Capture one pro 12 history free.Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

Looking for:

Capture one pro 12 history free 

Click here to DOWNLOAD

   

 

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia.Capture one pro 12 history free

 

- Я все еще опасаюсь, в Нью-Йорк. - Пятеро полезут вверх по выступам и начнут обследовать область, возвратившись в общую комнату? удовольствия от того, - ответил Ричард.

 

Golf - Wikipedia.Battle of the Thames

 

The right of self defence is the first law of nature: In most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes.

True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game.

So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty. In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries , Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

II, p. Tucker's annotations for that latter section did not mention the Second Amendment but cited the standard works of English jurists such as Hawkins.

Further, Tucker criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans "never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty. Tucker's commentary was soon followed, in , by that of William Rawle in his landmark text A View of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Like Tucker, Rawle condemned England's "arbitrary code for the preservation of game", portraying that country as one that "boasts so much of its freedom", yet provides a right to "protestant subjects only" that it "cautiously describ[es] to be that of bearing arms for their defence" and reserves for "[a] very small proportion of the people[.

Speaking of the Second Amendment generally, Rawle said:. The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

Rawle, long before the concept of incorporation was formally recognized by the courts, or Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment , contended that citizens could appeal to the Second Amendment should either the state or federal government attempt to disarm them.

He did warn, however, that "this right [to bear arms] ought not Joseph Story articulated in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution [] the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment's clear meaning:.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations.

How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights. Story describes a militia as the "natural defence of a free country", both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers.

The book regards the militia as a "moral check" against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment.

Abolitionist Lysander Spooner , commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the right to resist government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted.

The congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves, including disarming the former slaves. In , Judge Timothy Farrar published his Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America , which was written when the Fourteenth Amendment was "in the process of adoption by the State legislatures": [] [k]. The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them.

The right of every person to "life, liberty, and property", to "keep and bear arms", to the "writ of habeas corpus" to "trial by jury", and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.

Judge Thomas M. Cooley , perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century, wrote extensively about this amendment, [] [] and he explained in how the Second Amendment protected the "right of the people":. It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.

But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.

The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order.

Until the late 20th century, there was little scholarly commentary of the Second Amendment. Scholars advanced three competing theoretical models for how the prefatory clause should be interpreted. The first, known as the " states' rights " or "collective right" model, held that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia. Under this approach, citizens "have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard".

Emerson in , some circuit courts recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The second, known as the "sophisticated collective right model", held that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could be exercised only by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.

The third, known as the "standard model", held that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Under both of the collective right models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.

The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example — one of many reasons for the amendment. The question of a collective right versus an individual right was progressively resolved in favor of the individual rights model, beginning with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson , along with the Supreme Court's rulings in District of Columbia v.

Heller , and McDonald v. Chicago In Heller , the Supreme Court resolved any remaining circuit splits by ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Warren E. Burger , a conservative Republican appointed chief justice of the United States by President Richard Nixon, wrote in following his retirement:. The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms". However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state.

This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word 'fraud' — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

For more than years, the federal courts have unanimously determined that the Second Amendment concerns only the arming of the people in service to an organized state militia; it does not guarantee immediate access to guns for private purposes.

The nation can no longer afford to let the gun lobby's distortion of the Constitution cripple every reasonable attempt to implement an effective national policy toward guns and crime. Research by Robert Spitzer found that every law journal article discussing the Second Amendment through "reflected the Second Amendment affects citizens only in connection with citizen service in a government organized and regulated militia.

An early use of the phrase "well-regulated militia" may be found in Andrew Fletcher 's A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias , as well as the phrase "ordinary and ill-regulated militia". Jefferson thought well of Fletcher, commenting that "the political principles of that patriot were worthy the purest periods of the British constitution.

They are those which were in vigour. The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. In the year before the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No.

If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice.

It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry , and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

State , 1 Ga. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right":.

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I.

And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right. When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia.

So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence.

The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court's emphatic reliance on the claim "that the Second Amendment Justice Antonin Scalia , writing for the majority in Heller , stated:. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people", the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people" — those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range.

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause's description of the holder of that right as "the people". An earlier case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez , dealt with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are "the People" when referred to elsewhere in the Constitution: [].

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms", and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people" While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

According to the majority in Heller , there were several different reasons for this amendment, and protecting militias was only one of them; if protecting militias had been the only reason then the amendment could have instead referred to "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms" instead of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:. Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear", we interpret their object: "Arms". The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of "keep Arms" in the Second Amendment is to "have weapons". At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry".

In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" again, in the most analogous linguistic context — that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war".

But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition "against". Every example given by petitioners' amici for the idiomatic meaning of "bear arms" from the founding period either includes the preposition "against" or is not clearly idiomatic.

In any event, the meaning of "bear arms" that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the sometimes idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby "bear arms" connotes the actual carrying of arms and therefore is not really an idiom but only in the service of an organized militia.

No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" as the object of "keep" and as the object of "bear" one-half of an idiom.

