text:
EconlibThe LibraryOther Sites |
Front Page Titles (by Subject) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States - The American Republic: Primary Sources
Return to Title Page for The American Republic: Primary SourcesThe Online Library of LibertyA project of Liberty Fund, Inc.Search this Title:Also in the Library:
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States - Bruce Frohnen, The American Republic: Primary Sources [2002]Edition used:The American Republic: Primary Sources, ed. Bruce Frohnen (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2002).
About Liberty Fund:Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. Copyright information:The copyright to this edition, in both print and electronic forms, is held by Liberty Fund, Inc. Fair use statement:This material is put online to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc. Unless otherwise stated in the Copyright Information section above, this material may be used freely for educational and academic purposes. It may not be used in any way for profit.
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States1833 Joseph Story (1779–1845) was born in Marblehead, Massachusetts, a stronghold of Federalist sentiment. Nonetheless, he was a committed supporter of the Democratic-Republican Party. Elected to the House of Representatives before he had reached the age of thirty, at thirty-one he was named to the Supreme Court by President James Madison. Here he continued an established career publishing commentaries on American law and, in 1833, wrote the highly influential Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Despite Story's commitment to the Democratic-Republicans—long held to be the party of states' rights—he consistently upheld a reading of the Constitution emphasizing the supremacy of the central government and the requirements for well-ordered liberty. In this selection he discusses the context and limits of rights protected by several of the Constitution's first ten amendments. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United StatesAmendments to the Constitution. . . §1863. Let us now enter upon the consideration of the amendments, which, it will be found, principally regard subjects properly belonging to a bill of rights. §1864. The first is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition government for a redress of grievances." §1865. And first, the prohibition of any establishment of religion, and the freedom of religious opinion and worship. How far any government has a right to interfere in matters touching religion, has been a subject much discussed by writers upon public and political law. The right and the duty of the interference of government, in matters of religion, have been maintained by many distinguished authors, as well those, who were the warmest advocates of free governments, as those, who were attached to governments of a more arbitrary character.1 Indeed, the right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion, the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to him for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues;—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well ordered community.2 It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, how any civilized society can well exist without them. And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's conscience. §1866. The real difficulty lies in ascertaining the limits, to which government may rightfully go in fostering and encouraging religion. Three cases may easily be supposed. One, where a government affords aid to a particular religion, leaving all persons free to adopt any other; another, where it creates an ecclesiastical establishment for the propagation of the doctrines of a particular sect of that religion, leaving a like freedom to all others; and a third, where it creates such an establishment, and excludes all persons, not belonging to it, either wholly, or in part, from any participation in the public honours, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities of the state. For instance, a govern-ment may simply declare, that the Christian religion shall be the religion of the state, and shall be aided, and encouraged in all the varieties of sects belonging to it; or it may declare, that the Catholic or Protestant religion shall be the religion of the state, leaving every man to the free enjoyment of his own religious opinions; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as of Episcopalians, as the religion of the state, with a like freedom; or it may establish the doctrines of a particular sect, as exclusively the religion of the state, tolerating others to a limited extent, or excluding all, not belonging to it, from all public honours, trusts, emoluments, privileges, and immunities. §1867. Now, there will probably be found few persons in this, or any other Christian country, who would deliberately contend, that it was unreasonable, or unjust to foster and encourage the Christian religion generally, as a matter of sound policy, as well as of revealed truth. In fact, every American colony, from its foundation down to the revolution, with the exception of Rhode Island, (if, indeed, that state be an exception,) did openly, by the whole course of its laws and institutions, support and sustain, in some form, the Christian religion; and almost invariably gave a peculiar sanction to some of its fundamental doctrines. And this has continued to be the case in some of the states down to the present period, without the slightest suspicion, that it was against the principles of public law, or republican liberty.3 Indeed, in a republic, there would seem to be a peculiar propriety in viewing the Christian religion, as the great basis, on which it must rest for its support and permanence, if it be, what it has ever been deemed by its truest friends to be, the religion of liberty. Montesquieu has remarked, that the Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel is incompatible with the despotic rage, with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty.4 He has gone even further, and affirmed, that the Protestant religion is far more congenial with the spirit of political freedom, than the Catholic. "When," says he, "the Christian religion, two centuries ago, became unhappily divided into Catholic and Protestant, the people of the north embraced the Protestant, and those of the south still adhered to the Catholic. The reason is plain. The people of the north have, and will ever have, a spirit of liberty and independence, which the people of the south have not. And, therefore, a religion, which has no visible head, is more agreeable to the independency of climate, than that, which has one."5 Without stopping to inquire, whether this remark be well founded, it is certainly true, that the parent country has acted upon it with a severe and vigilant zeal; and in most of the colonies the same rigid jealousy has been maintained almost down to our own times. Massachusetts, while she has promulgated in her bill of rights the importance and necessity of the public support of religion, and the worship of God, has authorized the legislature to require it only for Protestantism. The language of that bill of rights is remarkable for its pointed affirmation of the duty of government to support Christianity, and the reasons for it. "As," says the third article, "the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through the community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion, and morality; therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this Common wealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize, and require, and the legislature shall from time to time authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, &c. &c. to make suitable provision at their own expense for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily." Afterwards there follow provisions, prohibiting any superiority of one sect over another, and securing to all citizens the free exercise of religion. §1868. Probably at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration, the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.6 §1869. It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government. §1870. But the duty of supporting religion, and especially the Christian religion, is very different from the right to force the consciences of other men, or to punish them for worshipping God in the manner, which, they believe, their accountability to him requires. It has been truly said, that "religion, or the duty we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be dictated only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence,"7 Mr. Locke himself, who did not doubt the right of government to interfere in matters of religion, and especially to encourage Christianity, at the same time has expressed his opinion of the right of private judgment, and liberty of conscience, in a manner becoming his character, as a sincere friend of civil and religious liberty. "No man, or society of men," says he, "have any authority to impose their opinions or interpretations on any other, the meanest Christian; since, in matters of religion, every man must know, and believe, and give an account for himself."8 The rights of conscience are, indeed, beyond the just reach of any human power. They are given by God, and cannot be encroached upon by human authority, without a criminal disobedience of the precepts of natural, as well as of revealed religion. §1871. The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution, (the vice and pest of former ages,) and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age.9 The history of the parent country had afforded the most solemn warnings and melancholy instructions on this head;10 and even New-England, the land of the persecuted puritans, as well as other colonies, where the Church of England had maintained its superiority, would furnish out a chapter, as full of the darkest bigotry and intolerance, as any, which could be found to disgrace the pages of foreign annals.11 Apostacy, heresy, and nonconformity had been standard crimes for public appeals, to kindle the flames of persecution, and apologize for the most atrocious triumphs over innocence and virtue.12 §1872. Mr. Justice Blackstone, after having spoken with a manly freedom of the abuses in the Romish church respecting heresy; and, that Christianity had been deformed by the demon of persecution upon the continent, and that the island of Great Britain had not been entirely free from the scourge,13 defends the final enactments against nonconformity in England, in the following set phrases, to which, without any material change, might be justly applied his own sarcastic remarks upon the conduct of the Roman ecclesiastics in punishing heresy.14 "For nonconformity to the worship of the church," (says he,) "there is much more to be pleaded than for the former, (that is, reviling the ordinances of the church,) being a matter of private conscience, to the scruples of which our present laws have shown a very just, and Christian indulgence. For undoubtedly all persecution and oppression of weak consciences, on the score of religious persuasions, are highly unjustifiable upon every principle of natural reason, civil liberty, or sound religion. But care must be taken not to carry this indulgence into such extremes, as may endanger the national church. There is always a difference to be made between toleration and establishment."15 Let it be remembered, that at the very moment, when the learned commentator was penning these cold remarks, the laws of England merely tolerated protestant dissenters in their public worship upon certain conditions, at once irritating and degrading; that the test and corporation acts excluded them from public and corporate offices, both of trust and profit; that the learned commentator avows, that the object of the test and corporation acts was to exclude them from office, in common with Turks, Jews, heretics, papists, and other sectaries;16 that to deny the Trinity, however conscientiously