What if I were to tell you that you're a master at meditation already, but you just don't know it yet?
Would you believe me? Or would you roll your eyes and say that I'm crazy? I think I can guess which one.
There's a lot of buzz about mindfulness and meditation right now. It's popular thanks to Time Magazine, the Dalai Lama, and more recently, science.
But many people are still confused about what meditation actually is. Naturally, when you are new to it, you think that it's all about quieting your mind. And from a certain point of view, that's true.
And everyone gets the feeling that it takes a lot of practice. That's also true. But maybe not the way you think.
You see, before you ever sat down on a meditation cushion, you probably meditated hundreds of times in your life. Maybe even more than that. Sure, you may not have known you were meditating and maybe you don't even have a meditation practice. But that's not what I'm talking about.
So how are you already an expert?
Here's what I mean. Meditation is as natural to human beings as breathing. In some respects, it's happening all the time. You just don't know it.
I know. It seems far out. But let me explain.
There are times in life when you just let go. The conditions in your life compel you to relax or they push you to the edge. Either way, you take a deep breath, exhale, and let go very deeply.
Do you know what I'm talking about? Maybe it's after a particularly intense exercise session. Or maybe at the end of a manic week when you're sitting on the couch Friday evening.
There's something about these moments. You really do let go. You let life and the events you've been consumed by wash away. And it can happen when you least expect it, but suddenly you're absorbed in reality and your attention expands.
That happens to you in life. And it happens in meditation too. In fact, this kind of letting go is the essence of meditation.
For me, when I was younger I realized it one afternoon when I was listening to the birds sing. Something special was happening. It had gone completely quiet inside of me. The birdsong felt as much inside me as outside. Their songs rang like soft fluttering bells in my chest.
Somehow the conditions were just right, and I fell into a meditative state of awareness.
It can happen when you're listening to music or when you're studying. When I used to train for half marathons it would happen. You find yourself "in the zone." You get very focused, your mind goes quiet, and you become absolutely one-pointed. That singularity of focus is a hallmark of real meditation.
Can you relate? I bet you can. What I'm describing is so natural. There are simply times in our lives when meditation is spontaneous. Quietly your awareness slips the shackles of your well worn and habitual thought patterns.
The truth is, you've probably been falling in and out of meditation your entire life. You just don't call it meditation.
Consciously practicing meditation is all about letting go and letting everything be as it is. Anyone can do it. It's simple. What takes effort is the consistent practice. That takes real discipline. Learning how to practice meditation on a daily basis can be hard. Our attention is wily and we are often distracted. So learning how to harness awareness takes time and training.
But in terms of demystifying meditation, it's important to understand that it's simply your own awareness, natural and undistracted. That's really all it is. Some teachers call meditation our natural state. And I agree with that.
So yes, you can meditate. You've probably done it hundreds, if not thousands of times before. But maybe, like so many, you just never realized it. And now you know.
I wasn't willing to go with you on this one, but you won me over!
Thanks Mo :-). I know i'm a little out on a limb with this one, but i like trying to find new ways to talk about meditation that get people thinking and hopefully bring it a little closer to home in a good way.


Discover our stocks and enquire easily for quantity and best prices.
Stocks4retail is the Outlet company of Retail Sell & Pay and GTeyes.
After years of growth, Retail Sell & Pay has become a leading company in home textiles, with an extensive customer base in various market segments, such as Retail companies – Loyalty programs – Supermarket chains in the EU – Drugstore Groups.
Stocks4retail is intended for sale of stocks from our factory in Pakistan as well as the stocks of our partner companies in Egypt – Pakistan – Bangladesh – India and China.
90% of our offer consists of household textiles and 10% from other stocks.
Besides our own factory in Pakistan we have an inspection company/follow up office in Egypt, that monitors the progress of your orders.


As part of your Kwikwap system you also get for free access to the Kwikwap form builder; with the form builder you can build very advanced forms to collect information. This facility can be used for just about any data collection like application forms, surveys, enquiry forms, feedback forms and questionnaires. Similar products or software cost thousands of Rands but because we are on your side, we give it to you for free with your Kwikwap website.


Delegates at the Conservative Party's national convention in Halifax (Canadian east coast) on Saturday voted overwhelmingly in favour of adopting a policy that could see the three northern territories keep 100 per cent of their natural resource royalties if the party wins the next federal election.
More than 99 per cent of voting delegates supported the policy, said David Connelly, the party's national councillor for the Northwest Territories (N.W.T.). That means the policy will now become part of the Conservative Party's platform as it heads into the next federal election in 2019, he said.
"This is the first time any political party in Canada has ever taken the position that the territories — all three of them — should keep all of their royalties, and there will be no clawback," Connelly said.
In the N.W.T., for example, the territorial government is allowed to keep up to 50 per cent of the revenue it earns from natural resources, although there is a cap on how much it retains. The territorial government then shares up to 25 per cent of its revenue portion with Indigenous governments.
However, in most cases, Canada's provinces retain 100 per cent of their resource royalties, said Connelly.
The Conservative policy on northern resource royalties excludes any kind of cap on how much revenue the territories can keep, said Connelly. It also states that decisions about the North should be made in the North.
For Leona Aglukkaq, the party's national councillor for Nunavut, said it's important that northerners are in control of decisions that affect them.
"Decisions about the Arctic, and decisions about priorities of the Arctic, must be made by people of the Arctic, not in Ottawa," she said.
She cited the implementation of the moratorium on offshore drilling in the Arctic as one example of how decisions have been made for northerners in the past, without enough consultation. And that needs to change, she said.
CBC News reached out to N.W.T. Liberal MP Michael McLeod and is still awaiting a comment.


Always wanted a bit of Sugar Blue Burlesque in your own home? Well now you can, with our online store!
Fabulous burlesque items are constantly been added to the store for you, so make sure you come back regularly and be delighted! You can Shop Burlesque clothing, accessories and instructional DVDS right here!


text:
Dette er en liste over byer i Grønland. By bruges lidt løst om bebyggede områder i Grønland, da hovedstaden og den mest folkerige by har 19.279 indbyggere. I Grønland findes to slags bebyggelser; illoqarfik (grønlandsk for by) og nunaqarfik (grønlandsk for bygd). Forskellen mellem de to er mindsket efter nye administrative områder blev introduceret i 2009, hvorved de tidligere kommunale hovedbyer mistede indflydelse.

I oktober 2021 havde Grønland 56.523 indbyggere, som alle boede langs kysten eller på øer omkring Grønland. Der findes ingen permanente bosættelser på Indlandsisen; der findes kun forskningsstationer der er beboet i dele af året.

Byer med mere end 1.000 indbyggere

Der er 13 byer i Grønland med et indbyggertal på mere end 1.000:

Byer med mellem 200 og 1.000 indbyggere
Der er 14 byer i Grønland med et indbyggertal på mellem 200 og 1.000:

Byer med mellem 100 og 200 indbyggere
Der er 14 byer i Grønland med et indbyggertal på mellem 100 og 200:

Byer med færre end 100 indbyggere
Der er 30 bygder i Grønland med et indbyggertal på færre end 100:

Referencer

Byer på Grønland
Grønland

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Packed with prompts, pages for doodling, and guided lists of favourite movie moments, this hardcover journal is perfect for fans looking to show their house pride! Inside you'll find information about house history, accomplishments and profiles of famous alums, as well as spaces for Quidditch predictions and a log for house points. Tear-out activity pages to share with other Gryffindors, Ravenclaws, Slytherins and Hufflepuffs make this journal a magical must-have.