It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died. The Amendment's text does justify a different limitation: the "right to keep and bear arms" protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia.

Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves".

A May analysis by Dennis Baron contradicted the majority opinion:. A search of Brigham Young University's new online Corpus of Founding Era American English, with more than 95, texts and million words, yields instances of the phrase "bear arms".

These databases confirm that the natural meaning of "bear arms" in the framers' day was military. A paper from found that before , the use of the phrase "bear arms" was commonly used in a civilian context, such as hunting and personal self-defense, in both American and British law.

In the century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights , the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times. A notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore , 18 U. Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside. State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the "individual rights" model, which holds that individuals hold the right to bear arms, and the "collective rights" model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership.

The "collective rights" model has been rejected by the Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model, beginning with its District of Columbia v. Heller decision. Miller , ; District of Columbia v. Heller ; and McDonald v. Heller and McDonald supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech.

Under this model, the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which militias have historically been armed, as the Supreme Court in Miller said:. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators.

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. Of the collective rights model that holds that the right to arms is based on militia membership, the Supreme Court in Heller said:.

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics. If "bear arms" means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage "for the purpose of self-defense" or "to make war against the King".

But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game". The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter. In the Reconstruction Era case of United States v.

Cruikshank , 92 U. The Court dismissed the charges, holding that the Bill of Rights restricted Congress but not private individuals. The Court concluded, "[f]or their protection in its enjoyment, the people must look to the States.

The Court stated that "[t]he Second Amendment The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another. Thus, the Court held a federal anti-Ku-Klux-Klan statute to be unconstitutional as applied in that case.

In Presser v. Illinois , U. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank , and also held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right "cannot be claimed as a right independent of law".

This decision upheld the States' authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes. In Miller v. Texas , U. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be applied to state law. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas law, writing: [64] "As the proceedings were conducted under the ordinary forms of criminal prosecutions there certainly was no denial of due process of law.

In Robertson v. Baldwin , U. II is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. United States v. Schwimmer , U. The Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment indirectly by declaring that the United States Constitution obliges citizens "to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution" [] and by declaring further that the "common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution.

Miller , U. Jack Miller and Frank Layton "did unlawfully Oklahoma to Siloam Springs Arkansas a certain firearm In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McReynolds , the Supreme Court stated "the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable. In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Gun rights advocates claim that the Court in Miller ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of "ordinary military equipment".

Most modern scholars recognize this fact. According to the syllabus prepared by the U. Heller , U. The Heller court also stated Heller , U. Heller to include "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another". Yanna to state certain limitations on the right to keep and bear arms:. In some respects, these limitations are consistent with each other. However, they are not identical, and the United States Supreme Court neither fully harmonized them nor elevated one over another.

First, the Court stated that "the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. As noted, however, this included weapons that did not exist when the Second Amendment was enacted. There are similar legal summaries of the Supreme Court's findings in Heller as the one quoted above. Aguilar , summed up Heller ' s findings and reasoning:.

In District of Columbia v. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" id. Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Heller has been widely described as a landmark decision because it was the first time the Court affirmed an individual's right to own a gun.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

The Court's statement that the right secured by the Second Amendment is limited has been widely discussed by lower courts and the media. Justice Stevens ' dissenting opinion, which was joined by the three other dissenters, said:. The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right". Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.

Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

This dissent called the majority opinion "strained and unpersuasive" and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D. In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens' interpretation of the phrase "to keep and bear arms" was referred to as a "hybrid" definition that Stevens purportedly chose in order to avoid an "incoherent" and "[g]rotesque" idiomatic meeting. Justice Breyer , in his own dissent joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, stated that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that "the amendment protects an 'individual' right — i.

Regarding the term "well regulated", the majority opinion said, "The adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. The dissenting justices were not persuaded by this argument. Reaction to Heller has varied, with many sources giving focus to the ruling referring to itself as being the first in Supreme Court history to read the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, gives explanation of the majority legal reasoning behind this decision. Cruikshank , Presser v. Illinois , and United States v. Miller though these earlier rulings did not limit the right to keep and bear arms solely to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia i.

Heller pertained to three District of Columbia ordinances involving restrictions on firearms amounting to a total ban.

These three ordinances were a ban on handgun registration, a requirement that all firearms in a home be either disassembled or have a trigger lock, and licensing requirement that prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, such as from one room to another. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition — in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute — would fail constitutional muster.

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the District's licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumed that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and did not address the licensing requirement.

Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Justice Ginsburg was a vocal critic of Heller. When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only — and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.

According to adjunct professor of law at Duquesne University School of Law Anthony Picadio, who said he's not anti-gun but rather "anti-bad-judging", Justice Scalia's reasoning in Heller is the product of an erroneous reading of colonial history and the drafting history of the Second Amendment. Instead, he argues, there would be more respect for the Heller decision, if the right acknowledged in Heller would have been forthrightly classified as an unenumerated right and if the issue in Heller would have been analysed under the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

As recognized by Justice Alito in the McDonald case , it protects only "the right to possess a handgun in the house for the purposes of self-defense. On June 28, , the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago , U. Four of the five justices in the majority voted to do so by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment , while the fifth justice, Clarence Thomas , voted to do so through the amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause.