disbelieved, was a public offence, punishable by fine and imprisonment; and that, in the rear of all these disabilities and grievances, came the long list of acts against papists, by which they were reduced to a state of political and religious slavery, and cut off from some of the dearest privileges of mankind.17 §1873. It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject.18 The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship.19 §1874. The next clause of the amendment respects the liberty of the press. "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."20 That this amendment was intended to secure to every citizen an absolute right to speak, or write, or print, whatever he might please, without any responsibility, public or private, therefor, is a supposition too wild to be indulged by any rational man. This would be to allow to every citizen a right to destroy, at his pleasure, the reputation, the peace, the property, and even the personal safety of every other citizen. A man might, out of mere malice and revenge, accuse another of the most infamous crimes; might excite against him the indignation of all his fellow citizens by the most atrocious calumnies; might disturb, nay, overturn all his domestic peace, and embitter his parental affections; might inflict the most distressing punishments upon the weak, the timid, and the innocent; might prejudice all a man's civil, and political, and private rights; and might stir up sedition, rebellion, and treason even against the government itself, in the wantonness of his passions, or the corruption of his heart. Civil society could not go on under such circumstances. Men would then be obliged to resort to private vengeance, to make up for the deficiencies of the law; and assassinations, and savage cruelties, would be perpetrated with all the frequency belonging to barbarous and brutal communities. It is plain, then, that the language of this amendment imports no more, than that every man shall have a right to speak, write, and print his opinions upon any subject whatsoever, without any prior restraint, so always, that he does not injure any other person in his rights, person, property, or reputation;21 and so always, that he does not thereby disturb the public peace, or attempt to subvert the government.22 It is neither more nor less, than an expansion of the great doctrine, recently brought into operation in the law of libel, that every man shall be at liberty to publish what is true, with good motives and for justifiable ends. And with this reasonable limitation it is not only right in itself, but it is an inestimable privilege in a free government. Without such a limitation, it might become the scourge of the republic, first denouncing the principles of liberty, and then, by rendering the most virtuous patriots odious through the terrors of the press, introducing despotism in its worst form. §1875. A little attention to the history of other countries in other ages will teach us the vast importance of this right. It is notorious, that, even to this day, in some foreign countries it is a crime to speak on any subject, religious, philosophical, or political, what is contrary to the received opinions of the government, or the institutions of the country, however laudable may be the design, and however virtuous may be the motive. Even to animadvert upon the conduct of public men, of rulers, or representatives, in terms of the strictest truth and courtesy, has been, and is deemed, a scandal upon the supposed sanctity of their stations and characters, subjecting the party to grievous punishment. In some countries no works can be printed at all, whether of science, or literature, or philosophy, without the previous approbation of the government; and the press has been shackled, and compelled to speak only in the timid language, which the cringing courtier, or the capricious inquisitor, should license for publication. The Bible itself, the common inheritance not merely of Christendom, but of the world, has been put exclusively under the control of government; and not allowed to be seen, or heard, except in a language unknown to the common inhabitants of the country. To publish a translation in the vernacular tongue, has been in former times a flagrant offence. §1876. The history of the jurisprudence of England, (the most free and enlightened of all monarchies,) on this subject, will abundantly justify this statement. The art of printing, soon after its introduction, (we are told,) was looked upon, as well in England, as in other countries, as merely a matter of state, and subject to the coercion of the crown. It was therefore regulated in England by the king's proclamations, prohibitions, charters of privilege, and licenses, and finally by the decrees of the court of Star Chamber; which limited the number of printers, and of presses, which each should employ, and prohibited new publications, unless previously approved by proper licensers. On the demolition of this odious jurisdiction, in 1641, the long parliament of Charles the First, after their rupture with that prince, assumed the same powers, which the Star Chamber exercised, with respect to licensing books; and during the commonwealth, (such is human frailty, and the love of power, even in republics!) they issued their ordinances for that purpose, founded principally upon a Star Chamber decree, in 1637. After the restoration of Charles the Second, a statute on the same subject was passed, copied, with some few alterations, from the parliamentary ordinances. The act expired in 1679, and was revived and continued for a few years after the revolution of 1688. Many attempts were made by the government to keep it in force; but it was so strongly resisted by parliament, that it expired in 1694, and has never since been revived.23 To this very hour the liberty of the press in England stands upon this negative foundation. The power to restrain it is dormant, not dead. It has never constituted an article of any of her numerous bills of rights; and that of the revolution of 1688, after securing other civil and political privileges, left this without notice, as unworthy of care, or fit for restraint. §1877. This short review exhibits, in a striking light, the gradual progress of opinion in favour of the liberty of publishing and printing opinions in England, and the frail and uncertain tenure, by which it has been held. Down to this very day it is a contempt of parliament, and a high breach of privilege, to publish the speech of any member of either house, without its consent.24 It is true, that it is now silently established by the course of popular opinion to be innocent in practice, though not in law. But it is notorious, that within the last fifty years the publication was connived at, rather than allowed; and that for a considerable time the reports were given in a stealthy manner, covered up under the garb of speeches in a fictitious assembly. §1878. There is a good deal of loose reasoning on the subject of the liberty of the press, as if its inviolability were constitutionally such, that, like the king of England, it could do no wrong, and was free from every inquiry, and afforded a perfect sanctuary for every abuse; that, in short, it implied a despotic sovereignty to do every sort of wrong, without the slightest accountability to private or public justice. Such a notion is too extravagant to be held by any sound constitutional lawyer, with regard to the rights and duties belonging to governments generally, or to the state governments in particular. If it were admitted to be correct, it might be justly affirmed, that the liberty of the press was incompatible with the permanent existence of any free government. Mr. Justice Blackstone has remarked, that the liberty of the press, properly understood, is essential to the nature of a free state; but that this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter, when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this is to destroy the freedom of the press. But, if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done before, and since the revolution (of 1688), is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion, and government. But to punish any dangerous or offensive writings, which, when published, shall, on a fair and impartial trial, be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preservation of peace and good order, of government and religion, the only solid foundations of civil liberty. Thus, the will of individuals is still left free; the abuse only of that free will is the object of legal punishment. Neither is any restraint hereby laid upon freedom of thought or inquiry; liberty of private sentiment is still left; the disseminating, or making public of bad sentiments, destructive of the ends of society, is the crime, which society corrects. A man may be allowed to keep poisons in his closet; but not publicly to vend them as cordials. And after some additional reflections, he concludes with this memorable sentence: "So true will it be found, that to censure the licentiousness, is to maintain the liberty of the press."25 §1879. De Lolme states the same view of the subject; and, indeed, the liberty of the press, as understood by all England, is the right to publish without any previous restraint, or license; so, that neither the courts of justice, nor other persons, are authorized to take notice of writings intended for the press; but are confined to those, which are printed. And, in such cases, if their character is questioned, whether they are lawful, or libellous, is to be tried by a jury, according to due proceedings at law.26 The noblest patriots of England, and the most distinguished friends of liberty, both in parliament, and at the bar, have never contended for a total exemption from responsibility, but have asked only, that the guilt or innocence of the publication should be ascertained by a trial by jury.27 §1880. It would seem, that a very different view of the subject was taken by a learned American commentator, though it is not, perhaps, very easy to ascertain the exact extent of his opinions. In one part of his disquisitions, he seems broadly to contend, that the security of the freedom of the press requires, that it should be exempt, not only from previous restraint by the executive, as in Great Britain; but, from legislative restraint also; and that this exemption, to be effectual, must be an exemption, not only from the previous inspection of licensers, but from the subsequent penalty of laws.28 In other places, he seems as explicitly to admit, that the liberty of the press does not include the right to do injury to the reputation of another, or to take from him the enjoyment of his rights or property, or to justify slander and calumny upon him, as a private or public man. And yet it is added, that every individual certainly has a right to speak, or publish his sentiments on the measures of government. To do this without restraint, control, or fear of punishment for so doing, is that which constitutes the genuine freedom of the press.29 Perhaps the apparent contrariety of these opinions may arise from mixing up, in the same disquisitions, a discussion of the right of the state governments, with that of the national government, to interfere in cases of this sort, which may stand upon very different foundations. Or, perhaps, it is meant to be contended, that the liberty of the press, in all cases, excludes public punishment for public wrongs; but not civil redress for private wrongs, by calumny and libels. §1881. The true mode of considering the subject is, to examine the case with reference to a state government, whose constitution, like that, for instance, of Massachusetts, declares, that "the liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth." What is the true interpretation of this clause? Does it prohibit the legislature from passing any laws, which shall control the licentiousness of the press, or afford adequate protection to individuals, whose private comfort, or good reputations are assailed, and violated by the press? Does it stop the legislature