1969 – The U.S. Supreme Court ordered an immediate end to all school segregation … In Memory


The outside of the Supreme CourtBy Sameer Rao Oct 29, 2015  Photo: Getty Images

On this day in 1969, the Supreme Court ordered immediate public school desegregation throughout the United States via its decision in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education.

Fifteen years after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered public school desegregation with “all deliberate speed” in Brown v. Board of Education Topeka, Kansas, most Southern states still had yet to fulfill its mandate.

It would take the action of Fifth Circuit Judge Hugo Black and the NAACP to force real change. Members of the NAACP protested a circuit court ruling in the summer of 1969 that granted the Justice Department and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) an extension until December 1 to draw up desegregation plans for 33 Mississippi school districts. Given that it had already been nearly five years since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the NAACP took the case to the Supreme Court

In Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education—which was decided on this day in 1969—the Court ruled to underscore their previous mandates in Brown and Brown II and ordered immediate desegregation of public schools. Noting that the “all deliberate speed” language in Brown enabled Southern states to procrastinate, the Court’s decision took no chances, saying, “The obligation of every school district is to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools.”

Although much of the American public school system still remains racially segregated, the Supreme Court’s ruling is still an important standard for which to aspire and, thus, worthy of today’s #TBT.
Read the Court’s Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education decision here.

Resource: colorlines.com

1972 – U.S. President Richard Nixon approved legislation to increase Social Security spending by $5.3 billion.


On October 30, 1969, Richard Nixon signed landmark social security and Medicare legislation increasing much-needed benefits to widowed seniors who now receive 100 percent of their deceased spouses Social Security benefits and extended medical coverage to 1.5 million beneficiaries. The following is Nixon’s radio address broadcast the same day the legislation was passed:

Good afternoon:

A President signs many bills, but one that I signed today gave me special satisfaction because of the enormous impact it can have on the lives of millions of individual Americans.

I refer to the legislation known as H.R. 1–and especially to its provisions for helping, older Americans. Many of these provisions grew out of recommendations which I have been urging the Congress to act on for several years.

Let’s look at some of the things H.R. 1 will do:

First, nearly 4 million widows and widowers will get larger social security benefits–the full 100 percent of what was payable to the individual’s late husband or wife. This will mean more than $1 billion in additional income for these deserving people in the next fiscal year.

Second, over a million and a half older Americans who are now working can earn more income without having their benefits reduced.

Until today, if you were receiving social security, every dollar you earned above $1,680 cost you 50 cents in benefits–and every dollar you earned above $2,880 cost you a full dollar. But under the new provision-which I have advocated for years–you can earn up to $2,100 without losing a cent of social security, and every dollar you earn above that $2,100–no matter how many–will cost you only 50 cents in benefits. This will encourage more older Americans to work–helping them and helping the country.

resource: internet


October Awareness Month


October 2nd:                    World Smile Day

October 6th:                     Physician Assistant Day

October 9th:                     Emergency Nurse Day

October 12th:                   Columbus Day

October 13th:                   United States Navy – Happy Birthday 1775

October 14th:                   S.A.V.E. Day (Stop American Violence Everywhere)

October 16th:                   Bosses Day

October 17th:                   Sweetest Day

October 24th:                   Make A Difference Day

October 31st:                   Halloween

October 4-10:                   Mental Illness Awareness Week  (Green)

October 5-9:                     Customer Service Week

October 18-24:                 Invisible Disabilities Awareness Week (Purple)

October 19-25:                 Male Breast Cancer Awareness Week (Pink-Blue)

October 23-31:                 Red Ribbon Week  (Red)

October 31-November 2:             Day of the Dead (Dia de Los Muertos)

Breast Cancer Awareness Month  (Pink)

Fire Prevention Awareness Month  (Thin Red Line)

Domestic Violence Awareness Month  (Purple)

Down Syndrome Awareness Month  (Blue-Yellow)

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Awareness Month  (Pink-Blue)

Pregnancy & Infant Loss Awareness Month  (Pink-Blue)

National Bullying Prevention Month  (Blue)

Liver Cancer Awareness Month  (Green)

pinmart.com

1945 – The U.S. government announced the end of shoe rationing.


Posted by Gerry le Roux in Special days

on 30 October 1945 – a happy day for shoe lovers! – the rationing was lifted. Men were again able to buy as many pairs of work boots as they liked. Shoe addicts were no longer bound by the painful limit of three pairs of new must-have’s a year. Children could get all the shoes they needed to accommodate their growing feet. And athletes could burn through as many pairs of sneakers as they wanted.

I for one would have easily been able to carry on as normal during the great WWII shoe rationing – shoes are practical things, after all, and surely don’t need replacing until they fall apart, do they? And, in most cases, they’re not even good for you – as I’ve mentioned before, you’re definitely better off going barefoot when possible. So the whole shoe addiction thing is a bit of a mystery to me.

Resource: sciencelens.co.nz

 

Impeachment l US House of Representatives


“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4

Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania
Collection of the U.S. House of Representatives
Representative Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania, a Radical Republican, gave the last speech during House debate on articles of impeachment against President Andrew Johnson on March 2, 1868. Johnson became the first president impeached by the House, but he was later acquitted by the Senate by one vote.

