text:
Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives:
Under the benignant providence of Almighty God the representatives of the States and of the people are again brought together to deliberate for the public good. The gratitude of the nation to the Sovereign Arbiter of All Human Events should be commensurate with the boundless blessings which we enjoy.
Peace, plenty, and contentment reign throughout our borders, and our beloved country presents a sublime moral spectacle to the world.
The troubled and unsettled condition of some of the principal European powers has had a necessary tendency to check and embarrass trade and to depress prices throughout all commercial nations, but notwithstanding these causes, the United States, with their abundant products, have felt their effects less severely than any other country, and all our great interests are still prosperous and successful.
In reviewing the great events of the past year and contrasting the agitated and disturbed state of other countries with our own tranquil and happy condition, we may congratulate ourselves that we are the most favored people on the face of the earth. While the people of other countries are struggling to establish free institutions, under which man may govern himself, we are in the actual enjoyment of them--a rich inheritance from our fathers. While enlightened nations of Europe are convulsed and distracted by civil war or intestine strife, we settle all our political controversies by the peaceful exercise of the rights of freemen at the ballot box.
The great republican maxim, so deeply engraven on the hearts of our people, that the will of the majority, constitutionally expressed, shall prevail, is our sure safeguard against force and violence. It is a subject of just pride that our fame and character as a nation continue rapidly to advance in the estimation of the civilized world.
To our wise and free institutions it is to be attributed that while other nations have achieved glory at the price of the suffering, distress, and impoverishment of their people, we have won our honorable position in the midst of an uninterrupted prosperity and of an increasing individual comfort and happiness.
Nothing can retard the onward progress of our country and prevent us from assuming and maintaining the first rank among nations but a disregard of the experience of the past and a recurrence to an unwise public policy. We have just closed a foreign war by an honorable peace--a war rendered necessary and unavoidable in vindication of the national rights and honor. The present condition of the country is similar in some respects to that which existed immediately after the close of the war with Great Britain in 1815, and the occasion is deemed to be a proper one to take a retrospect of the measures of public policy which followed that war. There was at that period of our history a departure from our earlier policy. The enlargement of the powers of the Federal Government by construction, which obtained, was not warranted by any just interpretation of the Constitution. A few years after the close of that war a series of measures was adopted which, united and combined, constituted what was termed by their authors and advocates the "American system."
The introduction of the new policy was for a time favored by the condition of the country, by the heavy debt which had been contracted during the war, by the depression of the public credit, by the deranged state of the finances and the currency, and by the commercial and pecuniary embarrassment which extensively prevailed. These were not the only causes which led to its establishment. The events of the war with Great Britain and the embarrassments which had attended its prosecution had left on the minds of many of our statesmen the impression that our Government was not strong enough, and that to wield its resources successfully in great emergencies, and especially in war, more power should be concentrated in its hands. This increased power they did not seek to obtain by the legitimate and prescribed mode--an amendment of the Constitution--but by construction. They saw Governments in the Old World based upon different orders of society, and so constituted as to throw the whole power of nations into the hands of a few, who taxed and controlled the many without responsibility or restraint. In that arrangement they conceived the strength of nations in war consisted. There was also something fascinating in the ease, luxury, and display of the higher orders, who drew their wealth from the toil of the laboring millions. The authors of the system drew their ideas of political economy from what they had witnessed in Europe, and particularly in Great Britain. They had viewed the enormous wealth concentrated in few hands and had seen the splendor of the overgrown establishments of an aristocracy which was upheld by the restrictive policy. They forgot to look down upon the poorer classes of the English population, upon whose daily and yearly labor the great establishments they so much admired were sustained and supported. They failed to perceive that the scantily fed and half-clad operatives were not only in abject poverty, but were bound in chains of oppressive servitude for the benefit of favored classes, who were the exclusive objects of the care of the Government.
It was not possible to reconstruct society in the United States upon the European plan. Here there was a written Constitution, by which orders and titles were not recognized or tolerated. A system of measures was therefore devised, calculated, if not intended, to withdraw power gradually and silently from the States and the mass of the people, and by construction to approximate our Government to the European models, substituting an aristocracy of wealth for that of orders and titles.
Without reflecting upon the dissimilarity of our institutions and of the condition of our people and those of Europe, they conceived the vain idea of building up in the United States a system similar to that which they admired abroad. Great Britain had a national bank of large capital, in whose hands was concentrated the controlling monetary and financial power of the nation--an institution wielding almost kingly power, and exerting vast influence upon all the operations of trade and upon the policy of the Government itself. Great Britain had an enormous public debt, and it had become a part of her public policy to regard this as a "public blessing." Great Britain had also a restrictive policy, which placed fetters and burdens on trade and trammeled the productive industry of the mass of the nation. By her combined system of policy the landlords and other property holders were protected and enriched by the enormous taxes which were levied upon the labor of the country for their advantage. Imitating this foreign policy, the first step in establishing the new system in the United States was the creation of a national bank. Not foreseeing the dangerous power and countless evils which such an institution might entail on the country, nor perceiving the connection which it was designed to form between the bank and the other branches of the miscalled "American system," but feeling the embarrassments of the Treasury and of the business of the country consequent upon the war, some of our statesmen who had held different and sounder views were induced to yield their scruples and, indeed, settled convictions of its unconstitutionality, and to give it their sanction as an expedient which they vainly hoped might produce relief. It was a most unfortunate error, as the subsequent history and final catastrophe of that dangerous and corrupt institution have abundantly proved. The bank, with its numerous branches ramified into the States, soon brought many of the active political and commercial men in different sections of the country into the relation of debtors to it and dependents upon it for pecuniary favors, thus diffusing throughout the mass of society a great number of individuals of power and influence to give tone to public opinion and to act in concert in cases of emergency. The corrupt power of such a political engine is no longer a matter of speculation, having been displayed in numerous instances, but most signally in the political struggles of 1832, 1833, and 1834 in opposition to the public will represented by a fearless and patriotic President.
But the bank was but one branch of the new system. A public debt of more than $120,000,000 existed, and it is not to be disguised that many of the authors of the new system did not regard its speedy payment as essential to the public prosperity, but looked upon its continuance as no national evil. Whilst the debt existed it furnished aliment to the national bank and rendered increased taxation necessary to the amount of the interest, exceeding $7,000,000 annually.
This operated in harmony with the next branch of the new system, which was a high protective tariff. This was to afford bounties to favored classes and particular pursuits at the expense of all others. A proposition to tax the whole people for the purpose of enriching a few was too monstrous to be openly made. The scheme was therefore veiled under the plausible but delusive pretext of a measure to protect "home industry," and many of our people were for a time led to believe that a tax which in the main fell upon labor was for the benefit of the laborer who paid it. This branch of the system involved a partnership between the Government and the favored classes, the former receiving the proceeds of the tax imposed on articles imported and the latter the increased price of similar articles produced at home, caused by such tax. It is obvious that the portion to be received by the favored classes would, as a general rule, be increased in proportion to the increase of the rates of tax imposed and diminished as those rates were reduced to the revenue standard required by the wants of the Government. The rates required to produce a sufficient revenue for the ordinary expenditures of Government for necessary purposes were not likely to give to the private partners in this scheme profits sufficient to satisfy their cupidity, and hence a variety of expedients and pretexts were resorted to for the purpose of enlarging the expenditures and thereby creating a necessity for keeping up a high protective tariff. The effect of this policy was to interpose artificial restrictions upon the natural course of the business and trade of the country, and to advance the interests of large capitalists and monopolists at the expense of the great mass of the people, who were taxed to increase their wealth.
Another branch of this system was a comprehensive scheme of internal improvements, capable of indefinite enlargement and sufficient to swallow up as many millions annually as could be exacted from the foreign commerce of the country. This was a convenient and necessary adjunct of the protective tariff. It was to be the great absorbent of any surplus which might at any time accumulate in the Treasury and of the taxes levied on the people, not for necessary revenue purposes, but for the avowed object of affording protection to the favored classes.
Auxiliary to the same end, if it was not an essential part of the system itself, was the scheme, which at a later period obtained, for distributing the proceeds of the sales of the public lands among the States. Other expedients were devised to take money out of the Treasury and prevent its coming in from any other source than the protective tariff. The authors and supporters of the system were the advocates of the largest expenditures, whether for necessary or useful purposes or not, because the larger the expenditures the greater was the pretext for high taxes in the form of protective duties.
These several measures were sustained by popular names and plausible arguments, by which thousands were deluded. The bank was represented to be an indispensable fiscal agent for the Government; was to equalize exchanges and to regulate and furnish a sound currency, always and everywhere of uniform value. The protective tariff was to give employment to "American labor" at advanced prices; was to protect "home industry" and furnish a steady market for the farmer. Internal improvements were to bring trade into every neighborhood and enhance the value of every man's property. The distribution of the land money was to enrich the States, finish their public works, plant schools throughout their borders, and relieve them from taxation. But the fact that for every dollar taken out of the Treasury for these objects a much larger sum was transferred from the pockets of the people to the favored classes was carefully concealed, as was also the tendency, if not the ultimate design, of the system to build up an aristocracy of wealth, to control the masses of society, and monopolize the political power of the country.
The several branches of this system were so intimately blended together that in their operation each sustained and strengthened the others. Their joint operation was to add new burthens of taxation and to encourage a largely increased and wasteful expenditure of public money. It was the interest of the bank that the revenue collected and the disbursements made by the Government should be large, because, being the depository of the public money, the larger the amount the greater would be the bank profits by its use. It was the interest of the favored classes, who were enriched by the protective tariff, to have the rates of that protection as high as possible, for the higher those rates the greater would be their advantage. It was the interest of the people of all those sections and localities who expected to be benefited by expenditures for internal improvements that the amount collected should be as large as possible, to the end that the sum disbursed might also be the larger. The States, being the beneficiaries in the distribution of the land money, had an interest in having the rates of tax imposed by the protective tariff large enough to yield a sufficient revenue from that source to meet the wants of the Government without disturbing or taking from them the land fund; so that each of the branches constituting the system had a common interest in swelling the public expenditures. They had a direct interest in maintaining the public debt unpaid and increasing its amount, because this would produce an annual increased drain upon the Treasury to the amount of the interest and render augmented taxes necessary. The operation and necessary effect of the whole system were to encourage large and extravagant expenditures, and thereby to increase the public patronage, and maintain a rich and splendid government at the expense of a taxed and impoverished people.
It is manifest that this scheme of enlarged taxation and expenditures, had it continued to prevail, must soon have converted the Government of the Union, intended by its framers to be a plain, cheap, and simple confederation of States, united together for common protection and charged with a few specific duties, relating chiefly to our foreign affairs, into a consolidated empire, depriving the States of their reserved rights and the people of their just power and control in the administration of their Government. In this manner the whole form and character of the Government would be changed, not by an amendment of the Constitution, but by resorting to an unwarrantable and unauthorized construction of that instrument.
The indirect mode of levying the taxes by a duty on imports prevents the mass of the people from readily perceiving the amount they pay, and has enabled the few who are thus enriched, and who seek to wield the political power of the country, to deceive and delude them. Were the taxes collected by a direct levy upon the people, as is the ease in the States, this could not occur.
The whole system was resisted from its inception by many of our ablest statesmen, some of whom doubted its constitutionality and its expediency, while others believed it was in all its branches a flagrant and dangerous infraction of the Constitution.
That a national bank, a protective tariff--levied not to raise the revenue needed, but for protection merely--internal improvements, and the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the public lands are measures without the warrant of the Constitution would, upon the maturest consideration, seem to be clear. It is remarkable that no one of these measures, involving such momentous consequences, is authorized by any express grant of power in the Constitution. No one of them is "incident to, as being necessary and proper for the execution of, the specific powers" granted by the Constitution. The authority under which it has been attempted to justify each of them is derived from inferences and constructions of the Constitution which its letter and its whole object and design do not warrant. Is it to be conceived that such immense powers would have been left by the framers of the Constitution to mere inferences and doubtful constructions? Had it been intended to confer them on the Federal Government, it is but reasonable to conclude that it would have been done by plain and unequivocal grants. This was not done; but the whole structure of which the "American system" consisted was reared on no other or better foundation than forced implications and inferences of power, which its authors assumed might be deduced by construction from the Constitution.
But it has been urged that the national bank, which constituted so essential a branch of this combined system of measures, was not a new measure, and that its constitutionality had been previously sanctioned, because a bank had been chartered in 1791 and had received the official signature of President Washington. A few facts will show the just weight to which this precedent should be entitled as bearing upon the question of constitutionality.