from passing any laws to punish libels and inflammatory publications, the object of which is to excite sedition against the government, to stir up resistance to its laws, to urge on conspiracies to destroy it, to create odium and indignation against virtuous citizens, to compel them to yield up their rights, or to make them the objects of popular vengeance? Would such a declaration in Viriginia (for she has, on more than one occasion, boldly proclaimed, that the liberty of the press ought not to be restrained,) prohibit the legislature from passing laws to punish a man, who should publish, and circulate writings, the design of which avowedly is to excite the slaves to general insurrection against their masters, or to inculcate upon them the policy of secretly poisoning, or murdering them? In short, is it contended, that the liberty of the press is so much more valuable, than all other rights in society, that the public safety, nay the existence of the government itself is to yield to it? Is private redress for libels and calumny more important, or more valuable, than the maintenance of the good order, peace, and safety of society? It would be difficult to answer these questions in favour of the liberty of the press, without at the same time declaring, that such a licentiousness belonged, and could belong only to a despotism; and was utterly incompatible with the principles of a free government. §1882. Besides:—What is meant by restraint of the press, or an abridgment of its liberty? If to publish without control, or responsibility be its genuine meaning; is not that equally violated by allowing a private compensation for damages, as by a public fine? Is not a man as much restrained from doing a thing by the fear of heavy damages, as by public punishment? Is he not often as severely punished by one, as by the other? Surely, it can make no difference in the case, what is the nature or extent of the restraint, if all restraint is prohibited. The legislative power is just as much prohibited from one mode, as from another. And it may be asked, where is the ground for distinguishing between public and private amesnability for the wrong? The prohibition itself states no distinction. It is general; it is universal. Why, then, is the distinction attempted to be made? Plainly, because of the monstrous consequences flowing from such a doctrine. It would prostrate all personal liberty, all private peace, all enjoyment of property, and good reputation. These are the great objects, for which government is instituted; and, if the licentiousness of the press must endanger, not only these, but all public rights and public liberties, is it not as plain, that the right of government to punish the violators of them (the only mode of redress, which it can pursue) flows from the primary duty of self-preservation? No one can doubt the importance, in a free government, of a right to canvass the acts of public men, and the tendency of public measures, to censure boldly the conduct of rulers, and to scrutinize closely the policy, and plans of the government. This is the great security of a free government. If we would preserve it, public opinion must be enlightened; political vigilance must be inculcated; free, but not licentious, discussion must be encouraged. But the exercise of a right is essentially different from an abuse of it. The one is no legitimate inference from the other. Common sense here promulgates the broad doctrine, sic utere tuo, ut non alienum laedas; so exercise your own freedom, as not to infringe the rights of others, or the public peace and safety. §1883. The doctrine laid down by Mr. Justice Blackstone, respecting the liberty of the press, has not been repudiated (as far as is known) by any solemn decision of any of the state courts, in respect to their own municipal jurisprudence. On the contrary, it has been repeatedly affirmed in several of the states, notwithstanding their constitutions, or laws recognize, that "the liberty of the press ought not to be restrained," or more emphatically, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably maintained." This is especially true in regard to Massachusetts, South-Carolina, and Louisiana.30 Nay; it has farther been held, that the truth of the facts is not alone sufficient to justify the publication, unless it is done from good motives, and for justifiable purposes, or, in other words, on an occasion, (as upon the canvass of candidates for public office,) when public duty, or private right requires it.31 And the very circumstance, that, in the constitutions of several other states, provision is made for giving the truth in evidence, in prosecutions for libels for official conduct, when the matter published is proper for public information, is exceedingly strong to show, how the general law is understood. The exception establishes in all other cases the propriety of the doctrine. And Mr. Chancellor Kent, upon a large survey of the whole subject, has not scrupled to declare, that "it has become a constitutional principle in this country, that every citizen may freely speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right; and, that no law can rightfully be passed, to restrain, or abridge the freedom of the press."32 §1884. Even with these reasonable limitations, it is not an uncommon opinion among European statesmen of high character and extensive attainments, that the liberty of the press is incompatible with the permanent existence of any free government; nay, of any government at all. That, if it be true, that free governments cannot exist without it, it is quite as certain, that they cannot exist with it. In short, that the press is a new element in modern society; and likely, in a great measure, to control the power of armies, and the sovereignty of the people. That it works with a silence, a cheapness, a suddenness, and a force, which may break up, in an instant, all the foundations of society, and move public opinion, like a mountain torrent, to a general desolation of every thing within its reach. §1885. Whether the national government possesses a power to pass any law, not restraining the liberty of the press, but punishing the licentiousness of the press, is a question of a very different nature, upon which the commentator abstains from expressing any opinion. In 1798, Congress, believing that they possessed a constitutional authority for that purpose, passed an act, punishing all unlawful combinations, and conspiracies, to oppose the measures of the government, or to impede the operation of the laws, or to intimidate and prevent any officer of the United States from undertaking, or executing his duty. The same act further provided, for a public presentation, and punishment by fine, and imprisonment, of all persons, who should write, print, utter, or publish any false, scandalous, and malicious writing, or writings against the government of the United States, or of either house of congress, or of the president, with an intent to defame them, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute, or to excite against them the hatred of the good people of the United States; or to excite them to oppose any law, or act of the president, in pursuance of law of his constitutional powers; or to resist, or oppose, or defeat any law; or to aid, encourage, or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States. And the same act authorized the truth to be given in evidence on any such prosecution; and the jury, upon the trial, to determine the law and the fact, as in other cases.33 §1886. This act was immediately assailed, as unconstitutional, both in the state legislatures, and the courts of law, where prosecutions were pending. Its constitutionality was deliberately affirmed by the courts of law; and in a report made by a committee of congress. It was denied by a considerable number of the states; but affirmed by a majority. It became one of the most prominent points of attack upon the existing administration; and the appeal thus made was, probably, more successful with the people, and more consonant with the feelings of the times, than any other made upon that occasion. The act, being limited to a short period, expired by its own limitation, in March, 1801; and has never been renewed. It has continued, down to this very day, to be a theme of reproach with many of those, who have since succeeded to power.34 §1886. The remaining clause secures "the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." §1887. This would seem unnecessary to be expressly provided for in a republican government, since it results from the very nature of its structure and institutions. It is impossible, that it could be practically denied, until the spirit of liberty had wholly disappeared, and the people had become so servile and debased, as to be unfit to exercise any of the privileges of freemen.35 §1888. The provision was probably borrowed from the declaration of rights in England, on the revolution of 1688, in which the right to petition the king for a redress of grievances was insisted on; and the right to petition parliament in the like manner has been provided for, and guarded by statutes passed before, as well as since that period.36 Mr. Tucker has indulged himself in a disparaging criticism upon the phraseology of this clause, as savouring too much of that style of condescension, in which favours are supposed to be granted.37 But this seems to be quite overstrained; since it speaks the voice of the people in the language of prohibition, and not in that of affirmance of a right, supposed to be unquestionable, and inherent. §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 of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. 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.38 And yet, though 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 it is 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.39 §1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law."40 But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege.41 §1892. The next amendment is: "No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." §1893. This provision speaks for itself. Its plain object is to secure the perfect enjoyment of that great right of the common law, that a man's house shall be his own castle, privileged against all civil and military intrusion. The billetting of soldiers in time of peace upon the people has been a common resort of arbitrary princes, and is full of inconvenience and peril. In the petition of right (4 Charles I.), it was declared by parliament to be a great grievance.42 §1894. The next amendment is: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized." §1895. This provision seems indispensable to the full enjoyment of the rights of personal security, personal liberty, and private property. It is little more than the affirmance of a great constitutional doctrine of the common law. And its introduction into the amendments was doubtless occasioned by the strong sensibility excited, both in England and America, upon the subject of general warrants almost upon the eve of the American Revolution. Although special warrants upon complaints under oath, stating the crime, and the party by name, against whom the accusation is made, are the only legal warrants, upon which an arrest can be made according to the law of England;43 yet a practice had obtained in the secretaries' office ever since the restoration, (grounded on some clauses in the acts for regulating the press,) of issuing general warrants to take up, without naming any persons in particular, the authors, printers, and publishers of such obscene, or seditious libels, as were particularly specified in the warrant. When these acts expired, in 1694, the same practice was continued in every reign, and under every administration, except the four last years of Queen Anne's reign, down to the year 1763. The general warrants, so issued, in general terms authorized the officers to apprehend all persons suspected, without naming, or describing any person in special. In the year 1763, the legality of these general warrants was brought before the King's