Justice Thomas, in his concurring opinion , noted that the Privileges or Immunities Clause refers to "citizens" whereas the Due Process Clause refers more broadly to any "person", and therefore Thomas reserved the issue of non-citizens for later decision.

In People v. Two years later, in McDonald v. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" id. On March 21, , in a per curiam decision the Court vacated a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.

City of New York, New York on December 2, , to decide whether a New York City ordinance that prevents the transport of guns, even if properly unloaded and locked in containers, from within city limits to outside of the city limits is unconstitutional. New York law prohibits the concealed carry of firearms without a permit.

The issuance of such permits is at the discretion of state authorities, and a permit will not issue absent 'proper cause'. The majority stated that states may still regulate firearms through "shall-issue" regulations that use objective measures such as background checks.

Until District of Columbia v. Heller , United States v. Miller had been the only Supreme Court decision that "tested a congressional enactment against [the Second Amendment]". Emerson , federal courts recognized only the collective right, [] with "courts increasingly referring to one another's holdings Emerson changed this by addressing the question in depth, with the Fifth Circuit determining that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

Lockyer , and the D. Circuit supported Emerson in Parker v. District of Columbia. Heller , in which the U. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Since Heller , the United States courts of appeals have ruled on many Second Amendment challenges to convictions and gun control laws. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

For other uses, see Second Amendment disambiguation. Voting Rights. Further information: Constitutional Convention. Patrick Henry left believed that a citizenry trained in arms was the only sure guarantor of liberty [98] while Alexander Hamilton right wrote in Federalist No. William Rawle of Pennsylvania left was a lawyer and district attorney; Thomas M. Cooley of Michigan right was an educator and judge. Joseph Story of Massachusetts left became a U.

Supreme Court justice; Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania right was a political economist and delegate to the Continental Congress. See also: List of firearm court cases in the United States. Main article: United States v. Main article: Presser v. Main article: District of Columbia v.

Main article: McDonald v. City of Chicago. Main article: Caetano v. City of New York. Malcolm, "The Role of the Militia", pp. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.

The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed'. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed See J. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights , , p. Under the auspices of the Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm — These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of military forces run by the state regulars and to be jealous of their arms.

They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right which was codified as the English Bill of Rights , that Protestants would never be disarmed: 'That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.

This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Archived from the original PDF on March 2, Retrieved February 25, As with the English law "like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited.

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Heller" PDF. The framers' attempt to address all three in a single declarative sentence has contributed mightily to the subsequent confusion over the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment. The right protected is really the right of a state to maintain an armed militia, or national guard, as we call it now.

In the eighteenth century people feared that Congress might, by passing a law, prohibit the states from arming their citizens. Then having all the armed strength at its command, the national government could overwhelm the states.

Such a circumstance has never happened, but this amendment would prevent it. The Second Amendment does not give anybody or everybody the right to possess and use firearms. The states may very properly prescribe regulations and permits governing the use of guns within their borders.

ISBN Retrieved July 5, In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country.

They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country.

The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. The next amendment is, 'A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America. Little, Brown. Retrieved July 6, The people of the United States, in making their Constitution, do not create or confer on themselves any new rights, but they expressly reserve all the rights they then held, except what were delegated for their own benefit; and they particularly and expressly recognize and perpetuate many natural and civil common-law rights, which, of course, are placed beyond the reach of any subordinate government, and even of their own.

Among these are the following: 1. The right to be, what they call themselves, 'the people of the United States', citizens, and component members of the body politic — the nation; and to participate in all the privileges, immunities, and benefits the Constitution was designed to obtain or secure for all the American people, especially the right to be protected and governed according to the provisions of the Constitution.

A right to the privileges and immunities of citizens in any of the several States. Among these is the fundamental and elementary right of suffrage. The Representatives to the national and State legislatures must be chosen by the people, the citizens Section 2.

Consequently, the citizens must choose them, and have a right to choose them. A right to the common-law writ of habeas corpus, to protect the other common-law right, as well as natural and constitutional right, of personal liberty.

A right to trial by jury in any criminal case. A right to keep and bear arms. A right to life, liberty, and property, unless deprived by due process of law. A right to just compensation for private property legally taken for public use.

A right to participate in all rights retained by, or reserved to, the people. Most of these rights, with many others, belong by the Constitution not only to the citizens — the people of the United States, strictly so called, by reason of the franchise of natural birth or otherwise — but also to all persons who may be allowed to be and remain under the jurisdiction and protection of our government.

These are a part only of the rights held by every member of the nation, under and by virtue of the Constitution of the United States, independent of any other earthly power, and which, of course, 'cannot be destroyed or abridged by the laws of any particular State'.

Who, then, in the United States is destitute of rights? The right of every person to 'life, liberty, and property', to 'keep and bear arms', to the 'writ of habeas corpus' to 'trial by jury', and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.

