF petitioned Arizona Governor Jan Brewer to roll back the law, stating: "SSF believes that Arizona Law SB1070 is a form of racial profiling and discrimination because officers will likely rely on appearance, phenotypes, language and accents to make judgments that will lead
Sociologists Without Borders
1575920
The Bosnian Crisis, also known as the Annexation Crisis (, ; ) or the First Balkan Crisis, erupted on 5 October 1908 when Austria-Hungary announced the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, territories formerly within the sovereignty of the Ottoman Empire but under Austro-Hungarian administration since 1878. This unilateral action—timed to coincide with Bulgaria's declaration of independence from the Ottoman Empire on 5 October—sparked protestations from all the Great Powers and Austria-Hungary's Balkan neighbors, Serbia and Montenegro. In April 1909, the Treaty of Berlin was amended to reflect the fait accompli and bring the crisis to an end. Although the crisis ended with what appeared to be a total Austro-Hungarian diplomatic victory, it permanently damaged relations between Austria-Hungary and its neighbors, especially Serbia, Italy and Russia, and in the long term helped lay the grounds for World War I. Austro-Serbian relations – harmed by the annexation's inflaming of Serbian nationalists – continued to be strained to the point of declaring war on each other in 1914. Background The mid-1870s witnessed a series of violent rebellions against Ottoman rule in the Balkans, and equally violent and repressive responses from the Turks. The Russian Tsar, Alexander II, wanting to intervene against the Ottomans, wanted and obtained an agreement with Austria-Hungary. In the Budapest Conventions of 1877, the two powers agreed that Russia would annex Bessarabia, and Austria-Hungary would observe a benevolent neutrality toward Russia in the pending war with the Turks. As compensation for this support, Russia agreed to Austria-Hungary's control of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Shortly thereafter, the Russians declared war, and, after a few setbacks, drove the Turks relentlessly back to within a few miles of Constantinople. What stopped the Russians from driving the Turks completely out of Europe was the willingness of the other great powers, particularly Britain and Austria-Hungary, to enforce an earlier treaty, the London Straits Convention of 1841, which stated that the Straits of Constantinople would be closed to warships during time of war. This had the effect of bottling up the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, but would be worthless if Russian troops gained control of the straits by land. After their victory in the war, the Russians then imposed the Treaty of San Stefano on the Ottomans, which, in part, reneged on pledges made in the Budapest Convention and declared that Bosnia-Herzegovina would be jointly occupied by Russian and Austrian troops. The Treaty of San Stefano was overturned by the 1878 Treaty of Berlin. Under article 29, Austria-Hungary received special rights in the Ottoman Empire's provinces of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Sanjak of Novi Pazar. Article 25 stated that "The provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary" and continued "Austria-Hungary reserves the right to maintain garrisons and to have military and trading roads over the whole area of that portion [the Sanjak of Novi Pazar] of the ancient Vilayet of Bosnia." The Bosniak-dominated Sanjak of Novi Pazar separated Montenegro from Serbia and prevented the geographic and political union of these two states which
Bosnian Crisis
38322
The Continental Congress was a series of legislative bodies, with some executive function, for the Thirteen Colonies of Great Britain in North America, and the newly declared United States before, during, and after the American Revolutionary War. The Continental Congress refers to both the First and Second Congresses of 1774–1781 and at the time, also described the Congress of the Confederation of 1781–1789. The Confederation Congress operated as the first federal government until being replaced following ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Until 1785, the Congress met predominantly at what is today Independence Hall in Philadelphia, though it was relocated temporarily on several occasions during the Revolutionary War and the fall of Philadelphia. The First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in 1774 in response to escalating tensions between the colonies and the British, which culminated in passage of the Intolerable Acts by the British Parliament following the Boston Tea Party. The First Congress met for about six weeks, mainly to try to repair the fraying relationship between Britain and the colonies while asserting the rights of colonists, proclaiming and passing the Continental Association, which was a unified trade embargo against Britain, and successfully building consensus for establishment of a second congress. The Second Continental Congress convened in 1775, soon after hostilities broke out in Massachusetts. Soon after meeting, the Second Congress sent the Olive Branch Petition to King George III, established the Continental Army, and elected George Washington commander of the new army. After the king issued the Proclamation of Rebellion in August 1775 in response to the Battle of Bunker Hill, some members of the Second Congress concluded that peace with Britain was not forthcoming, and began working towards unifying the colonies into a new nation. The body adopted the Lee Resolution for Independence on July 2, 1776 and the Declaration of Independence two days later, on July 4, 1776, proclaiming that the former colonies were now independent sovereign states. The Second Continental Congress served as the provisional government of the U.S. during most of the Revolutionary War. In March 1781, the nation's first Frame of Government, the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, came into force, and thus the body became what later was called the Congress of the Confederation. This unicameral governing body would convene in eight sessions before adjourning in 1789, when the 1st United States Congress under the new Constitution of the United States took over the role as the nation's legislative branch of government. Both the First and Second Continental Congresses convened in Philadelphia, though when the city was captured during the Revolutionary War, the Second Congress was forced to meet in other locations for a time. The Congress of Confederation was also established in Philadelphia and later moved to New York City, which served as the U.S. capital from 1785 to 1790. Much of what is known today about the daily activities of these congresses comes from the journals kept by the secretary for all three congresses, Charles Thomson. Printed contemporaneously, the Journals of
Continental Congress
51114165
The 2018 Alaska gubernatorial election took place on November 6, 2018, to elect the governor and lieutenant governor of Alaska. In the primaries for recognized political parties, candidates for governor and lieutenant governor run separately. The winners of each respective primary for governor and lieutenant governor then become a joint ticket in the general election for their political party. Incumbent Independent governor Bill Walker was seeking re-election in what was originally a three-way race between Walker, Republican former Alaska state senator Mike Dunleavy, and Democratic former Alaska U.S. Senator Mark Begich. Despite Walker dropping out on October 19, 2018 and endorsing Begich, Dunleavy won in what was the only gubernatorial gain by a Republican candidate in 2018. As of 2024, this was the last time the Governor’s office in Alaska changed partisan control. Walker later unsuccessfully ran for Governor of Alaska in 2022. Democratic–Libertarian–Independence primary Candidates from the Alaska Democratic Party, Alaska Libertarian Party and Alaskan Independence Party appear on the same ballot, with the highest-placed candidate from each party receiving that party's nomination. In October 2017 the AKDP sued for the right to allow non-Democrats to compete for and win the Democratic nomination, which was ultimately decided in their favor in April 2018. This move was widely thought to benefit incumbent Gov. Bill Walker, to foreclose the possibility of a Democratic nominee splitting the vote with Walker against a Republican nominee. However, with the entry of former senator Mark Begich into the race, Walker withdrew from the Democratic primary and forged ahead with a fully independent bid for reelection. Governor Declared Mark Begich (Democratic), former U.S. Senator William S. "Billy" Toien (Libertarian), Libertarian candidate for Alaska Governor in 2010 Polling with Mark Begich Endorsements Results Lieutenant governor Declared Debra Call (Democratic), Cook Inlet Tribal Council Board of Directors Representative Withdrawn Edgar Blatchford (Democratic), former mayor of Seward Results Republican primary Governor Nominated Mike Dunleavy, educator and former state senator Eliminated in primary Dorian Colbry Thomas A. "Tom" Gordon Gerald Heikes, perennial candidate Merica Hlatcu Michael Sheldon Mead Treadwell, former lieutenant governor Withdrawn Mike Chenault, state representative and former Speaker of the Alaska House of Representatives Scott Hawkins, businessman Declined Bill Walker, incumbent Independent Governor (running for re-election as an Independent) Robert Gillam, businessman Loren Leman, former lieutenant governor Anna MacKinnon, state senator (endorsed Mike Dunleavy) Joe Miller, former magistrate judge and perennial candidate Sean Parnell, former governor of Alaska (endorsed Mike Dunleavy) Frank Murkowski, former governor of Alaska and U.S. Senator Peter Micciche, state senator (running for re-election to state senate) Dan Sullivan, former mayor of Anchorage and nominee for lieutenant governor in 2014 (endorsed Mike Dunleavy) Ben Stevens, former president of the Alaska State Senate, son of former president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, Solicitor of the Interior Department & U.S. Attorney Ted Stevens Endorsements Polling Results Lieutenant governor Declared Lynn Gattis, former state representative and candidate for the state senate in 2016 Edie Grunwald, retired air force colonel and former human resources director for the Alaska
2018 Alaska gubernatorial election
12062090
The Republic of Yucatán () was a sovereign state during two periods of the nineteenth century. The first Republic of Yucatán, founded May 29, 1823, willingly joined the Mexican federation as the Federated Republic of Yucatán on December 23, 1823, less than seven months later. The second Republic of Yucatán began in 1841, with its declaration of independence from the Centralist Republic of Mexico. It remained independent for seven years, after which it rejoined the United Mexican States. The area of the former republic includes the modern Mexican states of Yucatán, Campeche and Quintana Roo. The Republic of Yucatán usually refers to the second republic (1841–1848). The Republic of Yucatán was governed by the Constitution of 1841 which guaranteed individual rights, religious freedom and what was then a new legal form called amparo (). The 1847 Caste War caused the Republic of Yucatán to request military aid from Mexico. This was given on the condition that the Republic rejoin the Mexican Federation. Colonial era and independence from Spain In 1617, Yucatán was administered as a Captaincy General of New Spain. Its geographical position gave it some autonomy. During the Spanish Viceroyalty, the province and captaincy of Yucatán covered the current territories of Campeche, Quintana Roo, Tabasco, and Yucatán, plus, nominally, the northern territories of the Petén and the territory that is currently Belize. In 1786, the Spanish Crown implemented the system of Intendencias and the territory changed its name to Intendency of Yucatán, which included the same territories. War of Mexican Independence In 1810, the priest Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla issued the Grito de Dolores (in effect a call for independence) in Dolores near Guanajuato. An army of insurgents began an eleven-year war of independence that culminated in a Mexican victory over the viceroy's armies. In 1821 the Mexicans offered the crown of the new Mexican Empire to Ferdinand VII or to a member of the Spanish royal family that he would designate. After the refusal of the Spanish monarchy to recognize the independence of Mexico, the (Army of the Three Guarantees), led by Agustín de Iturbide and Vicente Guerrero, cut all political and economic dependence on Spain. The Plan of Iguala established Roman Catholicism as Mexico's religion and equality for all social and ethnic groups in the new empire. These goals were summarized as "Religion, Independence and Unity" (Religión, Independencia y Unión). Once the independence of the Mexican Empire was declared, Agustín de Iturbide was designated President of the Regency; because of his great popularity and prestige, the Interim Board gave him full authority. Elections for the Constituent Congress took place in December 1821 and in January 1822. There is no accurate record of how many deputies were elected, but it has been estimated at about 126, plus 52 given to Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Chiapas, former captaincies which also agreed to the Plan of Iguala. José Joaquín Fernández de Lizardi, called The Mexican Thinker, proposed the right of Agustín de Iturbide to be emperor. On May 19, 1822 Valentín
