1807 – The U.S. Congress passed an act to “prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States… from any foreign kingdom, place, or country.”

1836 – Texas declared its independence from Mexico and an ad interim government was formed.

1861 – The U.S. Congress created the Territory of Nevada.

1866 – Excelsior Needle Company began making sewing machine needles.

1877 – In the U.S., Rutherford B. Hayes was declared the winner of the 1876 presidential election by the U.S. Congress. Samuel J. Tilden, however, had won the popular vote on November 7, 1876.

1887 – The American Trotting Association was organized in Detroit, MI.

1897 – U.S. President Cleveland vetoed legislation that would have required a literacy test for immigrants entering the country.

1899 – Mount Rainier National Park in Washington was established by the U.S. Congress.

1899 – U.S. President McKinley signed a measure that created the rank of Admiral for the U.S. Navy. The first admiral was George Dewey.

1900 – The U.S. Congress voted to give $2 million in aid to Puerto Rico.

1901 – The first telegraph company in Hawaii opened.

1901 – The U.S. Congress passed the Platt amendment as a condition for withdrawal of U.S. troops.

1903 – The Martha Washington Hotel opened for business in New York City. The hotel had 416 rooms and was the first hotel exclusively for women.

1906 – A tornado in Mississippi killed 33 and did $5 million in damage.

1907 – In Hamburg, Germany, dock workers went on strike after the end of the night shift. British strike breakers were brought in. The issue was settled on April 22, 1907.

1908 – In New York, the Committee of the Russian Republican Administration was founded.

1908 – In Paris, Gabriel Lippmann introduced three-dimensional color photography at the Academy of Sciences.

1911 – Maurice Maeterlinck’s “The Bluebird” opened in Paris.

1917 – The Russian Revolution began with Czar Nicholas II abdicating.

1917 – Citizens of Puerto Rico were granted U.S. citizenship with the enactment of the Jones Act.

1925 – State and federal highway officials developed a nationwide route-numbering system and adopted the familiar U.S. shield-shaped, numbered marker.

1929 – The U.S. Court of Customs & Patent Appeals was created by the U.S. Congress.

1933 – The motion picture King Kong had its world premiere in New York.

1939 – The Massachusetts legislature voted to ratify the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. These first ten amendments had gone into effect 147 years before.

1946 – Ho Chi Minh was elected President of Vietnam.

1949 – The B-50 Superfortress Lucky Lady II landed in Fort Worth, TX. The American plane had completed the first non-stop around-the-world flight.

1962 – Wilt ‘The Stilt’ Chamberlain scored 100 points against the New York Knicks 169-147. Chamberlain broke several NBA records in the game.

1969 – In Toulouse, France, the supersonic transport Concorde made its first test flight.

1974 – Postage stamps jumped from 8 to 10 cents for first-class mail.

1983 – The U.S.S.R. performed an underground nuclear test.

1984 – The first McDonald’s franchise was closed. A new location was opened across the street from the old location in Des Plaines, IL.

1985 – The U.S. government approved a screening test for AIDS that detected antibodies to the virus that allowed possibly contaminated blood to be kept out of the U.S.’s blood supply.

1986 – Corazon Aquino was sworn into office as president of the Philippines. Her first public declaration was to restore the civil rights of the citizens of her country.

1987 – The U.S. government reported that the median price for a new home had gone over $100,000 for the first time.

1989 – Representatives from the 12 European Community nations all agreed to ban all production of CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) by the end of the 20th century.

1995 – Russian anti-corruption journalist Vladislav Listyev was killed by a gunman in Moscow.

1995 – Nick Leeson was arrested for his role in the collapse of Britain’s Barings Bank.

1998 – The U.N. Security Council endorsed U.N. chief Kofi Annan’s deal to open Iraq’s presidential palaces to arms inspectors.

1998 – Images from the American spacecraft Galileo indicated that the Jupiter moon Europa has a liquid ocean and a source of interior heat.

2000 – In Great Britain, Chile’s former President Augusto Pinochet Ugarte was freed from house arrest and allowed to return to Chile. Britain’s Home Secretary Jack Straw had concluded that Pinochet was mentally and physically unable to stand trial. Belgium, France, Spain and Switzerland had sought the former Chilean leader on human-rights violations.

2003 – Over the Sea of Japan, there was a confrontation between four armed North Korean fighter jets and a U.S. RC-135S Cobra Ball. No shots were fired in the encounter in international airspace about 150 miles off North Korea’s coast. The U.S. Air Force announced that it would resume reconnaissance flights on March 12.