text:
Tag: Mayport
Iwo Jima Departs Mayport for Sea Trials
December 19, 2019 seawaves
December 17, 2019 – USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) was underway for sea trials, Dec. 15, following a year-long Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) availability maintenance period at Naval Station Mayport. The four-day sea trials marks Iwo Jima's first time underway since December 2018. The ship spent its last days in port completing a two-day "fast cruise," Dec. 9 –…
December 2019Florida, Mayport, USS Iwo Jima
Paul Ignatius Hosts Jacksonville Jaguars All Access
November 22, 2019 – USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117) hosted Action News Jax's and the Jacksonville Jaguars' weekly television show "Jaguars All Access" from the ship's flight deck Nov. 21. The show was part of the Jacksonville Jaguars' Salute to Service month where the NFL team shows its appreciation to service members. The event was hosted by Action News Jax's…
November 2019Action News Jax, DDG117, Jaguars All Access, Mayport, USS Paul Ignatius
USS Detroit (LCS 7) Readied for Deployment
November 13, 2019 – The Southeast Regional Maintenance Center (SERMC) prepared the Freedom-class littoral combat ship USS Detroit (LCS 7), which departed, Oct. 31 for its maiden deployment with maintenance support. To ensure Detroit was ready to execute its mission, SERMC dry-docked Detroit eight months ago and performed maintenance to the ship systems. Cmdr. Howard Meehan, Commanding Officer, USS Detroit…
November 2019LCS7, Mayport, SERMC, US 4th Fleet, USS Detroit
USS Detroit Departs on Maiden Deployment
November 1, 2019 seawaves
November 1, 2019 – The Freedom-class littoral combat ship USS Detroit (LCS 7) departed its homeport of Mayport, Florida, for the U.S. Southern Command area of responsibility on its maiden deployment Oct. 31. Detroit will conduct operations in support of Joint Interagency Task Force South's Campaign MARTILLO, a multinational effort launched in January 2012 targeting illicit trafficking routes in coastal…
November 2019Mayport, MH-60S, MQ-8B, Southcom, USS Detroit
Mayport Ships get Underway as Hurricane Dorian Approaches
August 30, 2019 August 30, 2019 seawaves
August 29, 2019 – Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. 4th Fleet (USNAVSO/FOURTHFLT) ordered U.S. Navy ships homeported at Naval Station Mayport to set Sortie Condition Alpha as Hurricane Dorian heads toward Florida's Atlantic coast. "Our top priority must always be the safety and security of our ships and aircraft, as well as our Sailors and families. We move our…
August 2019Florida, Hurricane Dorian, Mayport
Navy to Commission Littoral Combat Ship Billings
August 1, 2019 seawaves
July 31, 2019 – The Navy will commission its newest Freedom-variant littoral combat ship (LCS), the future USS Billings (LCS 15), during a 10 a.m. ceremony Saturday, Aug. 3, in Key West, Florida. U.S. Sen. Jon Tester, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, will deliver the commissioning ceremony's principal address. Tester's wife, Sharla, is the ship's sponsor.…
August 2019Florida, Key West, Mayport, Richard V Spencer, USS Billings
Navy to Commission Destroyer Paul Ignatius
July 25, 2019 July 25, 2019 seawaves
July 25, 2019 – The Navy will commission its newest Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer, the future USS Paul Ignatius (DDG 117), during a 10 a.m. EDT ceremony Saturday, July 27, at Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The ship is named in honor of Paul Robert Ignatius, who served in the U.S. Navy during World War II, and later…
July 2019DDG 117, Mayport, Port Everglaes, USS Paul Ignatius
Navy Announces Commissioning Date for the Future USS Indianapolis
July 17, 2019 seawaves
July 16, 2019 – The U.S. Navy has approved the commissioning date for the future USS Indianapolis (LCS 17). The Navy will commission the littoral combat ship Oct. 26, 2019 in Burns Harbor, Indiana. The commissioning ceremony signifies the acceptance for service and the entrance of a ship into the active fleet of the U. S. Navy. Burns Harbor is…
July 2019Burns Harbor, Fincantieri, Indiana, Marinette Marine, Mayport, uss indianapolis
Navy to Commission Littoral Combat Ship Wichita
January 9, 2019 seawaves
January 9, 2019 – The Navy will commission its newest Freedom-variant littoral combat ship (LCS), the future USS Wichita (LCS 13), during a 10 a.m. ceremony Saturday, Jan. 12, at Naval Station Mayport, Fla., near Jacksonville, where the ship will be homeported. U.S. Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas will deliver the commissioning ceremony's principal address. Kate Lehrer, author and wife…
January 2019Jacksonville, LCS 13, Mayport, USS Wichita
Indianapolis Endures
January 9, 2019 January 9, 2019 seawaves
January 9, 2019 – Survivors of USS Indianapolis (CA 35) met with the crew of the Freedom-class littoral combat ship USS Indianapolis (LCS 17) to screen a documentary, "USS Indianapolis: The Final Chapter", at Naval Station Mayport, Jan. 7. The Vulcan's Productions documentary shares the discovery of the once-lost, Portland-class heavy cruiser Indianapolis, or "Indy", by Research Vessel Petrel, owned…
January 2019CA 35, LCS 17, Mayport, uss indianapolis
Fort McHenry Arrives in Romania
January 7, 2018 – USS Fort McHenry (LSD 43) arrived in Constanta, Romania, Jan. 7 for a scheduled port visit. Constanta is the first port visit for Fort McHenry, which deployed from its homeport of Mayport, Florida, Dec. 16, 2018. During the time in the Black Sea region, Fort McHenry is being shadowed by Russian frigate Pytliviy. "The Sailors and Marines…
January 2019Constanta, Florida, Mayport, RFS Pytliviy, Romania
USS The Sullivans Returns to Mayport
December 21, 2018 December 21, 2018 seawaves
December 21, 2018 – USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) returned to Mayport Naval Station today, marking the end of a seven-month deployment to the U.S. 5th and 6th Fleet areas of operation. "The Sullivans led operations daily in the Arabian Gulf that directly impacted freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, and strengthened ties with our partners in 5th…
December 2018DDG 68, Mayport, USS The Sullivans
Iwo Jima Returns to Mayport
December 6, 2018 December 6, 2018 seawaves
December 6, 2018 – USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7), flagship of the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group (ARG), returned to her homeport of Mayport, Florida, Dec. 4, after operating for nine weeks in the northern Atlantic Ocean. Iwo Jima went underway following a six-month deployment to participate in Trident Juncture 2018, a NATO-led exercise designed to certify NATO response forces…
December 2018Mayport, Trident Juncture 2018, USN, USS Iwo Jima
USS Thomas Hudner brought to life in Boston
December 3, 2018 seawaves
December 3, 2018 – The U.S. Navy commissioned its newest surface combatant, USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), Dec. 1, during a ceremony in Boston. Thomas Hudner, commanded by Cmdr. Nathan Scherry, a Peculiar, Missouri native, is the 66th Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, and the 36th DDG 51 class destroyer built by General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW). It is the first…
December 2018Boston, DDG 116, Mayport, USS Thomas Hudner
Navy to Commission Destroyer Thomas Hudner
November 28, 2018 – The Navy will commission its newest destroyer, the future USS Thomas Hudner (DDG 116), during a 10 a.m. EST ceremony at Flynn Cruiseport in Boston, Massachusetts Saturday, Dec. 1. The future USS Thomas Hudner honors naval aviator and Medal of Honor recipient Capt. Thomas J. Hudner Jr. President Harry S. Truman awarded the Medal of Honor…
November 2018Boston, Massachusetts, Mayport, USS Thomas Hudner

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Jackson County is een van de 88 county's in de Amerikaanse staat Ohio.

De county heeft een landoppervlakte van 1.089 km² en telt 32.641 inwoners (volkstelling 2000). De hoofdplaats is Jackson.

Bevolkingsontwikkeling

County in Ohio


text:
Can You Pass The U.S. Citizenship Test?
A majority of Americans would fail the U.S. citizenship test, and according to a survey conducted by the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation, only 4 out of 10 Americans would pass. Our very own Yonathan Elias put this survey to the test, and went out into the streets of New York City to challenge the minds of Americans. Play along to find out if you would pass the U.S. citizenship test! Attorney Advertisement. Prior successful results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Call us for HELP NOW! *USA*: 1-800-529-5465 *INT:* 1-212-227-8933 VISIT Law Offices of Spar Bernstein 225 Broadway, 5th FL New York, New York 10007 https://www.lawsb.com/ https://www.bradshowlive.com/ Book Immigration Consultation with Brad Bernstein for Legal Consultation NOW! https://www.lawsb.com/book-and-pay-for-consultation-with-brad-bernstein/ Book an Immigration consultation with our immigration lawyer NOW! https://www.lawsb.com/book-and-pay-for-immigration-consultation/ Brad Show Live is a digital infotainment talk and legal advice show broadcast live on Facebook and YouTube. It reaches hundreds of thousands of viewers worldwide. Brad Show Live is hosted by Brad Bernstein, Managing Partner of the Law Offices of Spar & Bernstein who has provided invaluable legal immigration help to 70,000 plus clients over two decades. As the host of Brad Show Live, Brad takes a compassionate, straightforward and humorous approach on immigration, civil rights, family unity, humanity, news, politics, and social justice. Airing two hours a day, Monday – Friday, 5:30-7:30 p.m. EST, Brad answers viewers' legal and immigration questions through live calls and social media interaction, along with commentary, thought provoking and revealing interviews, eye-opening field segments, and hilarious interactive games and laughs with our loyal viewers – The Brad Squad. Join the Brad Squad https://www.facebook.com/groups/BradShowLiveBradSquad SOCIAL MEDIA Visit BradShowLive Facebook https://www.facebook.com/BradShowLive/ Follow Brad Show Live Instagram https://www.instagram.com/bradshowlive/ Follow Brad Show Live Twitter https://twitter.com/BradShowLive Follow Spar Bernstein Facebook https://www.facebook.com/SparBernstein Follow Spar Bernstein on Twitter https://twitter.com/SparBernstein Follow Spar Bernstein Instagram https://www.instagram.com/spar_bernstein/ #NYCImmigrationServices #USAImmigration #CitizenshipAndNaturalization #GreenCard #DACA #WorkVisa #VAWA #BradShowLive #SparBernstein #BradSquad
Living Separately From Spouse To Affect Citizenship? (Immigration)