Republic of Yucatán
41174
The Constitution of the State of Vermont is the fundamental body of law of the U.S. state of Vermont, describing and framing its government. It was adopted in 1793 following Vermont's admission to the Union in 1791 and is largely based upon the 1777 Constitution of the Vermont Republic which was drafted at Windsor in the Old Constitution House and amended in 1786. At 8,295 words, it is the shortest U.S. state constitution. Largely unchanged since 1777, Vermont's Constitution is the only active constitutional document to have been drafted and ratified outside of the United States. History 1777 From 1777 to 1791, Vermont was an independent country, often referred to in the present day as the Vermont Republic. During that time it was usually called the State of Vermont but sometimes called the Commonwealth of Vermont or the Republic of Vermont. Its first constitution, drafted in 1777, was among the most far-reaching in guaranteeing personal freedoms and individual rights. In particular, it banned adult slavery, saying male slaves become free at the age of 21 and females at 18. The 1777 constitution's Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont anticipated the United States Bill of Rights by a dozen years. The first chapter, a "Declaration of Rights of the Inhabitants of the State of Vermont", is followed by a "Plan or Frame of Government" outlining the structure of governance. It provided that the governor would be elected by the freemen of the state, who could vote regardless of whether they owned property, that each town would be represented in the legislative assembly, that there would be a court of law in each county, and that the legislative assembly and the governor's council would jointly hold legislative power. 1786 In 1786, the Constitution was extensively revised to establish a far greater separation of powers than what had prevailed under the 1777 Constitution. In particular, it forbade anyone to simultaneously hold more than one of certain offices, including those of judges, legislators, members of the governor's council, the governor, and the surveyor-general. It also provided that the legislature could no longer function as a court of appeals nor otherwise intervene in cases before the courts, as it had often done. The 1786 Constitution continued in effect when, in 1791, Vermont made the transition from independence to the status of one of the states of the Union. In particular, the governor, the members of the governor's council, and other officers of the state, including judges in all courts, simply continued their terms of office that were already underway. 1793 The 1793 Constitution was adopted two years after Vermont's admission to the Union and continues in effect, with various later amendments, to this day. It eliminated all mention of grievances against King George III and against the State of New York. In 1790, New York's legislature finally renounced its claims that Vermont was a part of New York, the cessation of those claims being effective if and when Congress decided
Constitution of Vermont
10534901
Education in Nicaragua is free for all Nicaraguans. Elementary education is free and compulsory although this is not strictly enforced. Many children are not able to attend if their families need to have them work. Communities on the Atlantic Coast have access to education in both Spanish and the languages of the native indigenous tribes that live in the more rural areas of Nicaragua. Higher education has financial, organic and administrative autonomy, according to the law. Freedom of subjects is recognized. The school year runs from February through November. The Human Rights Measurement Initiative (HRMI) finds that Nicaragua is fulfilling only 73.7% of what it should be fulfilling for the right to education based on the country's level of income. HRMI breaks down the right to education by looking at the rights to both primary education and secondary education. While taking into consideration Nicaragua's income level, the nation is achieving 92.3% of what should be possible based on its resources (income) for primary education but only 55.1% for secondary education. 82.6% of the population age 15 and over is literate, the lowest literacy rate in Central America. The higher education system The oldest institution of higher education in Nicaragua is the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Nicaragua, which was founded in 1812, which dates back to the Spanish colonial period. Nicaragua became a part of the Central American Federation in 1821 and declared its independence from Spain. It left the Federation in 1838 for full independence. There are many commercial schools and eight universities throughout the country. Between 2002 and 2003, a total of 100,363 Nicaraguan students attended universities and other institutions of higher learning. The National Council of Universities is the body responsible for strategic planning in Nicaragua. Admission to higher education is on the basis of the Bachillerato, the leading secondary school qualification. Students are also subject to an entrance examination. The Licenciado, the main undergraduate degree, is a four- or five-year course of study. A professional title may be awarded depending on the subject. Following the Licenciado, the first postgraduate degree is the Maestria, which lasts two years and culminates with the submission of a thesis. Institutions of higher learning can offer two- or three-year courses in technical and vocational education. The main qualification studied for is the Tecnico Superior. There are over 30 public universities and over 75 private institutions. Education during the Sandinista era When the Sandinistas came to power in 1979, they inherited an education system that was one of the poorest in Latin America. Under the Somozas, limited spending on education and generalized poverty forced many adolescents into the labor market and constricted educational opportunities for Nicaraguans. In the late 1970s, only 65% of primary school-age children were enrolled in school; of those who entered first grade only 22% completed the full six years of the primary school curriculum. Most rural schools offered only one or two years of schooling, and three-quarters of the rural population was illiterate. Few students enrolled in secondary school,
Education in Nicaragua
2627884
The Constitution of the Argentine Nation () is the basic governing document of Argentina, and the primary source of existing law in Argentina. Its first version was written in 1853 by a constitutional assembly which gathered in Santa Fe; the doctrinal basis was taken in part from the United States Constitution. It was then reformed in 1860, 1866, 1898, 1949, 1957 (which mainly repealed the 1949 reform), and the current version is the reformed text of 1994. It's the seventh oldest national constitution currently in effect being ratified on May 1, 1853. The Argentine Constitution consists of a preamble and two normative parts: Preamble First part: Declarations, Rights and Guarantees (arts. 1-43) Second part: Authorities of the Nation (arts. 44–129). The following international human rights instruments —treaties and declarations— also have constitutional status by virtue of article 75 paragraph 22: American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Universal Declaration of Human Rights American Convention on Human Rights International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Genocide Convention International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women United Nations Convention against Torture Convention on the Rights of the Child Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities History The first attempt to divide political power in Argentina was during the government created after the May Revolution (Spanish: Revolución de Mayo): the Primera Junta could not create new taxes without the Cabildo'''s authorization. Many revolutionary leaders, led by Mariano Moreno, wanted to declare independence immediately and create a constitution in order to build an independent state. In October 1811, the Junta Grande, which succeeded the Primera Junta, enacted the Regulation for the Division of Power, but it was not accepted by the executive power. Nevertheless, the freedom of press and the Decree on Individual Security were accepted by November. In 1813, the General Constitutional Assembly was intended to declare a constitution but it could only declare the freedom for slaves' sons. In 1819 and 1826 were declared two constitutions that eventually failed because of the disagreement between Federalists and Unitarians. Many other constitutional pacts existed between 1820 and 1853 (when the current Argentine Constitution was enacted). The most important of them are: the Treaty of Pilar (1820), the Treaty of the Cuadrilátero (1822), the Federal Pact (1831), the Palermo Protocol (1852), and the Treaty of San Nicolás (1852). The Federal Pact urged all the provinces to call a General Federal Congress, however this would have limited Juan Manuel de Rosas's power who was the most powerful province governor, so the Congress was never called. When Rosas was defeated, in 1852, the Treaty of San Nicolás finally called the Constitutional Congress that, in Santa Fe, on May 1, 1853,
Constitution of Argentina
5421455
The Kingdom of Finland (; ; 19181919) was a failed attempt to establish a monarchy in Finland in the aftermath of the Finnish Declaration of Independence from Russia in December 1917 and the Finnish Civil War from January–May 1918. The victorious Whites in the Parliament of Finland began the process of turning Finland into a kingdom and creating a monarchy. Although the country was legally a kingdom headed by a regent for over a year, the king-elect Friedrich Karl never reigned nor came to Finland following Germany's defeat in World War I. Republican victories in subsequent elections resulted in the country becoming a republic. During the Finnish Civil War of 1918, Finnish Reds on friendly terms with Soviet Russia fought Finnish Whites who allied with the German Empire. Direct aid from the German Baltic Sea Division aided the Whites who won the war. The provisional government established after the Grand Duchy of Finland's declaration of independence leaned heavily toward the Finnish right and included a number of monarchists. The parliament drew up plans to create a Finnish monarchy on the legal theory that the Swedish Constitution of 1772 was still in effect, but there had been an extended interregnum with no monarch on the throne. Prince Friedrich Karl of Hesse was elected to the throne of Finland on 9 October 1918 by the Finnish parliament, but he never took the position nor traveled to Finland. Soon after the election, Finnish leaders as well as the population belatedly came to understand the grave situation their German allies were in, and the wisdom of electing a German prince their new leader as Germany was about to lose World War I was called into question. Germany itself became a republic and deposed Kaiser Wilhelm II, and signed an armistice with the Allies in November. The victorious Western powers informed the Finnish government that the independence of Finland would only be recognized if it abandoned its alliance with Germany. As a result, in December 1918 Friedrich Karl renounced the throne and the Baltic Sea Division withdrew from Finland. In the March 1919 election, with the Finnish left and socialists able to vote, republicans won a crushing victory. Finland's status as a republic was confirmed in the Finnish Constitution of 1919. History Finland had declared independence from what was the Russian Empire, at that time embroiled in the Russian Civil War, on 6 December 1917. At the time of the declaration of independence, monarchists were a minority in the Finnish Parliament, and Finland was declared a republic. A civil war followed, and afterwards, while the pro-republican Social Democratic Party was excluded from the Parliament and before a new constitution was adopted, Frederick was elected to the throne of Finland on 9 October 1918. Lithuania had already taken a similar step in July 1918, electing Wilhelm Karl, Duke of Urach and Count of Württemberg, as King Mindaugas II of Lithuania. In Latvia and Estonia, a "General Provincial Assembly" consisting of Baltic-German aristocrats had called upon the