Several public officials, including James Madison and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, retained the confusing practice of referring to each of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights by the enumeration found in the first draft; the fifth article is the Second Amendment.

Archived from the original on February 10, Retrieved January 30, Santa Clara Law Review. Archived from the original on April 28, The New York Times. Ban On Handgun Ownership". The Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on August 5, June 26, Department of Justice. Retrieved August 18, CQ Press. Retrieved October 31, American Bar Association. Archived from the original on May 23, Retrieved May 23, Archived from the original on July 6, Russian President Putin and those responsible will be held to account.

Russia has today denied hitting the shopping mall with missiles, saying that it had struck a nearby depot of US and European arms, triggering an explosion which ignited the fire in the mall.

Russia's defence ministry said in a daily statement on the war: "In Kremenchuk, Russian forces struck a weapons depot storing arms received from the United States and Europe with high-precision air-based weapons". THIS is the shocking moment terrified families cowered in fear and fled as Vladimir Putin blasted a Ukrainian shopping centre nearby.

CCTV footage from a park close to the blitzed mall shows the initial blast blowing debris into the pond as panicked mums with their kids watched on. Upon impact, the camera trembles as couples and families who were in the park near the Amstor mall in Kremenchug leave their belongings and run away. A second strike then hits, turning the screen orange. The couple then crouch down, as the alarmed man flings himself into the pond.

The woman is captured running away as litter rains around her, and dark clouds form in the skies above. The elected mayor of the city of Kherson has been captured by pro-Russian forces Russian media reports.

Kirill Stremousov, deputy head of the Russian-backed Kherson administration, told state news agency RIA Novosti that "ex-mayor Kolykhayev has been detained". Jump directly to the content.

Sign in. All Football. News Joseph Gamp. Joseph Gamp 29th Jun , UK imposes new round of sanctions on Putin allies Britain is imposing sanctions on Russia's second richest man and a cousin of President Vladimir Putin in the latest round of measures targeting allies of the Russian leader, the Government has said. Nato expansion shows Putin is 'completely wrong' Vladimir Putin's hopes of a diminished Nato have been proved "completely wrong" by Sweden and Finland joining the alliance, Boris Johnson said.

Britain slaps oligarch Vladimir Potanin with sanctions Britain announced sanctions on oligarch Vladimir Potanin on Wednesday. The Government described him as Russia's second-richest man. PM claims Putin wouldn't have started a war 'if he was a woman' Boris Johnson has said Russian President Vladimir Putin would not have started the "crazy, macho" war in Ukraine if he were a woman.

He made the comments arguing that "you need more women in positions of power". Ben Wallace says Putin 'has small man syndrome' Vladimir Putin has "small man syndrome" and a "macho" view of the world, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said.

The Russian leader is a "lunatic", the Defence Secretary also suggested. UK sharply reduces oil imports from Russia The UK sharply reduced oil imports from Russia in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, according to official figures. Ben Wallace calls for more defence spending amid Russia threat Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has reiterated his call for increased defence spending to counter the threat from Russia. The world outraged by Putin Putin launched a deadly attack on a shopping centre in Kremenchuk, leading world leaders to criticise his actions.

Married with a daughter, he had been awarded the Russian Order of Courage on other honours. Louis Allwood 29th Jun , US imposes new sanctions on Russia The US Treasury Department has confirmed that they have imposed new sanctions on over targets and banned the import of new Russian gold. Army chief warns of dangers to the UK The British Army's newly appointed chief has warned of the dangers of heading to war with Vladimir Putin in his first official speech.

What tennis stars are missing Wimbledon due to the Russian ban? World number one Daniil Medvedev will play no part at Wimbledon. The US Open champion is banned along with all players who represent Russia. The news comes following Monday's missile strike on the Kremenchuk shopping centre. Linda Thomas-Greenfield described the attack as "absolutely sickening". The UK's Ministry of Defence latest intelligence update Russia is using "unusual" tactics in their invasion of Ukraine which will be "unsustainable" in the long run.

When a muscle contracts, it pulls equally from both ends and, to have movement at only one end of the muscle, other muscles must come into play to stabilize the bone to which the other end of the muscle is attached. Golf is a unilateral exercise that can break body balances, requiring exercises to keep the balance in muscles. Putting is considered to be the most important component of the game of golf.

As the game of golf has evolved, there have been many different putting techniques and grips that have been devised to give golfers the best chance to make putts. When the game originated, golfers would putt with their dominant hand on the bottom of the grip and their weak hand on top of the grip. This grip and putting style is known as "conventional".

There are many variations of conventional including overlap, where the golfer overlaps the off hand index finger onto off the dominant pinky; interlock, where the offhand index finger interlocks with the dominant pinky and ring finger; double or triple overlap and so on. Cross handed putting is the idea that the dominant hand is on top of the grip where the weak hand is on the bottom.