FAITH LAPIDUS: Welcome to THE MAKING OF A NATION - American history in VOA Special English.
The nineteen twenties are remembered as a quiet period in American foreign policy. The nation was at peace. Americans elected three Republican presidents in a row: Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. These conservatives in the White House were generally more interested in economic growth at home than in relations with other countries.
But the United States had become a world power. It was tied to other countries by trade, politics and shared interests. And America had gained new economic strength.
This week in our series, Bob Doughty and Shirley Griffith discuss American foreign policy during the nineteen twenties.
BOB DOUGHTY: Before World War One, foreigners invested more money in the United States than Americans invested in other countries -- about three billion dollars more. The war changed this. By nineteen nineteen, Americans had almost three billion dollars more invested in other countries than foreign citizens had invested in the United States.
American foreign investments continued to increase greatly during the nineteen twenties.
Americans had more steel, food, cloth, and coal than even the richest foreign nations. By nineteen twenty, the United States national income was greater than the combined incomes of Britain, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, and seventeen smaller countries. Quite simply, the United States had become the world's greatest economic power.
SHIRLEY GRIFFITH: America's economic strength influenced its policies toward Europe during the nineteen twenties. In fact, one of the most important issues of this period was the economic aid the United States had provided European nations during World War One.
Americans lent the Allied countries seven billion dollars during the war. Shortly after the war, they lent another three billion dollars. The Allies borrowed most of the money for military equipment and food and other needs of their people.
BOB DOUGHTY: The United States refused to cancel the debts. President Coolidge spoke for most Americans when he said, simply: "They borrowed the money." He believed the European powers should pay back the war loans, even though their economies had suffered terribly during the fighting.
SHIRLEY GRIFFITH: An international group intervened and negotiated a settlement to the crisis. The group provided a system to save Germany's currency and protect international debts. American bankers agreed to lend money to Germany to pay its war debts to the Allies. And the Allies used the money to pay their debts to the United States.
BOB DOUGHTY: Some Americans with international interests criticized President Coolidge and other conservative leaders for not reducing or canceling Europe's debts.
SHIRLEY GRIFFITH: Many Americans of the nineteen twenties also failed to recognize that a strong national military force would become increasingly important in the coming years. President Coolidge requested very limited military spending from the Congress. And many conservative military leaders refused to spend much money on such new kinds of equipment as submarines and airplanes.
One general, Billy Mitchell, publicly criticized the military leadership for not building new weapons. But most Americans were not interested. Many Americans continued to oppose arms spending until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii in nineteen forty-one.
BOB DOUGHTY: American policy toward the League of Nations did not change much in the nineteen twenties.
In nineteen nineteen, the Senate denied President Wilson's plea for the United States to join the new League of Nations. The United States, however, became involved unofficially in a number of league activities. But it continued to refuse to become a full member. And in nineteen thirty, the Senate rejected a proposal for the United States to join the World Court.
The United States also continued in the nineteen twenties to refuse to recognize the communist government in Moscow. However, trade between the Soviet Union and the United States increased greatly during this period. And such large American companies as General Electric, DuPont, and R-C-A provided technical assistance to the new Soviet government.
SHIRLEY GRIFFITH: The Coolidge administration was involved actively in events in Latin America. Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes helped several Latin American countries to settle border disputes peacefully.
In Central America, President Coolidge ordered American Marines into Nicaragua when President Adolfo Diaz faced a revolt from opposition groups. The United States gave its support to more conservative groups in Nicaragua. And it helped arrange a national election in nineteen twenty-eight. American troops stayed in Nicaragua until nineteen thirty-three.
BOB DOUGHTY: Relations with Mexico became worse during the nineteen-twenties. In nineteen twenty-five, Mexican President Plutarco Elias Calles called for laws to give Mexico more control over its minerals and natural wealth. American oil companies resisted the proposed changes. They accused Calles of communism. And some American business and church leaders called for armed American intervention.
SHIRLEY GRIFFITH: These American actions in Nicaragua and Mexico showed that the United States still felt that it had special security interests south of its border. But its peaceful settlement of the Mexican crisis and support of elections in Nicaragua showed that it was willing to deal with disputes peacefully.
BOB DOUGHTY: The United States, however, could no longer remain apart from world events. This would become clear in the coming years. Europe would face fascism and war. The Soviet Union would grow more powerful. And Latin America would become more independent.
The United States was a world power. But it was still learning in the nineteen twenties about the leadership and responsibility that is part of such power.
FAITH LAPIDUS: Our program was written by David Jarmul. The narrators were Bob Doughty and Shirley Griffith. You can find our series online with pictures, transcripts, MP3s and podcasts at www.unsv.com. You can also follow us on Facebook and Twitter at VOA Learning English. Join us again next week for THE MAKING OF A NATION -- an American history series in VOA Special English.
the united states was a world power .but it was still learning in the nineteen twenties about the leadership and responsibility that is part of such power.