Kingdom of Finland (1918)
76670551
Damache v DPP [2012] IESC 11; [2012] 13 ILRM 153; [2012] 2 IR 266 is an Irish Supreme Court case which considered whether section 29(1) of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 was unconstitutional. This statutory provision allowed a member of An Garda Siochana, who possessed a rank not below that of superintendent, to issue a search warrant to another Garda who possessed a rank not below that of sergeant. The Supreme Court held that any search warrant issued by a person who is associated with the investigation was invalid. In this case, such a person was a deemed to be a member of the Gardaí. Thus, section 29(1) was declared unconstitutional and any evidence taken from the search warrant was inadmissable. Background An investigation was launched into an alleged conspiracy to murder concerning a Mr Lars Vilks, who was a Swedish cartoonist that had portrayed the Muslim prophet Muhammad with the body of a dog. This caused an uproar in the Muslim community and a conspiracy to murder Mr Vilks was made. It was suspected that Damache, along with other individuals, were involved in this conspiracy. In addition, it was suspected that he made a threatening phone call to a person in America on 9th January 2010. Damache while in custody admitted that he had made a phone call of a threatening nature on 9th January 2010. A search warrant was granted under section 29(1) of the Offences against the State Act 1939 to search Damache's home. This search warrant was executed. Subsequently, Damache was charged with an offence of threat by telephone under section 13 Post Office (Amendment) Act 1951. This was different to what he was originally arrested for which was conspiracy to murder. Damache argued that section 29(1) was against the Constitution as it allowed a search warrant to be issued by a member of the Gardai who was not independent of the investigation. Damache sought judicial review, seeking: A declaration that section 29(1) is repugnant to the constitution; and A stay on any further steps being taken in the case against him. The High Court refused his application, therefore, Damache decided to appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. Submissions of the parties Damache submitted that the person making the decision as to the granting of a search warrant, should be "independent, impartial and have no material interest". He further argued that section 29(1) was contrary to the Constitution and that it fails to reflect the essential balance between the requirements of common good and protection of an individual's constitutional rights. The Director of Public Prosecutions, who were respondents to this appeal, submitted that this section was not in contrast to the Constitution and that it was necessary to prosecute people for offences against the state and against the justice system. It was further argued that any such diminution in rights was "proportionate and lawful." Holding of the Supreme Court This case was appealed from the High Court.
Damache v DPP
18120232
The Republic of Cospaia (, local dialect: Republica de' Cošpäja) was a small state in northern Umbria, now in Italy, that was independent from 1440 to 1826. It was in what is now the hamlet (frazione) of Cospaia, in the municipality (comune) of San Giustino, in the Province of Perugia. History Cospaia unexpectedly gained independence in 1440 after Pope Eugene IV, who was embroiled in a struggle with the Council of Basel, made a sale of territory to the Republic of Florence. By error, a small strip of land went unmentioned in the sale treaty, and its inhabitants declared themselves independent. The misunderstanding arose from the fact that about 500 m from the stream that was to establish the demarcation (simply called "Rio"), there was another stream with the same name. The delegates of the Florentine Republic considered the "Rio" that was located further north as the new delimitation, but the delegates of the Papal States considered it to be the one further south. Thus, a sort of terra nullius was formed whose inhabitants declared themselves independent and no longer subject to any authority. In 1484, its autonomy was formally recognized by both Florence and the Papal States since they considered it not worth the trouble to redraw treaties in regard to an already-complicated border. On May 25, 1826, Cospaia was divided between Tuscany and the Papal States. The treaty was signed by the 14 remaining family heads of Cospaia in exchange for a silver coin and permission to grow up to half a million tobacco plants a year. Birth of republic There were maritime republics (with aristocratic institutions), the Republic of San Marino and the alleged Republic of Senarica (in Abruzzo), with an elected doge akin to the system used in Venice, but their real existence has not been historically proven with proper documentation. The inhabitants of Cospaia, therefore, preferred to base their independence on the total freedom of the inhabitants, all of whom were holders of sovereignty, and it was not entrusted to any organ of power, unlike in states. Cospaia also had an official flag, which is still used on some occasions. The banner was characterised by a black-and-white field divided diagonally. In the coat of arms there appeared "the village between the two small streams, with two fish on the right and the plant of Nicotiana tabacum on the left, above was the motto and years of the republic". The inhabitants of Cospaia did not, therefore, have tribute obligations with either the Papal States or the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, and the goods that passed through the territory were not subject to any tariffs. It thus functioned as a free economic zone and buffer state between the two powers. Although Cospaia extended over just 330 ha (2 km long and about 500 m wide), the 250 inhabitants treasured the situation and took advantage of it to increase the cultivation of tobacco, among the first in the Italian Peninsula. Even now, some varieties of tobacco are still
Republic of Cospaia
2738170
The Belovezha Accords (, , ) is the agreement declaring that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had effectively ceased to exist and establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in its place as a successor entity. The documentation was signed at the state dacha near Viskuli in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, Belarus on 8 December 1991, by leaders of three of the four republics (except for the defunct Transcaucasian SFSR) which had signed the 1922 Treaty on the Creation of the USSR: Belarusian Parliament Chairman Stanislav Shushkevich and Prime Minister of Belarus Vyacheslav Kebich Russian President Boris Yeltsin and First Deputy Prime Minister of the RSFSR/Russian Federation Gennady Burbulis Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk and Ukrainian Prime Minister Vitold Fokin As Shushkevich said in 2006, by December "the union had already been broken up by the putschists" who in August 1991 tried to remove Mikhail Gorbachev from power to prevent the transformation of the Soviet Union into what Shushkevich described as "a confederation." The three wanted to avoid what happened in the breakup of Yugoslavia and "there was no other way out of the situation than a divorce." Name The name is variously translated as Belavezh Accords, Belovezh Accords, Belovezha Accords, Belavezha Agreement, the Belovezhskaya Accord, the Belaya Vezha Accord, etc. A reason of the discrepancy is the difference between Russian and Belarusian names of the eponymous forest's name on the Belarus-Polish border that used to have General Secretary Brezhnev’s hunting lodge. Key points The text of the Belovezh Accords contains an introduction and 14 Articles. The original text is available in official translation on the Council of Europe website. The main obligations of the parties to the Agreement, ratified by all former Soviet republics except Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, includes the following: The end of the existence of the USSR, with the "setting up of lawfully constituted democratic… independent states… on the basis of mutual recognition of and respect for State sovereignty". Establishing on the territory the "right to self-determination" along with "norms relating to human and people’s rights". "Parties guarantee to their citizens, regardless of their nationality or other differences, equal rights and freedoms. Each of the Parties guarantees to the citizens of the other Parties, and also to stateless persons resident in their territory, regardless of national affiliation or other differences, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights and freedoms in accordance with the universal recognized international norms relating to human rights" (Article 2). "The Parties, desirous of facilitating the expression, preservation and development of the distinctive ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious characteristics of the national minorities resident in their territories and of the unique ethno-cultural regions that have come into being, will extend protection to them" (Article 3). "Equitable cooperation" (Article 4). "Territorial integrity" along with "freedom of movement of citizens" (Article 5). Legal basis and ratification The preamble of the document stated that "the USSR, as a subject of international law and a geopolitical reality, is ceasing its existence". It also invited other republics to join
Belovezha Accords
7502319
Hasan Muhammad di Tiro (born Hasan Bin Leube Muhammad; 25 September 1925 – 3 June 2010), was the founder of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), an organisation which attempted to separate Aceh from Indonesia from the 1970s. It surrendered its separatist goals and agreed to disarm as agreed to in the Helsinki peace deal of 2005. He was the maternal great-grandson of Tengku Cik di Tiro, an Indonesian national hero who was killed fighting the Dutch in 1891. In 2010 he obtained his Indonesian citizenship back shortly before his death. Background Coming from a prominent family, from village of Tiro (Pidie Regency), di Tiro studied in the modernist schools of Daud Beure'eh's PUSA organisation from 1938 and through the Japanese occupation and was a leader of the PUSA Scouts by 1945. He was active as a Pesindo (Socialist Youth) leader in the 'social revolution' against Aceh's ruling aristocratic uleebalangs in December 1945. Then a passionate advocate of identifying Aceh's history with Indonesia's nationalist struggle, he studied further in the Indonesian revolutionary capital, Yogyakarta, and authored two books in defence of this view. He then continued his studies in United States, where he did part-time work for Indonesian Mission to the United Nations. While a student in New York City in 1953, he declared himself the "foreign minister" of the rebellious Darul Islam movement, which in Aceh was led by Daud Bereueh. Due to this action, he was immediately stripped of his Indonesian citizenship, causing him to be imprisoned for a few months on Ellis Island as an illegal alien. The Darul Islam rebellion in Aceh itself ended in a peace deal in 1962. Under the peace deal Aceh was granted nominal autonomy. Creating GAM Di Tiro re-appeared in Aceh in 1974, where he applied for a pipeline contract in the new Mobil Oil gas plant to be built in Lhokseumawe area. He was outbid by Bechtel, in a tender process in which di Tiro thought the central government had too much control. It has been claimed that, as result of this loss and the death of his brother due to what he considered to be deliberate neglect by a doctor of Javanese ethnicity, di Tiro began organising a separatist movement using his old Darul Islam contacts. He declared his organisation as the Aceh Sumatra National Liberation Front, better known as the Free Aceh Movement ("Gerakan Aceh Merdeka") on 4 December 1976. Amongst its goals was the total independence of Aceh from Indonesia. Di Tiro chose independence as one of GAM's goals instead of autonomy due to his focus on Aceh's pre-colonial history as an independent state. The ASNLF was distinct from the former Darul Islam rebellion which sought to overthrow the secular Pancasila ideology of Indonesia and create a pan-Indonesian Islamic state based on sharia, if with a high degree of autonomy for Aceh within such a state. In his "Declaration of Independence", he questioned Indonesia's right to exist as it was a multi-cultural state based on the Dutch colonial