This grip restricts the motion in your dominant hand and eliminates the possibility of wrist breakdowns through the putting stroke. Other notable putting styles include "the claw", a style that has the grip directly in between the thumb and index finger of the dominant hand while the palm faces the target.

Anchored putting, a style that requires a longer putter shaft that can be anchored into the player's stomach or below the chin; the idea is to stabilize one end of the putter thus creating a more consistent pendulum stroke. This style has been banned on professional circuits since A hole is classified by its par, which gives an indication of the number of strokes a skilled golfer may be expected to need to complete play of the hole.

As such, the minimum par of any hole is 3; one stroke for the tee shot and two putts. Par 3, 4 and 5 holes are commonplace on golf courses; far more rarely, courses may feature par-6 and even par-7 holes. For men, a typical par-3 hole is less than yards m in length, with a par-4 hole ranging between — yards — m , and a par-5 hole being longer than yards m ; for women these boundaries are lower, and for professionals they are much increased. The rare par-6s can stretch well over yards m.

These distances are based on the typical scratch golfer's drive distance of between and yards and m. Although length is the primary factor in calculating par, other factors are taken into account; however the number of strokes a scratch golfer should take to make the green remains foremost. Factors affecting the calculation include altitude, gradient of the land from the tee to green, and forced " lay-ups " due to dog-legs sharp bends or obstacles e.

Getting the ball onto the green in two strokes less than par, and hence meeting the par calculation criteria, is called making "green in regulation" or GIR. Eighteen-hole courses typically total to an overall par score of 70 to 72 for a complete round; with most holes having a par of 4, and a smaller number of par-3 and par-5 holes. Additionally, courses may be classified according to their play difficulty, which may be used to calculate a golfer's handicap.

The goal is to play as few strokes per round as possible. A golfer's number of strokes in a hole, course, or tournament is compared to its respective par score, and is then reported either as the number that the golfer was "under-" or "over-par", or if it was "equal to par". A hole in one or an "ace" occurs when a golfer sinks their ball into the cup with their first stroke from the tee. Common scores for a hole also have specific terms. In a typical professional tournament or among "scratch" amateur players, "birdie-bogey" play is common; a player will "lose" a stroke by bogeying a hole, then "gain" one by scoring a birdie.

Eagles are uncommon but not rare; however, only 18 players have scored an albatross in a men's major championship. One of the rarest feats in golf is the condor, which has never occurred in a professional tournament.

Only five condors have been verified to have ever occurred, although none of the courses involved were professionally accredited. Two players or two teams play each hole as a separate contest against each other in what is called match play. The party with the lower score wins that hole, or if the scores of both players or teams are equal the hole is "halved" or tied. The game is won by the party that wins more holes than the other. In the case that one team or player has taken a lead that cannot be overcome in the number of holes remaining to be played, the match is deemed to be won by the party in the lead, and the remainder of the holes are not played.

At any given point, if the lead is equal to the number of holes remaining, the party leading the match is said to be "dormie", and the match is continued until the party increases the lead by one hole or ties any of the remaining holes, thereby winning the match, or until the match ends in a tie with the lead player's opponent winning all remaining holes.

When the game is tied after the predetermined number of holes have been played, it may be continued until one side takes a one-hole lead. The score achieved for each and every hole of the round or tournament is added to produce the total score, and the player with the lowest score wins in stroke play. Stroke play is the game most commonly played by professional golfers. If there is a tie after the regulation number of holes in a professional tournament, a playoff takes place between all tied players.

Playoffs either are sudden death or employ a pre-determined number of holes, anywhere from three to a full In sudden death, a player who scores lower on a hole than all of their opponents wins the match. If at least two players remain tied after such a playoff using a pre-determined number of holes, then play continues in sudden death format, where the first player to win a hole wins the tournament. There are many variations in scoring and playing formats in the game of golf, some officially defined in the Rules of Golf.

Variations include the popular Stableford scoring system, and various team formats. Some common and popular examples are listed below. There are also variations on the usual starting procedure where everyone begins from the first tee and plays all holes in order, through to the eighteenth.

In large field tournaments, especially on professional tours, a two tee start is commonplace, where the field will be split between starting on the first tee and the tenth tee sometimes the eighth or eleventh depending on proximity to the clubhouse.

Shotgun starts are mainly used for amateur tournament or society play. In this variant, each of the groups playing starts their game on a different hole, allowing for all players to start and end their round at roughly the same time.

For example, a group starting on hole 5 will play through to the 18th hole and continue with hole 1, ending their round on hole 4. A bogey or par competition is a scoring format sometimes seen in informal tournaments.

Its scoring is similar to match play, except each player compares their hole score to the hole's par rating instead of the score of another player. The player "wins" the hole if they score a birdie or better, they "lose" the hole if they score a bogey or worse, and they "halve" the hole by scoring par.

By recording only this simple win—loss—halve score on the sheet, a player can shrug off a very poorly-played hole with a simple "-" mark and move on. As used in competitions, the player or pair with the best win—loss differential wins the competition.