Bench for solemn decision; and they were adjudged to be illegal, and void for uncertainty.44 A warrant, and the complaint, on which the same is founded, to be legal, must not only state the name of the party, but also the time, and place, and nature of the offence with reasonable certainty.45 §1896. The next amendment is: "Excessive bail shall not be required; nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." This is an exact transcript of a clause in the bill of rights, framed at the revolution of 1688.46 The provision would seem to be wholly unnecessary in a free government, since it is scarcely possible, that any department of such a government should authorize, or justify such atrocious conduct.47 It was, however, adopted, as an admonition to all departments of the national government, to warn them against such violent proceedings, as had taken place in England in the arbitrary reigns of some of the Stuarts.48 In those times, a demand of excessive bail was often made against persons, who were odious to the court, and its favourites; and on failing to procure it, they were committed to prison.49 Enormous fines and amercements were also sometimes imposed, and cruel and vindictive punishments inflicted. Upon this subject Mr. Justice Blackstone has wisely remarked, that sanguinary laws are a bad symptom of the distemper of any state, or at least of its weak constitution. The laws of the Roman kings, and the twelve tables of the Decemviri, were full of cruel punishments; the Porcian law, which exempted all citizens from sentence of death, silently abrogated them all. In this period the republic flourished. Under the emperors severe laws were revived, and then the empire fell.50 §1897. It has been held in the state courts, (and the point does not seem ever to have arisen in the courts of the United States,) that this clause does not apply to punishments inflicted in a state court for a crime against such state; but that the prohibition is addressed solely to the national government, and operates, as a restriction upon its powers.51 §1898. The next amendment is: "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, or disparage others retained by the people." This clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse, or ingenious misapplication of the well known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others; and é converso, that a negation in particular cases implies an affirmation in all others.52 The maxim, rightly understood, is perfectly sound and safe; but it has often been strangely forced from its natural meaning into the support of the most dangerous political heresies. The amendment was undoubtedly suggested by the reasoning of the Federalist on the subject of a general bill of rights.53 §1899. The next and last amendment is: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." §1900. This amendment is a mere affirmation of what, upon any just reasoning, is a necessary rule of interpreting the constitution. Being an instrument of limited and enumerated powers, it follows irresistibly, that what is not conferred, is withheld, and belongs to the state authorities, if invested by their constitutions of government respectively in them; and if not so invested, it is retained by the people, as a part of their residuary sovereignty.54 When this amendment was before congress, a proposition was moved, to insert the word "expressly" before "delegated," so as to read "the powers not expressly delegated to the United States by the constitution," &c. On that occasion it was remarked, that it is impossible to confine a government to the exercise of express powers. There must necessarily be admitted powers by implication, unless the con-stitution descended to the most minute details.55 It is a general principle, that all corporate bodies possess all powers incident to a corporate capacity, without being absolutely expressed. The motion was accordingly negatived.56 Indeed, one of the great defects of the confederation was, (as we have already seen,) that it contained a clause, prohibiting the exercise of any power, jurisdiction, or right, not expressly delegated.57 The consequence was, that congress were crippled at every step of their progress; and were often compelled by the very necessities of the times to usurp powers, which they did not constitutionally possess; and thus, in effect, to break down all the great barriers against tyranny and oppression.58 §1901. It is plain, therefore, that it could not have been the intention of the framers of this amendment to give it effect, as an abridgment of any of the powers granted under the constitution, whether they are express or implied, direct or incidental. Its sole design is to exclude any interpretation, by which other powers should be assumed beyond those, which are granted. All that are granted in the original instrument, whether express or implied, whether direct or incidental, are left in their original state. All powers not delegated, (not all powers not expressly delegated,) and not prohibited, are reserved.59 The attempts, then, which have been made from time to time, to force upon this language an abridging, or restrictive influence, are utterly unfounded in any just rules of interpreting the words, or the sense of the instrument. Stripped of the ingenious disguises, in which they are clothed, they are neither more nor less, than attempts to foist into the text the word "expressly;" to qualify, what is general, and obscure, what is clear, and defined. They make the sense of the passage bend to the wishes and prejudices of the interpreter; and employ criticism to support a theory, and not to guide it. One should suppose, if the history of the human mind did not furnish abundant proof to the contrary, that no reasonable man would contend for an interpretation founded neither in the letter, nor in the spirit of an instrument. Where is controversy to end, if we desert both the letter and the spirit? What is to become of constitutions of government, if they are to rest, not upon the plain import of their words, but upon conjectural enlargements and restrictions, to suit the temporary passions and interests of the day? Let us never forget, that our constitutions of government are solemn instruments, addressed to the common sense of the people and designed to fix, and perpetuate their rights and their lberties. They are not to be frittered away to please the demagogues of the day. They are not to be violated to gratify the ambition of political leaders. They are to speak in the same voice now, and for ever. They are of no man's private interpretation. They are ordained by the will of the people; and can be changed only by the sovereign command of the people. §1902. It has been justly remarked, that the erection of a new government, whatever care or wisdom may distinguish the work, cannot fail to originate questions of intricacy and nicety; and these may in a particular manner be expected to flow from the establishment of a constitution, founded upon the total, or partial incorporation of a number of distinct sovereignties. Time alone can mature and perfect so compound a system; liquidate the meaning of all the parts; and adjust them to each other in a harmonious and consistent whole.60 [1. ] See Grotius, B. 2, ch. 20, § 44 to 51; Vattell, B. 1, ch. 12, § 125, 126; Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, B. 5, § 1 to 10; Bynkershoeck, 2 P. J. Lib. 2, ch. 18; Woodeson's Elem. Lect. 3, p. 49; Burlemaqui, Pt. 3, ch. 3, p. 171, and Montesq. B. 24, ch. 1 to ch. 8, ch. 14 to ch. 16, B. 25, ch. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12. [2. ] See Burlemaqui, Pt. 3, ch. 3, p. 171, &c.; 4 Black. Comm. 43. [3. ] 2 Kent's Comm. Lect. 34, p. 35 to 37; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 121, 122. [4. ] Montesq. Spirit of Laws, B. 24, ch. 3. [5. ] Montesq. Spirit of Laws, B. 24, ch. 5. [6. ] See 2 Lloyd's Deb. 195, 196. [7. ] Virginia Bill of Rights, 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 296; 2 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. note G. p. 10, 11. [8. ] Lord King's Life of Locke, p. 373. [9. ] Lloyd's Deb. 195. [10. ] 4 Black. Comm. 41 to 59. [11. ] Ante, Vol. I. § 53, 72, 74. [12. ] See 4 Black. Comm. 43 to 59. [13. ] "Entirely"! Should he not have said, never free from the scourge, as more conformable to historical truth? [14. ] Black. Comm. 45, 46.—His words are: "It is true, that the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the Canonists went, at first, no further, than enjoining penance, excommunication, and ecclesiastical deprivation for heresy, though afterwards they proceeded to imprisonment by the ordinary, and confiscation of goods in pios usus. But in the mean time they had prevailed upon the weakness of bigotted princes to make the civil power subservient to their purposes, by making heresy not only a temporal, but even a capital offence; the Romish Ecclesiastics determining, without appeal, whatever they pleased, to be heresy, and shifting off to the secular arm the odium and the drudgery of executions, with which they themselves were too tender and delicate to intermeddle. Nay, they presented to intercede, and pray in behalf of the convicted heretic, ut citra mortis periculum sententia circum eum moderatur, well knowing, at the same time, that they were delivering the unhappy victim to certain death." 4 Black. Comm. 45, 46. Yet the learned author, in the same breath, could calmly vindicate the outrageous oppressions of the Church of England upon Catholics and Dissenters with the unsuspecting satisfaction of a bigot. [15. ] 4 Black. Comm. 51, 52. [16. ] 1 Black. Comm. 58. [17. ] 1 Black. Comm. 51 to 59.—Mr. Tucker, in his Commentaries on Blackstone, has treated the whole subject in a manner of most marked contrast to that of Mr. J. Blackstone. His ardour is as strong, as the coolness of his adversary is humiliating, on the subject of religious liberty. 2 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. Note G. p. 3, &c. See also 4 Jefferson's Corresp. 103, 104; Jefferson's Notes on Virginia, 264 to 270; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 296. [18. ] 2 Lloyd's Debates, 195, 196, 197.—"The sectarian spirit," said the late Dr. Currie, "is uniformly selfish, proud, and unfeeling." (Edinburgh Review, April, 1832, p. 125.) [19. ] See 2 Kent's Comm. Lect. 24, (2d edition, p. 35 to 37); Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 121, 122; 2 Lloyd's Deb. 195. See also Vol. II. § 621. [20. ] In the convention a proposition was moved to insert in the constitution a clause, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved;" but it was negatived by a vote of six states against five. Journal of Convention, p. 377. [21. ] Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 297 to 299; 2 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 11; 2 Kent's Comm. Lect. 24, p. 16 to 26. [22. ] Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 123, 124; 2 Kent's Comm. Lect. 24, p. 16 to 26; De Lolme, B. 2, ch. 12, 13; 2 Lloyd's Deb. 197, 198. [23. ] 4 Black. Comm. 152, note; 2 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. Note G. p. 12, 13; De Lolme, B. 2, ch. 12, 13; 2 Kent's Comm. Lect. 24, (2d edition, p. 17, 18, 19.) [24. ] See Comyn's Dig. Parliament, G. 9. [25. ] 1 Black. Comm. 152, 153; Rex v. Burdett, 4 Barn. & Ald. R. 95.— Mr. Justice Best in Rex v. Burdett, (4 Barn. & Ald. R. 95, 132,) said "my opinion of the liberty of the press is, that every man ought to be permitted to instruct his fellow subjects; that every man may fearlessly advance any new doctrines, provided he does so with proper respect to the religion and government of the country; that he may point out errors in the measures of public men; but, he must not impute criminal conduct to them. The liberty of the press cannot be carried to this extent, without violating another equally sacred right, the right of character. This right can only be attacked in a court of justice, where the party attacked has a fair opportunity of defending himself. Where vituperation begins, the liberty of the press ends." [26. ] De Lolme, B. 2, ch. 12, 291 to 297. [27. ] See also Rex v. Burdett, 4 Barn. & Ald. 95.