Hasan Tiro
4513212
The situation of Human Rights in Pakistan () is complex as a result of the country's diversity, large population, its status as a developing country and a sovereign Islamic democracy with a mixture of both Islamic and secular law. Overview The Constitution of Pakistan provides for fundamental rights. The Clauses also provide for an independent Supreme Court, separation of executive and judiciary, an independent judiciary, independent Human Rights commission and freedom of movement within the country and abroad. However these clauses are not respected in practice. Although Pakistan was created to uphold the principles of democracy, military coups in Pakistan are commonplace, and for most of its history after independence has been ruled by military dictators who declare themselves president. The 2013 Pakistani general election were the first elections in the country where there was a constitutional transfer of power from one civilian government to another. Elections in Pakistan have been prone to irregularities including vote rigging, use of threats and coercion, and discrimination between Muslims and non-Muslims. Additionally the Government of Pakistan has itself admitted on several occasions that it has absolutely no control over the Military of Pakistan and related security agencies. In 2022, Freedom House rated Pakistan’s human rights at 37 out 100 (partly free). Violence against women is an important social issue in Pakistan. An estimated 5,000 women are killed per year as a result of domestic violence, with many maimed or disabled. In 2016 the provincial parliaments of Punjab and Sindh, which together comprise 65% of the country's population, independently condemned violence against women and took steps toward reducing its prevalence. Opposition to this type of legislation remains. According to the 2016 Global Slavery Index, an estimated 2,134,900 people are enslaved in modern-day Pakistan, or 1.13% of the population. Religious discrimination, religious violence, and lack of religious freedom continue to remain serious issues in Pakistan, and they have often been condoned by politicians such as Khawaja Nazimuddin, the 2nd Prime Minister of Pakistan, who stated: "I do not agree that religion is a private affair of the individual nor do I agree that in an Islamic state every citizen has identical rights, no matter what his caste, creed or faith be". This stands in contrast to the position of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, who stated in an address to the constituent assembly of Pakistan, "You will find that in course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as the citizens of the State." Political Freedom in Pakistan Although Pakistan was created to uphold the principles of democracy, its history has been rife with military coups, and for most of its history after independence, it has been ruled by military dictators who have declared themselves president. The 2013 Pakistani general election was the first election in the country after which there was a constitutional transfer of
Human rights in Pakistan
660608
A fair trial is a trial which is "conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge". Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, in addition to numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international law that defines what is not a fair trial; for example, the right to a jury trial and other important procedures vary from nation to nation. Definition in international human rights law The right to fair trial is very helpful to explore in numerous declarations which represent customary international law, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Though the UDHR enshrines some fair trial rights, such as the presumption of innocence until the accused is proven guilty, in Articles 6, 7, 8 and 11, the key provision is Article 10 which states that: Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. Some years after the UDHR was adopted, the right to a fair trial was defined in more detail in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The right to a fair trial is protected in Articles 14 and 16 of the ICCPR which is binding in international law on those states that are party to it. Article 14(1) establishes the basic right to a fair trial, article 14(2) provides for the presumption of innocence, and article 14(3) sets out a list of minimum fair trial rights in criminal proceedings. Article 14(5) establishes the right of a convicted person to have a higher court review the conviction or sentence, and article 14(7) prohibits double jeopardy. Article 14(1) states that: All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. Geneva Conventions The Geneva Conventions (GC) and their Additional Protocols (APs) require that any prisoners of war facing a judicial proceeding receive
Right to a fair trial
14354794
The declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam () was written by Hồ Chí Minh, and announced in public at the Ba Đình flower garden (now the Ba Đình Square) in Hanoi on September 2, 1945. It led to the foundation of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, replacing the Nguyen dynasty. History Vietnam, under the Nguyễn dynasty, became a protectorate of France in the late 19th century, but during World War II, Japan occupied the country from 1940. During this period the Viet Minh fought a guerrilla war against the Japanese and were to a degree supported by the Americans in 1945 via the Office of Strategic Services. On August 22, 1945, the OSS agent Archimedes Patti, who had met Ho Chi Minh in southern China, arrived in Hanoi on a mercy mission to liberate allied POWs and was accompanied by Jean Sainteny a French government official. The Japanese forces informally surrendered (the official surrender took place on September 2, 1945 in Tokyo Bay) but the only force capable of maintaining law and order was the Imperial Japanese Army, and so remained in power and kept French colonial troops detained. Japanese forces allowed the Việt Minh and other nationalist groups to take over public buildings and weapons without resistance, which began the August Revolution. On the morning of August 26, 1945, at No. 48 Hàng Ngang, Hà Nội, Chairman Hồ Chí Minh presided over a meeting of the Communist Party of Vietnam, which he had called. The meeting unanimously decided to prepare to proclaim independence and to organize a large meeting in Hà Nội for the Provisional Revolutionary Government to present itself to the people. That was also the day that Vietnam officially promulgated the right of freedom and established a democratic republic system. On August 30, 1945, Hồ Chí Minh invited several people to contribute their ideas toward his Declaration of Independence, including a number of American OSS officers. OSS officers met repeatedly with him and other Viet Minh officers during late August, and Patti claimed to have listened to Ho read to him a draft of the Declaration, which he believed sounded very similar to the United States Declaration of Independence. On September 2, 1945, Hồ Chí Minh read the Declaration during a public meeting in front of thousands of people at what is now Ba Đình Square and announced the birth of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the country's independence and becoming a republic. Original References External links Recording of original proclamation and full text – Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (archived 22 September 2013) Declarations of independence of Vietnam Vietnamese independence movement 1945 in Vietnam 1945 in French Indochina 1945 in international relations 1945 in law Aftermath of World War II in Vietnam Ho Chi Minh Proclamations 1945 in the French colonial empire September 1945 events in Asia 1945 documents
Declaration of independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam
5836728
The Directive Principles of State Policy of India are the guidelines to be followed by the government of India for the governance of the country. They are not enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down there are considered 'Fundamental' in the governance of the country, which makes it the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws to establish a just society in the country. The principles have been inspired by the Directive Principles given in the Constitution of Ireland which are related to social justice, economic welfare, foreign policy, and legal and administrative matters. Directive Principles are classified under the following categories: Economic and Socialistic, Political and Administrative, Justice and Legal, Environmental, Protection of Monuments, Peace and Security. The History of Ireland, particularly the Irish Home Rule Movement; hence, the Directive Principles of the Indian constitution have been greatly influenced by the Directive Principles of Social Policy. The idea of such policies "can be traced to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen proclaimed by Revolutionary France and the Declaration of Independence by the American Colonies." The Indian constitution was also influenced by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Indians, who were seeking independence from British rule and their own government, were particularly influenced by the independence of Ireland from British rule and the development of the Irish constitution. Also, the Directive Principles of State Policy in the Irish Constitution were looked upon by the people of India as an inspiration for the independent Indian Government to comprehensively tackle complex social and economic challenges across a vast, diverse nation and population. In 1928, the Nehru Commission composing of representatives of all Indian political parties, proposed constitutional reforms for India that apart from calling for dominion status for India and elections under universal suffrage, would guarantee rights deemed fundamental, representation for religious and ethnic minorities, and limit the powers of the government. In 1931, the Indian National Congress (the largest Indian political party of the time) adopted resolutions committing itself to the defence of fundamental civil rights, as well as socio-economic rights such as the minimum wage and the abolition of untouchability and serfdom, committing themselves to socialism. When India obtained Independence on 15 August 1947, the task of developing a constitution for the nation was undertaken by the Constituent Assembly of India, composing of elected representatives under the presidency of Dr. Rajendra Prasad. While members of Congress composed of a large majority, Congress leaders appointed persons from diverse political backgrounds to responsibilities of developing the constitution and national laws. Notably, Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar became the chairperson of the drafting committee, while Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel became chairperson of committees and sub-committees responsible for different subjects. A notable development during that period having significant effect on the Indian constitution took place on 10 December 1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and called upon all member States to adopt these
Directive Principles
5472856