text:
Parker v. District of Columbia: Opening Volley or Just A Flash in the Pan?
Saul Cornell
Department of History,
The recent decision in Parker v. District of Columbia striking down the District of Columbia's gun control law rests on a combination of bad law and even worse history. It also demonstrates the methodological weakness of originalism in its current form.
It is rather shocking to see a Federal Appeals Court misread established precedent in such a politically distorted fashion. The interpretation of U.S. v. Miller offered by the Appeals Court rests on a revisionist reading of the case manufactured by gun rights scholars. According to the revisionist reading of Miller, the Court only cared about the type of weapon at issue in the case. This reading casts aside more than seventy years of jurisprudence and is absurd. All of the contemporary reports of Miller in the press and legal scholarship of the day treated the case as though it simply restated the overwhelmingly scholarly and legal consensus of the day that the Second Amendment was about the militia. If there was any reason to doubt this reading, then one need only look at the New York Times the day the case was reported. Judge McReynolds prefaced the decision by noting that "We construe the amendment as having relation to the military service and we are unable to say that a sawed-off shotgun has relation to the militia." Clearly, the revisionist reading of Miller has no historical foundation.
The use of Founding era sources in Parker is no less problematic. One of the issues discussed by the Court is the meaning of the phrase "keep and bear arms." To support the dubious proposition that this phrase was typically used to describe both military and non-military uses of firearms, the Court turned to the Pennsylvania Anti-Federalist Dissent of the Minority. It is a remarkable version of originalism that would use a hastily drafted protest that was never copied by any other state nor emulated by any major writer during ratification as the basis for reconstructing the meaning of an important constitutional text. Indeed, the Dissenters were so far out of step with thinking within their own state that none of them won election to the First Congress that actually drafted the Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Dissent of the Minority was invoked and dismissed during the debate over the Bill of Rights as a text that symbolized the most radical Anti-Federalist demands. Madison did not even include it among various proposals he collected when he began formulating his own list of possible amendments. Yet, despite the overwhelmingly historical evidence that this text was not typical, nor ultimately influential, gun rights scholars and their allies on the DC Court of Appeals insist on using this text as though it were dispositive of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Rewriting the Second Amendment as if it were written by the Pennsylvania Minority take originalism in the direction of an alternate history science fiction fantasy.
The Parker decision contains other historical errors that have been frequently repeated in gun rights scholarship. The Court falsely asserted there are no 19th century constitutional commentaries who favored the militia based reading of the Second Amendment. This would have shocked Joseph Story, the most influential commentator of the pre-Civil War era and Benjamin Oliver, one of the most influential popular constitutional writers of the antebellum era. It also would have shocked influential post Civil War commentators such as John Forrest Dillion and Joel Prentiss Bishop. One could go on for pages documenting the historical errors, logical missteps, and ideological distortions of the opinion in Parker. It is too early to tell if this case will end up being reversed. If it does then Parker will have been little more than a flash in the pan. If the case is upheld then history will view Parker as the first volley in a full frontal assault on modern gun regulation. What is indisputable is that the Court's analysis of history and precedent was driven by an activist ideology, not a genuine understanding of the original meaning of this provision of the Constitution.
Posted 6:13 PM by Guest Blogger [link]
In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833), Joseph Story has the following to say about the Second Amendment:
"§ 1889. The next amendment is "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time ofanding armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facilee means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.
So much for the theory that the Second Amendment was meant to arm an organized National Guard under the command of the government rather than the armed citizenry which to this day makes up the unorganized militia.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Story is describing the right to keep and bear arms as an individual liberty belonging to the citizenry and the people, not a National Guard.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:37 PM
By chance, I read (and enjoyed) your new book recently. So, I appreciate your input, but would have been also interested in your reply to Balkin et. al. that there is an individual right, just not the way it was defended in Parker.
[FWIW, I agree with them, but would focus on the 9th and 14th as places to look and perhaps the 4A given the home aspect when dealing with private use as here.]
I also was struck by the selective use of original understanding as well as the Miller precedent itself. Miller clearly stated, and was quoted in later SC dicta on the point, on the militia. How could a lower court therefore say the militia is but one aspect of the amendment's purpose?
Not that the dissent was too convincing either. I actually thought some parts of the dissent in the Quicili case covered by Kennedy/Alderman's book on the BOR that focused on privacy was pretty sound. But, both pro and anti, lower court opinions on this subject leave something to be desired.
# posted by Joe : 10:48 PM
From David B. Kopel's 1998 BYU Law Review article, The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century:
2. Benjamin Oliver
Benjamin L. Oliver was "a writer of law books, a noted chess player, and son of a former Governor of Massachusetts."(151) His 1832 The Rights of an American Citizen contained a chapter entitled "Of the rights reserved to the people of the United States; not being granted either to the general government, or the state governments." This chapter explained the Second Amendment "right of the citizens to bear arms" as making it possible for a militia to combat invasion, insurrection, or usurpation.(152)
An 1822 Kentucky decision, Bliss v. Commonwealth, interpreted the state's constitution to find a law against carrying concealed weapons (the first American weapons control law of general applicability) to be unconstitutional.(153) Oliver thought that carrying concealed weapons, "if it is really unconstitutional to restrain it by law, ought to be discountenanced," since concealment allowed an antagonist to surprise a victim.(154) Still, "[t]here are without doubt circumstances, which may justify a man for going armed; as, if he has valuable property in his custody; or, if he is traveling in a dangerous part of the country; or, if his life has been threatened."(155)
152. 151. Benjamin L. Oliver, The Rights of an American Citizen; with a Commentary on State Rights, and on the Constitution and Policy of the United States 174 (1832). The book was cited by the dissent in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1009-10 (1991) (White, J., dissenting) for the proposition that the Eighth Amendment forbids punishments disproportionate to the underlying offense.
153. 152. See Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90 (1822).
If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
Id. at 92. "For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms [sic], and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise." Id. "[I]f any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." Id. at 93.
4. Joel Bishop
Joel Prentiss Bishop authored important treatises on criminal law, and in those treatises addressed criminal law-related constitutional issues in passing. The 1865 third edition of Commentaries on the Criminal Law and the 1873 first edition of Commentaries on the law of Statutory Crimes contained identical discussions of the Second Amendment:
"This provision is found among the amendments; and, though most of the amendments are restrictions on the General Government alone, not on the States, this one seems to be of a nature to bind both the State and National legislatures; and doubtless it does."(443)
Bishop obviously adhered to the Standard Model individual rights view; he viewed the Second Amendment as a restriction on state governments, not a protection of state governments against the federal government. Bishop continued:
As to its interpretation, if we look to this question in the light of juridical reason, without the aid of specific authority, we shall be led to the conclusion, that the provision protects only the right to "keep" such "arms" as are used for purposes of war, in distinction from those which are employed in quarrels, brawls, and fights between maddened individuals; since such, only, are properly known by the name of "arms;" and such, only, are adapted to promote "the security of a free State."(444)
Bishop thus followed the dominant line of state constitutional case law, excluding certain weapons from the scope of the right. Next, Bishop articulated the nineteenth century's most restrictive reading of the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a scholarly treatise, although Bishop acknowledged that there was contrary case law:
In like manner, the right to "bear" arms refers merely to the military way of using them, not to their use in bravado and affray. Still, the Georgia tribunal seems to have held, that a statute prohibiting the open wearing of arms upon the person violates this provision of the Constitution, though a statute against wearing of the arms concealed does not.(445) And, in accord with the latter branch of this Georgia doctrine, the Louisiana court has laid it down, that the statute against carrying concealed weapons does not infringe the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms; for this statute is a measure of police, prohibiting only a particular mode of bearing arms, found dangerous to the community.(446)
Bishop's contrast between bearing arms in "the military way" versus using them for "bravado and affray" (such as shooting them off at New Year's, or using them in duels), does not explicitly state Bishop's views on carrying guns for personal defense. But Bishop's acknowledgment of Nunn v. State (a case guaranteeing a right to carry unconcealed firearms for personal protection) as a case contrary to Bishop's own position suggests that Bishop opposed gun carrying for personal defense.(447)
Read in the most restrictive light possible, Bishop's treatise suggests: (1) the Second Amendment guarantees a right of individuals to own guns; (2) the right's sole purpose was insurrection against tyranny; (3) the arms which could be kept included only arms suitable for warfare; and (4) the right to "bear" arms included only the right to carry arms in public during militia activity.
There is no nineteenth century commentator who appears more dubious about the Second Amendment than Bishop. All of the restrictions articulated by Bishop were, at the least, well-grounded in at least one branch of nineteenth century case law. It is important to recognize that, as restrictive as Bishop's approach is, it is clearly an individual rights one, comfortably within the Standard Model.
The 1901 edition of Statutory Crimes condensed the Second Amendment discussion, emphasizing that the Second Amendment is "declaratory of personal rights" but (like most of the rest of the Bill of Rights) does not bind the states:
It is among the older amendments, most of which are held to be restrictions on the national power, and not to bind the states. This one is declaratory of personal rights, so also are some of the others which are adjudged not to extend to the states; and, contrary perhaps to some former views, it is now settled in authority that this provision has no relevancy to state legislation.(448)
443. 442. Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes § 792, at 497 (1873) [hereinafter Bishop, Statutory Crimes]; see also 1 Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the Criminal Law § 124, at 73 (3d ed. 1865)[hereinafter Bishop, Criminal Law]. Bishop was a leading founder of the late nineteenth century "classical" approach to law, although his contribution has been unjustly overshadowed by Langdell and other Harvard professors. See Stephen A. Siegel, Joel Bishop's Orthodoxy, 13 Law & Hist. Rev. 215-16 (1995).
444. 443. Bishop, Statutory Crimes, supra note 442, § 792, at 497; see also 1 Bishop, Criminal Law, supra note 442, § 124, at 73-74.
445. 444. Here Bishop cited Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1847) (discussing an individual Second Amendment right to carry unconcealed guns for personal defense), and Stockdale v. State, 32 Ga. 225 (1861) (decision of Confederate state court) (reasoning that a person does not violate law against concealed carry if part of the gun is visible).
446. 445. Bishop, Statutory Crimes, supra note 442, § 792, at 497-98 (citing State v. Jumel, 13 La. Ann. 399 (1858), which explained that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to carry for personal defense, but not to concealed carry).
447. 446. To put the mere possession of guns for home defense within the scope of "bravado and affray" would require a very elastic reading of Bishop's words.
448. 447. Joel Prentiss Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Statutory Crimes § 792, at 536 (3d ed. 1901).
Bliss v. Commonwealth is an outlier in the view of the guest here. A relevant disagreement was Aynette v. State, which has added cachet because it was specificially cited by U.S v. Miller.
Others can have fun with BM, but it is notable that when Rhode Island citizens used their guns to fight against tyranny, outside of the organized militia ("the people" can be armed and still not be individual actors*) that is, in the Dorr's Rebellion, Story was not sympathetic.
* similarly, individual jurors in the view of 19th Century conservative jurists did not have the power of jury nullification. They had to work as part of 'well regulated' jury, so to speak.
"Bart" DePalma:
[quoting Joseph Story]:
§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of[anding armies in time of] [sic] peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facilee means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.
So Story's saying at best (and most charitably) that the militia is the answer to unprincipled rulers. How "Bart" makes that out to an individual KABA right is beyond me.
But in fact, Story doesn't even go that far. He says that not having standing armies prevents any temptations to "ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." The fact that the militias are offered in part as an alternative to standing armies doesn't enter into Story's argument here.
"Bart" has read his nun-guts propaganda "talking points" well, and knows to manufacture this "unorganized militia" construct as some kind of Founding Fathers' wet dream of the Bulwark of Liberty. But, as is plain, the Story quote above doesn't support this contention at all.
{Story again]: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
["Bart]: Story is describing the right to keep and bear arms as an individual liberty belonging to the citizenry and the people, not a National Guard.
No. Amongst other things, perhaps it might be worthwhile to point out that an individual citizen is not particularly effective in resisting "the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers".
# posted by Arne Langsetmo : 12:25 AM
Bart's quote from Joseph Story is also incomplete. Following section Bart quotes, Story continues:
And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
The militia was an organized military body as set forth in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 which allowed Congress to "provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining of the militia" etc. Story was deploring citizens' failure to show up for regular militia training and drill and abandoning good old-fashioned republican virtue. And, as he makes perfectly clear, Story did not think it possible to keep the people "armed" without a proper "organization."
# posted by Essayist-Laywer : 1:18 AM
Lawrence Tribe may have come around once he finally bothered to look at the evidence, but I fully expect that Saul would continue writing attacks on the 2nd amendment even if Madison rose from the grave to explain it to him in person. It's what the Joyce Foundation pays him to do, after all.x
# posted by Brett : 7:19 AM
Professor Cornell:
I trust that you will contribute to an amicus curiae brief on the petition for certiorari of this case. The Court of Appeals wilful misreading of history was fully in evidence in the Boumediene case, so I'm not surprised. It will take a very good historian indeed one day to inform us how crackpot notions of our Nation's past came to infect radical right-wing elites. Frankly, the myth of American farmers going to war against the British Empire with their trusty family hunting weapons as opposed to the stocks of Tower muskets and artillery carefully husbanded by colonial assemblies for their militias is almost innocent compared to the newer myth that the Framers interpreted Article II of the Constitution as a restoration of Charles I's views of executive power.
Perhaps the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are outmoded eighteenth century antiques, serviceable enough for our Republic to meet the challenges of Nazi Germany in World War II and Soviet Russia in the Cold War but hopelessly inadequate in the face of the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to the American Way of Life. But those who view our 18th century conventions as "quaint" should stop trying to deceive the credulous among us by twisting our history into an anachronistic self-serving fairy tale.
# posted by Nat DeWitt : 8:07 AM
I suppose I should clarify this: While Cornell is essentially on the payroll of the Joyce foundation, for the purpose of attacking the 2nd amendment, it's doubtful that the Joyce foundation would trust a pure mercenary to run it's flagship anti-gun "scholarship" mill. So I have little doubt that Saul actually believes he's right. And, of course, he could be; Being paid to advance a position doesn't logically imply that it's wrong.
However, it would be rather amazing if Saul Cornell ever admitted that the Parker decision was correct; It would cost him his job.
Arne Langsetmo said...
"Bart" DePalma: [quoting Joseph Story]:
So Story's saying at best (and most charitably) that the militia is the answer to unprincipled rulers. How "Bart" makes that out to an individual KABA right is beyond me... The fact that the militias are offered in part as an alternative to standing armies doesn't enter into Story's argument here.
The militia to which Story refers is an armed citizenry which can and was called into service at that time, not a standing National Guard commanded by the government, which Story expressly rejects in this passage.
In short, Story (as did nearly every founder who commented on this right) equated the Militia with the People.
Actually, Story is a oft quoted secondary source for those of us who defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I was amazed the professor thought Story could actually be a source for the collective right argument.
You are welcome to show me where Story argues that the Second Amendment right is restricted to a standing organized militia like our present day national guard. Quite to the contrary, the revolutionaries of that time did not want any substantial stranding army at all. Therefore, it is absurd to claim that a right which they expressly granted to the People belonged to such a standing army.
:::Picture arne holding his hands over his ears screaming over and over again: "I can't hear you!":::
What part of citizens and the people do you not comprehend?
Liberties are enjoyed by individual citizens, not by governments or military units.
Amongst other things, perhaps it might be worthwhile to point out that an individual citizen is not particularly effective in resisting "the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers".
Story is speaking of an armed citizenry, not a single armed citizen.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 10:18 AM
Enlightened Layperson said...
My friend, this is not a commentary on the right to keep and bear arms which is discussed above. Rather, this is a lament that the "American people" are not undergoing military training in order to serve as an effective militia. This passage assumes that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to "keep the people duly armed."
The militia was an organized military body as set forth in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 which allowed Congress to "provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining of the militia" etc.
Not quite. Congress' statutes have recognized the distinction between the organized and unorganized militia.
The organized militia was armed by Congress.
The unorganized militia kept and bore their own arms as discussed at length by Mr. Story.
And, as he makes perfectly clear, Story did not think it possible to keep the people "armed" without a proper "organization."
No, he lamented that the "purpose" of arming the citizenry would be defeated if the citizenry did not know haw to use their arms so that they may serve in a militia. The term "well regulated" meant to be able to shoot well.
Bart:
Nonesense. People can learn to shoot well without militia training. But how does the collective armed citizenry collectively decide that it is time for revolution and collectively act without organization, training and leadership? Any soldier should know that one of the things that makes and effective fighting force is not just the individual ability to shoot, but practice working together as a team.
The collective right of revolution is not effectively secured by armed but uncoordinated individuals, all expected to somehow magically agree when the time is ripe for revolution and all magically work together as a unit when it arrives.
# posted by Essayist-Laywer : 11:26 AM
The claim that the Constitution protects a revolutionary right has always struck me as strange. Revolutionary rights are pre-Constitutional. By definition, a revolution dispenses with the existing state of affairs.
The slaveholders made a similar claim regarding secession. Lincoln was entirely right to respond that secession might be justified as revolution, but the Constitution was a document for after the revolution. Constitutions don't provide for their own dissolution.
# posted by Mark Field : 1:13 PM
The Constitution does not protect a revolutionary right, for the simple reason that it is, and was, transparently obvious that at such times that you need a revolutionary right, the government will violate it regardless of what the Constitution might say to the contrary.
What the Constitution preserves is a revolutionary capability. And further, provides a kind of tripwire for revolution, by putting in guarantees whose violation provide the citizenry with clear warning that their government is starting to think itself their master, not their servant.
And the 2nd amendment is such a tripwire.
# posted by Brett : 1:30 PM
["Bart", quoting Joseph Story]:
[Arne]: So Story's saying at best (and most charitably) that the militia is the answer to unprincipled rulers. How "Bart" makes that out to an individual KABA right is beyond me... The fact that the militias are offered in part as an alternative to standing armies doesn't enter into Story's argument here.
["Bart"]: The militia to which Story refers is an armed citizenry which can and was called into service at that time, not a standing National Guard commanded by the government, which Story expressly rejects in this passage.
Huh?!?!? Where?
"Bart" omits the subsequent Story language, as "enlightened layperson" points out, as well as this language from the Constitution (Article I, Section 8):
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;..."
This separate and apart from the proscriptions on "standing armies".
"Bart" may have a point that the National Guards have become too federalised in recent years, and perhaps he'll sign on with the governors that have expressed reservations or resisted the employment of the National Guard in the service of the Dubya maladministration's overseas adventures. But that harldy refutes the general understanding that the National Guards are the present-day incarnations of the "militias" of the Constitution, right down to the chain of command and the appointment of the officers.
Where?!?!? Much less "individual citizens".
[Arne]: "Bart" has read his nun-guts propaganda "talking points" well, and knows to manufacture this "unorganized militia" construct as some kind of Founding Fathers' wet dream of the Bulwark of Liberty. But, as is plain, the Story quote above doesn't support this contention at all.
["Bart"]: Actually, Story is a oft quoted secondary source for those of us who defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms....
You misspelled "selectively quoted". I agree that the nun-guts grab and pick what suits their fancy, much as you do, "Bart", and that Story offers some fodder for that tactic, but I'd say that this paragraph you're so enamoured of doesn't say what you say it says....
["Bart"]: ... I was amazed the professor thought Story could actually be a source for the collective right argument.
Your befuddlement is noted. That's not our problem.
["Bart"]: You are welcome to show me where Story argues that the Second Amendment right is restricted to a standing organized militia like our present day national guard....
Ahhhh. "Bart"'s moving the gola posts again (or doing his standard "straw man" schtick, however you want to look at it).
But the burden of proof is not on me. The burder of proof is on "Bart" to show that Story thought that the militia (today's National Guard) was the "standing armies" that Story (and the Founders) cautioned against when they said "no federal standing armies".