—The celebrated act of parliament of Mr. Fox, giving the right to the jury, in trials for libels, to judge of the whole matter of the charge, and to return a general verdict, did not affect to go farther. The celebrated defence of Mr. Erskine, on the trial of the Dean of St. Asaph, took the same ground. Even Junius, with his severe and bitter assaults upon established authority and doctrines, stopped here. "The liberty of the press," (said he,) "is the palladium of all the civil, political, and religious rights of an Englishman, and the right of juries to return a general verdict in all cases whatsoever, is an essential part of our constitution." "The laws of England, provide as effectually, as any human laws can do, for the protection of the subject in his reputation, as well as in his person and property. If the characters of private men are insulted, or injured, a double remedy is open to them, by action and by indictment."—"With regard to strictures upon the characters of men in office, and the measures of government, the case is a little different. A considerable latitude must be allowed in the discussion of public affairs, or the liberty of the press will be of no benefit to society." But he no where contends for the right to publish seditious libels; and, on the contrary, through his whole reasoning he admits the duty to punish those, which are really so. [28. ] 2 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 20; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 298, 299. [29. ] 2 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 28 to 30; 1 Tuck. Black. Comm. App. 298, 299. [30. ]Commonwealth v. Clap, 4 Mass. R. 163; Commonwealth v. Blanding, 3 Pick. R. 304; The State v. Lehre, 2 Rep. Const. Court, 809; 2 Kent's Comm. Lect. 24, (2d edition, p. 17 to 24.) [31. ] Ibid. [32. ] 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 24, (2d edition, p. 17 to 24.) See also Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 123, 124. [33. ] Act of 14th July, 1798, ch. 91. [34. ] The learned reader will find the subject discussed at large in many of the pamphlets of that day, and especially in the Virginia Report, and Resolutions of the Virginia Legislature, in December, 1798, and January, 1800; in the Report of a Committee of congress on the Alien and Sedition laws, on the 25th of February, 1799; in the Resolutions of the legislatures of Massachusetts and Kentucky, in 1799; in Bayard's Speech on the Judiciary act, in 1802; in Addison's charges to the grand jury, in Pennsylvania, printed with his Reports; in 2 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. note G. p. 11 to 30. It is surprising, with what facility men glide into the opinion, that a measure is universally deemed unconstitutional, because it is so in their own opinion, especially if it has become unpopular. It has been often asserted, by public men, as the universal sense of the nation, that this act was unconstitutional; and that opinion has been promulgated recently, with much emphasis, by distinguished statesmen; as we have already had occasion to notice. What the state of public and professional opinion on this subject now is, it is, perhaps, difficult to determine. But it is well known, that the opinions then deliberately given by many professional men, and judges, and legislatures, in favour of the constitutionality of the law, have never been retracted. See Vol. III. § 1288, 1289, and note. [35. ] See 2 Lloyd's Debates, 197, 198, 199. [36. ] See 1 Black. Comm. 143; 5 Cobbett's Parl'y. Hist. p. 109, 110; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 124; 3 Amer. Museum, 420; 2 Kent's Comm. Lect. 24, p. 7, 8. [37. ] 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 299. [38. ] 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 300; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 125; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 219, 220. [39. ] It would be well for Americans to reflect upon the passage in Tacitus, (Hist. IV. ch. 74): "Nam neque quies sine armis, neque arma sine stipendiis, neque stipendia sine tributis, haberi queunt." Is there any escape from a large standing army, but in a well disciplined militia? There is much wholesome instruction on this subject in 1 Black. Comm. ch. 13, p. 408 to 417. [40. ] 5 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. p. 110; 1 Black. Comm. 143, 144. [41. ] 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 300. [42. ] 2 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. 375; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 126, 127; 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 300, 301; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 223. [43. ] And see Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch, 447; 2 Lloyd's Deb. 226, 227. [44. ]Money v. Leach, 3 Burr, 1743; 4 Black. Comm. 291, 292, and note ibid. See also 15 Hansard's Parl. Hist. 1398 to 1418, (1764); Bell v. Clapp, 10 John. R. 263; Sailly v. Smith, 11 John. R. 500; 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 301; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 127.—It was on account of a supposed repugnance to this article, that a vehement opposition was made to the alien act of 1798, ch. 75, which authorized the president to order all such aliens, as he should judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or have reasonable grounds to suspect of any treasonable, or secret machinations against the government to depart out of the United States; and in case of disobedience, punished the refusal with imprisonment. That law having long since passed away, it is not my design to enter upon the grounds, upon which its constitutionality was asserted or denied. But the learned reader will find ample information on the subject in the report of a committee of congress, on the petitions for the repeal of the alien and sedition laws, 25th of February, 1799; the report and resolutions of the Virginia legislature of 7th of January, 1800; Judge Addison's charges to the grand jury in the Appendix to his reports; and 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 301 to 304; Id. 306. See also Vol. III. § 1288, 1289, and note. Mr. Jefferson has entered into an elaborate defence of the right and duty of public officers to disregard, in certain cases, the injunctions of the law, in a letter addressed to Mr. Colvin in 1810. (4 Jefferson's Corresp. 149, 151) On that occasion, he justified a very gross violation of this very article by General Wilkinson, (if, indeed, he did not authorize it,) in the seizure of two American citizens by military force, on account of supposed treasonable conspiracies against the United States, and transporting them, without any warrant, or order of any civil authority, from New-Orleans to Washington for trial. They were both discharged from custody at Washington by the Supreme Court, upon a full hearing of the case. (Ex parte Bollman & Swartout, 4 Cranch, 75 to 136) Mr. Jefferson reasons out the whole case, and assumes, without the slightest hesitation, the positive guilt of the parties. His language is: "Under these circumstances, was he (General Wilkinson) justifiable (1.) in seizing notorious conspirators? On this there can be but two opinions; one, of the guilty, and their accomplices; the other, that of all honest men!!! (2.) In sending them to the seat of government, when the written law gave them a right to trial by jury? The danger of their rescue, of their continuing their machinations, the tardiness and weakness of the law, apathy of the judges, active patronage of the whole tribe of lawyers, unknown disposition of the juries, an hourly expectation of the enemy, salvation of the city, and of the Union itself, which would have been convulsed to its centre, had that conspiracy succeeded; all these constituted a law of necessity and self-preservation; and rendered the salus populi supreme over thewrittenlaw!!!" Thus, the constitution is to be wholly disregarded, because Mr. Jefferson has no cofidence in judges, or juries, or laws. He first assumes the guilt of the parties, and then denounces every person connected with the courts of justice, as unworthy of trust. Without any warrant or lawful authority, citizens are dragged from their homes under military force, and exposed to the perils of a long voyage, against the plain language of this very article; and yet three years after they are discharged by the Supreme Court, Mr. Jefferson uses this strong language. [45. ] See Ex parte Burford, 3 Cranch, 447. [46. ] 5 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. 110. [47. ] 2 Elliot's Debates, 345. [48. ] See 2 Lloyd's Debates, 225, 226; 3 Elliot's Debates, 345. [49. ] Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 130, 131. [50. ] 4 Black. Comm. 17. See De Lolme, B. 2, ch. 16, p. 366, 367, 368, 369. [51. ] See Barker v. The People, 3 Cowen's R. 686; James v. Commonwealth, 12 Sergeant and Rawle's R. 220. See Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Peters's R. (1833.) [52. ] See ante, Vol. I. § 448; The Federalist, No. 83. [53. ] The Federalist, No. 84; ante, Vol. III. § 1852 to 1857; 1 Lloyd's Debates, 433, 437; 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 307, 308. [54. ] See 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 307, 308, 309. [55. ] Mr. Madison added, that he remembered the word "expressly" had been moved in the Virginia Convention by the opponents to the ratification; and after a full and fair discussion, was given up by them, and the system allowed to retain its present form. 2 Lloyd's Debates, 234. [56. ] 2 Lloyd's Deb. 243, 244; McCulloh v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. R. 407; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. R. 325; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. R. 49; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. R. 225, 226. [57. ] Confederation, Article 2, ante Vol. I. § 230. [58. ] The Federalist, No. 33, 38, 42, 44; ante Vol. I. § 269. [59. ]McCulloh v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. R. 406, 407; ante Vol. I. § 433. [60. ] The Federalist, No. 82. See also Mr. Hume's Essays, Vol. I. Essay on the Rise of Arts and Sciences. |


text:
Letters to the Editor
LETTER TO THE EDITOR: PSE's huge expenditure commensurate with PUD savings
To the editor:
According to the Island County Auditor's Office, PSE has spent more per voter attempting to defeat a citizen's public utility than has spent on any ballot measure in Island County...ever.
Those are rate dollars you paid to PSE, now being spent attempting to convince you to vote against the PUD. The huge size of the expenditure is a measure of what PSE has to lose and we have to gain in long term savings by passing the PUD. Vote yes on PUD and pocket the dollars.
John Hurd
We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Read the latest Green Edition
Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.
Mar 8 edition online now. Browse the archives.
Local display advertising by PaperG

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Platypus SoftBottle
4-star: 2
3-star: 0
2-star: 0
1-star: 0
This lightweight bottle is well designed with surprisingly…
Source: bought it new
Price Paid: $8.95
This lightweight bottle is well designed with surprisingly nice features. It is a good replacement in terms of weight and flexibility to traditional hard sided bottles.
- Lightweight
- Collapsable
- Well designed
- Bottom catches on pack side pockets
Initially I bought the SoftBottle to further reduce weight of what I carry on the trail. After using it though, I have found it is very well designed product that is more than just lightweight. Here is what I like about the bottle:
- The bottle is light. At 1.2 ounces for a one liter bottle, it is one fifth the weight of a typical Nalgene one liter at 6.5 ounces.
- It is also nice that I can just roll up the bottle when it is empty and tuck it away. A hard sided bottle just takes up space.
- When filled, the bottom expands allowing it to firmly stand up on its own.