The independence of New Zealand is a matter of continued academic and social debate. New Zealand has no fixed date of independence from the United Kingdom; instead, political independence came about as a result of New Zealand's evolving constitutional status. Beginning in the late 1700s New Zealand's existing Māori population was supplemented by sealers and whalers from Europe, followed by sporadic arrivals of adventurers from Europe and the Americas, Christian missionaries, and escaped convicts from Australia. British Resident James Busby arrived in New Zealand in May 1833. In 1835, a number of Māori chiefs asserted their sovereignty within their independent tribal nations by signing the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand (He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni). On 6 February 1840, William Hobson, as representative of the United Kingdom, and Māori chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi, which established the right of the British Crown to govern, and Hobson subsequently proclaimed British sovereignty over the islands in May of the same year. On 16 November 1840, the British government issued the Charter for Erecting the new Colony of New Zealand. The Charter stated that the Colony of New Zealand would be established as a Crown colony separate from New South Wales on 1 July 1841. In 1853, only 12 years after the founding of the colony, the British Parliament passed the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, granting the colony's settlers the right to self-governance. New Zealand was, therefore, to all intents and purposes independent in domestic matters from its earliest days as a British colony. A major step towards nationhood on the international stage came in 1919 when New Zealand was given a seat in the newly founded League of Nations. In 1926 the Balfour Declaration declared Britain's Dominions as "equal in status", followed by the creation of the legal basis of independence, established by the Statute of Westminster 1931 which came about mainly at the behest of nationalist elements in South Africa and the Irish Free State. Australia, New Zealand, and Newfoundland were hostile towards this development, and the statute was not adopted in New Zealand until 1947. Irrespective of any legal developments, some New Zealanders still perceived themselves as a distinctive outlying branch of the United Kingdom until at least the 1970s. This attitude began to change when the United Kingdom joined the European Community in 1973 and abrogated its preferential trade agreements with New Zealand, and gradual nationality and societal changes further eroded the relationship. The final legal constitutional links between the two countries were severed by the Constitution Act 1986. History Declaration of Independence (1835) On 28 October 1835, the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand was signed by the United Tribes of New Zealand, a loose confederation of Māori tribes from the far north of New Zealand organised by British resident James Busby. This document declared the independence of the Māori tribes (iwi) who signed the Declaration, which was acknowledged by Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for War and the Colonies
Independence of New Zealand
6075560
The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, also known as the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514, was a resolution of the United Nations General Assembly during its fifteenth session, that affirmed independence for countries and peoples under colonial rule. The declaration characterized foreign rule as a violation of human rights, affirmed the right to self-determination, and called for an end to colonial rule. Adom Getachew writes, "Within fifteen years, anticolonial nationalists had successfully captured the UN and transformed the General Assembly into a platform for the international politics of decolonization." According to Christian Reus-Smit, the resolution "produced a tectonic shift in international legitimacy", as it "successfully undermined the institution of empire." It was adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 14, 1960. 89 countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States. The Declaration is cited by International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Context A declaration on decolonization was first proposed by the Soviet Union, calling for the rapid independence of the remaining colonies. However a number of states considered that too rapid a decolonization would lead to chaos in those former colonies, so they resolved to bring the matter more rapidly to the General Assembly. Forty-three Asian and African states brought forward this compromise declaration which called for "immediate steps to be taken", which had many possible interpretations short of rapid decolonization. The United States had long encouraged decolonization, and was expected to support the declaration, but abstained as a result of pressure from the United Kingdom. Despite abstaining, one U.S. representative, Zelma George, led an ovation after the vote. Many states felt the U.S. had let them down. Many European and NATO states had voted for the declaration, so there was not a broad Western position on it. The United Kingdom, with most remaining colonies, thought the declaration was an implied criticism of it, and also there should be a period of proper preparation for independence. While having limited influence on other delegates, the UK views influenced the U.S. vote, which was escalated to a final decision by President Eisenhower. U.S. Ambassador James Wadsworth in his speech explained that they agreed with the overall objective but there were "difficulties in the language and thought" and raised various technical issues. Senator Wayne Morse characterized it in one instance as "the United States State Department bent over backwards to read the paragraph incorrectly". Legacy The declaration was a milestone in the process of decolonization. In 2000, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of Resolution 1514, UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 55/146 that declared 2001–2010 the Second International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. This follows on from 1990 to 2000 having been the International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism. See also United Nations list of non-self-governing territories Dependent territory United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI) References External links
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples
62450
Independence is a condition of a nation, country, or state, in which residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over its territory. The opposite of independence is the status of a dependent territory or colony. The commemoration of the independence day of a country or nation celebrates when a country is free from all forms of colonialism; free to build a country or nation without any interference from other nations. Definition of independence Whether the attainment of independence is different from revolution has long been contested, and has often been debated over the question of violence as legitimate means to achieving sovereignty. In general, revolutions aim only to redistribute power with or without an element of emancipation,such as in democratization within a state, which as such may remain unaltered. For example, the Mexican Revolution (1910) chiefly refers to a multi-factional conflict that eventually led to a new constitution; it has rarely been used to refer to the armed struggle (1821) against Spain. However, some wars of independence have been described as revolutions, such as the ones in the United States (1783) and Indonesia (1949), while some revolutions that were specifically about a change in the political structure have resulted in breakaway states. Mongolia and Finland, for example, gained their independence during the revolutions occurring in China (1911) and Russia (1917) respectively. Causes for a country or province wishing to seek independence are many, but most can be summed up as a feeling of inequality compared to the dominant power. The means can extend from intended peaceful demonstrations as in the case of India (1947), to a violent war as in the case of Algeria (1962). In some cases, a country may also have declared independence, but may only be partially recognized by other countries; such as Kosovo (2008), whose independence Serbia, from which Kosovo has seceded, has not formally recognized. Distinction between independence and autonomy Autonomy refers to a kind of independence which has been granted by an overseeing authority that itself still retains ultimate authority over that territory (see Devolution). A protectorate refers to an autonomous region that depends upon a larger government for its protection as an autonomous region. Right to independence During the 20th century wave of decolonization colonies gained rights to independence through documents such as the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, but this right remained mostly applicable only to unfree territorial entities, such as colonies. How much these rights apply to all people has been a crucial point of discussion. The rights to nationality and self-determination allow clarification. The right of self-determination allows self-governance, as for example in the case of indigenous peoples, but is not a right of secession, except in extreme cases of oppression as a remedy from the oppression. Therefore, the right to secession is generally determined by the legislation of sovereign states and independence by the capacity to be a state. Declarations of independence Sometimes, a state wishing to
Independence
15056490
The Declaration "On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia" () was adopted on 4 May 1990 by the Supreme Soviet of the Latvian SSR in which Latvia declared independence from the Soviet Union. The Declaration stated that, although Latvia had de facto lost its independence in 1940, when it was annexed by the Soviet Union, the country had de jure remained a sovereign country as the annexation had been unconstitutional and against the will of the Latvian people. It asserted the priority of the basics of the international law over the national laws and therefore it resolved that the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and the Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 were illegal. It also asserted that the heavily rigged 1940 elections were illegal and unconstitutional, and that all acts of the chosen at that election–including the request to join the Soviet Union on 21 July 1940–were ipso facto void. On this basis, the Supreme Soviet–now renamed the Supreme Council–annulled the declaration on the accession of Latvia to the Soviet Union, reinstituted the Constitution of Latvia (Satversme) of 1922, which was thereupon partly suspended, and began a transition to de facto independence, which would end upon the first session of Saeima. It also ruled that during the transitional period the Constitution of the Latvian SSR and other laws would remain applicable as long as they did not contradict articles 1, 2, 3, and 6 of Satversme, which were reinforced by the declaration. It was provided that a committee to elaborate a new edition of Satversme should be created. Social, economic, cultural, and political rights were granted to citizens and residents of Latvia in accordance with international human rights. The declaration also stated that Latvia would form its relationship with the Soviet Union on the basis of the Latvian–Soviet Peace Treaty of 1920, in which the Soviet Union had recognized the independence of Latvia as inviolable "for all future time". 4 May is a national holiday in Latvia. Overview Historical and juridical background The Declaration begins by reiterating several historical facts. On the basis of these facts, it argued that the Republic of Latvia was still de jure a sovereign country. It observes that Latvia's declaration of independence on 18 November 1918 was internationally recognized in 1920, and that Latvia was admitted to membership in the League of Nations in 1921. The first country to recognize the independence of Latvia de jure was Soviet Russia on 11 August 1920, when the Soviet-Latvian Peace treaty was signed (it is generally considered that the independence of Latvia de jure was internationally recognized on 26 January 1921, when it was recognized by the Allies of World War I). The declaration notes that in April 1920 the Latvian nation followed the principle of self-determination by electing a Constitutional Assembly of Latvia, which adopted the Constitution of Latvia on 15 February 1922, in general, equal and direct elections, based on proportional representation. On 23 August 1939, the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop
On the Restoration of Independence of the Republic of Latvia
66554921
