June 8, 1789 – James Madison introduces twelve proposed amendments to the United States Constitution in Congress.
One week after the first Congress to sit under the newly ratified Constitution had convened, James Madison, a representative from the Commonwealth of Virginia, address a committee of the House. First, he suggested that the committee should call for the full house to sit as a committee of the whole to here his proposal, but when the committee objected to this, he acquiesced and instead read his prepared remarks into the record. After further debate, however, the committee agreed that Madison's proposal - to add to the Constitution a Bill of Rights - was of sufficient import that it should be referred to a committee of the whole. You can read the full text of Madison's address here.
June 7, 1628 – The Petition of Right, a major English constitutional document, is granted the Royal Assent by Charles I and becomes law.
The Petition of Right, passed on 7 June 1628, is an English constitutional document setting out specific individual protections against the state, considered of equal value to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689. It was part of a wider conflict between Parliament and the Stuart monarchy that led to the 1638 to 1651 Wars of the Three Kingdoms, ultimately resolved in the 1688 Glorious Revolution.
Following a series of disputes with Parliament over granting taxes, in 1627 Charles I imposed "forced loans", and imprisoned those who refused to pay, without trial. This was followed in 1628 by the use of martial law, forcing private citizens to feed, clothe and accommodate soldiers and sailors, which implied the king could deprive any individual of property, or freedom, without justification. It united opposition at all levels of society, particularly those elements the monarchy depended on for financial support, collecting taxes, administering justice etc, since wealth simply increased vulnerability.
A Commons committee prepared four 'Resolutions', declaring each of these illegal, while re-affirming Magna Carta and habeas corpus. Charles previously depended on the House of Lords for support against the Commons, but their willingness to work together forced him to accept the Petition. It marked a new stage in the constitutional crisis, since it became clear many in both Houses did not trust him, or his ministers, to interpret the law.
The Petition remains in force in the United Kingdom, and parts of the Commonwealth. It influenced elements of the Massachusetts Body of Liberties, and the Third, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
Ochirbat was named Chairman of the Presidium (titular head of state) of the People's Great Khural on March 21, 1990 following the resignation of Jambyn Batmönkh and other government leaders in the wake of the 1990 Democratic Revolution. He was re-elected to the People's Great Khural in July 1990 parliamentary elections and then chosen by Khural members for the newly created position of President of the Mongolian People's Republic. The new Constitution of 1992 changed the official name of the country to Mongolia and Ochirbat's official title to "President of Mongolia and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces". The new constitution also set new presidential elections, the first to be decided by direct popular vote, for the following year, 1993.
Although Ochirbat strongly advocated policies of rapid national revitalization and economic reform to break the country from its socialist past and adopt capitalism by the year 2000, he had a reputation for flexibility and willingness to compromise and his persuasiveness helped diffuse confrontations and political crises in the lead up to the first free elections in June 1993. Nevertheless, ideological splits within the MPRP lead the party leadership to reject Ochirbat as their presidential candidate and instead nominate hardliner Lodongiin Tüdev, editor in chief of the communist newspaper Ünen. Sensing an opportunity, a coalition of opposition parties, including the National Democrats and Social Democratic party, nominated Ochirbat as their candidate. On June 6, 1993, Ochirbat soundly defeated Tudev, winning 57.8 percent of the vote to become the first president ever elected by popular vote in Mongolia.
Ochirbat's term in office was beset by a series of political and economic crises. By the end of 1993, Ochirbat had become a harsh critic of government's failure to address the country's worsening economic situation. The country suffered food and energy shortages and high inflation. Ochirbat accused the government of not meeting its social welfare obligations. He was also critical of the Mongolian Intelligence services for failing to prevent the rise of transnational organized crime in Mongolia. He blamed over burdensome local and central bureaucracies for blocking faster economic improvement and called for reducing the overall size of the bureaucracy and speeding up privatization of government owned assets. By 1995 only 19.2% of economy had been privatized.