Great division of opinion upon the subject existed in Congress. It is well known that President Washington entertained serious doubts both as to the constitutionality and expediency of the measure, and while the bill was before him for his official approval or disapproval so great were these doubts that he required "the opinion in writing" of the members of his Cabinet to aid him in arriving at a decision. His Cabinet gave their opinions and were divided upon the subject, General Hamilton being in favor of and Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Randolph being opposed to the constitutionality and expediency of the bank. It is well known also that President Washington retained the bill from Monday, the 14th, when it was presented to him, until Friday, the 25th of February, being the last moment permitted him by the Constitution to deliberate, when he finally yielded to it his reluctant assent and gave it his signature. It is certain that as late as the 23d of February, being the ninth day after the bill was presented to him, he had arrived at no satisfactory conclusion, for on that day he addressed a note to General Hamilton in which he informs him that "this bill was presented to me by the joint committee of Congress at 12 o'clock on Monday, the 14th instant," and he requested his opinion "to what precise period, by legal interpretation of the Constitution, can the President retain it in his possession before it becomes a law by the lapse of ten days." If the proper construction was that the day on which the bill was presented to the President and the day on which his action was had upon it were both to be counted inclusive, then the time allowed him within which it would be competent for him to return it to the House in which it originated with his objections would expire on Thursday, the 24th of February. General Hamilton on the same day returned an answer, in which he states:
I give it as my opinion that you have ten days exclusive of that on which the bill was delivered to you and Sundays; hence, in the present case if it is returned on Friday it will be in time.
By this construction, which the President adopted, he gained another day for deliberation, and it was not until the 25th of February that he signed the bill, thus affording conclusive proof that he had at last obtained his own consent to sign it not without great and almost insuperable difficulty. Additional light has been recently shed upon the serious doubts which he had on the subject, amounting at one time to a conviction that it was his duty to withhold his approval from the bill. This is found among the manuscript papers of Mr. Madison, authorized to be purchased for the use of the Government by an act of the last session of Congress, and now for the first time accessible to the public. From these papers it appears that President Washington, while he yet held the bank bill in his hands, actually requested Mr. Madison, at that time a member of the House of Representatives, to prepare the draft of a veto message for him. Mr. Madison, at his request, did prepare the draft of such a message, and sent it to him on the 21st of February, 1791. A copy of this original draft, in Mr. Madison's own handwriting, was carefully preserved by him, and is among the papers lately purchased by Congress. It is preceded by a note, written on the same sheet, which is also in Mr. Madison's handwriting, and is as follows:
February 21, 1791.--Copy of a paper made out and sent to the President, at his request, to be ready in case his judgment should finally decide against the bill for incorporating a national bank, the bill being then before him.
Among the objections assigned in this paper to the bill, and which were submitted for the consideration of the President, are the following:
I object to the bill, because it is an essential principle of the Government that powers not delegated by the Constitution can not be rightfully exercised; because the power proposed by the bill to be exercised is not expressly delegated, and because I can not satisfy myself that it results from any express power by fair and safe rules of interpretation.
The weight of the precedent of the bank of 1791 and the sanction of the great name of Washington, which has been so often invoked in its support, are greatly weakened by the development of these facts.
The experiment of that bank satisfied the country that it ought not to be continued, and at the end of twenty years Congress refused to recharter it. It would have been fortunate for the country, and saved thousands from bankruptcy and ruin, had our public men of 1816 resisted the temporary pressure of the times upon our financial and pecuniary interests and refused to charter the second bank. Of this the country became abundantly satisfied, and at the close of its twenty years' duration, as in the case of the first bank, it also ceased to exist. Under the repeated blows of President Jackson it reeled and fell, and a subsequent attempt to charter a similar institution was arrested by the veto of President Tyler.
Mr. Madison, in yielding his signature to the charter of 1816, did so upon the ground of the respect due to precedents; and, as he subsequently declared--
The Bank of the United States, though on the original question held to be unconstitutional, received the Executive signature.
It is probable that neither the bank of 1791 nor that of 1816 would have been chartered but for the embarrassments of the Government in its finances, the derangement of the currency, and the pecuniary pressure which existed, the first the consequence of the War of the Revolution and the second the consequence of the War of 1812. Both were resorted to in the delusive hope that they would restore public credit and afford relief to the Government and to the business of the country.
Those of our public men who opposed the whole "American system" at its commencement and throughout its progress foresaw and predicted that it was fraught with incalculable mischiefs and must result in serious injury to the best interests of the country. For a series of years their wise counsels were unheeded, and the system was established. It was soon apparent that its practical operation was unequal and unjust upon different portions of the country and upon the people engaged in different pursuits. All were equally entitled to the favor and protection of the Government. It fostered and elevated the money power and enriched the favored few by taxing labor, and at the expense of the many. Its effect was to "make the rich richer and the poor poorer." Its tendency was to create distinctions in society based on wealth and to give to the favored classes undue control and sway in our Government. It was an organized money power, which resisted the popular will and sought to shape and control the public policy.
Under the pernicious workings of this combined system of measures the country witnessed alternate seasons of temporary apparent prosperity, of sudden and disastrous commercial revulsions, of unprecedented fluctuation of prices and depression of the great interests of agriculture, navigation, and commerce, of general pecuniary suffering, and of final bankruptcy of thousands. After a severe struggle of more than a quarter of a century, the system was overthrown.
The bank has been succeeded by a practical system of finance, conducted and controlled solely by the Government. The constitutional currency has been restored, the public credit maintained unimpaired even in a period of a foreign war, and the whole country has become satisfied that banks, national or State, are not necessary as fiscal agents of the Government. Revenue duties have taken the place of the protective tariff. The distribution of the money derived from the sale of the public lands has been abandoned and the corrupting system of internal improvements, it is hoped, has been effectually checked.
It is not doubted that if this whole train of measures, designed to take wealth from the many and bestow it upon the few, were to prevail the effect would be to change the entire character of the Government. One only danger remains. It is the seductions of that branch of the system which consists in internal improvements, holding out, as it does, inducements to the people of particular sections and localities to embark the Government in them without stopping to calculate the inevitable consequences. This branch of the system is so intimately combined and linked with the others that as surely as an effect is produced by an adequate cause, if it be resuscitated and revived and firmly established it requires no sagacity to foresee that it will necessarily and speedily draw after it the reestablishment of a national bank, the revival of a protective tariff, the distribution of the land money, and not only the postponement to the distant future of the payment of the present national debt, but its annual increase.
I entertain the solemn conviction that if the internal-improvement branch of the "American system" be not firmly resisted at this time the whole series of measures composing it will be speedily reestablished and the country be thrown back from its present high state of prosperity, which the existing policy has produced, and be destined again to witness all the evils, commercial revulsions, depression of prices, and pecuniary embarrassments through which we have passed during the last twenty-five years.
To guard against consequences so ruinous is an object of high national importance, involving, in my judgment, the continued prosperity of the country.
I have felt it to be an imperative obligation to withhold my constitutional sanction from two bills which had passed the two Houses of Congress, involving the principle of the internal improvement branch of the "American system" and conflicting in their provisions with the views here expressed.
This power, conferred upon the President by the Constitution, I have on three occasions during my administration of the executive department of the Government deemed it my duty to exercise, and on this last occasion of making to Congress an annual communication "of the state of the Union" it is not deemed inappropriate to review the principles and considerations which have governed my action. I deem this the more necessary because, after the lapse of nearly sixty years since the adoption of the Constitution, the propriety of the exercise of this undoubted constitutional power by the President has for the first time been drawn seriously in question by a portion of my fellow-citizens.
The Constitution provides that--
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States. If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their Journal and proceed to reconsider it.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States. If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their Journal and proceed to reconsider it.
The preservation of the Constitution from infraction is the President's highest duty. He is bound to discharge that duty at whatever hazard of incurring the displeasure of those who may differ with him in opinion. He is bound to discharge it as well by his obligations to the people who have clothed him with his exalted trust as by his oath of office, which he may not disregard. Nor are the obligations of the President in any degree lessened by the prevalence of views different from his own in one or both Houses of Congress. It is not alone hasty and inconsiderate legislation that he is required to check; but if at any time Congress shall, after apparently full deliberation, resolve on measures which he deems subversive of the Constitution or of the vital interests of the country, it is his solemn duty to stand in the breach and resist them. The President is bound to approve or disapprove every bill which passes Congress and is presented to him for his signature. The Constitution makes this his duty, and he can not escape it if he would. He has no election. In deciding upon any bill presented to him he must exercise his own best judgment. If he can not approve, the Constitution commands him to return the bill to the House in which it originated with his objections, and if he fail to do this within ten days (Sundays excepted) it shall become a law without his signature. Right or wrong, he may be overruled by a vote of two-thirds of each House, and in that event the bill becomes a law without his sanction. If his objections be not thus overruled, the subject is only postponed, and is referred to the States and the people for their consideration and decision. The President's power is negative merely, and not affirmative. He can enact no law. The only effect, therefore, of his withholding his approval of a bill passed by Congress is to suffer the existing laws to remain unchanged, and the delay occasioned is only that required to enable the States and the people to consider and act upon the subject in the election of public agents who will carry out their wishes and instructions. Any attempt to coerce the President to yield his sanction to measures which he can not approve would be a violation of the spirit of the Constitution, palpable and flagrant, and if successful would break down the independence of the executive department and make the President, elected by the people and clothed by the Constitution with power to defend their rights, the mere instrument of a majority of Congress. A surrender on his part of the powers with which the Constitution has invested his office would effect a practical alteration of that instrument without resorting to the prescribed process of amendment.
With the motives or considerations which may induce Congress to pass any bill the President can have nothing to do. He must presume them to be as pure as his own, and look only to the practical effect of their measures when compared with the Constitution or the public good.
But it has been urged by those who object to the exercise of this undoubted constitutional power that it assails the representative principle and the capacity of the people to govern themselves; that there is greater safety in a numerous representative body than in the single Executive created by the Constitution, and that the Executive veto is a "one-man power," despotic in its character. To expose the fallacy of this objection it is only necessary to consider the frame and true character of our system. Ours is not a consolidated empire, but a confederated union. The States before the adoption of the Constitution were coordinate, co-equal, and separate independent sovereignties, and by its adoption they did not lose that character. They clothed the Federal Government with certain powers and reserved all others, including their own sovereignty, to themselves. They guarded their own rights as States and the rights of the people by the very limitations which they incorporated into the Federal Constitution, whereby the different departments of the General Government were checks upon each other. That the majority should govern is a general principle controverted by none, but they must govern according to the Constitution, and not according to an undefined and unrestrained discretion, whereby they may oppress the minority.
The people of the United States are not blind to the fact that they may be temporarily misled, and that their representatives, legislative and executive, may be mistaken or influenced in their action by improper motives. They have therefore interposed between themselves and the laws which may be passed by their public agents various representations, such as assemblies, senates, and governors in their several States, a House of Representatives, a Senate, and a President of the United States. The people can by their own direct agency make no law, nor can the House of Representatives, immediately elected by them, nor can the Senate, nor can both together without the concurrence of the President or a vote of two-thirds of both Houses.
Happily for themselves, the people in framing our admirable system of government were conscious of the infirmities of their representatives, and in delegating to them the power of legislation they have fenced them around with checks to guard against the effects of hasty action, of error, of combination, and of possible corruption. Error, selfishness, and faction have often sought to rend asunder this web of checks and subject the Government to the control of fanatic and sinister influences, but these efforts have only satisfied the people of the wisdom of the checks which they have imposed and of the necessity of preserving them unimpaired.
The true theory of our system is not to govern by the acts or decrees of any one set of representatives. The Constitution interposes checks upon all branches of the Government, in order to give time for error to be corrected and delusion to pass away; but if the people settle down into a firm conviction different from that of their representatives they give effect to their opinions by changing their public servants. The checks which the people imposed on their public servants in the adoption of the Constitution are the best evidence of their capacity for self-government. They know that the men whom they elect to public stations are of like infirmities and passions with themselves, and not to be trusted without being restricted by coordinate authorities and constitutional limitations. Who that has witnessed the legislation of Congress for the last thirty years will say that he knows of no instance in which measures not demanded by the public good have been carried ? Who will deny that in the State governments, by combinations of individuals and sections, in derogation of the general interest, banks have been chartered, systems of internal improvements adopted, and debts entailed upon the people repressing their growth and impairing their energies for years to come?