In 1789 is made the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, set by France's National Constituent Assembly. In 1791, the enslaved Africans of Saint-Domingue began the Haitian Revolution, aimed at the overthrow of the colonial reign. Background Arawak and Taino people inhabited for more than one thousand years what was later known as Hispaniola. Christopher Columbus arrived to the island on December 5, 1492. The name Haiti (or Hayti) comes from the indigenous Taíno language which was the native name given to the entire island of Hispaniola to mean, "land of high mountains." Saint-Domingue () became a French colony from 1659 to 1804 on the Caribbean island of Hispaniola. Early attempts were made by slaves in order to recover their freedom, among them can be named the uprising in Saint-Domingue made by Padrejean in 1676, and the uprising of François Mackandal in 1757 In France was taking place the French Revolution, on 21 June 1791, King Louis XVI attempted to flee secretly with his family but his plan failed due to a series of misadventures, delays, misinterpretations, and poor judgments. Louis was officially arrested on 13 August 1792 and sent to the Temple, an ancient fortress in Paris that was used as a prison. On 21 September, the National Assembly declared France to be a republic, and abolished the monarchy. Louis was stripped of all of his titles and honors, and from this date was known as Citoyen Louis Capet. 1791 slave rebellion News of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were received by the Hispaniola citizens and prompted the reclamation of their rights. On the night of August 14, 1791, representative slaves from nearby plantations of Le Cap gathered to participate in a secret ceremony conducted in the woods in the French colony of Saint-Domingue, during the ceremony Dutty Boukman and priestess Cécile Fatiman prophesied that Georges Biassou, Jeannot, Jean-François Papillon would lead the revolution, months later they killed the plantation owners to whom they were enslaved. Haitian Revolution Many generals fought in the Haitian revolution, some of they were Macaya, François Capois, Jean-Baptiste Belley, Magloire Ambroise, Nicolas Geffrard (general) , and Étienne Élie Gerin, some of the battles of the revolution were: Battle of Croix-des-Bouquets (22 March 1792), Siege of Port-au-Prince (12–14 April 1793), Battle of Cap-Français (1793) (20–22 June 1793), Battle of the Acul (19 February 1794), Battle of Saint-Raphaël (20–21 March 1794), Battle of Gonaïves (29 April–5 May 1794), War of Knives (1799 to 1800): A civil war from June 1799 to July 1800 between the Haitian revolutionary Toussaint Louverture, and André Rigaud, Battle of Ravine-à-Couleuvres (23 February 1802), Battle of Crête-à-Pierrot (4–24 March 1802), Blockade of Saint-Domingue (18 June – 6 December 1803), Action of 28 June 1803, Battle of Vertières (18 November 1803) Haitian Declaration of Independence The Haitian Declaration of Independence was proclaimed on 1 January 1804 in the port city of Gonaïves by Jean-Jacques Dessalines, marking the end of 13-year long Haitian
Independence of Haiti
5992961
American civil religion is a sociological theory that a nonsectarian religious faith exists within the United States with sacred symbols drawn from national history. Scholars have portrayed it as a common set of values that foster social and cultural integration. The ritualistic elements of ceremonial deism found in American ceremonies and presidential invocations of God can be seen as expressions of the American civil religion. The concept goes back to the 19th century, but the current form of this theory was developed by sociologist Robert Bellah in 1967 in the article, "Civil Religion in America". According to Bellah, Americans embrace a common civil religion with certain fundamental beliefs, values, holidays, and rituals in parallel to, or independent of, their chosen religion. Bellah's article soon became the major focus at religious sociology conferences and numerous articles and books were written on the subject. Interest in the topic reached its peak with the American Bicentennial celebration in 1976. Theory Bellah posits that Americans have come to see the document of the United States Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, as cornerstones of a type of civil religion or political religion. Political sociologist Anthony Squiers argues that these texts act as the sacred writ of the American civil religion because they are used as authoritative symbols in what he calls the politics of the sacred. The politics of the sacred, according to Squiers, are "the attempt to define and dictate what is in accord with the civil religious sacred and what is not. It is a battle to define what can and cannot be and what should and should not be tolerated and accepted in the community, based on its relation to that which is sacred for that community." The nation provides quasi-religious central roles to its presidents and honors to its martyrs, such as Abraham Lincoln and the soldiers killed in the American Civil War. Historians have noted presidential level use of civil religion rhetoric in profoundly moving episodes such as World War II, the Civil Rights Movement, and the September 11 attacks. Fourteen tenets In a survey of more than fifty years of American civil religion scholarship, Squiers identifies fourteen principal tenets: Filial piety Reverence to certain sacred texts and symbols such as the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the flag The sanctity of American institutions The belief in God or a deity The idea that rights are divinely given The notion that freedom comes from God through government Governmental authority comes from God or a higher transcendent authority The conviction that God can be known through the American experience God is the supreme judge God is sovereign America's prosperity results from God's providence America is a "city on a hill" or a beacon of hope and righteousness The principle of sacrificial death and rebirth America serves a higher purpose than self-interests He further found that there are no statistically significant differences in the amount of American civil religious language between Democrats and Republicans,
American civil religion
13545108
Stonum, also called Stoneham, is a historic house at 900 Washington Avenue in New Castle, Delaware. Its main section built about 1750, it was the country home of George Read (1733-1798), a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His advocacy enabled Delaware to become the first state ratifying the declaration. The house was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1973. It is the only building standing associated with this Founding Father. Description and history Stonum is located west of the downtown area of New Castle, at the northwest corner of Washington Street (Delaware Route 9) and 9th Street. It is set on small wooded lot, facing roughly toward 9th Street. It is a -story brick structure, with a gabled roof and chimneys built into the side walls. A two-story ell extends to the rear, which is probably of older age than the main block. The front facade is four bays wide, with the entrance in the center-right bay, and a single-story porch across the full width, supported by brick posts. The interior has an unusual center hall plan, with the main stairway set immediately to the right of the hall, in what is normally an intra-wall space between the hall and the right-side parlor. The interior has many original finishes, including elegant period fireplace mantels and cornice moulding, and original wooden floors. The oldest portion of the house, its kitchen ell, was built about 1730. The front portion of the house was added before 1769. A further addition was made in 1850, while a concrete block porch was added in the 1920s. The house once enjoyed an expansive view of the Delaware River, which is now obscured by mature plantings and intervening development. The house served as a tenant farm for George Read during the 1750s and 1760s; it is unclear if the main block was built during or prior to his period of ownership. It is the only surviving structure associated with Read, a prominent figure in Delaware politics through the Revolutionary period. His rented in-town house is only a few blocks away and burned in 1824, after Read had passed away and the building was being used as a bank. The location is now the site of the formal gardens attached to the George Read II House, built by his son. Read was an influential figure, contributing significantly to the drafting of Delaware's first state constitution in addition to his service in the Continental Congress (where he signed the United States Declaration of Independence), as President of Delaware, and as a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention which drafted the United States Constitution. See also George Read II House, the more elaborate home of his son, now a museum New Castle County Court House References External links National Historic Landmarks in Delaware Houses on the National Register of Historic Places in Delaware Houses in New Castle, Delaware Houses completed in 1750 Historic American Buildings Survey in Delaware National Register of Historic Places in New Castle County, Delaware Plantation houses
Stonum
63379780
Svedectvo (Testimony) is the official journal of the PV ZPKO (Political Prisoners' Association of Anti-Communist Resistance), an organization which split from the Confederation of Slovak Political Prisoners in 1999. It is noted for its far-right orientation and apologist publications on the history of the Slovak State—especially those defending convicted war criminals. Content The subtitle of the journal is tabuizovaných faktov (taboo facts). Svedectvo published an article claiming that Otomar Kubala was "great patriot, a heroic fighter for Slovak freedom and state independence" and calling for "glory and honor to his memory, which will never perish". Kubala was a radical antisemite who led the Hlinka Guard, which carried out the deportation of Jews from Slovakia. Even admirers of the Slovak State regime consider him too extreme. A member of the editorial board, Ivan Mrva, published an article in the journal in 2015 asserting that "The last time [14 March, the anniversary of the 1939 Slovak declaration of independence] was worthily celebrated with the presence of the president, government, public figures and the diplomatic corps was in the year 1945, unfortunately the Soviet cannons were already rumbling somewhere in the east." The article noted that the president and government representatives were sentenced to death on 14 March 1947 but omitted the crimes of which they were convicted. In an article, editor-in-chief Eva Zelenayová criticized the head of the National Memory Institute, , for describing the Slovak State "as a rampaging regime, with political prisoners tortured at Ilava, commission of mass murder, Jewish transports to Auschwitz, mass extermination of Jews, Roma, persecution of political opponents." According to political scientist Nadya Nedelsky, the journal's writers relativize the crimes of the Slovak State regime, arguing that the achievement of Slovak independence was worth the crimes of the regime—up to and including genocide. Articles in the magazine mythologize the regime's leaders, while often blaming the victims as deserving what they received. The lack of nuance is partly due to the format of short, one page articles which lack space for details. According to Nedelsky, antisemitism is often present as an undercurrent and sometimes overtly. Svedectvo also publishes articles on former political prisoners of the Communist regime. The journal claimed that "ĽSNS [Marian Kotleba's party] is the first authentic right-wing party to get into parliament and dedicate its program to defending the Christian values of our state". ĽSNS is a far-right, neo-Nazi party. Personnel Editor-in-chief Eva Zelenayová, formerly an MP of People's Party – Movement for a Democratic Slovakia, declared her support for Kotleba's party in a 2017 interview. Peter Bielik, who attracted controversy with an article written for a different magazine, was a member of the editorial board. Ján Košiar, a Catholic priest and Kotleba supporter, was the chairperson of the editorial board in 2017. Controversies Svedectvo has been criticized by Slovakia's Jewish community. One of the National Memory Institute's staff historians, , was fired in 2016 for promoting the Slovak State. In an article in Svedectvo, Lacko claimed that Ferdinand Ďurčanský and others were unfairly
Svedectvo
18169806