- The "waist" of the hour glass design allows one handed use while drinking.
- The bottle is made from a nylon/polyethylene material which seems very durable and will last a long time. Time and use will tell.
The only thing I find somewhat annoying about the design is that when filled, the edges around the bottom tend to catch on the fabric of my pack side pocket. This requires some extra effort to get the bottle into pocket and I cannot put the bottle away with my pack on by myself.
Overall this is a well designed product and for me, was a good purchase.
Platypus introduces a lightweight, flexible, and foldable…
Source: bought it new
Platypus introduces a lightweight, flexible, and foldable alternative to heavyweight and rigid waterbottles. 80% lighter than a Nalgene bottle of a comparable size, not only are these bottles lighter, they're much more packable, and can be rolled-up once they're emptied. Flexibility doesn't come without some problems, and these bottles do take some time to get used to drinking and pouring from them.
- Incredibly lightweight (80% lighter than Nalgene bottles!)
- Can be folded flat and rolled-up when not in use
- BPA-Free
- Inside lining does not retain flavors or taste like plastic
- Fits both pockets and drink holders
- Inexpensive
- Can be used to replace Sawyer Squeeze water bags
- Reusable with a longer life than disposable water bottles
- Narrow opening
- OK for cold beverages, not recommended for hot beverages
- Shallow threads on screw-on cap
- Needs push-pull cap to regular flow
- Not as stable as a rigid water bottle
- Could benefit from a lanyard or carabiner hole
Like any other hobby, backpacking can become very expensive very easily, and making the transition to lighter gear often comes with a matching price tag. Sure, the easiest places to cut weight are the largest items you carry (shelter, sleeping bag, pack), but these are also the most expensive piece to replace.
When I began backpacking, I couldn't afford to upgrade any of my "Big Three."
That left me two options: A.) leave at home anything I wasn't 100% sure I needed, and B.) spend the little money I had as smartly as I could.
A friend from Trailspace advised me to reconsider packing a Nalgene bottle. It was an unnecessary amount of weight, and something as simple as a store-bought, recyclable, plastic Gatorade bottle could get the same job done — without the extra weight.
Only trouble with Gatorade bottles is that they retain their shape, and are as bulky empty as they are filled.
For under $10, you can pick up a Platypus Soft Bottle from pretty much any major gear retailer.
These were so inexpensive, I actually bought a couple: a half-liter, and a full liter.
The 0.5L (17 fl oz) bottle measures 5" x 12" and weighs 0.8 oz.
The 1.0L (34 fl oz) bottle measures 6" x 13" and weighs 1.2 oz.
The smaller was for drinking, the larger, for storage. I kept the small one 100% filled, and would drink from it until the larger one ran out, at which point, I'll fill both and begin all over again. This system worked well for me, and I was able to keep hydrated all day.
I like to start my day out with a cold glass of water, so I pre-filled these, left them in the fridge overnight, and put them in the car cup holders for the drive to the state park.
Yep. Cup holders.
The bottoms are sized to fit not only round or square pockets, but drink holders, too.
The interior lining is made from food-grade polyethylene so, even without an initial rinse, these didn't taste like plastic. If you fill them with another kind of beverage, they won't retain the flavor from one and transfer it to another, either.
I was able to stuff both, filled, into one of the side mesh pockets of my Kelty Coyote 4750. Here I could access them both without taking my pack off, even keeping them on the same side and freeing-up the other mesh pocket completely.
The weather was really warm (mid 80's, sunny, and clear) in the middle of summer, here, so I used these things from before I made camp well into the ride home.
They were in and out of pockets, cup holders, rolled, dropped, screwed, unscrewed, and dirtied - but they kept their original form, didn't dent or puncture, and were easily cleaned off.
The bottoms flatten when filled so these will stand on a flat surface.
Drinking and pouring from them gets tricky: you can't just grab them from the side and tip them back.
Although they've hourglass curves and a pin-up "waistline," I'd a hard time trying to drink from these with one hand.
It's a two-handed affair, and you have to be mindful of the force with which you're squeezing. This could probably be easily remedied by purchasing the "push-pull" caps they sell. Squeezing them in the middle without one will have the water come gushing out the front, since there's nothing to stop or regulate it.
When it comes to refilling them, hold them by the top opening and fill them that way. These stood strong against a hand-powered ground water pump with a LOT of water pressure coming out of it.
I know these are good for cold beverages, but I highly doubt they'd stand-up to anything hot, much less boiling, so these do lack the versatility of doubling as sleeping bag heaters in colder weather.
The screw-on caps have shallow threads, and may not work as well as they could with a Sawyer Squeeze filter. I've found out, though, that rubber garden hose washers (from your local hardware store) will tighten the seal and fix this.
These definitely could benefit from a reinforced hole for a carabiner or lanyard. I'd punch one in myself, but not being sure how it would affect the bottle structurally, I'm hesitant to.
All in all, there're far more benefits to using these than using a rigid plastic water bottle.
Heck, these even fit my Sawyer Squeeze filter so I've got back-up bottles in case the SS ones ever fail me. It's a built-in back up plan I didn't even have to think about.
Once I was done with them and my trip, I just rolled 'em up together, stuffed them back in the mesh pocket, and that's that. It's nice to know most the weight you're packing is water weight, with these.
4-and-a-half stars, because they offer way too darn much that it more than makes up for whatever few shortcomings it has.
Where to Buy
Manufacturer's Description
Visit Platypus's SoftBottle page.
Retailers' Descriptions
Here's what other sites are saying:
There's not a hard bottle out there that's cleaner, greener, and more flexible than a Platypus SoftBottle. Each one comes with their Clean-Taste Guarantee and it's made with zero BPA. The SoftBottle is green, too, because it's ultra-reusable and lightweight, it uses less energy and materials. Finally, your SoftBottle defines flexible. It fits in a drink holder, a round pocket, a flat pocket, or any hand. When empty, it rolls up and fits anywhere you want it to fit. Plus, it weighs 80% less than hard hydration bottles.
- CampSaver.com
Clean, green, and oh-so flexible, the BPA-free Platypus SoftBottle is ultra-reusable, lightweight, and easy to pack.
Flexible, lightweight and durable, the 17 fl. oz. Platypus SoftBottle(TM) Water Bottle with Push/Pull Cap takes up less space in your pack or sports duffel than a traditional water bottle. 80% lighter than standard hard-plastic bottles, it takes more than five Platypus SoftBottles to equal the weight of one 1-liter, hard-plastic bottle. Compact and flexible design can be flattened when empty and rolled up to fit practically anywhere in your pack. Platypus SoftBottle(TM) water bottle is sized to fit in a drink holder, round pocket, square pocket or in your hand. Food-grade polyethylene lining ensures bottle won't retain flavors or taste like plastic; plus, it's 100% BPA free. Includes a screw-on push/pull cap. Closeout.
The zero-BPA Platypus Softbottle can be used over and over again without getting the dirty, musty taste that a lot of hard bottles are known for. It's also super-light, and can be stored anywhere when empty--just roll it up.
- Backcountry.com
Platypus SoftBottle
$4.73 - $12.95


text:
Open AccessThis article is
- freely available
- re-usable
Molecules 2000, 5(3), 374-375; doi:10.3390/50300374
Electrosynthesis of 3-Nitrophenotiazine. Nitration in Non-Aqueous Solutions
Dpto de Química y Física, Universidad Nacional de Río Cuarto. Agencia Postal N: 3, 5800, Río Cuarto, Argentina
* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Published: 22 March 2000
Download PDF Full-Text [16 KB, uploaded 20 November 2008 13:57 CET]
Abstract: The nitration of Phenothiazine (PHEN) in acetonitrile (ACN) in the presence of excess NaNO2 has been studied in detail. First, the electrochemical behavior of the reactants was investigated by cyclic voltammetry to determine the electrolysis conditions. Controlledpotential electrolysis was used for the electrosynthesis.
Article Statistics
Click here to load and display the download statistics.Cite This Article
MDPI and ACS Style
Perlo, P.A.; Cortona, M.N.; Silber, J.J.; Sereno, L.E. Electrosynthesis of 3-Nitrophenotiazine. Nitration in Non-Aqueous Solutions. Molecules 2000, 5, 374-375.
AMA StylePerlo PA, Cortona MN, Silber JJ, Sereno LE. Electrosynthesis of 3-Nitrophenotiazine. Nitration in Non-Aqueous Solutions. Molecules. 2000; 5(3):374-375.
Chicago/Turabian StylePerlo, P. A.; Cortona, M. N.; Silber, J. J.; Sereno, L. E. 2000. "Electrosynthesis of 3-Nitrophenotiazine. Nitration in Non-Aqueous Solutions." Molecules 5, no. 3: 374-375.
Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland
E-Mail Table of Contents Alert


text:
Our website is currently under construction . . . but our brand-new one will be launched soon! |
Are you an incoming first-year student that is lucky enough to have been placed in Edwards House for the 2012-2013 school year? Join our Facebook group |
dwards House |
at Mount Allison University |


text:
I added The God Box to my amazon wishlist when I was *sixteen* and at some point I must have bought the ebook when it was dirty cheap, and had it hovering around my kindle instead. 863 more words
Tags » God Box
We all need a god box and I am sure you are asking why? Well, I pray and place my prayers in a God Box as a way of releasing them to God, totally and completely. 102 more words


text:
Comment: Re:GDP (Score 1) 717
I bet you had to travel both ways uphill in the snow barefoot as well.