After so much experience it can not be said that absolute unchecked power is safe in the hands of any one set of representatives, or that the capacity of the people for self-government, which is admitted in its broadest extent, is a conclusive argument to prove the prudence, wisdom, and integrity of their representatives.
The people, by the Constitution, have commanded the President, as much as they have commanded the legislative branch of the Government, to execute their will. They have said to him in the Constitution, which they require he shall take a solemn oath to support, that if Congress pass any bill which he can not approve "he shall return it to the House in which it originated with his objections." In withholding from it his approval and signature he is executing the will of the people, constitutionally expressed, as much as the Congress that passed it. No bill is presumed to be in accordance with the popular will until it shall have passed through all the branches of the Government required by the Constitution to make it a law. A bill which passes the House of Representatives may be rejected by the Senate, and so a bill passed by the Senate may be rejected by the House. In each case the respective Houses exercise the veto power on the other.
Congress, and each House of Congress, hold under the Constitution a check upon the President, and he, by the power of the qualified veto, a check upon Congress. When the President recommends measures to Congress, he avows in the most solemn form his opinions, gives his voice in their favor, and pledges himself in advance to approve them if passed by Congress. If he acts without due consideration, or has been influenced by improper or corrupt motives, or if from any other cause Congress, or either House of Congress, shall differ with him in opinion, they exercise their veto upon his recommendations and reject them; and there is no appeal from their decision but to the people at the ballot box. These are proper checks upon the Executive, wisely interposed by the Constitution. None will be found to object to them or to wish them removed. It is equally important that the constitutional checks of the Executive upon the legislative branch should be preserved.
If it be said that the Representatives in the popular branch of Congress are chosen directly by the people, it is answered, the people elect the President. If both Houses represent the States and the people, so does the President. The President represents in the executive department the whole people of the United States, as each member of the legislative department represents portions of them.
The doctrine of restriction upon legislative and executive power, while a well-settled public opinion is enabled within a reasonable time to accomplish its ends, has made our country what it is, and has opened to us a career of glory and happiness to which all other nations have been strangers.
In the exercise of the power of the veto the President is responsible not only to an enlightened public opinion, but to the people of the whole Union, who elected him, as the representatives in the legislative branches who differ with him in opinion are responsible to the people of particular States or districts, who compose their respective constituencies. To deny to the President the exercise of this power would be to repeal that provision of the Constitution which confers it upon him. To charge that its exercise unduly controls the legislative will is to complain of the Constitution itself.
If the Presidential veto be objected to upon the ground that it checks and thwarts the popular will, upon the same principle the equality of representation of the States in the Senate should be stricken out of the Constitution. The vote of a Senator from Delaware has equal weight in deciding upon the most important measures with the vote of a Senator from New York, and yet the one represents a State containing, according to the existing apportionment of Representatives in the House of Representatives, but one thirty-fourth part of the population of the other. By the constitutional composition of the Senate a majority of that body from the smaller States represent less than one-fourth of the people of the Union. There are thirty States, and under the existing apportionment of Representatives there are 230 Members in the House of Representatives. Sixteen of the smaller States are represented in that House by but 50 Members, and yet the Senators from these States constitute a majority of the Senate. So that the President may recommend a measure to Congress, and it may receive the sanction and approval of more than three-fourths of the House of Representatives and of all the Senators from the large States, containing more than three-fourths of the whole population of the United States, and yet the measure may be defeated by the votes of the Senators from the smaller States. None, it is presumed, can be found ready to change the organization of the Senate on this account, or to strike that body practically out of existence by requiring that its action shall be conformed to the will of the more numerous branch.
Upon the same principle that the veto of the President should be practically abolished the power of the Vice-President to give the casting vote upon an equal division of the Senate should be abolished also. The Vice-President exercises the veto power as effectually by rejecting a bill by his casting vote as the President does by refusing to approve and sign it. This power has been exercised by the Vice-President in a few instances, the most important of which was the rejection of the bill to recharter the Bank of the United States in 1811. It may happen that a bill may be passed by a large majority of the House of Representatives, and may be supported by the Senators from the larger States, and the Vice-President may reject it by giving his vote with the Senators from the smaller States; and yet none, it is presumed, are prepared to deny to him the exercise of this power under the Constitution.
But it is, in point of fact, untrue that an act passed by Congress is conclusive evidence that it is an emanation of the popular will. A majority of the whole number elected to each House of Congress constitutes a quorum, and a majority of that quorum is competent to pass laws. It might happen that a quorum of the House of Representatives, consisting of a single member more than half of the whole number elected to that House, might pass a bill by a majority of a single vote, and in that case a fraction more than one-fourth of the people of the United States would be represented by those who voted for it. It might happen that the same bill might be passed by a majority of one of a quorum of the Senate, composed of Senators from the fifteen smaller States and a single Senator from a sixteenth State; and if the Senators voting for it happened to be from the eight of the smallest of these States, it would be passed by the votes of Senators from States having but fourteen Representatives in the House of Representatives, and containing less than one-sixteenth of the whole population of the United States. This extreme case is stated to illustrate the fact that the mere passage of a bill by Congress is no conclusive evidence that those who passed it represent the majority of the people of the United States or truly reflect their will. If such an extreme case is not likely to happen, cases that approximate it are of constant occurrence. It is believed that not a single law has been passed since the adoption of the Constitution upon which all the members elected to both Houses have been present and voted. Many of the most important acts which have passed Congress have been carried by a close vote in thin Houses. Many instances of this might be given. Indeed, our experience proves that many of the most important acts of Congress are postponed to the last days, and often the last hours, of a session, when they are disposed of in haste, and by Houses but little exceeding the number necessary to form a quorum.
Besides, in most of the States the members of the House of Representatives are chosen by pluralities, and not by majorities of all the voters in their respective districts, and it may happen that a majority of that House may be returned by a less aggregate vote of the people than that received by the minority.
If the principle insisted on be sound, then the Constitution should be so changed that no bill shall become a law unless it is voted for by members representing in each House a majority of the whole people of the United States. We must remodel our whole system, strike down and abolish not only the salutary checks lodged in the executive branch, but must strike out and abolish those lodged in the Senate also, and thus practically invest the whole power of the Government in a majority of a single assembly--a majority uncontrolled and absolute, and which may become despotic. To conform to this doctrine of the right of majorities to rule, independent of the checks and limitations of the Constitution, we must revolutionize our whole system; we must destroy the constitutional compact by which the several States agreed to form a Federal Union and rush into consolidation, which must end in monarchy or despotism. No one advocates such a proposition, and yet the doctrine maintained, if carried out, must lead to this result.
One great object of the Constitution in conferring upon the President a qualified negative upon the legislation of Congress was to protect minorities from injustice and oppression by majorities. The equality of their representation in the Senate and the veto power of the President are the constitutional guaranties which the smaller States have that their rights will be respected. Without these guaranties all their interests would be at the mercy of majorities in Congress representing the larger States. To the smaller and weaker States, therefore, the preservation of this power and its exercise upon proper occasions demanding it is of vital importance. They ratified the Constitution and entered into the Union, securing to themselves an equal representation with the larger States in the Senate; and they agreed to be bound by all laws passed by Congress upon the express condition, and none other, that they should be approved by the President or passed, his objections to the contrary notwithstanding, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses. Upon this condition they have a right to insist as a part of the compact to which they gave their assent.
A bill might be passed by Congress against the will of the whole people of a particular State and against the votes of its Senators and all its Representatives. However prejudicial it might be to the interests of such State, it would be bound by it if the President shall approve it or it shall be passed by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses; but it has a right to demand that the President shall exercise his constitutional power and arrest it if his judgment is against it. If he surrender this power, or fail to exercise it in a case where he can not approve, it would make his formal approval a mere mockery, and would be itself a violation of the Constitution, and the dissenting State would become bound by a law which had not been passed according to the sanctions of the Constitution.
The objection to the exercise of the veto power is founded upon an idea respecting the popular will, which, if carried out, would annihilate State sovereignty and substitute for the present Federal Government a consolidation directed by a supposed numerical majority. A revolution of the Government would be silently effected and the States would be subjected to laws to which they had never given their constitutional consent.
The Supreme Court of the United States is invested with the power to declare, and has declared, acts of Congress passed with the concurrence of the Senate, the House of Representatives, and the approval of the President to be unconstitutional and void, and yet none, it is presumed, can be found who will be disposed to strip this highest judicial tribunal under the Constitution of this acknowledged power--a power necessary alike to its independence and the rights of individuals.
For the same reason that the Executive veto should, according to the doctrine maintained, be rendered nugatory, and be practically expunged from the Constitution, this power of the court should also be rendered nugatory and be expunged, because it restrains the legislative and Executive will, and because the exercise of such a power by the court may be regarded as being in conflict with the capacity of the people to govern themselves. Indeed, there is more reason for striking this power of the court from the Constitution than there is that of the qualified veto of the president, because the decision of the court is final, and can never be reversed even though both Houses of Congress and the President should be unanimous in opposition to it, whereas the veto of the President may be overruled by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress or by the people at the polls.
It is obvious that to preserve the system established by the Constitution each of the coordinate branches of the Government--the executive, legislative, and judicial--must be left in the exercise of its appropriate powers. If the executive or the judicial branch be deprived of powers conferred upon either as checks on the legislative, the preponderance of the latter will become disproportionate and absorbing and the others impotent for the accomplishment of the great objects for which they were established. Organized, as they are, by the Constitution, they work together harmoniously for the public good. If the Executive and the judiciary shall be deprived of the constitutional powers invested in them, and of their due proportions, the equilibrium of the system must be destroyed, and consolidation, with the most pernicious results, must ensue--a consolidation of unchecked, despotic power, exercised by majorities of the legislative branch.
The executive, legislative, and judicial each constitutes a separate coordinate department of the Government, and each is independent of the others. In the performance of their respective duties under the Constitution neither can in its legitimate action control the others. They each act upon their several responsibilities in their respective spheres. But if the doctrines now maintained be correct, the executive must become practically subordinate to the legislative, and the judiciary must become subordinate to both the legislative and the executive; and thus the whole power of the Government would be merged in a single department. Whenever, if ever, this shall occur, our glorious system of well-regulated self-government will crumble into ruins, to be succeeded, first by anarchy, and finally by monarchy or despotism. I am far from believing that this doctrine is the sentiment of the American people; and during the short period which remains in which it will be my duty to administer the executive department it will be my aim to maintain its independence and discharge its duties without infringing upon the powers or duties of either of the other departments of the Government.
The power of the Executive veto was exercised by the first and most illustrious of my predecessors and by four of his successors who preceded me in the administration of the Government, and it is believed in no instance prejudicially to the public interests. It has never been and there is but little danger that it ever can be abused. No President will ever desire unnecessarily to place his opinion in opposition to that of Congress. He must always exercise the power reluctantly, and only in cases where his convictions make it a matter of stern duty, which he can not escape. Indeed, there is more danger that the President, from the repugnance he must always feel to come in collision with Congress, may fail to exercise it in cases where the preservation of the Constitution from infraction, or the public good, may demand it than that he will ever exercise it unnecessarily or wantonly.
During the period I have administered the executive department of the Government great and important questions of public policy, foreign and domestic, have arisen, upon which it was my duty to act. It may, indeed, be truly said that my Administration has fallen upon eventful times. I have felt most sensibly the weight of the high responsibilities devolved upon me. With no other object than the public good, the enduring fame, and permanent prosperity of my country, I have pursued the convictions of my own best judgment. The impartial arbitrament of enlightened public opinion, present and future, will determine how far the public policy I have maintained and the measures I have from time to time recommended may have tended to advance or retard the public prosperity at home and to elevate or depress the estimate of our national character abroad.
Invoking the blessings of the Almighty upon your deliberations at your present important session, my ardent hope is that in a spirit of harmony and concord you may be guided to wise results, and such as may redound to the happiness, the honor, and the glory of our beloved country.
JAMES K. POLKCitation: James K. Polk: "Fourth Annual Message," December 5, 1848. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29489