The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach an official, and it makes the Senate the sole court for impeachment trials. The power of impeachment is limited to removal from office but also provides for a removed officer to be disqualified from holding future office. Fines and potential jail time for crimes committed while in office are left to civil courts.

Origins
Impeachment comes from British constitutional history. The process evolved from the 14th century as a way for parliament to hold the king’s ministers accountable for their public actions. Impeachment, as Alexander Hamilton of New York explained in Federalist 65, varies from civil or criminal courts in that it strictly involves the “misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Individual state constitutions had provided for impeachment for “maladministration” or “corruption” before the U.S. Constitution was written. And the founders, fearing the potential for abuse of executive power, considered impeachment so important that they made it part of the Constitution even before they defined the contours of the presidency.

Constitutional Framing
During the Federal Constitutional Convention, the framers addressed whether even to include impeachment trials in the Constitution, the venue and process for such trials, what crimes should warrant impeachment, and the likelihood of conviction. Rufus King of Massachusetts argued that having the legislative branch pass judgment on the executive would undermine the separation of powers; better to let elections punish a President. “The Executive was to hold his place for a limited term like the members of the Legislature,” King said, so “he would periodically be tried for his behaviour by his electors.” Massachusetts’s Elbridge Gerry, however, said impeachment was a way to keep the executive in check: “A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.”

Another issue arose regarding whether Congress might lack the resolve to try and convict a sitting President. Presidents, some delegates observed, controlled executive appointments which ambitious Members of Congress might find desirable. Delegates to the Convention also remained undecided on the venue for impeachment trials. The Virginia Plan, which set the agenda for the Convention, initially contemplated using the judicial branch. Again, though, the founders chose to follow the British example, where the House of Commons brought charges against officers and the House of Lords considered them at trial. Ultimately, the founders decided that during presidential impeachment trials, the House would manage the prosecution, while the Chief Justice would preside over the Senate during the trial.

The founders also addressed what crimes constituted grounds for impeachment. Treason and bribery were obvious choices, but George Mason of Virginia thought those crimes did not include a large number of punishable offenses against the state. James Madison of Virginia objected to using the term “maladministration” because it was too vague. Mason then substituted “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” in addition to treason and bribery. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a technical term—again borrowed from British legal practice—that denoted crimes by public officials against the government. Mason’s revision was accepted without further debate. But subsequent experience demonstrated the revised phrase failed to clarify what constituted impeachable offenses.
The House’s Role
The House brings impeachment charges against federal officials as part of its oversight and investigatory responsibilities. Individual Members of the House can introduce impeachment resolutions like ordinary bills, or the House could initiate proceedings by passing a resolution authorizing an inquiry. The Committee on the Judiciary ordinarily has jurisdiction over impeachments, but special committees investigated charges before the Judiciary Committee was created in 1813. The committee then chooses whether to pursue articles of impeachment against the accused official and report them to the full House. If the articles are adopted (by simple majority vote), the House appoints Members by resolution to manage the ensuing Senate trial on its behalf. These managers act as prosecutors in the Senate and are usually members of the Judiciary Committee. The number of managers has varied across impeachment trials but has traditionally been an odd number. The partisan composition of managers has also varied depending on the nature of the impeachment, but the managers, by definition, always support the House’s impeachment action.
The Use of Impeachment
The House has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times but less than a third have led to full impeachments. Just eight—all federal judges—have been convicted and removed from office by the Senate. Outside of the 15 federal judges impeached by the House, two Presidents (Andrew Johnson in 1868 and William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton in 1998), a cabinet secretary (William Belknap in 1876), and a U.S. Senator (William Blount of North Carolina in 1797) have also been impeached.

Blount’s impeachment trial—the first ever conducted—established the principle that Members of Congress and Senators were not “Civil Officers” under the Constitution, and accordingly, they could only be removed from office by a two-thirds vote for expulsion by their respective chambers. Blount, who had been accused of instigating an insurrection of American Indians to further British interests in Florida, was not convicted, but the Senate did expel him. Other impeachments have featured judges taking the bench when drunk or profiting from their position. The trial of President Johnson, however, focused on whether the President could remove cabinet officers without obtaining Congress’s approval. Johnson’s acquittal firmly set the precedent—debated from the beginning of the nation—that the President may remove appointees even if they required Senate confirmation to hold office.
For Further Reading
Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Rev. ed. 4 vols. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1937).

Kyvig, David E. The Age of Impeachment: American Constitutional Culture Since 1960. (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2008).

Les Benedict, Michael. The Impeachment and Trial of Andrew Johnson. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999).

Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay. The Federalist Papers. (New York: Penguin Books, 1987).

Melton, Buckner F., Jr. The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount. (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1998).

Rehnquist, William H. Grand Inquests: The Historic Impeachments of Justice Samuel Chase and President Andrew Johnson. (New York: Harper Perennial, 1999).

“Report by the Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry on the Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” Committee Print, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, 93rd Cong., 2nd sess., February 1974.

Storing, Herbert J., ed. The Complete Anti-Federalist. 7 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).

Sullivan, John. “Chapter 27—Impeachment,” in House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents, and Procedures of the House. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2011).

Thomas, David Y. “The Law of Impeachment in the United States,” The American Political Science Review 2 (May 1908): 378–395.

 

history.house.gov