The Stableford system is a simplification of stroke play that awards players points based on their score relative to the hole's par; the score for a hole is calculated by taking the par score, adding 2, then subtracting the player's hole score, making the result zero if negative. Alternately stated, a double bogey or worse is zero points, a bogey is worth one point, par is two, a birdie three, an eagle four, and so on. The advantages of this system over stroke play are a more natural "higher is better" scoring, the ability to compare Stableford scores between plays on courses with different total par scores scoring an "even" in stroke play will always give a Stableford score of 36 , discouraging the tendency to abandon the entire game after playing a particularly bad hole a novice playing by strict rules may score as high as an 8 or 10 on a single difficult hole; their Stableford score for the hole would be zero, which puts them only two points behind par no matter how badly they played , and the ability to simply pick up one's ball once it is impossible to score any points for the hole, which speeds play.

As with the original system, the highest score wins the game, and terrible scores on one or two holes will not ruin a player's overall score, but this system rewards "bogey-birdie" play more than the original, encouraging golfers to try to make riskier birdie putt or eagle chipshots instead of simply parring each hole. A handicap is a numerical measure of a golfer's potential scoring ability over 18 holes. It is used to enable players of widely varying abilities to compete against one another.

Better players are those with the lowest handicaps, and someone with a handicap of 0 or less is often referred to as a scratch golfer. Handicap systems vary throughout the world and use different methods to assess courses and calculate handicaps. Golf courses are assessed and rated according to the average good score of a scratch golfer, taking into account a multitude of factors affecting play, such as length, obstacles, undulations, etc. A player's handicap gives an indication of the number of strokes above this course rating that the player will make over the course of an "average best" round of golf, i.

Some handicap systems also account for differences in scoring difficulty between low and high handicap golfer. They do this by means of assessing and rating courses according to the average good score of a "bogey golfer", a player with a handicap of around This is used with the course rating to calculate a slope rating , which is used to adjust golfer's handicap to produce a playing handicap for the course and set of tees being used.

Handicap systems have potential for abuse by players who may intentionally play badly to increase their handicap sandbagging before playing to their potential at an important event with a valuable prize. For this reason, handicaps are not used in professional golf, but they can still be calculated and used along with other criteria to determine the relative strengths of various professional players. Touring professionals, being the best of the best, have negative handicaps; they can be expected, more often than not, to score lower than the Course Rating on any course.

In Golf Digest calculated that the countries with most golf courses per capita, in order, were: Scotland, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, Canada, Wales, United States, Sweden, and England countries with fewer than , people were excluded.

The number of courses in other territories has increased, an example of this being the expansion of golf in China. The first golf course in China opened in , but by the end of , there were roughly in the country.

For much of the 21st century, the development of new golf courses in China has been officially banned with the exception of the island province of Hainan , but the number of courses had nonetheless tripled from to ; the "ban" has been evaded with the government's tacit approval simply by not mentioning golf in any development plans.

In the United States, women made up 25 percent of golfers in , which was up from 19 percent since and junior female golfers account for 35 percent or 1. In the United States, the number of people who play golf twenty-five times or more per year decreased from 6.

The NGF reported that the number who played golf at all decreased from 30 to 26 million over the same period. In February , astronaut Alan Shepard became the first person to golf anywhere other than Earth. He smuggled a golf club and two golf balls on board Apollo 14 with the intent to golf on the Moon. He attempted two drives. He shanked the first attempt, but it is estimated his second went more than yards m.

Below are the top 20 countries that have the most golf courses as of The majority of professional golfers work as club or teaching professionals "pros" , and only compete in local competitions.

A small elite of professional golfers are "tournament pros" who compete full-time on international "tours". Many club and teaching professionals working in the golf industry start as caddies or with a general interest in the game, finding employment at golf courses and eventually moving on to certifications in their chosen profession. These programs include independent institutions and universities, and those that eventually lead to a Class A golf professional certification.

Jack Nicklaus , for example, gained widespread notice by finishing second in the U. Open to champion Arnold Palmer , with a hole score of the best score to date in that tournament by an amateur. He played one more amateur year in , winning that year's U. Amateur Championship , before turning pro in Golf instruction involves the teaching and learning of the game of golf.

Proficiency in teaching golf instruction requires not only technical and physical ability but also knowledge of the rules and etiquette of the game. In some countries, golf instruction is best performed by teachers certified by the Professional Golfers Association. Some top instructors who work with professional golfers have become quite well known in their own right.

Professional golf instructors can use physical conditioning, mental visualization, classroom sessions, club fitting, driving range instruction, on-course play under real conditions, and review of videotaped swings in slow motion to teach golf to prepare the golfer for the course. There are at least twenty professional golf tours, each run by a PGA or an independent tour organization, which is responsible for arranging events, finding sponsors, and regulating the tour.

Typically a tour has "members" who are entitled to compete in most of its events, and also invites non-members to compete in some of them. Gaining membership of an elite tour is highly competitive, and most professional golfers never achieve it. Perhaps the most widely known tour is the PGA Tour , which tends to attract the strongest fields, outside the four Majors and the four World Golf Championships events.