Relations between Ukraine and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) started in 1991 following Ukraine's independence after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Ukraine first joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program in 1994, later joining the Planning and Review Process in 1997 and the NATO-Ukraine Commission in 1998. Although Ukraine initially declared neutrality and non-alignment with military blocs after independence, it later signaled interest in eventual NATO membership. After Russia's annexation of Crimea and support for separatist forces in eastern Ukraine in 2014, Ukraine began actively pursuing NATO membership, formally declaring it a strategic policy objective in 2017. However, NATO membership prospects remain uncertain due to ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine and concerns over meeting membership criteria. While public support for NATO membership has risen in Ukraine since 2014, the prospect continues to face opposition from Russia, which sees Ukraine's potential NATO accession as a security threat. A 2017 poll found that some 69% of Ukrainians wanted to join NATO, compared to 28% in 2012 when Yanukovych was in power. In February 2019, the Ukrainian parliament voted to amend the Constitution of Ukraine to state Ukraine's goal of NATO and European Union membership. At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would eventually become a NATO member with the MAP as an integral part of the process, and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy without outside interference. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also stressed that Russia will not be able to veto Ukraine's accession to NATO "as we will not return to the era of spheres of interest, when large countries decide what smaller ones should do." Before further actions on NATO membership were taken, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022.Polls conducted between 2005 and 2013 found low support among Ukrainians for NATO membership. However, since the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian War in 2014, Ukrainian public support for NATO membership has risen greatly. Since June 2014, polls showed that about 50% of those asked supported Ukrainian NATO membership. On 30 September 2022, Ukraine formally applied to join NATO, following Russia's annexation of Southern and Eastern Ukraine. History Ukraine's Declaration of Sovereignty, adopted by parliament in 1990, declared it had the "intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles" (art. 9). Presidency of Leonid Kravchuk (1991–1994) Relations between Ukraine and NATO were formally established in 1992, when Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council after regaining its independence, later renamed the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council. On 22 and 23 February 1992, NATO Secretary-General Manfred Wörner paid an official visit to Kyiv, and on 8 July 1992, Kravchuk visited NATO Headquarters in Brussels. An important event in the development of relations between Ukraine and NATO was the opening in September 1992 of the Embassy of Ukraine in Brussels, which was a link in contacts between Ukraine and NATO. A few years
Ukraine–NATO relations
71095861
The Twentieth Anniversary Joint Declaration: Challenges to Freedom of Expression in the next decade was published in 2019 by representatives of intergovernmental bodies to protect free media and expression. Jointly and annually, the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization of American States (OAS) and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR) publish the results of their discussions about a topic. During these discussions, each organization is a representative (or rapporteur) of a specific human right. During their 2019 discussion of freedom of expression, the UN was the special rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression. The OSCE was the representative on freedom of the media, the OAS was the special rapporteur on freedom of expression, and the ACHPR was the special rapporteur on freedom of expression and access to information. They aimed to provide guidance to governments, civil society organizations, legal professionals, journalists and media outlets, academics, and the business sector. Protocol The first part of the declaration consists of a protocol of achievements, apprehensions, and aspirations. The representatives believed that the 20 previous declarations have contributed to the establishment of authoritative standards which address a wide range of issues and challenges, including the importance of freedom of expression to democracy, sustainable development, protecting other rights, and efforts to counter terrorism, propaganda, and incitement to violence. All parties have expressed concern about increasing violence against, and prosecution of, reporters, activists, and journalists exercising their right to freedom of expression. Although significant contributions from new digital technologies have made expanding global communication easier, leading to the possibility of people everywhere accessing information and ideas and expressing themselves, the representatives acknowledged that there is room for improvement. Not everyone has access to the Internet; disinformation and propaganda spread quickly, enabling arbitrary and unlawful surveillance. The representatives expressed concern about deepening threats to media diversity and independence, including an increased concentration of media ownership and political control and censorship of public media. They stressed that all states must respect the obligations set out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, primarily by ensuring that any restrictions are necessary and appropriate and enabling independent judicial oversight of conditions. The representatives said that these obligations should be mandatory for private companies, with the same standards regarding human rights. Challenges to address Freedom of expression The authors of the declaration state that immediate action should be guaranteed to protect the safety of journalists and others who are attacked for exercising their right to freedom of expression and impunity for such attacks should be ended. States should provide media diversity and a voice to marginalized groups. The state should also explore more seriously the economic challenges faced by independent journalists and media outlets, supporting local media and mitigating the negative impacts of online advertising. Free, open and inclusive Internet Freedom of expression requires a digital infrastructure allowing all stakeholders to participate equally. The state should expand initiatives to provide universal, affordable Internet
Joint Declaration: Challenges to Freedom of Expression in the next decade
66202072
The Colony of Liberia, later the Commonwealth of Liberia, was a private colony of the American Colonization Society (ACS) beginning in 1822. It became an independent nation—the Republic of Liberia—after declaring independence in 1847. Early status and settlements It is unclear whether or not Liberia was ever technically a colony at all. Unlike most other colonies in the 19th century, it had no charter and had no official allegiance or relationship with a sovereign nation. As one early report explained, "The Colony belongs to, and is under the immediate control and jurisdiction of the Board of Managers of the American Colonization Society." Even after it had declared independence in 1847 and established itself as a republic in 1848, few nations recognized its sovereignty. Indeed, the United States did not recognize Liberia's independence until 1862, after the southern states had seceded and formed the Confederate States of America at the beginning of the American Civil War. The American Colonization Society did not act alone in creating the colony. Much of what would become Liberia was a collection of independent settlements sponsored by state colonization societies: Mississippi-in-Africa, Kentucky-in-Africa, Louisiana, Virginia, and several others. In the decades before Liberia's independence, these separate colonies systematically came together to form and expand the Colony of Liberia, and in 1839, they formed the Commonwealth of Liberia, defined by a stronger union and an increased dedication to home rule. Preparations In 1815, Paul Cuffee attempted a settlement for freedmen on Sherbro Island, but it failed within five years and the survivors fled to Sierra Leone. In 1816, leaders like Henry Clay, Robert Finley, and Francis Scott Key, formed the American Colonization Society, with the purpose of relocating freedmen to the Pepper Coast. In 1820, they sent the ship Elizabeth with three American agents and eighty-six freemen to Sherbro Island, but malaria and disease killed many colonists as well as all three agents. In 1821, the Nautilus arrived with two agents of the society, two agents from the United States government and thirty-three additional settlers and promptly decided to abandon Sherbro Island, as soon as a suitable replacement could be found. First colony After numerous failed negotiations to secure land along the coast, the American Colonization Society sent two agents, Robert F. Stockton and Eli Ayres to negotiate with local chieftains to secure a place for colonization. A conference was held at Cape Mesurado, which the locals called Ducor. Under the terms of the Ducor Contract, signed by Gola chiefs Kaanda Njola of Sao's Town and Long Peter of Klay; Dei chief Kai-Peter of Stockton Creek; Kru chief Bah Gwogro (also George) of Old Kru Town; and chief Jimmy from St. Paul River, the Society acquired Cape Mesurado and land on Dozoa Island in the bay. They established a settlement on Dozoa Island, which they renamed Perseverance. It was difficult for the early settlers, made of mostly free-born blacks who had been denied the full rights of United States citizenship. In Liberia, the native Africans resisted the expansion
Colony of Liberia
5006765
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) (; ) was created in 1972 as an independent, non-partisan not-for-profit organization with the mission of protecting human rights and civil rights in Israel and the territories under its control. ACRI is Israel's oldest and largest human rights organization. Headquartered in Tel Aviv, with offices in Jerusalem, and Nazareth, the organization promotes transparency and accountability in government. ACRI has been accused by critics, including former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, of defending terrorists. History Established in 1972, ACRI views itself as being "committed to promoting the universality of human rights and defending the human rights and civil liberties of all, regardless of religion, nationality, gender, ethnicity, political affiliation, sexual orientation, or socioeconomic background." The association established its views based on the basic rights recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, and the values in Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. In 1981, ACRI instituted a human rights award to be given to "individuals and organizations that have made an outstanding contribution to the advancement of human rights in Israel". The award was renamed in 1983 as the "Emil Grunzweig Human Rights Award." In 2009, ACRI organized what has become an annual "Human Rights March" to mark International Human Rights Day (December 10) in Tel Aviv. Activity ACRI's Legal Department argues cases before the Supreme Court of Israel, and also seeks redress before district and labor courts, government ministries, and Knesset committees. ACRI's Education Department conducts human rights training programs, produces educational curricula in Hebrew and Arabic, and organizes conferences and lectures on human rights education. Additionally, ACRI operates a program on International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and offers IHL educational workshops to social activists, students, educators, youth movement counselors, and students at pre-military academies to "enhance the participants’ knowledge of IHL, and to provide opportunities for discussion and for developing their positions on the issues involved." ACRI publishes reports and information leaflets; organizes lectures, conferences, film screenings and other public and community events covering a wide range of human rights issues; and runs a public hotline to assist people whose rights have been infringed. Internationally, ACRI submits shadow reports and provides information to UN committees and representatives regarding Israel’s compliance with its human rights obligations; meets with foreign diplomats and government representatives; participates in international conferences and NGO networks; and raises awareness of human rights issues by generating ongoing international media coverage. ACRI focus on issues pertaining to Arab Minority Rights, Anti-Democratic Initiatives, Freedom of Expression, LGBT Rights, East Jerusalem, Human Rights Defenders in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), Migrant Workers, Child Rights, Negev Bedouins, Refugees and Asylum Seekers, Right to Health, Women's Rights, and the Right to Housing. ACRI deals also with freedom of expression and the right to demonstrate. The association has initiated many legal actions to establish the right to demonstrate and the rights of demonstrators. Criticism Though ACRI does not identify itself politically, activities of the association
Association for Civil Rights in Israel
1330527