text: Lauren Myers / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Categories: News A Message from the President Dr. Orlee Panitch, MD, FACEP Advocacy I believe advocacy to be one of the most important roles for the College. This is why I became active with ACEP over the past ten years, starting with the initiation of the ACA. We are the experts in acute unscheduled medical care. We must play a very active role in what that medical care looks like in the future, for both our patients and, for ourselves. To be effective we need to identify the areas that we believe to be critically important to our patients' health, i.e., access to mental health care, improving emergency department throughout and giving patients access to opiate addiction programs. Identification of these areas has already begun. At this very session we had a very robust public policy committee. The very active trial bar nearly succeeded in passing a bill that would have repealed the requirement that experts only spend up to 20% of their time as expert witnesses. That bill would have benefitted only the trial lawyers. Utilization would increase, patients would be misled by overzealous attorneys and physicians would be subject to frivolous suits. Maryland ACEP, in collaboration with MedChi and other provider stakeholders, proved that we can garner overwhelming bipartisan support to kill this bill. Leveraging from this accomplishment, Maryland ACEP should take the lead and be proactive to create coalitions with our peers to redefine what a medical expert actually is. We should also continue to pay close attention to Medicaid reimbursement. In Maryland, we enjoyed parity with Medicaid and Medicare several years ago. Over the past few years, the level has eroded, and where we were once at nearly 100% parity, we have diminished to 92% in 2018 with a slight bump up in 2019 to 93%. To be good advocates we must be at the table. If you are not at the table, you are on the menu. We need to be helping make decisions. The Maryland legislature should not be deciding what CME we need to do. We need to sit on key committees like the HSCRC, PDMP, MHA WorkGroups, etc. We are the experts regarding best practices! This is where our Practice Management Committee and our public policy committees can collaborate. We need to take the lead in making substance abuse treatment more accessible, promoting telemedicine and getting more comprehensive psychiatric care to the people. We have real work to do. We need to expand on the work we have already done with the media to make sure that we are the only authority in Maryland on emergency care. Promote an Accurate Understanding of the Value and Practice of Emergency Medicine in Maryland The second initiative ties in closely to the first. This is an election year. The entire legislature, the county governments and the governorship are all up for change. We will have many new legislators that do not know us so, we need to teach them. We need to build a library so we no longer shudder when we hear reports that are clearly inaccurate. We need to have our voice heard in social media forums. To our younger members, here is your initiative. We desperately need your help here. Lastly, we need to adopt feasible goals, schedule and content management plan for EPIC publication. Enhance Membership Value and Engagement Everyone needs to get something out of their participation with ACEP. This isn't a charity. Participation is not mandatory. For people to give up their time to get involved, there needs to be a value proposition. We need to give better feedback to our members on our numerous project. We need to effectively let members know what projects are out there and what their contributions are. We need benefits that include wellness activities and exclusive career enhancement opportunities. We do a great job of taking care of patients; we need to take better care of ourselves. Physician wellness is critically important to maintain our practices and, to avoid burnout. We are much stronger when we represent the wonderful diversity we represent; everyone needs a voice. We need to develop a strategy for engaging and recruiting newly graduated emergency medicine physicians. They [you] are the future; that voice should be the loudest! We need to leverage social media to share membership advantages and promote dialogue on emergency medicine news and themes. I'm optimistic. The practice of medicine is changing daily and we have an opportunity to mold it. Please take a part in this process; take an active role in ACEP. Join committees, help us communicate … help us advocate. Previous Article MD ACEP Executive Board 2018-2019 Next Article Legislative Reception 2019 Print 2487