When in March 1994 opposition parties withdrew from parliament, Ochirbat publicly called for a protection of the rights of the minority parties and accused the ruling MPRP of exploiting the media to their advantage by limiting press coverage of parliament. He also supported reforms to election law to open elections to all parties in advance of parliamentary elections in 1996. In 1994, he vetoed a parliamentary decree to promote Cyrillic script in Mongolia and delay introduction of classical script.
Following his loss in a re-election campaign in 1997, Ochirbat left Mongolian politics and founded the "Ochirbat Foundation", a non-profit, non Governmental organization that focused on poverty alleviation and self-sufficiency, environmental, and education programs. In 2000 he became Director of the Center for Ecology and Sustainable Development at Mongolian University of Science and Technology. In 2005 he was appointed Member of the Constitutional Court of Mongolia and re-appointed in 2010.
June 5, 1215 – Rebel barons renounce their allegiance to King John of England — part of a chain of events leading to the signing of Magna Carta.
Magna Carta is unquestionably one of the most significant events in the history of the Rule of Law in those nations that trace their democratic form of government to Anglo-American influences -- including Canada, Australia, Liberia, India, and The Philippines). But it is often studied in isolation. In fact, the rebellion of the English Barons was hardly unprecedented in the Middle Ages, and Magna Carta was neither the first nor the last attempt at establish firm written laws to rein in the power of absolute monarchs.
Magna Carta originated as an unsuccessful attempt to achieve peace between royalist and rebel factions in 1215, as part of the events leading to the outbreak of the First Barons' War. England was ruled by King John, the third of the Angevin kings. Although the kingdom had a robust administrative system, the nature of government under the Angevin monarchs was ill-defined and uncertain. John and his predecessors had ruled using the principle of vis et voluntas, or "force and will", taking executive and sometimes arbitrary decisions, often justified on the basis that a king was above the law. Many medieval philosophers believed that monarchs should rule in accordance with the custom and the law, with the counsel of the leading members of the realm, but there was no model for what should happen if a king refused to do so.
John had lost most of his ancestral lands in France to King Philip II in 1204 and had struggled to regain them for many years, raising extensive taxes on the barons to accumulate money to fight a war which ended in expensive failure in 1214. Following the defeat of his allies at the Battle of Bouvines, John had to sue for peace and pay compensation. John was already personally unpopular with many of the barons, many of whom owed money to the Crown, and little trust existed between the two sides. A triumph would have strengthened his position, but in the face of his defeat, within a few months after his return from France, John found that rebel barons in the north and east of England were organizing resistance to his rule.
The rebels took an oath that they would "stand fast for the liberty of the church and the realm", and demanded that the King confirm the Charter of Liberties that had been declared by King Henry I in the previous century, and which was perceived by the barons to protect their rights. The rebel leadership was unimpressive by the standards of the time, even disreputable, but were united by their hatred of John. Robert Fitzwalter, later elected leader of the rebel barons, claimed publicly that John had attempted to rape his daughter, and was implicated in a plot to assassinate John in 1212.
John held a council in London in January 1215 to discuss potential reforms, and sponsored discussions in Oxford between his agents and the rebels during the spring. Both sides appealed to Pope Innocent III for assistance in the dispute. During the negotiations, the rebellious barons produced an initial document, which historians have termed "the Unknown Charter of Liberties", which drew on Henry I's Charter of Liberties for much of its language; seven articles from that document later appeared in the "Articles of the Barons" and the subsequent charter.
It was John's hope that the Pope would give him valuable legal and moral support, and accordingly John played for time; the King had declared himself to be a papal vassal in 1213 and correctly believed he could count on the Pope for help. John also began recruiting mercenary forces from France, although some were later sent back to avoid giving the impression that the King was escalating the conflict. In a further move to shore up his support, John took an oath to become a crusader, a move which gave him additional political protection under church law, even though many felt the promise was insincere.