FWIW, if "Bart" is so concerned about such "standing armies", when can we expect to see him out decrying the perennial reauthorisations of the United States Army and the existence of career officers and soldiers that rely on this federal institution (with its own federal department and bureaucracy)?
["Bart"]: Quite to the contrary, the revolutionaries of that time did not want any substantial stranding army at all....
At the federal level. An organised militia, capable of being called into national military service as warranted by extentuating circumstances, was thought an appropiate substitute. You know, kind of like they said explicitly in the Constitution?
["Bart"]: ... Therefore, it is absurd to claim that a right which they expressly granted to the People belonged to such a standing army.
"Bart" chooses to emphasise the "standing" crapola ... because he wants the RW foamers sitting in their Barcaloungers with Cheetohs within arms reach to have all the penile prostheses they think they need and to take up the defence of this nation. No thanks. They certainly haven't done that in Iraq (see, e.g. Operation Yellow Elephant).
[Story again]: The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
[Arne]: No.
["Bart"]::::Picture arne holding his hands over his ears screaming over and over again: "I can't hear you!":::
Picture me saying: "Story didn't use the words 'individual citizen' anywhere in the stuff you quoted."
What part of "collective right" and "individual right" are you having trouble with? Perhaps you're right that it is an individual right, and perhaps I'm right that it is a collective one, but you hardly prove your case by dismissing the alteratives proffered by your opponents and ipse dixit defining concepts under dispute as meaning what you think they mean, for your own rhetorical purposes.
Huh? A bit of "fallacy of bifurcation" here? FWIW, the actual prohibition is on the gummint itself. You'd be hard pressed to go to court and demand that some other citizen sell (or give) you his arms because the Counstitution gives you a "right to KABA".
[Arne]: Amongst other things, perhaps it might be worthwhile to point out that an individual citizen is not particularly effective in resisting "the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers".
["Bart"]: Story is speaking of an armed citizenry, not a single armed citizen.
Why, thank you!!!
# posted by Arne Langsetmo : 2:11 PM
The unorganized militia kept and bore their own arms....
We know who the "disorganized militia" is, "Bart". Mike Royko used to do columns on them. Timothy McVeigh signed on....
The term "well regulated" meant to be able to shoot well.
C.L. Dodgson would be proud of you, "Bart".
enlightened layperson:
Not to mention the almost assured result that in most circumstances, this would lead to half the population firing at the other and vice versa....
This is the fundamental flaw with "Bart"'s version of 'citizen democracy in action' here. "Bart", being one of John Dean's authoritarian types, is concinced that everyone would be on his side (except that danged out-of-control gummint). I can assure his that this is false.
Congress has always recognized two different militias - the organized militia like the NG which it arms and the unorganized militia consisting of the remainder of the self armed citizenry. The former is covered under the Article I militia clause and the latter under the Second Amendment.
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
# posted by Bart DePalma : 2:25 PM
This is a logical policy justification, though I have my doubts about it in practice. That's ok; we can debate policy fairly enough. What I don't see is evidence supporting your policy in the text or history of the 2d Amendment.
To be fair, I'm not an originalist, so the policy debate on its own is good enough as long as it doesn't entirely exclude text and history. It just seems an awkward argument for most 2d A supporters, since so many claim to be originalists of some sort.
In his commentaries on the English common law, Sir William Blackstone, discussing the "absolute right of individuals" said the following:
"In these several rights consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen.... So long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or [an]other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possible be employed.... And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the King and parliament for redress of grievances; and, LASTLY, TO THE RIGHT OF HAVING AND USING ARMS FOR SELF-PRESERVATION AND DEFENSE." 1 Commentaries *44 (emphasis added)1765
Note the similar text in our 1st, 2nd, and 5th amendments.
How's that for history?
# posted by Justin : 7:14 PM
Blackstone's statement, in context, clearly refers to a collective right. In addition, 2d A supporters generally avoid English practice because it severely restricted gun ownership.
In context? Blackstone is talking about the right to justice in a court of law, and the right to petition parliament for redress of greivances (much like our 1st A.) Surely you do not contend that these too are collective rights. Blackstone's use of the phrase "self preservation" clears it up. The dictionary defines self as "the entire person of an individual." Lets keep it in context.
The 2nd A. uses the same language as the 1st and 4th, "the right of the people." Surely the founders would have made clear the distinction between collective and individual rights if the 2nd was referring to a collective right.
All the talk about the militia clause is smoke and mirrors. Certainly militias were part of the motivation for the 2nd
A. A militia is a group of private citizens with private gun ownership. So the militia clause doesn't exclude private gun ownership, it requires it.
# posted by Justin : 10:07 PM
Apparently I am not the only one who thinks so.
See BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES:
WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE,
TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS,
OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. (1803)
http://www.constitution.org/tb/tb-0000.htm
"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion." Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol 1. Note D. Part 6. Restraints on Powers of Congress (1803).
British law currently is not friendly to gun ownership. But historically it has been dating back to the 1689 Bill of Rights. These rights would have been seen as absolute to the founding generation. Just because in your view it isn't good policy, doesn't mean we can change the Constitution without amending it.
Further, the Tucker, Blackstone commentaries speak on the apparent betrayal of British policy as it relates to prohibiting firearms for the preservation of game. Obviously Americans beleived gun ownership should be allowed for this purpose as well.
"8. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be
infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4.
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of
the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext
whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes.
True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted
to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty." Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol 1. Note D. Part 6. Restraints on Powers of Congress (1803).
Is liberty on the brink of destruction today? Not if courts continue to do what they did in the Parker case.
# posted by Justin : 11:31 AM
Yes, Tucker's Commentaries support your view, though it undermines your claim about the British. As for the English Bill of Rights, it states "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." That doesn't help you much.
As for context, you're reading 21st C terms into and 18 C document. Blackstone's comment about self-preservation can only be read in the context of English law, which did NOT permit keeping firearms for that purpose. If you had a firearm for some other purpose and used it for self-defense, that was fine. But there was (and is) no right in England to possess a gun solely for that purpose.
As far as the reference to "the people" goes, you're ignoring its obvious collective meaning in, say, the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Finally, I'm not the one trying to re-write the Constitution. I'm trying to enforce what it actually says. It's the "I get to own my own bazooka" crowd which is trying to change it without an amendment.
# posted by Mark Field : 11:49 AM
Yes, even in 1803, the British were passing laws contradicting there own bill of rights, much like many of our own elected bodies have in the US. I have to disagree still, that Blackstone or the English Bill of Rights were referring to anything other than an individual right to gun ownership.
The reference to the people in the ninth and tenth amendments are also references to individual interests. The ninth amendment was used in Griswold v. Connecticut to protect an individual right of privacy, and overturn an anti birth control law. Supposedly, this was one of the rights "retained by the people." Originally, the ninth amendment was meant to clarify that the rights in the Bill of Rights was not our only rights, that we still retain rights which we did not grant to the Federal Government. (See Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, Thomas McAffee, Columbia Law Review, 1990; McAffee is also sited in the majority opinion in Parker for his second amendment article)
I don't understand how you can read "the right of the people" in the first amendement one way, and then in the second amendment an entirely different way, and then in the fourth amendment, back again. It makes no sense. It's plain english. But then again, it doesn't align with your agenda.
Let me clarify one thing. I think that the state has a signifigant interest in public safety so as to be able to regulate guns, require registration, and not allow Bazooka ownership :) But like Tucker, I think that self defense is one of the most important rights. This whole debate is just unamerican. ;)
It's not clear to me that I have any more (or less) of an agenda than you do. We're simply disagreeing on an interpretation. There's nothing inherently wrong in that. I don't agree with your interpretation, but it's not frivolous.
As for the use of the term "people", I don't see why it has to be used the same way each time. I merely pointed out that it's hard to read it as anything other than collective in several places. If you don't like the 9th and 10th Amendments, try the Preamble or Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 1.
Reference to Griswold doesn't help you much since it's the meaning in 1791 we're discussing. If you mean "how do we understand it today?" -- a legitimate question in my view -- there still has to be a discussion why it has an individual meaning in light of the reference to a militia.
I think that the state has a signifigant interest in public safety so as to be able to regulate guns, require registration, and not allow Bazooka ownership :)
Fair enough. This is why it's possible to have reasonable disagreements over the scope of the right protected in the 2D A.
But like Tucker, I think that self defense is one of the most important rights.
I agree that self-defense is a right and an important one. Where we disagree is that (a) I don't think guns are essential for the exercise of that right; and (b) suitable regulation of guns would reduce or eliminate the times when someone would want a gun to protect against an attack by someone else with one.
Mark, you state your views very well, and you have correctly identified the real issues. There is still a lot of debate over what the ninth amendment really means or meant. There is still great debate over the importance of originalism. My question is how do we really take democracy seriously, if we don't try to correctly interperet the intentions of legislators, or constitutional drafters? Perhaps we can't, or perhaps the drafters intentions are different than the voting body of legislators. There are problems any way you look at it.
As to the question of the militia clause of the the 2d A. Thomas McAffee goes into detail about the reasons it was included in his article Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, Bringing Forward the Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Do Text, History, or Precedent Stand in the Way?, 75 N.C. L. Rev. 781, 890 (1997) This article is sited in the Parker case by the majority. McAffee describes the militia clause as a sort of preamble of the second amendment. Much like the preamble of the consititution, it doesn't have any real legal implications to the constitution. It is there to introduce, and give historical background, perhaps reasons for creating the document. The militia clause says "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," which many of the day beleived. Having militias was certainly a motivation for including the 2d A. in the Bill of Rights. But the language of the 2d A. does not protect the right of the people to have militias. It protects the right of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Again, militias are private citizens, with private gun ownership. So if we are viewing things from the drafters perspective, protecting individual gun ownership in effect protects militias. Still, this doen't mean that militias were the only reason they were protecting our individual right to own a firearm. This is why it protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms rather than the right of the people to maintain militias.
Whether or not you feel we need militias today, you cannot argue that the founders didn't intend to protect the individual right of people to own firearms, what ever their reasons. So if we want to get rid of the right to keep and bear arms, we must amend the constitution.
The problem with originalism is that it doesn't make any sense, outside of the formal structure of our institutions and processes. Some of the substantive rights and structures depend on a context has changed beyond recognition. If we want to be serious about democracy, we have to seriously update the constitution regularly.
The second amendment at this late date is gibberish, if read closely; it's only meaningful by reinterpreting the meaning, something that's been done not by democratic methods, but by juridical ones. The structure of the army, the relations of the states to the federal government - many of those changes have gone either juridically, or at the end of a gun.
It seems obvious that no document structuring a country can withstand 200 years of change with fairly minimal explicit revision, and not have undergone implicit revision. Maybe juridical consensus is better than democratic decision-making; maybe continuous legislative re-definition is a safer method than unambiguous amendment.
I'd like to hear explicit, empirical arguments for those rather than sophistry about "original intent." I'm askin' for meta-law, I guess, and not law per se.
# posted by RandomSequence : 8:53 PM
My question is how do we really take democracy seriously, if we don't try to correctly interperet the intentions of legislators, or constitutional drafters?
Text and history are important to me, but not definitive. In my view, we take democracy most seriously when we correctly interpret what we, The People, understand our Constitution to mean to us today, not in 1790.
While I think there are limits to this, Jefferson had a point when he said, "The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please …. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors [were] extinguished … in their natural course with those who gave them being. … Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of [a generation]. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
McAffee describes the militia clause as a sort of preamble of the second amendment. Much like the preamble of the consititution, it doesn't have any real legal implications to the constitution.
I don't agree that the Preamble "has no legal implications". Certainly John Marshall thought it did; he cited it in some of his most important opinions. And he was there.
you cannot argue that the founders didn't intend to protect the individual right of people to own firearms, what ever their reasons.
I think that issue is very arguable. The historical evidence on this, as so many issues, is indeterminate. That's one of many problems with originalism (most forms, not Prof. Balkin's). There is evidence to support your view; there's also evidence to support a collective rights view. Ultimately, though, what's most important to me is how we today interpret it.
Funny thing is, I'm not sure how far apart we are on the legal principles. We agreed above that even an individual rights interpretation would allow room for regulation. In my view, that regulation should be done by Congress (or the state legislatures, if the Court ever applies the 2D A to the states) rather than the courts. I think that's the most democratic result.
If you want to update the constitution, use the amendment process. I can't seriously believe that you are proposing to change it by some hand waving about "modern context".
In any case, as Eugene Volokh points out, in modern times, the right to keep and bear arms should be read just as forcefully:
http://volokh.com/posts/1130343877.shtml
As he points out, the desire to read the Second Amendment as non-existent is really a desire of elite urban lawyers, not the population as a whole. Read his post above.
# posted by Kevin : 1:31 AM
Believe it, Kevin. Some people just find the rule of law too confining. They see some policy they want, the Constitution, honestly interpreted, doesn't permit it, and it's out with the Constitution.
Of course, since if you dispense with the Constitution altogether, you've got nothing but naked force as an excuse for the government to rule, so you don't admit to getting rid of it. You just resort to a sufficent level of sophistry that what it says no longer constrains the meaning. That way you can use the peoples' respect for the Constitution to get them to go along with any outrage you feel like.
Well put, Brett. A "Living Constitution" leads to a Dead Republic.
A "Living Constitution" leads to a Dead Republic.
This is exactly backward, as my quote from Jefferson demonstrates. If we don't get to choose our own destiny -- forced instead to behave as our forefathers did for no better reason than that they did so -- we aren't free, we're slaves.
If you want to update the constitution, use the amendment process.
Nice rhetorical trick -- that's my position, not yours. You want to re-write the 2d A to mean things it doesn't mean. It means a militia -- that's the plain text. All the rest is just fancy lawyering and dubious historical claims on your part.
If you want it to mean more, seek an amendment. Then you can have unelected judges regulating gun ownership all over the country. Should be fun -- let me know when we actually have a republic again.
[Kevin]: A "Living Constitution" leads to a Dead Republic.
[Mark Field]: This is exactly backward, as my quote from Jefferson demonstrates. If we don't get to choose our own destiny -- forced instead to behave as our forefathers did for no better reason than that they did so -- we aren't free, we're slaves.
Or, put another way, why should we let the "dead hand of the past" rule us? It's our gummint, not theirs. They're gone on to different concerns.
That being said, nothign wrogn with listening to what some of the acknowledge "best and brightest" of past generations had to say. Doesn't mean that we have to accept it as controlling under the circumstances at present (and we're getting into necromancy if we start exhuming the corpses of long dead people to see what they would say had they been around today).
Kevin and Brett,
Nice knee-jerk. If you had bothered to actually read what I said, I was not discussing whether originalism would be a good idea, I was questioning whether it is, in fact, possible today, or simply an ideological cover. If you had bothered to read my screed, there's actually is an argument in there for using the amendment process more actively, rather than falsely claiming "originalism" which is nothing of the kind.
The problem is, we haven't used the amendment process actively. In fact, many elements of the constitution have been changed implicitly, whether you like it or not; in fact, we do have a "living" constitution, whether you like it or not. I was asking whether this is a good idea - if not, it's obvious that the constitution should be amended to make it more amendable. If you do support originalism, the current document is incapable of being tightly "originalist" because of its amendment process. A literal understanding of the constitution does not match the facts on the ground, and some portions of it are actually gibberish, in context of the facts on the ground.
There's a difference between the ideal case, and actual-facts-on-the-ground. If we were to be serious about originalism with our current document, our society would quickly collapse. Most statutes would be overruled, our military would be dismantled to a large degree, and most federal institutions would become a nub of themselves. Obviously, that is not going to happen via juridical methods, whether you like it or not. Copyrights would be overturned; cats and dogs would live together in peace! Most Americans, if the demand is for more democracy, today do not want the country "originally" described by the constitution - portions yes, but not the full nine-yards.
So my question stands, what are the empirical difference between an active explicit amendment process, a gradual legislative amendment process, and amendment by juridical consensus? All have some democratic legitimacy (some more than others), so what are the practical implications of each method? Is this discussed in law schools, or is any active research into this being done in political science?
So my question stands, what are the empirical difference between an active explicit amendment process, a gradual legislative amendment process, and amendment by juridical consensus? All have some democratic legitimacy (some more than others)
Only the first one, an explicit amendment process is legitimate. Article V provides for the only way to change the constitution - through a constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention. There is no other way to change the constitution. Any other way leads to the mockery of the very concept of a constitution, which becomes so malleable that its text can be ignored, stretched and shredded whenever the elite decide it. You may be OK with this - many of us little people are not. We take the concept of the constitution seriously.
# posted by Kevin : 4:54 PM
Arne:
Very well. Since it's my gummint, as you put it, I say that I have a right to keep and bear arms. You say you don't? Don't keep any then! Leave my right alone.
But I doubt you would go for that - this is really about the power to eventually ban guns and the inconvenient and Embarassing Second Amendment that stands in the way.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/embar.html
So are you for opening up the amendment process to a more democratic process? Because if you are correct, that only the amendment process is legitimate and anything else is a mockery, then we currently are, in fact, a mockery. You can't have it both ways, originalist for things you want, and "interpreted" for things you don't. I am quite sure that in a democratic process, the original constitution would not be ratified today - which is all that matters at the end of the day, what people today think. It wasn't even ratified originally by a democratic process...
I didn't say it was your gummint, did I? When I was speaking of "our gummint", I was talking about the current polity; the "consent of the governed [as opposed to dead]", so to speak. I don't mean to say that we get to choose in a vacuum; the Constitution is still in force (barely, it seems, at times), and our "interpretation" should be cabined at the very least at the limits by the plain language, and by good sense.
FWIW: To those too young to recognise the wonderful language of Walt Kelly, "gummint" is from his incredibly intellectual comic strip "Pogo". I miss Mr. Kelly. We need his wisdom now.
Ahhhhhh. "They're coming for my guns! Quick, tear down the bookshelves, kill the kids, shred the bible and toss them all out into some big barricade to keep the baddies at bad while I fondle my weapon." Ok, maybe a bit overblown, but when you RW nunguts come around to helping me defend the other nine amendments from the predations of the authoritarian RW, maybe I'll think about protecting your one amendment.
But, from my experience talking to your type, you are of the firm position that, at base, your other rights are achieved through that one amendment that you love so much (and thus the rest are in fact redundant if not meaningless). Your bleak vision of the brave nunguts resisting tyranny with their 9mm Glocks and their rapid-fire Bushmasters is so far from the realm of reality as to make it truly hallucinatory. Not to mention, if things ever get to that state, little things like constitutions will have little relevance. Why you think the U.S. Constitution should have envisaged and encouraged such an apocalypic scenario, when it did far less to protect against some of the lesser travesties of justice (instead, relying on the inherent good nature of humankind in general), is beynd me.
Sorry, but if that's where this country is going, I'd prefer not to tag along.
The previous comment is distressing in its reliance on personal attack rather than an enlightened discussion of the issue.
My question for professor Cornell is how he responds to the late Leonard Levy's -- no hysterical gun nut, rather one of the foremost constitutional historians of our time -- historical discussion of the origin of the individual right to keep and bear arms in Origins of the Bill of Rights, which tracks generally, though not verbatim, with Judge Silberman's discussion of the issue.
# posted by George Lyon : 6:22 PM
Obat Kelamin Keluar Nanah
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Wanita
Penyakit Kencing Nanah Ibu Hamil
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah
Gejala Penyakit Kencing Nanah Pria
# posted by afandi herbal : 4:18 PM