subset: commoncrawl


text:
LTI Resource Handler Endpoints (Follow-Up)
LTI Resource Handler Endpoints (Follow-Up)
Thank you Stephen for your answer. I just had a few follow-up questions and I apparently can't reply to my own post, so I copied/pasted the last post and your response here.
So I assume they would then author a link with TC-wide credentials instead of authoring a link using a predefined resource type. In that case, it seems like I wouldn't want to define a Rsource Type in the Tool Proxy for assignments, which might be confusing for the teacher. Does that sound right or is there some requirement for me to define a Resource Type for assignments even though I expect the teacher to create a link independently of the Resource Types defined in the Tool Proxy?
If I go this route, is there any reason I should prefer a custom parameter over a route parameter since the teacher will create a link for each assignment anyways? Also, I don't see any mention of a "Content-Item Selection Request", what is that and where would I be able to read more about it? Is it similar to the "basic_lti_link descriptor" described in section 7.1 of the specs?
How can a user access a particular resource with LTI v2.0? With Resource Handlers, we have to define a static endpoint for accessing a resource type when creating the Tool Proxy. For example, let's say my platform has a resource for assignments and that I define a Resource Handler for assignments with the "path"
lti/resources/assignments. How would the user then create a link to a particular assignment?
Using my platform's style, I would probably create a link like
/lti/resources/assignments/:assignmentCode, where
:assignmentCodewould be replaced with a unique ID for the assignment the user wants to use. This doesn't appear to be possible, though. I also cannot specify a custom parameter to be used with the Route Handler because the TC wouldn't understand what an "assignment code" is or what assignment code to use? I can't use a constant value, either, because that would lead to the same problem.
Furthermore, if I just link to a list of assignments and I'm using the Results service, a single Result object will be created, but the student could take multiple assignments. From my understanding, I cannot tell the TC to create more Result objects.
Figure 10.9 in Section 10.2 of the LTI v2.0 Implementation Guide provides an interesting start of an example of how this might be accomplished by defining a custom parameter, but it doesn't define the value to use with the custom variable. The relevant code is duplicated below:
"parameter": [
"name": "assessment_id"
My normal expectation would be to use a custom parameter to indicate the assignment code in a specific resource link. Such custom parameters would not be part of the message declaration in the Tool Proxy, but be added for individual resource links when they are created. Using the Content-Item Selection Request message makes this a seamless process for the instructor as the custom parameter can be passed back to the Tool Consumer when the link is created.


text:
Instacart Bags $2.3M to Become the Amazon of Groceries
Instacart has raised $2.3 million from Canaan Partners and Khosla Ventures to be the Amazon.com of grocery delivery.
The seed financing comes only a month after Instacart launched in the San Francisco Bay Area. The company, which came through start-up incubator Y Combinator, said it has already served thousands of customers in the Bay Area and will use the money to expand to six additional cities.
Founded by former Amazon.com Inc. employee Apoorva Mehta, Instacart wants to eliminate the trip to the grocery store altogether by using a team of smartphone-equipped drivers who get paid to shop and deliver goods on a customer's behalf.


text:
Specialist dogs make finds in the search for teenage girl who disappeared 25 years ago
* Forensic scientists have been called in to examine items found by specially-trained dogs at a former house of a teenager who was murdered 25 years ago.
Fresh searches of a property in Northern Ireland where Caroline Graham lived with her boyfriend when she disappeared in 1989 are continuing.
The specially trained dogs that can identify traces of human remains were brought into the police hunt for the body of the 19-year-old on Monday.
Caroline had been for a night out to The Coach nightclub in Banbridge with a girlfriend.
She stayed part of the night with her friend in a hostel in Portadown but was gone in the morning. The search was launched at the property after new information about the teenager's disappearance was received.
Police said that the property's current owner is not involved in the probe.
Detectives from the serious crime branch investigating the murder called in specialist forensic scientists to examine items in a house at Hanover Street in Portadown where Caroline had lived.
A PSNI spokeswoman said yesterday: "The house was yesterday subjected to a detailed examination by two PSNI victim recovery dogs. As a result of indications by the dogs, forensic scientists have been asked to examine certain items.
"The search continued today and is expected to run into a third day. Police are repeating their appeal for anyone with information about 19-year-old Caroline, her murder or where her remains are buried."
It is understood both dogs gave indications separately and the items are not body parts.
The detective in charge of the murder probe, Detective Chief Inspector Peter Montgomery, on Monday said he has information that suggests Caroline returned to Hanover Street to get clothes.
"I believe she was murdered some time later and that her remains are somewhere in Portadown," Mr Montgomery said.
He said he also believed that more than one person knows where she is buried, adding: "We need them to come forward and tell us exactly what they know.
"Whoever is responsible for Caroline's murder may have spoken to people and they may know exactly what has happened to Caroline.
"I need to speak to anyone who saw Caroline at The Coach with her friend that night. Did you pick up Caroline and her friend and drop them off in Portadown?"
In 1989 Caroline Graham (19) vanished. At the time she was living in Portadown with her boyfriend at Hanover Street. In 2012 police carried out extensive searches near Hanover Street, in the Carleton Street area, but nothing of significance was found. On Monday a new search of a house was launched after police received fresh information. Anyone with information is asked to contact detectives on 028 9070 0727 or 075 8522 8283.
Belfast Telegraph


text:
lose one's grip
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Encyclopedia.
lose (someone's or something's) grip
1. To no longer have the ability to control someone or something. He must be losing his grip on his followers if they're beginning to rebel against him. I think this cold is finally losing its grip on me, thank goodness. The funeral service was so sad that I just lost my grip and bawled.
2. To lose certain skills or abilities. I must be losing my grip—can you remind me how to use this computer program again?
lose one's grip
Also lose it.
1. Fail to maintain control or one's ability to function, as in Ted wasn't running things the way he used to, and his boss thought he might be losing his grip , or I thought I was losing it when I couldn't remember the words to that old song. The first term dates from the mid-1800s, the slangy variant from the mid-1900s.
2. Fail to keep one's composure, as in When Billy broke the window, Dad just lost his grip and let him have it, or I just can't deal with this many visitors-I must be losing it. [Slang; first half of 1900s] Also see lose one's temper.