Letters backing John arrived from the Pope in April, but by then the rebel barons had organized into a military faction. They congregated at Northampton in May and renounced their feudal ties to John, marching on London, Lincoln, and Exeter. John's efforts to appear moderate and conciliatory had been largely successful, but once the rebels held London, they attracted a fresh wave of defectors from the royalists. The King offered to submit the problem to a committee of arbitration with the Pope as the supreme arbiter, but this was not attractive to the rebels. Stephen Langton, the archbishop of Canterbury, had been working with the rebel barons on their demands, and after the suggestion of papal arbitration failed, John instructed Langton to organize peace talks. These eventually resulted in John agreeing, under duress, to place his seal upon Magna Carta on June 15.
June 4, 1919 – Women's rights: The U.S. Congress approves the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees suffrage to women, and sends it to the U.S. states for ratification.
The Nineteenth Amendment (Amendment XIX) to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States and the states from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of sex, in effect recognizing the right of women to a vote. The amendment was the culmination of a decades-long movement for women's suffrage in the United States, at both the state and national levels, and was part of the worldwide movement towards women's suffrage and part of the wider women's rights movement. The first women's suffrage amendment was introduced in Congress in 1878. However, a suffrage amendment did not pass the House of Representatives until May 21, 1919, which was quickly followed by the Senate, on June 4, 1919. It was then submitted to the states for ratification, achieving the requisite 36 ratifications to secure adoption, and thereby go into effect, on August 18, 1920. The Nineteenth Amendment's adoption was certified on August 26, 1920.
Contrary to a widely held belief, the 19th Amendment was not universally supported by women in the United States. Moreover, there was a significant amount of support for extending suffrage to women within the male population. Another misconception is that women were denied the vote at the time of the formation of the United States, which in fact women could vote in many elections on the local and state level in the colonies and in the early days of the Republic. Likewise, many states had already extended the voting franchise to women for local, state, and even national elections before the passage and ratification of the amendment.
In fact, only seven states -- Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Alabama -- did not have any form of women's suffrage at the time the Amendment became law. Western States had been among the first to extend full suffrage to women, whereas New York and Michigan were the only states east of the Mississippi River to have done so.
Mississippi was the last state to ratify the Amendment (among those existing at the time of its proposal) on March 22, 1984
June 3, 1943 – In Los Angeles, California, white U.S. Navy sailors and Marines attack Latino youths in the first incident of the Zoot Suit Riots.
The Zoot Suit Riots were a series of conflicts on June 3–8, 1943 in Los Angeles, California, United States, which pitted American servicemen stationed in Southern California against young Latinex American city residents. It was one of the dozen wartime industrial cities that suffered race-related riots in the summer of 1943, along with Mobile, Alabama; Beaumont, Texas; Detroit, Michigan; and New York City.
American servicemen and white Angelenos attacked and stripped children, teenagers, and youths who wore zoot suits, ostensibly because they considered the outfits, which were made from large amounts of fabric, to be unpatriotic during World War II. Rationing of fabrics and certain foods was required at the time for the war effort. While most of the violence was directed toward Latinex youth, African American, Italian American, and Filipino American youths who were wearing zoot suits were also attacked.
The Zoot Suit Riots were related to fears and hostilities aroused by the coverage of the Sleepy Lagoon murder trial, following the killing of a young Latinex man in what was then an unincorporated commercial area near Los Angeles. On the night of June 3, 1943, about eleven sailors got off a bus and started walking along Main Street in Downtown Los Angeles. Encountering a group of young Mexicans in zoot suits, they got into an argument. The sailors later told the LAPD that they were jumped and beaten by this gang, while the Zoot suiters claimed the altercation was started by the sailors. The LAPD responded to the incident, including many off-duty officers who identified as the Vengeance Squad. The officers went to the scene "seeking to clean up Main Street from what they viewed as the loathsome influence of pachuco gangs." "Pachocu" referred to all Latinex youth.