text:
11th Circuit to hear Florida transgender bathroom case
Jazz ShawPosted at 8:01 am on December 6, 2019
We've had a number of lawsuits related to transgender issues percolating through the courts for the past ten years without any sort of final resolution being reached. That may change with the arrival of a Florida bathroom policy case at the 11th Circuit. This one comes out of Nease High School in Ponte Vedra and is about as stripped down and basic as you could imagine. The school's policy isn't tied to any sort of federal guidance or saddled with conditions. It simply states that students will use the bathroom that aligns with their physical anatomy regardless of how they "identify" in terms of gender. The one twist here is that the suit was originally brought by a female-to-male transgender student. (The Hill)
A federal appeals court will reportedly decide whether a Florida school district must allow students to use the bathroom assigned to the gender with which they identify rather than the gender they were born.
The case before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals began Thursday after district officials from the St. Johns County school district appealed the lower court victory won by Drew Adams, a transgender former student of Nease High School in Ponte Vedra, Fla., NBC News reported.
The 11th circuit court would be the highest court to issue a ruling on the matter of transgender students' bathroom preferences since the Supreme Court sent a previous case in Virginia back to the lower courts following the Trump administration's withdrawal of federal guidance on bathroom use in schools.
This case is notable for a couple of reasons, mostly to do with the Supreme Court's reluctance to tackle divisive "social justice" issues. The top court recently heard arguments in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. EEOC, but that seems unlikely to provide much clarity. As I've written here before, that case offers the court an opportunity to rule very narrowly on issues of employment discrimination and dress codes, both of which already have plenty of precedents, without having to deal with the underlying issue of the definitions of gender and sex.
As I mentioned above, the court has managed to duck this question every time it's come up in the past. In one case, a long-standing legal battle wound up being declared moot after the Trump administration withdrew Title IX guidelines regarding transgender students. Others were simply refused, with lower court rulings allowed to stand.
But Adams v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida appears to be different. It's not really resting on federal Title IX guidance, nor does it revolve around compromises such as offering single-user facilities for non-conforming students. It boils the question down to basic anatomy.
One possible twist complicating this case, as I mentioned at the top, is the fact that the student in question had "transitioned" from female to male, rather than the opposite. There are no indications that the boys in the school were complaining about her using the male bathrooms, as you might expect. It was actually some of the girls who complained. Boys are probably less likely to be upset about a girl walking into the bathroom than in the reverse situation. But that really shouldn't give the Supreme Court an excuse to duck out of the controversy.
No matter which way the 11th Circuit rules, the case will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court. And with at least two lower courts giving conflicting rulings, the justices may finally feel compelled to weigh in. Because this question touches on so many social issues and affects everything from privacy rights to the future viability of competitive women's sports, a definitive answer from the Supremes would have wide-ranging consequences. What does it mean to be male or female? Can schools, governments or any other institutions simply toss out centuries of accepted medical science and fundamental privacy rights by redefining the word "gender?" Is gender dysphoria still a mental illness or are we going to be ordered to accept this madness as "our new reality?" We may finally get an answer to these questions when the dust settles on this case.
Tags: bathroom policy Florida locker room schools showers transgender transgender policy