text:
New Delhi: Indian automobile manufacturer aruti Suzuki India's mid-size sedan Ciaz will now be sold only through the company's premium dealership network NEXA channel from April 1, 2017, sources at the automaker confirmed.
Maruti Suzuki will also be introducing a new Nexa blue colour on its Ciaz.
Maruti Suzuki Ciaz, which compete with the likes of Honda City, was first launched in July 2014 and the company has always positioned the car as a premium sedan. So, this move was expected sooner or later.
Maruti Suzuki Ciaz has sold 59,530 units during April 2016 - February 2017, Honda City which sold 51,713 units during the same period.
This will also be the fourth product, of the automaker, to be sold through the NEXA dealership network after S-Cross, Baleno and Ignis. There are about 250 Nexa outlets and expects a sales of over 1.50 lakh units through its NEXA Network.
RS Kalsi Executive director (Marketing & Sales), Maruti Suzuki India, said, "currently NEXA dealership contribute to 12% of over company's overall sales and going forward with products like Maruti Suzuki Ignis and Ciaz the company expects at least 15% contribution from NEXA network of total sales."
Ciaz is a market leader in the midsize sedan segment and has registered 22% growth in sales at around 60,000 units during April-February (2016-17). The Ciaz diesel smart hybrid is one of the most fuel efficient diesel cars and by volume over 60% of its total sales come from smart hybrid, informed Kalsi.
Kalsi also said the existing customers of Ciaz will get the same experience of Nexa customers from now on not only on updates and offers, but also service experiences at workshops.


text:
save the day/situation
save the day
To manage to produce a good result or make something successful when failure or misfortune seem imminent. Facing elimination from the playoffs, the team's star quarterback threw an incredible pass for a last-minute touchdown and saved the day. I thought we'd have to cancel the birthday party, but John saved the day by dressing up as a clown and entertaining Tommy and his friends.
save the day
to produce a good result when a bad result was expected. The team was expected to lose, but Sally made three points and saved the day. Your excellent speech calmed the crowd and saved the day.
save the day
Prevent a misfortune, as in They had forgotten the knife to cut the wedding cake, but Elizabeth arrived with one and saved the day .
save the day
COMMON If someone or something saves the day in a situation which seems likely to fail, they manage to make it successful. Suddenly there were ten deer charging straight towards me, but the shooting practice drilled into me in the school training corps saved the day. After a disastrous first night for the show, it was Biggs who stepped in to save the day.
save the day (or situation)find or provide a solution to a difficulty or disaster.
1990 Richard Critchfield Among the British When the postwar social fabric started to tear, amid a stagnant economy and global decline…Edward Heath…was supposed to save the day. He failed to deliver.


text: Embroidery hoops, frames, and rods are essential tools of hand embroidery—they hold your fabric in place so you can create something beautiful! We have a wide selection of needlepoint scroll frames and hoops to choose from: EZ Stitch scroll frames and rods; spring tension and wooden embroidery hoops; and Q-Snap frames and other products to stabilize your fabric. Keep your embroidery in its place with the right frame or hoop!


text:
History Tripos and your career
The history tripos at Cambridge is highly focused in its objectives. It will equip you with a broad range of historical knowledge and understanding. It will teach you to evaluate critically the significance and usefulness of primary and secondary material. It aims to instil in you the confidence to undertake self-directed learning: to define your own questions and set your own goals. And it emphasises the importance of assembling, organising and presenting your ideas clearly and coherently. Studying history will provide you with a multifaceted insight into human experience and help you to make sense of a complex, globalising world.
Any historian with a good degree from Cambridge will have acquired a range of skills attractive to employers: the ability to work independently, to evaluate the significance of evidence, to discriminate, and to present arguments clearly and persuasively. Our graduates have no difficulty in securing rewarding jobs in a wide variety of occupations in business and finance, in law and public administration, in journalism and broadcasting, in teaching at a number of levels, and in research-based careers of various kinds.
History graduates go into a very wide range of professions. The most popular of these are currently law, business and finance, national and local government, non-governmental organisations (both national and international), journalism and publishing, teaching, library and museum work, and research-based careers of all kinds.
Jobs directly related to your degree include:
- Heritage manager
- Historic buildings inspector or conservation officer
- Museum education officer
- Museum or gallery curator
- Museum or gallery exhibitions officer
- Secondary school teacher
Jobs where your degree would be useful include:
- Academic librarian
- Archaeologist
- Archivist
- Broadcast journalist
- Civil Service administrator
- Editorial assistant
- Information officer
- PPC specialist
- Politician's assistant
- Solicitor


text:
Will someone pull the dirty ol' Sheriff away from Paris? For Christ's sake...
I can barely stand to watch CNN news-harpy Nancy Grace as the bizzatch almost always looks like she's about to bite the head off someone's baby. But as I was flippin' channels the other night, I saw Grace doing yet another hard-hitting piece on socialite/porn princess Paris Hilton's legal troubles.And there on the boob tube with her was Sheriff Bozo himself, Joe Arpaio, offering to take Hilton off the hands of the L.A.County Sheriff's Dept. so she could serve the full 45 days of her sentence on a probation violation, instead of the 20-something she'll do when her "good behavior" time is factored into the equation. Seems Arpaio wants to make the female side of his Tent City into a regular ShawSKANK Redemption.
Of course, this is yet another lame publicity stunt aimed at garnering pub for the loony lawman, like deputizing Spider-Man, which he did recently, or his retarded "Inmate Idle" competition, which some dumbass at our sister paper in L.A. wrote up as if it were a boon to mankind. It's all bread and circuses to get the alter kocker's mug on camera and make people forget about his abuses of power, the people who die in his custody, and the multi-million dollar awards that Maricopa County has to shell out whenever the MCSO loses a lawsuit. This Paris Hilton thing though is especially obvious and patently idiotic. Of course, Arpaio has absolutely NOTHING to do with this situation, which involves a violation of Paris' parole for drinking and driving in L.A. County. Joe deserves to be mocked just for floating the imbecilic idea. But instead he ends up nabbing beaucoup pub, with the stupid fucks in the Fourth Estate falling for it, like they seem to do almost every time.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Grace, for instance, took Arpaio completely seriously, and Arpaio stated he was just trying to "help another sheriff." But when he was interviewed by the PHX's Channel 3 News regarding his buffoonish "offer" of assistance to L.A., he was more straightforward as to his intentions.
"I'd love to have her in here," enthused Joe, practically salivating at the prospect. "It's just another celebrity. Not that I'm a publicity hound. But I imagine if I had her here in these tents, there'd be paparazzi here from all over the world seeing how she could survive it."
Sounds like Arpaio wants to spend a night in Paris himself, or at least have her serve on the chain gang in his back yard. (But hey, who wouldn't?)
As an aside, another annoying thing about the Grace show: the roll call they did of people killed by drunk drivers, with pics of the victims. Last time I checked, Hilton didn't kill anyone. She blew .08 when she was first popped back in 2006, and she violated her parole by driving with a suspended license this past February. Sorry, but .08 is nothing, no matter what the law states. New Times scribe Bruce Rushton pointed this out in his 2004 piece "How to drink and drive and get away with it," in which he cites "three academic studies" that have shown .08 drivers are "less dangerous than someone who talks on a cell phone while driving." So Grace's hysteria over drunk driving fatalities is as cynical as leading her show with Paris Hilton, or rolling out Nickel Bag Joe to reiterate his moronic pitch to make Paris his bitch.


text:
The Lord Mayor
Councillor Peter Black and Mrs Angela Black.
Peter was born in 1960 in Clatterbridge Hospital and lived in Bebington, Wirral for the first 18 years of his life. He is the eldest of four children.
He attended Wirral Grammar School for Boys before moving to Swansea in 1978 where he studied at Swansea University, graduating in English and History in 1981. Peter worked briefly at the former West Glamorgan County Council as a research assistant in the Social Service Department before taking up a permanent position at Swansea Land Registry in 1983.
He was elected for the Cwmbwrla Ward of Swansea City Council as the only Liberal member of that council in 1984, shortly before marrying his first wife, Patricia Hopkin. They divorced in 1994. Peter met Angela, who was working for S4C at the time, at a Liberal Democrats Conference in 1997 and they married in July 2000.
Peter is a former Leader of the Opposition on the City and County of Swansea and has also served as the Chair of the Welsh Liberal Democrats. In 1999, he was elected as a Welsh Liberal Democrat member of the nascent Welsh Assembly, as a list member for South Wales West. A former Deputy Minister for local government in the 2000-03 Labour / Welsh Liberal Democrat coalition administration, he chaired the Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills Committee in the second Assembly and then sat on the Communities, Equality and Local Government Committee and the Finance Committee. He was also a member of the Assembly Commission with responsibility for ICT and Sustainability.
In November 2011 he took the lead alongside Welsh Liberal Democrats Leader, Kirsty Williams in negotiating an agreement with Labour on the Welsh Government's budget. As a result, the Government introduced a Pupil Deprivation Grant, guaranteeing Welsh schools an extra £450 for each pupil in receipt of free school meals.
In 2013 he led for the Liberal Democrats on the negotiations for the Assembly budget alongside Plaid Cymru, securing a £100 million package including a doubling of the Pupil Deprivation Grant to £918 per pupil, a £50m intermediate health fund, £9.5m for investment in innovation in the health service and £5.5m for supporting people budgets.
He also steered the Welsh Assembly's first private member's bill to the statute book under its new powers. The Mobile Homes (Wales) Act 2013 received Royal Assent in November 2013, introducing a modern licensing regime for Park Homes sites in Wales. On 10 December 2013 he was selected as the ITV Wales Yearbook Assembly Member of the year. In May 2016 Peter lost his Welsh Assembly seat in the Welsh General Election.
He was appointed Commander of the British Empire in the 2017 Queen's Birthday Honours. He has just published his first novel.
Angela was born in Cwmbran in 1961. She is a graduate of Aberystwyth University and has worked for S4C, Swansea Housing Association, Swansea Land Registry and Swansea Council. She is currently employed as a translator by Swansea University.
Lord Mayor's Charity Fund
Peter and Angela have chosen to support Unity in Diversity, Crisis and Llys Nini as their charities for 2019/2020.