What is known today as the Tryon Resolves (entitled at the time the Tryon Declaration of Rights and Independence from British Tyranny) was a brief declaration adopted and signed by "subscribers" to the Tryon County Association that was formed in Tryon County, North Carolina in the early days of the American Revolution. In the Resolves—a modern name for the Association's charter document—the county representatives vowed resistance to the increasingly coercive actions being enacted by the government of Great Britain against its North American colonies. The document was signed on August 14, 1775, but—like other similar declarations of the time—stopped short of calling for total independence from Britain. Background The "Tryon Association" was formed with the signing of the Tryon Declaration of Rights and Independence from British Tyranny. (This document only became known as "The Tryon Resolves" in the 20th-century.) The Association was formed in response to the April 19, 1775, Battle of Lexington. The Resolves was among the earliest of many local colonial declarations against the coercive policies that the British government had instituted in the colonies that were considered oppressive by the colonists. Other similar associations with signed "declarations" from the same period included the Mecklenburg Resolves (adopted in nearby Mecklenburg County, North Carolina) and the Suffolk Resolves (adopted in Suffolk County, Massachusetts). The Tryon Resolves predated the United States Declaration of Independence by almost 11 months, but stopped short of proscribing independence from Britain, instead supporting armed resistance until a resolution with England could be made. As tensions between the North American colonies and the British government continued to increase, county residents began forming Committees of Safety to prepare militia companies for a potential war. On September 14, 1775, many of the signers of the Tryon Resolves formed the Tryon County Militia in preparation for British retaliation against American revolutionaries. Text summary and effect In the Tryon Resolves: The county residents refer to "the painful necessity of having recourse to arms in defense of our National freedom and constitutional rights, against all invasions; Vow to take up arms and risk our lives and our fortunes in maintaining the freedom of our country..." The colonists declare they will continue to follow the Continental Congress or Provincial Conventions in defiance of British declarations that these were illegal; The signers warn that force will be met with force until such a time as a "reconciliation" can be made between the colonies and Britain. Signers The "subscribers" (signatories) to the Tryon Association were: Robt. Alexander Jas. Baird Abel Beatty Thomas Beatty John Beeman George Black James Buchanan Christian Carpenter Samuel Carpenter James Coburn Jacob Costner Geo. Dellinger John Dellinger Thomas Espey Jacob Forney William Graham Frederick Hambright Andrew Hampton Benjamin Hardin Joseph Hardin Robert Hulclip David Jenkins Joseph Kuykendall Samuel Loftin Jas. Logan Perrygren Mackness (or Magness) Jacob Mauney, Jun. Valentine Mauney Fried Mauser James McAfee Charles McLean Jas. Miller Moses Moore John Morris Andrew Neel Joseph Neel George Paris Jonathan Price John Robison Peter Sides Adam Simms Samuel Smith William Thompson
Tryon Resolves
11707805
The United Nations Transition Assistance Group (UNTAG) was a United Nations (UN) peacekeeping force deployed from April 1989 to March 1990 in Namibia, known at the time as South West Africa, to monitor the peace process and elections there. Namibia had been occupied by South Africa since 1915, first under a League of Nations mandate and later illegally. Since 1966, South African forces had been combating an insurgency by the People's Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN), the military wing of the Namibian-nationalist South West African People's Organization (SWAPO). The UN Security Council passed Resolution 435 in 1978, which set out a plan for elections administered by South Africa but under UN supervision and control after a ceasefire. However, only in 1988 were the two parties able to agree to a ceasefire. As UNTAG began to deploy peacekeepers, military observers, police, and political workers, hostilities were briefly renewed on the day the transition process was supposed to begin. After a new round of negotiations, a second date was set and the elections process began in earnest. Elections for the constitutional assembly took place in November 1989. They were peaceful and declared free and fair; SWAPO won a majority of the seats. The new constitution was adopted four months later and it was followed by Namibia's official independence and the successful conclusion of UNTAG. Background South African rule During World War I, South Africa occupied German South West Africa, present-day Namibia. After the war, South Africa was granted the League of Nations Mandate to administer the territory of South West Africa as a colony. South Africa ran the country as if it were simply another province, granting it political representation in the South African Parliament (though under discriminatory apartheid restrictions), and integrating it economically into the country. Though there was talk of official union, the government never officially acted to annex the territory. After World War II, when the United Nations superseded the League of Nations, South Africa refused to accept a UN Trusteeship over South West Africa and simultaneously declared the League Mandate void, as the League no longer existed. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that though South Africa had no legal obligation to accept the trusteeship, it also had no legal right to void the Mandate. Fighting begins In 1966, the UN General Assembly revoked South Africa's Mandate and declared South West Africa to be under UN administration until it could gain independence. Also in 1966, SWAPO, which had become the preeminent nationalist organization in Namibia in the early 1960s, begin to launch guerrilla attacks from Zambia with its military wing, known as the People's Liberation Army of Namibia (PLAN). The first skirmish between PLAN and the South African Defence Force (SADF) in what became known as the Namibian War of Independence took place on 26 August 1966 at Omugulugwombashe. Over the next few years, there followed a series of General Assembly resolutions concerning the territory including one, in 1968 renaming it Namibia, and many others condemning the
United Nations Transition Assistance Group
18103265
Education in Sierra Leone is legally required for all children for six years at primary level and three years in junior secondary education, but a shortage of schools and teachers has made implementation impossible. The Sierra Leone Civil War resulted in the destruction of 1,270 primary schools and in 2001 67 percent of all school-age children were out of school. The situation has improved considerably since then with primary school enrollment doubling between 2001 and 2005 and the reconstruction of many schools since the end of the war. However, there is still a long ways to go. In 2004, Junior secondary school enrollment was only 17% of primary school enrollment, and senior secondary school enrollment was only 8% of primary school education. The Human Rights Measurement Initiative (HRMI) finds that Sierra Leone is fulfilling only 84.3% of what it should be fulfilling for the right to education based on the country's level of income. HRMI breaks down the right to education by looking at the rights to both primary education and secondary education. While taking into consideration Sierra Leone's income level, the nation is achieving 100.0% of what should be possible based on its resources (income) for primary education but only 68.6% for secondary education. History During the nineteenth century, Sierra Leone was a pioneer of western-style education in sub-Saharan Africa. Fourah Bay College, affiliated with Durham University in the United Kingdom, was founded in 1827 as the first tertiary educational institute in the region. The first boys school, Sierra Leone Grammar School, and the first girls school, Annie Walsh Memorial School, were founded in 1845 and 1849 respectively. The country was an important centre in training teachers, doctors and administrators for whole of West Africa in the first half of the nineteenth century. The education system that developed in Sierra Leone during the nineteenth and twentieth century was styled on the British education system. It was elitist in nature aimed at urban middle class and focused on the academically gifted who would go on to tertiary education before taking up positions as civil servants in the government. During this period the majority of the population were not formally educated or only a couple of years of primary education. When Sierra Leone declared independence in 1961, under 15% of children aged five to eleven and only five percent of 12- to 16-year-olds attended school. After independence there was pressure to change the education system, but it wasn't until the 1990s that this grew to the level that led to changes in the system. Reforms were proposed so that the education system would serve the social economic needs of the country more closely, centering on increasing access to education, particularly primary education and placing more emphasis on technical and vocational education. In 1993 the government adopted a four-stage approach to education and created the National Commission for Basic Education. During the 1990s the Sierra Leone Civil War set these goals back destroying much of the country's infrastructure including schools; for example,
Education in Sierra Leone
10736661
In September 2002, the Scottish National Party (SNP) published a document, entitled A Constitution for a Free Scotland, which details their policy for the Constitution of a future independent Scotland. This Constitution, which would come into effect following Scotland's transition to independence, would set out the rights of citizens of an independent Scotland, and define the powers and responsibilities of government and parliament. A later version of the document was published by the Constitutional Committee in 2011. Historical background The 2002 paper represents the culmination of many years' work. The essential elements of the Constitutional Policy were first adopted at the SNP's National Conference in 1977. The original drafting committee was convened by the late Dr Robert McIntyre, assisted by Professor Neil MacCormick, Dr Allan Macartney, Peter Chiene, Kenneth Fee, Isobel Lindsay and Barbara Park. The spirit of the original proposal has been retained in subsequent revisions, including a substantial review in 1990–1991. In 2020 an online interactive public consultation was introduced by an independent Scottish Charity and is actively engaged in seeking comments and amendments to a Model Constitution. The facility provides for automatic grading for voting the popularity of proposed amendments and will remain actively open for an indefinite period. Access to the Model Constitution and the public consultation is at https://constitutionforscotland.scot" Aims and principles The SNP Draft Constitution declares itself to be necessary "to protect the rights of every Scottish citizen and to place restrictions on what politicians can and can't do". The draft "envisages an inclusive Scotland that embraces its geographic and cultural diversity, where its citizens are free from discrimination on any grounds in the exercise of their constitutional rights". The intention is to "give voice to the Scottish people and provide the means for us to take control of the decisions affecting our lives". Article One: Constitution and People Article One, entitled "Constitution and People" sets out some of the foundations of the Scottish State, including: The right of the people of Scotland to self-determination and national sovereignty. A declaration of Scotland's territorial claims to the mainland and islands of Scotland, and to Scotland's offshore (oil and gas) resources. A declaration of constitutional supremacy: the Constitution is the supreme law and any other legislation which is incompatible with the Constitution will therefore be null and void. An inclusive definition of citizenship, with reserved rights of residency for non-citizens resident in Scotland at the time of independence. Voting is from age 16. There is no preamble or declaration of principles, and no mention of Scotland's flag, anthem, or capital. Article Two: Head of State and Executive Article Two sets out the arrangement for the Head of State and the Executive: The Queen would be retained as Head of State, with the title of "Queen of Scots", making Scotland a Commonwealth realm. The Union of 1603 – a personal union between the Scots Crown and that of England – would thereby be maintained, even though the Union of 1707 – a governmental union of two States
A Constitution for a Free Scotland