On June 8, 1789, James Madison addressed the House of Representatives and introduced a proposed Bill of Rights to the Constitution. More than three months later, Congress would finally agree on a final list of Rights to present to the states.
Some of Madison’s opening list of amendments didn’t make the final cut in September. The House agreed on a version of the Bill of Rights that had 17 amendments, and later, the Senate consolidated the list to 12 amendments. In the end, the states approved 10 of the 12 amendments in December 1791.
One of two amendments rejected by the states was eventually ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment; it restricted the ability of Congress to change the pay of a sitting Congress while in session. (The other proposed amendment dealt with the number of representatives in Congress, based on the 1789 population.)
But if Madison had his original way, our Constitution would have a two-part Preamble that includes part of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence before the current preamble.
On June 8, 1789, Madison told Congress the Preamble needed a “pre-Preamble.”
“First. That there be prefixed to the Constitution a declaration, that all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.”
for the complete article … constitutioncenter.org
Orwell’s nightmarish description of a totalitarian society set in the year 1984 is one of the most significant works of English literature and one of the best-known novels of all time. The phrase, Big Brother is watching you, stems from this work.
to learn more … go to:
BY WALTER OPINDE
On this day, 8th June, 1953, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the desegregation of Washington, D.C. restaurants after John Thompson’s case against the District of Columbia “District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson,” This decision was based on the validity of District of Columbia laws of 1872 and 1873. The rulings held by the Court based on these laws were still in effect notwithstanding the several changes in the forms of the District’s government over decades. However, the decision did not address the issue of the constitutionality of the predominant racial segregations.
Thompson’s case came at a moment when the court had failed to coalesce internally over how to resolve the Brown and four companion cases, including one that challenged Washington’s segregated schools.
Not until the dawn of the 1960s, Washington, D.C., was still a sleepy town from the South, within which the cases of racial segregations were prevalent. Fortunately, the process of desegregation ensued in earnest contexts around 1953, thereby continuing until the early 1960s. Earlier on, during their sit-ins, on 17th April, 1943, and 22nd April, 1944, African-American students from the Howard University had protested against the rampant segregations in Washington, D.C. restaurants. The sit-in protests had just preceded the famous February 1960 sit-ins, which triggered nationwide movements against segregations about one and a half decades later. As well, a group of the District of Columbia’s playwrights, working through the Dramatists Guild, had forced the racial integration of the U.S. theaters in Washington, D.C., in 1946.
During the case of the District of Columbia v. Thompson, Thompson was handed down four months after President Dwight Eisenhower vowed, during his first “State of the Union” address, to end widespread segregation in the capital. It was not brought to the court by one of the lawyers who was most associated with Brown and the civil rights movements: Thurgood Marshall. Instead, it came at the initiation of an octogenarian activist and charter member of the NAACP, Mary Church Terrell. The Terrell’s legal battle began on 27th January, 1950, when Thompson’s Restaurant, a cafeteria at 725, 14th Street NW, a few blocks from the White House, had refused to serve her alongside other two African-American colleagues merely because they were “colored.” Terrell had been living in Washington, D.C. for over six decades. She was already aware of the segregation. The District was then 35% black; however, schools, department stores, movie theaters, and other businesses were strictly and widely separated by race. As such, most downtown restaurants denied service to the blacks while some relegated them to the counter where they had to stand.
All the above discriminations ended on 8th June, 1953, when the court ruled unanimously in favor of Terrell after finding that the decades-old provisions banning the racial discrimination in public areas including restaurants within Washington D.C. remained “presently enforceable.”
Read more of the original story via: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-forgotten-fight-to-end-segregation-in-dc/2016/01/15/1b7cae2a-bafc-11e5-829c-26ffb874a18d_story.html?utm_term=.4fd6ca4876d8