The next day, 200 sailors got a convoy of about 20 taxicabs and headed for East Los Angeles, the center of Mexican-American settlement. The sailors spotted a group of young zoot suiters and assaulted them with clubs. They stripped the boys of the zoot suits and burned the tattered clothes in a pile. They attacked and stripped everyone they came across who were wearing zoot suits. Media coverage of the incidents then started to spread, inducing more people to join in the mayhem. The local press lauded the attacks, describing them as having a "cleansing effect" to rid Los Angeles of "miscreants" and "hoodlums".
The Los Angeles City Council approved a resolution criminalizing the wearing of "zoot suits with reat [sic] pleats within the city limits of LA" with the expectation that Mayor Fletcher Bowron would sign it into law. Councilman Norris Nelson had stated, "The zoot suit has become a badge of hoodlumism." No ordinance was approved by the City Council or signed into law by the Mayor, but the council encouraged the WPB to take steps "to curb illegal production of men's clothing in violation of WPB limitation orders.
While the mobs had first targeted only pachucos, they also attacked African Americans in zoot suits who lived in the Central Avenue corridor area. The Navy and Marine Corps command staffs intervened on June 8 to reduce the attacks, confining sailors and Marines to barracks and ordering that Los Angeles be declared off-limits to all military personnel; this was enforced by Navy Shore Patrol personnel. Their official position was that their men were acting in self-defense despite evidence that they were acting in organized groups.
After the Mexican Embassy lodged a formal protest with the State Department, Governor Earl Warren of California ordered the creation of the McGucken Committee (headed by Los Angeles bishop Joseph McGucken) to investigate and determine the cause of the riots. The committee issued its report; it determined racism to be a central cause of the riots, further stating that it was "an aggravating practice (of the media) to link the phrase zoot suit with the report of a crime."
At the same time, Mayor Bowron came to his own conclusion. The riots, he said, were caused by Mexican juvenile delinquents and by white Southerners who had immigrated to Los Angeles. Racial prejudice in Los Angeles, according to Bowron, was not a factor.
On June 16, 1943, a week after the riots, First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt commented on the riots in her newspaper column. "The question goes deeper than just suits. It is a racial protest. I have been worried for a long time about the Mexican racial situation. It is a problem with roots going a long way back, and we do not always face these problems as we should." The Los Angeles Times published an editorial the next day expressing outrage: it accused Mrs. Roosevelt of having communist leanings and stirring "race discord".
On June 21, 1943, the State Un-American Activities Committee, under state senator Jack Tenney, arrived in Los Angeles with orders to "determine whether the present Zoot Suit Riots were sponsored by Nazi agencies attempting to spread disunity between the United States and Latin-American countries." Although Tenney claimed he had evidence the riots were "[A]xis-sponsored", no evidence was ever presented to support this claim.
June 2, 1774 – The Quartering Act of 1774, which was one of the "Intolerable" Coercive Acts of the British Parliament, is enacted
Quartering of troops refers to not only their housing, but also relates to their provisioning with food, clothing and other necessities. It had long be the custom of European armies to requisition all that they needed during a campaign from the populace of the territory in which they were operating, whether it was their own territory or that of an ally or enemy. The officers charged with overseeing this aspect of the campaign were "quartermasters." In theory, compensation was to be paid to those quartering troops on national or allied territory, but in practice the quartermasters, who were also in charge of paying the troops, were chronically short of funds. During peacetime, however, the relatively small standing armies were generally stationed in barracks or as garrisons of fortresses.
With the expansion of European colonies in the America's the need for large standing armies to defend against both native attacks and belligerent rival states, quartering in peacetime became more common. Initially, the Quartering Act of 1765 applied only to commercial establishment, such as inns and taverns, and the expenses for quartering troops were to be paid by the colonial government. This practice was actually popular with the innkeepers and tavernkeepers, who were provided with regular payment, but less so with the colonial administrators who had to find the funds to make these payments.
The Quartering Act of 1774 was enacted in response to the failure of the local legislatures to provided the needed funds and allowed the royal governor of each of the British Colonies to quarter troops without assent of the owner of the property or with compensation unless such was provided by the legislature. In principle, the Act was limited to quartering troops in unoccupied buildings, but in practice this rule was not always observed, though the quartering of troops with colonial families was far less widespread that is often portrayed. Rather, many of the soldiers, typically officers, who lived in colonial homes were boarders who paid for the accommodations from their own resources or from a stipend paid by the army.