2004 – NASA announced that the Mars rover Opportunity had discovered evidence that water had existed on Mars in the past.

2011 – Steve Jobs unveiled Apple’s iPad 2.

2016 – The U.N. Security Council unanimously approved sanctions on North Korea that included mandatory inspections of cargo leaving and entering North Korea, a ban on all sales and transfers of small arms and light weapons and expulsion of diplomats that engage in “illicit activities.” The sanctions were in reaction to the latest nuclear test and rocket launch in defiance of a ban on all nuclear-related activity.

2016 – Astronaut Scott Kelly returned to Earth after 340 days in space aboard the International Space Station.

on-this-day.com

On March 1, 1781, the Articles of Confederation are finally ratified. The Articles were signed by Congress and sent to the individual states for ratification on November 15, 1777, after 16 months of debate. Bickering over land claims between Virginia and Maryland delayed final …read more

Citation Information

Article Title

The Articles of Confederation are ratified after nearly four years

AuthorHistory.com Editors

Website Name

HISTORY

URL

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/articles-of-confederation-are-ratified

Access Date

March 1, 2023

Publisher

A&E Television Networks

Last Updated

March 1, 2021

Original Published Date

November 13, 2009

AMERICAN REVOLUTION

so, i posted this because it is also a reminder for our Youth…. we are at a crossroads and going back to the bad old days is NOT an option.

Nativegrl77

First Amendment:

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 the Government for a redress of grievances.

Some have raised the question of whether the Free Speech Clause and the Free Press Clause are coextensive, with respect to protections for the media. A number of Supreme Court decisions considering the regulation of media outlets analyzed the relevant constitutional protections without significantly differentiating between the two clauses.¹ In one 1978 ruling, the Court expressly considered whether the institutional press is entitled to greater freedom from governmental regulations or restrictions than are non-press individuals, groups, or associations. Justice Potter Stewart argued in a concurring opinion: That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society. The Constitution requires sensitivity to that role, and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively.² But, in a plurality opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: The Court has not yet squarely resolved whether the Press Clause confers upon the ‘institutional press’ any freedom from government restraint not enjoyed by all others.³ The plurality ultimately concluded that the First Amendment did not grant media the privilege of special access to prisons.⁴

Several Supreme Court holdings firmly point to the conclusion that the Free Press Clause does not confer on the press the power to compel government to furnish information or otherwise give the press access to information that the public generally does not have.⁵ Nor, in many respects, is the press entitled to treatment different in kind from the treatment to which any other member of the public may be subjected.⁶ The Court has ruled that [g]enerally applicable laws do not offend the First Amendment simply because their enforcement against the press has incidental effects.⁷ At the same time, the Court has recognized that laws targeting the press, or treating different subsets of media outlets differently, may sometimes violate the First Amendment.⁸ Further, it does seem clear that, to some extent, the press, because of its role in disseminating news and information, is entitled to heightened constitutional protections—that its role constitutionally entitles it to governmental sensitivity, to use Justice Potter Stewart’s word.⁹

constitutioncongress.gov

A doctrine that bars claims against the federal  government by members of the armed forces and their families for injuries arising from or in the course of activity incident to military service.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided in 1950, in Feres v. the United States, 340 U.S. 135, 71 S. Ct. 153, 95 L. Ed. 152, that the federal government could not be held liable under the statute known as the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291, 1346(b), (c), 1402(b), 2401(b), 2402, 2671-80) for injuries to members of the armed forces arising from activities incident to military service. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows persons intentionally or negligently wronged by a government employee to sue the government for their injuries. The Supreme Court’s decision barring suits involving injuries to members of the armed forces became known as the Feres doctrine. The doctrine remains in force, as the Supreme Court has rejected attempts to over-rule the decision.

Feres involved a suit brought by the executor of a soldier who had died when his barracks caught fire. The executor charged that the United States had been negligent in housing the soldier in barracks whose defective heating system was known to be unsafe. First, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that such a suit could be brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act of 1946, which had waived the government’s traditional Immunity from claims in many circumstances. Noting that the statute said that “[t]he United States shall be liable … in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances” (28 U.S.C.A. § 2674), the Court concluded that the relationship between the government and members of its armed forces is “distinctively federal in character.” Therefore, it would be anomalous to have the government’s liability depend on the law of the state where the soldier was stationed. Second, the Court observed that in several enactments, Congress had established a “no-fault” compensation plan that provides pensions to injured members of the Armed Services.