text:
Piercy, Thomas G., Johnson, Harry W.
An experimental investigation was conducted at Mach number 2.93 to determine performance characteristics of half of a 60 degree conical-spike inlet mounted on a flat plate. Initial boundary layer was removed upstream of the inlet by a ram-type scoop of variable height. The inlet was operated in the presence of both turbulent and laminar boundary layers. With removal of the initial boundary layer, total pressure recoveries of 51.5 and 45.8 percent were obtained for the turbulent and laminar boundary layers, respectively. Allowing all the initial boundary layer to enter the inlet reduced the pressure recovery to approximately 40 percent for both cases. Inlet pressure recoveries with the laminar boundary layer were generally lower than those obtained with the turbulent boundary layer because of the reduced scoop-mass-flow capture for the laminar boundary layer.
An Adobe Acrobat (PDF) file of the entire report:


text:
Tender tofu cooked in an aromatic and spicy sauce, accompanied by minced meat, Mapo tofu is one of the most popular ways to prepare tofu in China.
Tofu (aka Doufu, Bean curd) is one of my favourite ingredients. As a very healthy source of protein, it can be prepared in so many scrumptious ways: in salads, stir-fries, stews, soups, etc. It never fails to please my palate. Once I asked a group of non-Chinese friends who had experience of real Chinese food: "What is your favourite tofu dish?" They all answered : "Mapo tofu!" It didn't surprise me at all. Today I'd like to show you how to cook this classic dish the authentic way (without any western adaptation).
Mapo tofu (麻婆豆腐) is named after its inventor Mapo (means pockmarked elderly lady) who ran a small restaurant over a century ago in Chengdu, the capital of Sichuan province. It's a signature dish of Sichuan cuisine, presenting its characteristic flavour: Mala, namely numbing and spicy. Over recent years, Mapo tofu started appearing on the menus of oversea Chinese restaurants. Unfortunately, I'm disappointed most of the time (many Chinese living aboard have similar complaints). What is often served are just plates of spicy tofu. In terms of the general flavour, the level of hotness and the texture, such dishes have little to do with what you should expect from Mapo tofu.
In fact, like many Chinese dishes, Mapo tofu is much simpler to prepare than it seems to be. Get the right ingredients and follow the instructions, then you will be on the way to success. For a better understanding of Mapo tofu, five Chinese characters are used to describe the key features of this dish:
- 麻 (numbing): This particular taste comes from Sichuan peppercorn. Use freshly ground Sichuan pepper if possible (read related post here).
- 辣 (spicy): Both of Sichuan chilli bean paste (aka spicy Doubanjiang) and chilli powder contribute to the spiciness. The latter is also used to enhance the reddish colour of the dish. Different brands of Sichuan chilli bean paste may vary in saltiness, hotness and texture. Adjust the volume accordingly. I normally use Pixian Douban (郫县豆瓣), a well-known variety, which needs to be coarsely chopped prior to cooking.
- 香 (aromatic): Apart from Sichuan chilli bean paste which makes the dish flavoursome, fermented black beans (aka black beans) also provides a particular aroma. Remember to rinse and chop them.
- 烫 (physically hot): Mapo tofu needs to be served hot for the best taste. However, since tofu holds heat very well, I recommend that you break the tofu cubes apart with chopsticks before putting into your mouth.
- 嫩 (tender): It's better to use Chinese soft tofu (嫩豆腐) for tender texture. The tofu I bought from Chinese shops in England is marked as "medium firm". I found it great for this dish (Japanese-style silken tofu is not recommended). Make sure you blanch the tofu cubes in salty water first. This is to make the cubes less breakable. And you need to be gentle when handling them throughout the cooking process.
In an authentic version of Mapo tofu, beef or pork mince are used to enhance the flavour. If you wish, skip it or replace it with vegetarian ingredients, such as shiitake mushroom or soybeans. I will write a separate post in the future on how to convert this classic dish to a vegetarian-friendly version.
In terms of the level of hotness and numbing sensation that Sichuan pepper provides, my Mapo tofu recipe is not adapted for non-Sichuanese tastes. You might find it too tangy if you are not accustomed to it. Please feel free to alter the amount of relevant ingredients. You may also add a little sugar to reduce the spiciness as well as the saltiness.
Tender tofu cooked in an aromatic and spicy sauce, accompanied by minced meat, Mapo tofu is one of the most popular ways to prepare tofu in China.
- 600g / 21oz, medium firm tofu
- 1/2 teaspoon salt
- 2 tablespoons vegetable oil
- 1 teaspoon ginger, minced
- 100g / 3.5oz minced meat (beef or pork)
- 1 teaspoon Shaoxing rice wine
- 2 tablespoons Sichuan chilli bean paste (see note 1)
- 1 tablespoon fermented black beans (aka black beans), rinsed and chopped
- 1 tablespoon chilli powder (or to taste)
- 4 cloves garlic, crushed
- 500ml / 2 cups unsalted stock or water
- 2 tablespoons corn starch, mixed with 3 tablespoons water
- 1 stalk spring onion, chopped
- 1/2 teaspoon freshly ground Sichuan pepper (or to taste)
- Cut the tofu into 2.5cm / 1inch cubes. Gently slide the cubes into a pot filled with cold water. Add the salt. Bring the water to a boil then simmer for a further 2-3 minute. Drain the tofu in a colander. Set aside.
- Heat up the oil in a wok (or a deep frying pan), put in ginger then leave to sizzle for 10 seconds. Add minced meat and rice wine. Stir fry until the meat becomes pale.
- Stir in Sichuan chilli bean paste, fermented black beans, chilli powder and garlic. Fry until fragrant.
- Pour in stock/water then bring to a boil. Gently slide in drained tofu. Leave to boil (uncovered) until the volume of the liquid reduces by one third.
- Pour half of the starch & water mixture into the wok (stir well beforehand). Leave to boil for 10 seconds or so. Add the other half. Remove the wok from the heat when the sauce is thickened.
- Sprinkle with spring onion and Sichuan pepper. Serve it hot with plain rice.
1. Different brands of Sichuan chilli bean paste (aka spicy Doubanjiang) may vary in saltiness, hotness and texture. Adjust the volume accordingly. Best to use Pixian Douban, a well-known variety, which needs to be roughly chopped prior to cooking.
2. In terms of the level of hotness and numbing sensation, this recipe is not adapted for non-Sichuanese tastes. You might find it too tangy if you are not accustomed to it. Please feel free to alter the amount of relevant ingredients. You may also add a little sugar to reduce the spiciness as well as the saltiness.
Hope you find this recipe helpful. If you like Sichuan cuisine as much as I do, my blog is the right resource to follow. Stay tuned by subscribing to my blog (in the sidebar) or follow me on Facebook, Instagram or Pinterest.
Have a yummy day!