What the colonists found to he "intolerable" about the Quartering Act of 1774 was that it bypassed the traditional role of the legislature in controlling its expenditures. Furthermore, involuntary quartering had been outlawed in Britain as early as 1723 as part of the Mutiny Acts addressed to military discipline, but the British Army did not recognize the Munity Acts as applying in colonial possessions.
Quartering of troops illegally was one of the grievances stated against King George III in the Declaration of Independence and was the subject on the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution. Although quartering of troops is no longer a common practice in modern armies, the principles of the limits on executive power implied by the 3rd Amendment have been cited in several Supreme Court opinions. More recently, the amendment has become the focus of debate over the power of the federal government to requisition property during national emergencies.
Having returned from exile, Napoleon I reestablished the French Empire by proposing a liberal constitution in line with revolutionary ideals. The Charter of 1815, signed on April 22, 1815, was the French constitution prepared by Benjamin Constant at the request of Napoleon when he returned from exile on Elba. The constitution was submitted to the people in a plebiscite and passed overwhelmingly (in a highly suspect vote count) and became the official governing document of the French State on June 1, 1815.
More correctly known as the "Additional Act to the Constitutions of the Empire" the document extensively amended (in fact virtually replacing) the previous Napoleonic Constitutions (Constitution of the Year VIII, Constitution of the Year X and Constitution of the Year XII). The Additional Act reframed the Napoleonic constitution into something more along the lines of the Bourbon Restoration Charter of 1814 of Louis XVIII, while otherwise ignoring the Bourbon charter's existence. It was very liberal in spirit, and gave the French people rights which had previously been unknown to them, such as the right to elect the mayor in communes of less than 5,000 in population. Napoleon treated it as a mere continuation of the previous constitutions, and it therefore took the form of an ordinary legislative act "additional to the constitutions of the Empire."
The legislative power was to be exercised by the Emperor together with the Parliament, which was to be composed of two chambers: the Chamber of Peers composed of hereditary members appointed by the Emperor, and the Chamber of Representatives, composed of 629 citizens elected for 5 year terms by electoral colleges in the individual départments. The ministers were to be responsible to the Parliament for their actions. The liberalization dealt both with the guarantees of rights and the end of censorship.
Despite these liberal reforms, however, Napoleon was, in effect, an absolute monarch with respect to national foreign and war policy. Unable to negotiate a settlement with his former enemies to recognize his rule, he raised an army of over 200,000 - mostly veterans of his former campaigns -- and sought to inflict a decisive victory against the Anglo-Dutch and Prussian armies in order to secure his position within France. At the Battle of Waterloo, Napoleon was defeated and forced to retreat into France and sue for peace, which was offered only on condition of his second abdication.
In the subsequent second restoration of the Bourbon monarchy, the people, through their representatives, attempted to assert the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of 1815. Although the monarchy made some concessions, the punitive reparations required by the Second Treaty of Paris and other factors required the King to impose onerous taxes.
The ascension of Charles X to the throne in 1824 saw a return to near absolute power for the monarch, resulting in the Revolutions of 1830 and 1848. Yet in 1851, Louis Napoleon, president of the Second Republic, staged a coup and declared himself to be Emperor as Napoleon III, reigning until 1870, Despite adopting liberal policies internally, as his uncle had done during 100 days, Napoleon III made the same error has had Napoleon I in assuming that he could exercise absolute control over foreign and war policy. His defeat in the Franco-Prussian War would likewise lead to his downfall as the defeat had Waterloo had done for Napoleon I.
The Copyright Act of 1790 was the first federal copyright act to be instituted in the United States, though most of the states had passed various legislation securing copyrights in the years immediately following the Revolutionary War. The stated object of the act was the "encouragement of learning," and it achieved this by securing authors the "sole right and liberty of printing, reprinting, publishing and vending" the copies of their "maps, charts, and books" for a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14-year term should the copyright holder still be alive.