Today it is much harder for someone "indigenous" and fresh to get a start and to hold it steady to make it into a good stable career.
I bet you had to travel both ways uphill in the snow barefoot as well.
Today it is much harder for someone "indigenous" and fresh to get a start and to hold it steady to make it into a good stable career.
So? Females are the norm, and males the exception.
This is not so. By default each human cell is a male cell. Female cells have to be constantly refreshed into being female through hormone release.
The way it works is that when you are born male you have something called SRY and it increases SOX9 and decreases FOXL2 which is the "opposite" part of a cell that determines which gender it is. For females it is the otherway around. However, if a female does not suppress SOX9 they will develop male characteristics (this is why you can get an XX male). The cells default option is to move back toward "maleness" and this is why after menopause women and men aren't really that different (because at a cellular level they are tending towards the same gender expressions).
Where are all the no experience needed programming jobs then? Everywhere I look 3 years of X 5 years of Y extensive knowledge of Z.
I think they mean unpayed jobs, of which there are some for inexperienced graduates. Some years ago when I graduated, I would have done jobs in either physics or engineering or computer science for free for months to get experience. After dealing with "employers" back and forth for long periods of time and them stipulating the terms, I couldn't get anything because of competition! Now I am fine, because once you have experience you can simply waltz from job to job, but getting the initial job with an advanced degree is hard (I think the degree puts many people off and I don't mention it much in my successful job interviews now).
According to you problems could be solved in the 70s and 80s but not now as "there is a pervasive pessimism among younger IT, a terrible can't do attitude". Then you say that coding is for the young man and older people should go into management where "experience and wisdom play a greater role". Can't have it both ways. If the coders are there for coding and management that sets directions is comprised of people from this older generation, then something is amiss. I think you look through rose-tinted glasses at the past. If you attack a whole generation, you should first acknowledge the problems with your own one (which is sometimes very greedy and currently numerous).
What does that have to do with pessimism? And what couldn't the older generation solve that got foisted on you?
Not me specifically. I am actually in the management ranks. However, I was doing a rant in reverse on you, since you generalized to saying all young people are pessimistic and useless.
Of course in reality you need an experienced person that has seen things before to point out when things might be headed the wrong way. But to blame GNOME3/KDE4/Windows 8 and all the ills of poor interface design on younger generations of programmers is flat out wrong and you only get those extra points because there are a large number of older generation people like yourself that think that way.
Contribute to open source if you have any talent and help fix the mess! Open source cares not about age.
... and there is a pervasive pessimism among younger IT, a terrible can't do attitude... What's terrible is that the new generation wants stagnation.
That is silly. Some old codgers are terrible at programming and only got there because they got in early, then decry that the world is going to hell in a hand basket because of "new generations". From what I've seen, young people are often the most sane (except those from overseas that come because they are cheaper) and have been robbed blind by older generations that pass the buck onto them. Young coders have to deal with all the problems that old people foisted on them because they couldn't solve, as well as management now making all the decisions and lower pay. </end rant>
You realize that at a company like Microsoft, where salaries are managed from the top down... H1Bs not only tend to make the same as natural born American employees.. but can actually cost more as it is usually the sponsoring company who pays for the lawyers & paperwork & fees to get an H1B visa for the eventual employee, right?
You are thinking small scale. It's not about the cost to a small company or department. H1Bs threaten to lower wages across the board due to plentiful competition, less ability to move to another company, and allowing company HR to threaten someone else taking your job. Some of the savings then go to board members of large corporations, to political lobbying, and to shareholder profits.
...the 1%, well they are using their super-expensive cars to commute...
I'm pretty sure they use helicopters and private jets to get around. You ain't going to see them on congested roads if they don't have to be on them.
"The firewall went down, the massive server exploded, and now your information is lost in a black hole. Sorry about that. We might however be able to get a small portion of it back, as it still appears to be transmitting information in high frequency streams on either side. The receiver we placed to get that information fluctuates a bit and might catch on fire, however, so no guarantees."
I followed it up with one of the senior engineers who's worked on this server for years and they told me there was no black hole, just someone forgot to plug in the backup system.
I was being sarcastic, of course, but this sort of news will certainly discourage guys from assisting lesbian couples.
The couples will have to go pay full price at a fertility clinic for sperm.
Is that not a logical consequence of this case?
The guys who donate sperm are not all law students or graduates. I would say chances are they will still find plenty of people willing to donate sperm for a "good cause" and to make a couple of hundred quick dollars.
Seriously? A "war on women!"? I know this is
Aiming for a future where we use less energy than we do now is backwards. I'm not advocating that making existing systems more efficient is a bad thing at all, but to power things that will progress society will require more energy per person consumed than we do now regardless.
Wireless power requires 60% more base power. The often dismissed as impossible flying cars require at least 1.5MW per person. One day it is not far fetched to think we will replace the microwave with a device that can assemble atoms and completely replace farming, which will take serious power. This is what I think even the solar/wind/geothermal people who don't want to move back into caves intuitively understand is the kind of changes that will occur sometime in the future.
Solar panels belong in space. They are much less efficient than hydro-electric, which is about as efficient as coal, which is 6 million times less energy dense than nuclear fission, which is less energy dense than nuclear fusion, which is only 2 orders of magnitude less efficient than antimatter-matter reactions. Spread out to consumers, solar panels also produces a lot of waste that future generations will have to deal with.
The parent post is correct, but Greenpeace does not dictate government policy in Australia.
Australia has 31% of the world's uranium reservers (the world's largest) and has in recent years declined production slightly (probably due to Germany's and Japan's 'efforts' that increase greenhouse gas emissions across Europe and Japan). Australia does not use nuclear power for energy generation or for military use or for icebreakers or any use other than ANSTO (small research lab that produces radioisotopes for medical use).
Australia could have gone nuclear ages ago, but didn't. Similarly to how it cut space research and plans to build rocket launch platforms, it is a country of little physics achievements that haven't been done by overseas people. The problem is that is also a county full of coal, and with other countries running out of coal, it might well be the place for coal globally over the next 50 years if policy doesn't change domestically.
Already the highest greehouse gas emitting OECD country in the world in the future if the coal extractions can be seen large from space (like tar pits in Canada) then it might become the biggest contributing country to global warming on a global scale indirectly (due to use of its coal and nonuse of uranium, not to mention thorium).
Then why are women so much less likely to enter CS than men? If there's no disproportionate influence, why is there a disproportionate response?
Maybe a generalization, but from what I've seen it is because clever women usually go to the field where there is actually work for them (such as the medical profession) and not claimed 'shortages'. Young men study computing/advanced maths/particle physics because it is interesting and are left without a job upon graduation.
We seem to have some need to put everything in it's own little box. Atoms, molecules, planets, solar systems...
The definition of "Universe":
all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.
So, if there is no need for the term "Multiverse" The universe contains it all.
Definitions change with time. Once upon a time the Earth was the universe, until people decided that the stars weren't just stuck up like a sheet in the Earth's sky.
Makes sense to have moons orbiting planets in planetary systems, orbiting stars in solar systems, orbiting galaxy centres in the galactic plane, orbiting super structures (Great Attractor, etc.), and finally you reach a boundary that is the "edge of the universe" with the current laws of physics that we know and love. If this universe is formed by the intersection of 2 or more "hyperplanes" as per string theory, or by other means, then there exists other universes. Hence, the collection of universes is given the term "multiverse" to distinguish it.
If a listener nods his head when you're explaining your program, wake him up.