text:
Jeff Macauley – Hollywood Party – Movie Songs: 1928-1936 ★★★★☆
· December 29, 2017
October 30, November 30, December 15 & 27, 2017
Music Direction & Accompaniment by Tex Arnold
No one likes being late to a party, but that's how I felt recently watching the supremely entertaining Jeff Macauley holding court at Pangea in the smartest show in town, Hollywood Party – Movie Songs: 1928-1936. As he unfurled one delicious, forgotten gem after another I wondered how Macauley's insouciant blend of wit, charm and sophistication could have eluded me for so long. After all, he'd won a Bistro Award in 1998 for MWAH! The Dinah Shore Show (which he encored in 2016 to critical raves) and has been MAC nominated the last two years for Best Male Vocalist. Where had I been? Why had no one told me? Ah well, better late than never! And now that I'm at the party, wild horses couldn't drag me away.
It only takes glancing at the titles of Macauley's shows to see why he's the toast of the town and a tastemaker in style: It Was Me: The Lyrics of Norman Gimbel, Mr. Lucky: The Songs of Henry Mancini and Le Grand Tour: The Music of Michel Legrand. A performer with panache and savvy, Macauley's Hollywood Party is actually a revival of a show he created more than 20 years ago. But it's a testament to Macauley's presentation and his material's timelessness that Hollywood Party remains a breath of fresh air and a thrill to experience.
Photo courtesy of James Gavin
Boasting intuitive arrangements and the sensitive playing of the superb Tex Arnold, in Hollywood Party Macauley steps back in time to the Golden Age of film music with a collection of rarities, obscure oddities and – most delightfully – completely unknown songs. When was the last time you watched a cabaret show and had never heard the vast majority of songs being performed? And how exciting is that? As our emcee and bon vivant narrator, Macauley relishes in turning the pages of time, in this case from 1928 to 1936. Boasting writers as disparate as Rodgers & Hart, Dorothy Parker and Yip Harburg, you'll also experience Herman Hupfeld, Clifford Grey & Victor Schertzinger and George Marion & Richard Whiting. The lyrics Macauley has chosen are unerringly smart, funny and frivolous – all qualities Macauley himself embodies as he takes us into his confidence.
Cutting a cool figure in his tuxedo, Macauley's sex appeal is as magnetic as it is dangerous. His light, lyric baritone often roams into tenor territory but he never pushes, caressing the notes with an even fineness that's a welcome relief from the glut of belters who equate volume with emotion. Younger singers would do well to emulate Macauley's sumptuous phrasing and consummate breath-control. It's refreshing to watch a show where the performer understands the lyric is paramount, and to take breaths where dictated by the text. No breaking up phrases or taking a gigantic breath before the last word in a sentence for Macauley. It's this attention to presentation, along with his eclectic taste in repertoire, that Macauley reminds me of the terrific Chicago-based performer Justin Hayford. They both have a gentle approach to their material but there's always a sly wink in the execution. And that wink is everything.
Whether he's advising us to "Never Swat A Fly" (from Just Imagine, 1930 – Fox: by B.G. De Sylva, Lew Brown and Ray Henderson) or to "Bend Down Sister" (from Palmy Days, 1931 – United Artists: by Ballard MacDonald/Dave Silverstein and Con Conrad), Macauley is genuinely having fun and his rapt audience is along for the ride. Selfishly, I can't wait to see what he does next!
Jeff Macauley next appears at The Duplex Cabaret Theatre on Sunday, January 14th at 9:30 pm in
Little Crumbs of Happiness with James Judd, Terri Mintz & Ann Talman
http://www.purplepasss.com
(Note: A word about the wonderful cabaret room at Pangea at 178 Second Avenue in New York City. I'd been to Pangea many times, but it had been many years since my last visit and I'd never experienced the charming and intimate performing space now lovingly ensconced at the back of the restaurant. It's the perfect size space for cabaret shows with excellent sight-lines. And the food was delicious!)
Categories : Cabaret
Tags : Jeff Macauley, Tex Arnold