text:
Review by: Christopher Haskell
June 22, 2010
Take all the romantic comedies you have ever seen and give them a whimsical Disney-like essence and you will get "When In Rome". Much like this year's "Leap Year", they fail to have any sort of "wow" factor. Instead, they become drivel with "name" actors/actresses thrown into the molds, bringing no sort of character out of them. Amy Adams; great actress. "Leap Year" = bad! Kristen Bell; superb actress. "When In Rome" = not even close to good.
What do you expect when the plot does not make a lick of sense and the characters seem like adolescents? This would have played out better if the whole wedding portion had been dropped and the characters were teenagers… then I may have believed it (hey, if Michael Cera can pull off 16 years old in "Youth In Revolt", these guys could pull off teens as well). Why this film was aimed at being fun for adults I will never understand. I found myself drawn to the extreme side characters, in particular, Josh Duhamel's friend in the film, Bobby Moynihan, who I later discovered is from the current roster of Saturday Night Live. His character was honestly the only funny part in the dismal landscape of the film. His poker table antics and witty retorts to Duhamel's character were the only shining light.
Cameos from the "Napoleon Dynamite" pairing of Jon Heder and his trusty friend Efron "Pedro" Ramirez was much appreciated and Danny DeVito as one of the love-drunk lust zombies was somewhat unexpected. The rest of the cast falls off the map (including Don Johnson's appearance as the father). I am unsure of this film down to its very core, including the marketing, with the horrible trailer aimed at killing anything sexy about Kristen Bell's voice. The film lacks heart. At times, the script feels thrown together and lackluster. Nothing about this film inclines for a second viewing. Kristen Bell's beauty remains the only positive thing coming out of this film.
January 29, 2010
Mark Steven Johnson
Mark Steven Johnson
David Diamond
David Weiss
Touchstone Pictures
$28 million
(for some suggestive content)
91 minutes


text:
Striding to the podium inside the Washington Convention Centre, President Barack Obama did his very best to avoid any sense that he felt intimidated by entering what was, in political terms, the lion's den.
There was tepid applause and a couple of isolated boos from the crowd of almost 10,000 members of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, better known as Aipac, the premier and most hardline mainstream group in the powerful pro-Israel lobby in the United States.
The reception was one of intense scepticism. A vast majority of delegates felt that Mr Obama had a need to explain himself after his comments that a Middle East peace deal should be based on Israel's 1967 border incorporating agreed land swaps with the Palestinians.
But if they thought that the American president was going to take back his words in Thursday's speech at the State Department's Foggy Bottom headquarters, then they were sorely mistaken.
Wagging his finger repeatedly, Mr Obama adopted the manner of a schoolmaster frustrated that his pupils were too dim or inattentive to pay attention to what he had said.
Rather than even acknowledge the artlessness of his 1967 comments, or the fact that he had not prepared the Israeli Government for what he was about to say, his tone was of the "I'm sorry you feel that way" variety of non-apology.
In the Oval Office on Friday, Mr Obama did little to disguise his irritation with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli premier, for turning to him to deliver an impassioned tutorial on Israel's history in the full glare of the cameras.
"It's the ancient nation of Israel," the Likud leader told Mr Obama. "We've been around for almost 4,000 years. We have experienced struggle and suffering like no other people. We've gone through expulsions and pogroms and massacres and the murder of millions."
It was an unprecedented rebuke of an American president by an Israeli premier. Menachem Begin is said to have delivered similar monologues to President Jimmy Carter, but never in public.
Even 48 hours later, it was clear at the Aipac conference that Mr Obama, who is remarkably thin-skinned for a top-flight American politician and has never been lacking in self-regard, was still smarting.
When loud applause greeted Mr Obama's mention of Mr Netanyahu's name, the president's eyes narrowed and he chewed his lip. He was distinctly unamused.
He went on to repeat, to stony silence, exactly what he had said at Foggy Bottom in an address that the White House anticipated would be heralded around the world for its embrace of people power in the "Arab Spring" uprisings in the Middle East.
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognised borders are established for both states," he said. "The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state."
He did, however, spell out what he had failed to do in his Foggy Bottom speech. He said that a settlement would result in "a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967", the eve of the Six-Day War in which Israel pushed back the forces of Egypt, Syria and Jordan and occupied the West Bank and Gaza.
There was even an acknowledgement that a deal would have to take account of "the new demographic realities on the ground" – code for Israeli settlements in east Jerusalem and the West Bank, beyond the 1967 lines.
Naturally, in the Aipac speech he uttered the usual lines about the "unbreakable" bonds between the US and Israel, America's "unshakeable" opposition to attempts to chip away at Israel's legitimacy and the "ironclad" US commitment to the security of the Jewish state.
He dropped the names of his prominent Jewish advisers, Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod (though both have now departed the White House – Mr Emanuel to be Chicago mayor and Mr Axelrod to direct the 2012 re-election campaign) and the new Democratic party chairman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz.
But it was notable that Mr Obama neglected to reject, just as he had at Foggy Bottom, the Palestinian demand for a "right of return".
While the words of the Aipac speech were an improvement for Israelis on those of three days earlier, the question hanging in the air was why they could not have been uttered to a world audience rather than, belatedly, to Israeli's staunchest backers.
Although Mr Obama insisted in his Aipac speech that he "wasn't surprised" by the furore created by his decision to become the first American president publicly to state that the 1967 lines should be the starting point in talks, there is every indication that the White House was blindsided.
American policy on the Israeli-Palestinian issue has been in turmoil in recent weeks, with George Mitchell, Mr Obama's Middle East envoy, resigning over the White House's decision not to outline a detailed peace plan.
The man who was seen to have prevailed over Mr Mitchell was Dennis Ross, the long-time Middle East adviser to Republican and Democratic administrations, who is Jewish and viewed by Israel as its number one friend at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
In seeking a balance between the Mitchell and Ross factions within his own administration, however, Mr Obama failed to take full account of the situation Israel finds itself in.
Although his already healthy self-confidence has been boosted by the death of Osama bin Laden, Israel finds itself facing turmoil across the Arab world, a Palestinian bid for the United Nations to recognise statehood in September and a Palestinian government in which Fatah and Hamas could be united.
In this environment, the prospect of serious peace negotiations is as dim as ever, but Mr Obama appeared to feel that his own personality, political skills and success against the al-Qaeda leader would be enough to resolve what President Harry Truman once described as "the 100-year headache". Personal relations between Mr Obama and Mr Netanyahu have always been frosty and White House advisers had been briefing for months that they did not think the Israeli premier would be prepared to take risks for peace.
Some Israelis believe that Mr Obama hoped his words would destabilise Mr Netanyahu's coalition government and bring in Tzipi Livni, the Kadima leader and head of the Israeli opposition, who is viewed in Washington as more flexible and realistic.
The result of the past few days, however, may well be that real Israeli-Palestinian talks have been made more elusive. Mr Netanyahu took a considerable risk in speaking so bluntly to an American head of state. The response from the staunchly pro-Israel American commentator Jeffrey Goldberg was a blog post headlined: "Dear Mr Netanyahu, Please Don't Speak to My President That Way".
But Mr Netanyahu's coalition appears to be solid at the moment and he could emerge stronger from his spat with Mr Obama.
Republican presidential candidates were quick to jump on Mr Obama with over-heated statements, some of which misrepresented his words, either wilfully or ignorantly, by suggesting he was stating that the 1967 borders should be the endpoint of talks. Mitt Romney, viewed by many as the Republican front runner, accused Mr Obama of "throwing Israel under the bus".
Republicans, who are straining to assemble a convincing field of candidates to challenge Mr Obama, will struggle to portray him as weak on foreign policy after bin Laden's demise.
But Mr Obama does remain vulnerable on whether he stands up for American interests abroad following his apologies for past US conduct. Most Americans view Israel as an ally that should be backed to the hilt. If the perception sticks that Mr Obama is prepared to undermine Israeli security, it could be very damaging.
In 2008, 78 per cent of Jewish voters chose Mr Obama over Senator John McCain. That level of support could well ebb between now and 2012. More seriously, there are signs that donations from wealthy Jews, which played a key role in Mr Obama's stratospheric fundraising totals in 2008, will fall off.
Ed Koch, the former New York mayor and a prominent Democrat and Obama donor in 2008, condemned the President for having "sought to reduce Israel's negotiation power", echoing what many other prominent Jewish Democrats have said.
Mr Obama has always made clear that he wants to be not merely an ordinary American president but one to rival Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and John F Kennedy.
In spelling out to Israel, as he did at Aipac, what he sees as "the facts we all must confront", no one could accuse him of timidity. He may well, however, have made his own aim of being the great American peacemaker in the Middle East much more difficult to achieve.


text:
MaxiFlex 34-874 Gloves
MaxiFlex® Ultimate™
Designed and developed as a breathable glove, MaxiFlex® Ultimate™ has become the benchmark for precision handling in dry environments. Available in 8 sizes and 4 dip lines MaxiFlex® Ultimate™ offers you 48 gloves to get that perfect fit for the job you do.
Reviews (0)
Write a review
Note: HTML is not translated!
Bad Good


text:
This is the second part of a short series from a recent trip to Moldova my friends from PA made. Since many friends and family from home would love the opportunity to do the same, I'm sharing our adventures with you so you can experience it as well. So pack your bags, your coming to Moldova (without leaving home)! Drum bun (have a good road)!
After 2 days in the village, you make your way back to your friends apartment in the second largest city in Moldova. She lives there with her host family.
You get a little glimpse of what it's like to live in a small space with people who speak a different language and have a different culture. You get a big taste of all the foods and strong homemade beverages.
You take a tour of the city and see all the sights there is to see…
You visit your friends primary partner organization where they give you cookies and tea, practice their English with you and share ideas about community development.
You visit a new store that sells local handmade goods by disabled individuals and children from a social center in the community.
There are new-to-you pastries of various shapes, sizes, and flavors that intrigue your taste buds that you share with your friends…
You discover how overwhelming the local indoor/outdoor market can be. Anything can be found from fresh locally grown foods to second hand clothing.
You meet one of the girls your friend regularly meets with to practice her English conversation… and of course taking a selfie is necessary.
You visit supermarkets and little neighborhood stores called magazines. You listen to your friend speak Romanian even with people who speak Russian as you try to comprehend what's going on around you. Things seem random and yet normal all at the same time.
Next stop: Chisinau, the capital city! Stay tuned for more adventures in Moldova as you explore the capital city, visit an underground wine cellar and one of Moldova's most popular places to visit… part 3 coming soon!
Photos by: Hannah Ingram
(which are so fun to see since they're through a new set of eyes and new perspective!)