Since , both tours' money titles have been claimed by the same individual three times, with Luke Donald doing so in and Rory McIlroy in and The Asian Tour became a full member in The OneAsia Tour , founded in , is not a member of the Federation, but was founded as a joint venture of the Australasia, China, Japan, and Korean tours. The OneAsia Tour also offers ranking points. Golf is unique in having lucrative competition for older players.

There are several senior tours for men aged fifty and over, arguably the best known of which is the U. There are six principal tours for women, each based in a different country or continent.

All of the principal tours offer points in the Women's World Golf Rankings for high finishers in their events. All of the leading professional tours for under players have an official developmental tour, in which the leading players at the end of the season will earn a tour card on the main tour for the following season. The major championships are the four most prestigious men's tournaments of the year.

In chronological order they are: The Masters , the U. The fields for these events include the top several dozen golfers from all over the world. It is the only major championship that is played at the same course each year. Open, the U. Amateur, the Open Championship, and the British Amateur.

Women's golf does not have a globally agreed set of majors. Only the last two are also recognised as majors by the Ladies European Tour. For example, the BBC has been known to use the U. LPGA or European majors as it has its own set of majors historically three, since four. However, these events attract little notice outside Japan. Senior aged fifty and over men's golf does not have a globally agreed set of majors.

The list of senior majors on the U. Of the five events, the Senior PGA is by far the oldest, having been founded in The other events all date from the s, when senior golf became a commercial success as the first golf stars of the television era, such as Arnold Palmer and Gary Player , reached the relevant age. LPGA is in global women's golf.

Golf was featured in the Summer Olympic Games official programme in and

   

 

Capture one pro 12 history free.Multi-exposure HDR capture - Wikipedia

   

After having established his reputation as a portrait painter, in his middle age Morse contributed to the invention of a single-wire telegraph system based on European telegraphs. He was a co-developer of Morse code and helped to develop the commercial use of telegraphy. Samuel F. Morse was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts , the first child of the pastor Jedidiah Morse [1] — , who was also a geographer , and his wife Elizabeth Ann Finley Breese — He thought it helped preserve Puritan traditions strict observance of Sabbath , among other things , and believed in the Federalist support of an alliance with Britain and a strong central government.

Morse strongly believed in education within a Federalist framework, alongside the instillation of Calvinist virtues, morals, and prayers for his first son.

His first ancestor in America was Anthony Morse, of Marlborough , in Wiltshire , who had emigrated to America in , and settled in Newbury, Massachusetts. After attending Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts , Samuel Morse went on to Yale College to study religious philosophy , mathematics, and science.

He supported himself by painting. In , he graduated from Yale with Phi Beta Kappa honors. She died on February 7, , of a heart attack shortly after the birth of their third child. Morse expressed some of his Calvinist beliefs in his painting, Landing of the Pilgrims , through the depiction of simple clothing as well as the people's austere facial features. His image captured the psychology of the Federalists; Calvinists from England brought to North America ideas of religion and government, thus linking the two countries.

Allston wanted Morse to accompany him to England to meet the artist Benjamin West. Allston arranged—with Morse's father—a three-year stay for painting study in England.

The two men set sail aboard the Libya on July 15, In England, Morse perfected his painting techniques under Allston's watchful eye; by the end of , he gained admittance to the Royal Academy. At the academy, he was moved by the art of the Renaissance and paid close attention to the works of Michelangelo and Raphael. After observing and practicing life drawing and absorbing its anatomical demands, the young artist produced his masterpiece, the Dying Hercules. He first made a sculpture as a study for the painting.

To some, the Dying Hercules seemed to represent a political statement against the British and also the American Federalists. The muscles symbolized the strength of the young and vibrant United States versus the British and British-American supporters. Both societies were conflicted over loyalties. Anti-Federalist Americans aligned themselves with the French, abhorred the British, and believed a strong central government to be inherently dangerous to democracy.

As the war raged on, Morse's letters to his parents became more anti-Federalist in tone. In one such letter, Morse wrote:. I assert Their proceedings are copied into the English papers, read before Parliament , and circulated through their country, and what do they say of them Although Jedidiah Morse did not change Samuel's political views, he continued as an influence.

Critics believe that the elder Morse's Calvinist ideas are integral to Morse's Judgment of Jupiter, another significant work completed in England. Jupiter is shown in a cloud, accompanied by his eagle , with his hand spread above the parties and he is pronouncing judgment. Marpessa , with an expression of compunction and shame, is throwing herself into the arms of her husband. Idas, who tenderly loved Marpessa, is eagerly rushing forward to receive her while Apollo stares with surprise.

Critics have suggested that Jupiter represents God's omnipotence—watching every move that is made. Some call the portrait a moral teaching by Morse on infidelity. Although Marpessa fell victim, she realized that her eternal salvation was important and desisted from her wicked ways. Apollo shows no remorse for what he did but stands with a puzzled look.