Commenting on the Feres doctrine in United States v. Brown, 348 U.S. 110, 75 S. Ct. 141, 99 L. Ed. 139 (1954), the Court emphasized that discipline and “[t]he peculiar and special relationship of the soldier to his superiors” might be affected if suits were allowed under the Tort Claims Act “for negligent orders given or negligent acts committed in the course of military duty.” This view became one of the bedrock justifications for the doctrine in the years following Brown.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stressed that the Feres doctrine “cannot be reduced to a few bright-line rules,” but rather “each case must be examined in light of the [Tort Claims Act] as it has been construed in Feres and subsequent cases” (United States v. Shearer, 473 U.S. 52, 105S. Ct. 3039, 87 L. Ed. 2d 38 [1985]).

The doctrine does not bar a claim arising from an independent injury committed by the government after a soldier has been discharged (Brown). In Brown, an injury suffered by a veteran during treatment at a veterans administration hospital for a prior injury that he had sustained during military service was not barred by Feres. The Court distinguished Brown from Feres on the ground that in Brown, the second injury did not arise from or in the course of military service.

The doctrine did apply, however, to a suit involving the death of a soldier who was off the military base on authorized leave when he was kidnapped and murdered by a fellow soldier with a known history of violence (Shearer). The mother of the murdered soldier charged that the Army had been negligent in failing to warn the other soldiers that the murderer was dangerous and in failing to restrict the murderer’s movements while his discharge was being processed. The Supreme Court denied her claim under the Feres doctrine on the ground that the suit would require a civilian court to second-guess military decisions that are directly involved in the management of the armed forces. If such suits were allowed, “commanding officers would have to stand prepared to convince a civilian court of the wisdom of a wide range of military and disciplinary decisions.” As a result, military discipline would suffer the detrimental effects that the Feres doctrine was designed to prevent.

The doctrine also applies to third parties seeking indemnity from the federal government. In Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. United States, 431 U.S. 666, 97 S. Ct. 2054, 52 L. Ed. 2d 665 (1977), an injured National Guard officer brought a suit against Stencel, the manufacturer of the ejection system in his fighter aircraft. Stencel then filed a cross-claim against the United States for indemnity (reimbursement for damages that it might pay to the officer), alleging that any malfunction of the ejection system was due to faulty government specifications and components. The Supreme Court held that the same reasoning that prevented a member of the armed services from recovering under the Tort Claims Act would limit a third party from recovering in an indemnity action.

The Feres doctrine was challenged in two cases decided by the Supreme Court in 1987. The doctrine had long been criticized as unfair to service members. In United States v. Johnson, 481 U.S. 681, 107 S. Ct. 2063, 95 L. Ed. 2d 648, the United States was sued for injuries sustained by a service member as the result of the Negligence of air traffic controllers, who are civilian employees of the federal government. On a 5–4 decision, the Court reaffirmed the application of the Feres doctrine. The Court noted that civilian employees may also “play an integral role in military activities. In this circumstance, an inquiry into the civilian activities would have the same effect on military discipline as a direct inquiry into military judgments.”

In United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 107S. Ct. 3054, 97 L. Ed. 2d 550 (1987), the United States was sued not only under the Federal Tort Claims Act but also directly under the Constitution. The Court rejected this attempt to circumvent Feres. It affirmed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit because of the principles set out in the Feres decision.

Further readings

Maser, Mark G. 2002. “Feres Doctrine: United States Courts of Appeals Consistently Hold that Members of the Armed Forces are Barred from Bringing Suits Against the Government When Service Members are Injured Incident to Military Sponsored Sports and Recreational Activities.” Seton Hall Journal of Sport Law 12 (summer): 333–60.

Seidelson, David E. 1994. “From Feres v. United States to Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.: An Examination of Supreme Court Jurisprudence and a Couple of Suggestions.” Duquesne Law Review 32 (winter): 219–68.

Turley, Jonathan. 2003. “Pax Militaris: The Feres Doctrine and the Retention of Sovereign Immunity in the Military System of Governance.” George Washington Law Review 71 (February): 1–90.

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary. 2003. The Feres Doctrine: An Examination of this Military Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act: Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Second Session, October 8, 2002. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Feres Doctrine

This seems unAmerican?