text:
19 Jun 2013 | #1 |
| Help with E-Sata-1 External HD Before I did my clean install I was able to to this drive on or off and Windows would see it. Now in order for Windows to see the drive I have to turn the drive on and then do a full restart. It then will see the drive even if I shut it off. Then if I want to restart I have to hit the restart button or the PC will not re boot. It is seen in the Bios. So if someone can tell me how to Fix this I will appreciate it. If not I can make it into a USB drive but it will be slower. Thanks |
My System Specs |
. |
19 Jun 2013 | #2 |
| OK Hardware but some setting in Windows is blocking it (Software)? Does not really matter. |
My System Specs |
19 Jun 2013 | #3 |
| 140 views and not anyone has any idea? |
My System Specs |
. |
19 Jun 2013 | #4 |
| Gary have you done all the WS updates also is your mobo's bios updated? Also does the external drive require drivers? |
My System Specs |
19 Jun 2013 | #5 |
| Gary, you may have missed " Rapid Storage Technology" software install. Look on your M/B disk or download from support site. This term is Intel, it maybe called something else with other brands. Good luck |
My System Specs |
19 Jun 2013 | #6 |
| No it has all of the drivers. The Bios Recognizes it. Something in Windows does not. |
My System Specs |
19 Jun 2013 | #7 |
| Gary I don't have e-sata so I can't do a lot of trial and error but I do have a suggestion. Look in power options and see if by chance their is something in there that can help. When you go Star Orb and then hover over Computer does your drive show up when installed? If it shows up can you go to Properties and see anything? When installed do you see it in Disk Management and does it have a drive letter. Is it labeled NTSF, FAT or RAW. |
My System Specs |
19 Jun 2013 | #8 |
| I did about all I can do. I switched the connection to a USB port so at least it works. I only use it for backups so it won't be that much of a hassle. Through using Google , I have found that there are many users with the same problem. Yes it did show up and I could use it if I started the PC with it turned on. I used to be able to just turn it on and use it. I remember downloading some form of Chipset drivers on MajorGeeks but I don't remember what they were. I will get by. |
My System Specs |
19 Jun 2013 | #9 |
| More suggestions. Device Manger. Scan for new hardware. Find your e-sata and update driver. Reboot. Check for driver again. (Brows my computer for driver software) Tick on it, You should get (Let me pick from a list) pick one. Windows should of picked it up. |
My System Specs |
19 Jun 2013 | #10 |
| ^ Thanks, I did all of the above. |
My System Specs |
Thread Tools | |
Similar help and support threads for2: Help with E-Sata-1 External HD | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
SATA HD To USB Cable (External HD To PC) | General Discussion | |||
2 TB sata external HD usb broke off | Hardware & Devices | |||
External Sata Cables | Hardware & Devices | |||
External Sata Cables | Hardware & Devices | |||
External Sata and USB | Drivers | |||
Safety of internal 3.5 Sata IDE in external Sata case for backups | Hardware & Devices | |||
E-SATA to external Case. | Drivers |
Our Sites | Site Links | About Us | Find Us |
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized,
sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation.
"Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp. © Designer Media Ltd All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:09 PM. | |


text:
The California School Boards Association has selected the Newhall School District as this year's honoree for its Coherent Writing Program.
Golden Valley High School has about $10,000 worth of new laboratory equipment, thanks to a donation Wednesday from the Santa Clarita Valley Sheriff's Station.
The deadline to apply for a position on the city's Citizens Public Library Advisory Committee is today.
The turnaround is complete.
Charity golf tournament
In the past few years, there's been a big push by employers to have employees sign agreements stating that any dispute between them would go to an arbitrator rather than a judge and a jury.
It's 3 p.m. Wednesday, and there's a whirlwind of activity at the Boys & Girls Club facility in Newhall.
Dear Smarties: I was recently laid off. I have a good severance package, and I know I'll be able to find something eventually. But my finances are getting strained.
Today's dedication of Elsmere Canyon as part of Santa Clarita's greenbelt of preserved wilderness marks a milestone of achievement.
We have yet another lawsuit filed against the city. By people who are speculating that the city will deliver substandard library services and suspecting a Brown Act violation occurred.
I have the easy solution to the library problems (changing hands from county control to city control).
Would you go to your friend's house and poop, then walk away and let someone else clean up?
Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Department of Veterans Affairs, through it Operation Welcome Home initiative, has partnered with six-time Heavyweight UFC Champion Randy Couture to reach out to recently returning veterans and connect them with the benefits and services they have earned.
With everything from nationally ranked academic programs to effective career education opportunities and college placement services, Hart district students are afforded every opportunity to excel in an increasingly competitive academic environment.
Whether priorities are schools, recreation or convenience and friendly neighborhoods, home buyers are finding that Fair Oaks Ranch by Pardee Homes fills the bill.


text:
Calendar of Events
Alternative Spring Break!
3/7/2013, All Day
- Link
- 39 different places across the U.S. and in Jamaica
Friday, March 1, 2013 (5:00 PM) - Sunday, March 10, 2013 (5:00 PM)
Location: 39 different places across the U.S. and in Jamaica, Nicaragua, and Puerto Rico!
This year over 460 students will go on 39 different service trips to perform nearly 20,000 hours of service over spring break. Who needs a spring break when you can have the ASBest week ever meeting new people, creating unforgettable memories, and serving others?


text:
Could terrorists smuggle a nuclear bomb through a U.S. port and explode it on American soil? Now that North Korea has nuclear devices — could they or terrorists they work with attack a major U.S. city?
These and other questions are answered in a recent Newsmax Magazine special report "Avoiding Nuclear D-Day."
This Newsmax report, authored by best-selling author Kenneth R. Timmerman, finds the threat is real -- and reveals what the U.S. government had done to stop such an attack.
The Newsmax report reveals how high-tech gear and vigilance are protecting Americans from terrorist nuclear threats.
This Newsmax report takes an in-depth look at how security measures in the U.S. have been completely overhauled since 9/11.
You can get this report with our FREE offer and a $35 fleece jacket by Going Here.
This blockbuster Newsmax report explores:
This special edition of Newsmax Magazine features an exclusive interview with Customs and Border Commissioner Robert Bonner, who counters claims that his detection strategy is a "dead end" and says: "We've proven that you can risk-manage the terrorist threat."
Find out how you can get this report FREE. Go Here Now.
This edition of Newsmax Magazine is not to be missed. Bonus:
Bonus: Get "Avoiding Nuclear D-Day" with the USS George Bush or USS Ronald Reagan fleece jacket free - a value of $35 with shipping FREE!
These fleece jackets are perfect for chilly winter, spring and fall nights - they also make a great gift item. They are ideal for men and women.
This edition of Newsmax magazine is not to be missed.
In addition to our in-depth cover stories and hard-hitting investigative reports, we entertain a constant stream of notable guests.
Past issues have included incisive commentary from such experts as Bill O'Reilly, George Will, Kathleen Parker, Michael Reagan, Ben Stein and David Limbaugh — to name a few.
This special edition of Newsmax magazine also includes:
Again, there is so much more in Newsmax magazine, which won a Gold Eddie Award in the News/Commentary category of Folio magazine's prestigious journalism awards, the Eddies, and has now received a Charlie Award, the highest honor from the Florida Magazine Association, in each of five categories including Best In-Depth Reporting.
Ben Stein says Newsmax reveals the "unafraid, uncomplicated, bare-knuckles truth about today's dangerous world."
Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan and chairman and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation, says: "I guarantee that you'll love Newsmax magazine."
Find out why more than a half million people read Newsmax magazine each month.
Check out our FREE offer for this special "Avoiding Nuclear D-Day" report, plus a FREE USS George Bush or USS Ronald Reagan fleece jacket - Just Go Here Now.
Home | Privacy Policy All Rights Reserved © 2014 Newsmax.com


text:
The Eli Young Band is in fine form on their latest release, "10,000 Towns," out Monday, March 3 on Republic Nashville records. The band has a lot to show for their relentless touring and recording pace, with awards and hit songs placing the Texas combo solidly atop the country music charts. Their fifth album overall,… read more »
Dublin to DC
Brewery tours are a hot ticket and DC residents have a host of choices in their backyard. Beer lovers can tour DC Brau, 3 Stars and Atlas without leaving the District. Day-trippers can visit Dogfish in Delaware, Tröegs in Pennsylvania or Flying Dog in Maryland. But where to go when you've seen it all and… read more »
Drink Like a True Irishman
Don't look now, but Saint Patrick's Day is upon us. In the U.S., the holiday honoring Ireland's patron saint has become an emerald green bacchanalia. This year, why not ditch the shamrock glasses, forget the food-grade dye, and drink like the Irish really do? First, pick your poison. If you're aiming for authenticity, look no… read more »
Bracket Busters | Predictions and Hot Players
With the NCAA tournament just weeks away, March Madness brings out the basketball fanatic in all of us. Whether you follow the sport religiously, only watch your school's games or you haven't seen a single second of an NCAA basketball game all season, most likely everyone you know will be filling out brackets and in… read more »
Ready to Kick In | Steven Birbaum
Fans of D.C. United were ecstatic last fall when the team selected University of California defender Steven Birnbaum as their top pick in the 2014 MLS SuperDraft, fortifying an area of weakness for the black and red. "It was just a surreal moment," Birnbaum says. "I was so thankful that they selected me and so… read more »
RdV Vineyards
California's Napa Valley is riddled with wineries of miniscule production levels, extremely high prices and impossible-to-get wines. Enthusiasts wait for months (or years!) to land a treasured spot on the "mailing list" enabling them to purchase wine, usually Cabernet Sauvignon, by the bottle through their yearly bestowed allocation. Their names are a thing of legend:… read more »
10 Things to Try This Spring
Add Some Color to your Wardrobe This spring mix things up and add some color to your wardrobe. Top fashion picks for Spring: Dazzling Blue, Violet Orchid, Radiant Orchid, Celosia Orange, Freesia, Cayenne and Placid Blue. Geocaching If you love treasure hunts and adventure, grab your phone for Geocaching. Use your GPS to explore… read more »
ShamrockFest Mania
The typically placid RFK Stadium parking lot on the edge of Capitol Hill will once again morph into a rocking party for one day this month as the annual ShamrockFest celebrates all things Irish with a slate of more than 30 bands and DJ's. Black 47 After nearly 24 years as New York's most popular… read more »