Many American paintings throughout the early nineteenth century had religious themes, and Morse was an early exemplar of this. Judgment of Jupiter allowed Morse to express his support of Anti-Federalism while maintaining his strong spiritual convictions. Benjamin West sought to present the Jupiter at another Royal Academy exhibition, but Morse's time had run out.

He left England on August 21, , to return to the United States and begin his full-time career as a painter. The decade — marked significant growth in Morse's work, as he sought to capture the essence of America's culture and life. He painted the Federalist former President John Adams Morse painted portraits of Francis Brown —the college's president—and Judge Woodward , who was involved in bringing the Dartmouth case before the U. Supreme Court.

Morse also sought commissions among the elite of Charleston, South Carolina. Morse's painting of Mrs. Emma Quash symbolized the opulence of Charleston. The young artist was doing well for himself. Between and , Morse went through great changes in his life, including a decline in commissions due to the Panic of Morse was commissioned to paint President James Monroe in He embodied Jeffersonian democracy by favoring the common man over the aristocrat.

Morse had moved to New Haven. His commissions for The House of Representatives and a portrait of the Marquis de Lafayette engaged his sense of democratic nationalism. The artist chose to paint the House of Representatives , in a similar way, with careful attention to architecture and dramatic lighting. He also wished to select a uniquely American topic that would bring glory to the young nation.

His subject did just that, showing American democracy in action. He traveled to Washington D. He chose to portray a night scene, balancing the architecture of the Rotunda with the figures, and using lamplight to highlight the work.

Pairs of people, those who stood alone, individuals bent over their desks working, were each painted simply but with faces of character. Morse chose nighttime to convey that Congress' dedication to the principles of democracy transcended day. By contrast, John Trumbull's Declaration of Independence had won popular acclaim a few years earlier.

Viewers may have felt that the architecture of The House of Representatives overshadows the individuals, making it hard to appreciate the drama of what was happening. Morse was honored to paint the Marquis de Lafayette , the leading French supporter of the American Revolution. He felt compelled to paint a grand portrait of the man who helped to establish a free and independent America.

He features Lafayette against a magnificent sunset. He has positioned Lafayette to the right of three pedestals: one has a bust of Benjamin Franklin , another of George Washington , and the third seems reserved for Lafayette. A peaceful woodland landscape below him symbolized American tranquility and prosperity as it approached the age of fifty. The developing friendship between Morse and Lafayette and their discussions of the Revolutionary War affected the artist after his return to New York City.

He served as the academy's president from to and again from to From to , Morse traveled and studied in Europe to improve his painting skills, visiting Italy, Switzerland, and France. During his time in Paris, he developed a friendship with the writer James Fenimore Cooper.

He completed the work upon his return to the United States. On a subsequent visit to Paris in , Morse met Louis Daguerre. He became interested in the latter's daguerreotype —the first practical means of photography. Eli Whitney , inventor, Yale University Art Gallery. While returning by ship from Europe in , Morse encountered Charles Thomas Jackson of Boston , a man who was well schooled in electromagnetism.

Witnessing various experiments with Jackson's electromagnet , Morse developed the concept of a single-wire telegraph. He set aside his painting, The Gallery of the Louvre. It is still the standard for rhythmic transmission of data.

They had reached the stage of launching a commercial telegraph prior to Morse, despite starting later. In England, Cooke became fascinated by electrical telegraphy in , four years after Morse. Aided by his greater financial resources, Cooke abandoned his primary subject of anatomy and built a small electrical telegraph within three weeks. Wheatstone also was experimenting with telegraphy and most importantly understood that a single large battery would not carry a telegraphic signal over long distances.

He theorized that numerous small batteries were far more successful and efficient in this task. Wheatstone was building on the primary research of Joseph Henry , an American physicist. Cooke and Wheatstone formed a partnership and patented the electrical telegraph in May , and within a short time had provided the Great Western Railway with a mile 21 km stretch of telegraph.

However, within a few years, Cooke and Wheatstone's multiple-wire signaling method would be overtaken by Morse's cheaper method. In an letter to a friend, Morse describes how vigorously he fought to be called the sole inventor of the electromagnetic telegraph despite the previous inventions. I have been so constantly under the necessity of watching the movements of the most unprincipled set of pirates I have ever known, that all my time has been occupied in defense, in putting evidence into something like legal shape that I am the inventor of the Electro-Magnetic Telegraph!

Would you have believed it ten years ago that a question could be raised on that subject? Morse encountered the problem of getting a telegraphic signal to carry over more than a few hundred yards of wire.

His breakthrough came from the insights of Professor Leonard Gale , who taught chemistry at New York University he was a personal friend of Joseph Henry. With Gale's help, Morse introduced extra circuits or relays at frequent intervals and was soon able to send a message through ten miles 16 km of wire.

This was the great breakthrough he had been seeking. At the Speedwell Ironworks in Morristown, New Jersey on January 11, , Morse and Vail made the first public demonstration of the electric telegraph. Although Morse and Alfred Vail had done most of the research and development in the ironworks facilities, they chose a nearby factory house as the demonstration site.

Without the repeater , Morse devised a system of electromagnetic relays.