I am finishing my second day being on a cleanse, and I'm feeling really amazing. This is one of my favorite salad recipes included in the program. If you are interested in learning more about this cleanse, or about healthy eating in general, I highly recommend you contact Jenn Jessup, B.S., CNT of Barefoot Nutrition, LLC at barefootnutrition@gmail.com.
Jenn believes in a step-by-step approach for transitioning eating habits and building health. All programs are designed with the individual in mind, utilizing food as therapy to restore health and vitality. She educates clients about the role food plays in supporting the body's ability to function and thrive. In addition to nurturing the body, Jenn believes we need to also support the environment for overall health, she advocates supporting organic, local food sources and the slow foods movement to help achieve health within and without.
It is an understatement to say that she is a wealth of knowledge and support. She truly brings holistic perspectives and approaches to health and nutrition.


text:
Fabien Kazarine (né le  à Compiègne) est un joueur professionnel français de hockey sur glace.

Carrière
Fabien Kazarine est formé au hockey sur glace au club des Lions de Compiègne, dans sa ville natale. Lors de la saison 2009-2010, il rejoint le centre de formation des Gothiques d'Amiens. Il y remporte les titres de Champion de France U18 Elite en 2012 et 2013, puis de Champion de France U22 Elite en 2014.

Lors de la saison 2014-2015, il se voit attribuer le trophée Jean-Pierre-Graff de meilleur espoir aux côtés de Jordann Perret.

Il rejoint Lyon pour la saison 2017/2018.

Statistiques
Pour les significations des abréviations, voir statistiques du hockey sur glace.

Statistiques en club

|2013-2014 || Gothiques d'Amiens ||Ligue Magnus|| 20|| 6|| 0|| 6|| 4|| 5|| 0|| 1|| 1|| 0
|-
|2014-2015 || Gothiques d'Amiens || Ligue Magnus || 25|| 11|| 8|| 19|| 2|| 8|| 0|| 1|| 1|| 6
|-
|2015-2016 || Gothiques d'Amiens || Ligue Magnus || 26 || 8 || 13 || 21 || 26 || 5 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 4
|-
| 2016-2017 || Gothiques d'Amiens || Ligue Magnus || 36 || 6 || 3 || 9 || 16 || 5 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 4
|-
| 2017-2018 || Lions de Lyon || Ligue Magnus || 44 || 6 || 2 || 8 || 14 || 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
| 2018-2019 || Pionniers de Chamonix Mont-Blanc || Ligue Magnus || 44 || 16 || 17 || 33 || 16 || 4 || 0 || 2 || 2 || 2
|-
| 2019-2020 || Aigles de Nice || Ligue Magnus || 8 || 1 || 2 || 3 || 4 || - || - || - || - || -
|-
| 2019-2020 || Pionniers de Chamonix Mont-Blanc || Ligue Magnus || 29 || 10 || 14 || 24 || 28 || 4 || 2 || 2 || 4 || 2
|-
| 2020-2021|| Pionniers de Chamonix Mont-Blanc || Ligue Magnus || 22 || 9 || 9 || 18 || 6 || - || - || - || - || -
|-
| 2021-2022|| Pionniers de Chamonix Mont-Blanc || Ligue Magnus || 44 || 5 || 8 || 13 || 8 || 4 || 1 || 0 || 1 || 0

Au niveau international

|2012|| France -18 ans||Championnat du monde -18 ans D1A|| 4|| 1|| 0|| 1|| 4|| A
|-
|2013|| France -18 ans||align="left"|Championnat du monde -18 ans D1A|| 5|| 0|| 0|| 0|| 2|| Division IA
|-
|2014|| France -20 ans||align="left"|Championnat du monde junior D1B|| 5|| 0|| 1|| 1|| 2|| Division IB
|-
|2015|| France -20 ans||align="left"|Championnat du monde junior D1B|| 5|| 1|| 2|| 3|| 4|| Division IB
|-

Notes et références

Naissance en juillet 1995
Naissance à Compiègne
Sportif né en Picardie
Joueur international français de hockey sur glace
Attaquant de hockey sur glace
Joueur du Amiens hockey élite
Joueur du Lyon Hockey Club
Joueur du Chamonix hockey élite
Joueur du Nice Hockey Côte d'Azur
Gagnant du trophée Jean-Pierre-Graff


Following his West End debut as Jesus in "Godspell," Anthony Head went on to star in many acclaimed stage productions in diverse roles including Absalom in Peter Shaffer's "Yonadab," Freddy Trumper in "Chess" and Frank 'n' Furter in "The Rocky Horror Show." His career went from strength to strength, with guest leading roles in many TV series throughout the late '70s and '80s including "Secret Army," "Enemy at the Door," "Love In a Cold Climate" and "Howard's Way."
His first forays into American television included a guest appearance on "NYPD Blue" and appeared in one season of the groundbreaking Fox series "VR5." A year later, he won the role of Rupert Giles in "Buffy The Vampire Slayer," a critically acclaimed series that achieved a cult status making him an international star. He also appeared in "Him and Us," directed by Charles Shyer, the U.S. version of "Free Agents" for NBC and "Warehouse 13" for Syfy, to name a few.
Back in the U.K., Head has continued to show his diversity as an actor starring in programs such as, "Manchild," "Persuasion," "Free Agents," and "Little Britain." He also appeared as a guest star in several notable dramas such as "Spooks," "Reversals" and "New Tricks." After a successful run at The Old Vic playing Flan in "Six Degrees of Separation," he finished filming Series 4 of the highly successful BBC1's "Merlin"; appeared alongside Meryl Streep in "The Iron Lady," directed by Phyllida Lloyd; Roger Spottiswoode's "A street cat named Bob"; and the highly anticipated "In betweeners Movie."
Head's additional credits include appearing in "Dancing on the Edge," directed by Stephen Poliakoff; and as Chiron in "Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters," directed by Scott Alexander and produced by Chris Columbus. He was most recently seen reprising his role in the comedy "You, Me and Them" on Gold and NBC's "Dominion" on SyFy.
Lord Capulet is the patriarch of the Capulet dynasty and is willing to maintain the legacy of his family's name at any cost.