In 1783 a committee of the Continental Congress concluded "that nothing is more properly a man's own an the fruit of his study, and that the protection and security of literary property would greatly tends to encourage genius and to promote useful discoveries." At the Constitutional Convention 1787 both James Madison of Virginia and Charles C. Pinckney of South Carolina submitted proposals that would allow Congress the power to grant copyright for a limited time. These proposals are the origin of the Copyright Clause in the United States Constitution, which allows the granting of copyright and patents for a limited time to serve a utilitarian function, namely "to promote the progress of science and useful arts".
Both houses of Congress pursued a copyright law during 1790's second session. They responded to President George Washington's 1790 State of the Union Address, in which he urged Congress to pass legislation designed for "the promotion of Science and Literature" so as to better educate the public. This led to the Patent Act of 1790 and, shortly thereafter, the Copyright Act of 1790.
The Peasants' Revolt, also named Wat Tyler's Rebellion or the Great Rising, was a major uprising across large parts of England in 1381. The revolt had various causes, including the socio-economic and political tensions generated by the Black Death pandemic in the 1340s, the high taxes resulting from the conflict with France during the Hundred Years' War, and instability within the local leadership of London. The final trigger for the revolt was the intervention of a royal official, John Bampton, in Essex on 30 May 1381. His attempts to collect unpaid poll taxes in Brentwood ended in a violent confrontation, which rapidly spread across the south-east of the country. A wide spectrum of rural society, including many local artisans and village officials, rose up in protest, burning court records and opening the local gaols. The rebels sought a reduction in taxation, an end to the system of unfree labour known as serfdom, and the removal of the King's senior officials and law courts.
Inspired by the sermons of the radical cleric John Ball and led by Wat Tyler, a contingent of Kentish rebels advanced on London. They were met at Blackheath by representatives of the royal government, who unsuccessfully attempted to persuade them to return home. King Richard II, then aged 14, retreated to the safety of the Tower of London, but most of the royal forces were abroad or in northern England. On 13 June, the rebels entered London and, joined by many local townsfolk, attacked the gaols, destroyed the Savoy Palace, set fire to law books and buildings in the Temple, and killed anyone associated with the royal government. The following day, Richard met the rebels at Mile End and acceded to most of their demands, including the abolition of serfdom. Meanwhile, rebels entered the Tower of London, killing the Lord Chancellor and the Lord High Treasurer, whom they found inside.
On 15 June, Richard left the city to meet Tyler and the rebels at Smithfield. Violence broke out, and Richard's party killed Tyler. Richard defused the tense situation long enough for London's mayor, William Walworth, to gather a militia from the city and disperse the rebel forces. Richard immediately began to re-establish order in London and rescinded his previous grants to the rebels. The revolt had also spread into East Anglia, where the University of Cambridge was attacked and many royal officials were killed. Unrest continued until the intervention of Henry Despenser, who defeated a rebel army at the Battle of North Walsham on 25 or 26 June. Troubles extended north to York, Beverley and Scarborough, and as far west as Bridgwater in Somerset. Richard mobilised 4,000 soldiers to restore order. Most of the rebel leaders were tracked down and executed; by November, at least 1,500 rebels had been killed.
The Peasants' Revolt has been widely studied by academics. Late 19th-century historians used a range of sources from contemporary chroniclers to assemble an account of the uprising, and these were supplemented in the 20th century by research using court records and local archives. Interpretations of the revolt have shifted over the years. It was once seen as a defining moment in English history, but modern academics are less certain of its impact on subsequent social and economic history. The revolt heavily influenced the course of the Hundred Years' War, by deterring later Parliaments from raising additional taxes to pay for military campaigns in France. The revolt has been widely used in socialist literature, including by the author William Morris, and remains a potent political symbol for the political left, informing the arguments surrounding the introduction of the Community Charge in the United Kingdom during the 1980s.