IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

[Column 1]
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

[Column 2]
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

[Column 3]
Massachusetts:
John Hancock

Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

[Column 4]
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

[Column 5]
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

[Column 6]
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple

Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

More Stories

• Another student newspaper fights back
• Chris Hopkins prepares for cops with Civil Liberties folder
• Judge rules Palmdale, CA, curfew law unconstitutional
• Federal abortion bill attacks interstate abortions
• Schools lock toilets to stop smoking

Copyright © Nolo Press

First, the judge looks to see whether a federal, state or local legislative body or government agency has spoken to the issue in the form of a statute, regulation or ordinance.

If a legislative body or government agency has addressed the issue, the judge’s next step is to look for and read written opinions issued by other judges who previously have interpreted the legislative enactment in ways that are relevant to the current issue. For example, suppose that a state law requires landlords to offer and maintain residential rental property that is “fit and habitable.” A tenant has broken his lease and moved out because the heater in his apartment will not raise the temperature above 60 degrees. In order to decide whether this fact renders the apartment “unfit” and constitutes grounds for breaking the lease, a judge would search for a previous case in which a higher court had considered the question of habitability under similar facts.

If there is a statute, regulation or ordinance but no other court has previously interpreted it, the judge does her best to figure out what is intended by its wording. If the language isn’t clear, she tries to discover what the legislative body or governmental agency had in mind when it wrote the law.

More Stories

• Theater owners cave to censorship demands of Clinton
• Find your local curfew law
• Canadian Teenagers Allowed to Carry Smokes On Bus
• Students protest closed campus proposal
• School settles student lawsuit, allows witch symbol

Here is a list of the states that compose each circuit.

District of Columbia District of Columbia.

First: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island.

Second: Connecticut, New York, Vermont.

Third: Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands.

Fourth: Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia.

Fifth District of the Canal Zone, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas.

Sixth: Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee.

Seventh: Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin.

Eighth: Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota.

Ninth: Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, Hawaii. Northern Mariana Islands.

Tenth: Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming.

Eleventh: Alabama, Florida, Georgia.

Federal: All Federal judicial districts.

More Stories

• Students win $450K settlement due to strip search
• Schools lock toilets to stop smoking
• Ben Williams’ Home School Diary
• Curfew Protest at City Hall
• Nation Focuses on Curfew Protest

EXPRESS YOURSELF IN SCHOOL
Tinker V. Des Moines School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969): “Petitioners, three public school pupils in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Government’s policy in Vietnam. They sought nominal damages and an injunction against a regulation that the respondents had promulgated banning the wearing of armbands.

SIT DOWN DURING THE PLEDGE
West Virginia State Board Of Education V. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943): “We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.” “Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self- interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people’s elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions. These laws must, to be consistent with the First Amendment, permit the widest toleration of conflicting viewpoints consistent with a society of free men.”

NO BIBLE READING IN CLASS
Abington School District v. Schempp: “Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law “respecting an establishment of religion,” which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord’s Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day – even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents.”

NO POSTING OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980): “A Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments, purchased with private contributions, on the wall of each public school classroom in the State has no secular legislative purpose, and therefore is unconstitutional as violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.”

SCHOOLS MAY CENSOR STUDENT NEWSPAPERS
Hazelwood School District V. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988): “First Amendment rights of students in the public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings, and must be applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment. A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.”

More Stories

• Students win $450K settlement due to strip search
• Student in skirt challenges dress code
• 14-year-old sentenced to 19 years
• Purple hair and free expression (Update 2)
• Government Imprisons Teen for Trying to Protect Himself

Amendment I.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
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.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

More Stories

• 17-year-old Hockey Player Goes to NHL
• Overprotected, Drunk, and Uninformed
• Powerful quote by Ralph Nader
• Student pleads guilty for “hit list”
• Casa Story: I am afraid I am going to be beat

As seniors know all too well, when time comes to apply to colleges, all your classes, grades, and disciplinary problems are revealed. A suspension can ruin your chances of getting into the college of your choice. Because of its damaging nature, suspensions should not be taken lightly. The Supreme Court has even ruled that students who are suspended have property and liberty interests which are protected by the 14th amendment to the Constitution. This brings us to the biggest concern: when a school suspends you, it may also be violating your civil rights!

Look at the 14th Amendment. Adopted in 1968, it states that the government may not confiscate anyone’s property or throw anyone in prison with out the “due process of law”. This means that the government cannot punish you without a good reason and must allow you to present your side of the case before an objective judge.

In the 1975 case of GOSS v. LOPEZ, the Supreme Court ruled that a student’s “legitimate entitlement to a public education . . . is protected by the Due Process Clause”. Therefore, a school cannot not suspend, much less expel you, unless granted due process.

The GOSS ruling stated that before a student can be suspended for 10 days or less, the school must provide the student with:

• Notice of the charges against him
• An explanation of the evidence they have against the students, and
• Provide the student with an opportunity to present his side of the story.
• In addition, the school must schedule a hearing with the student’s parents before the suspension.

Knowing now the constitutional guidelines for a suspension, compare it to Hillside High School’s [the author's high school] procedures for suspension:

OOPS! Hillside High School has no suspension procedures! At least not any which can be found in the Student Handbook, (where they should be noted).

Gathering from recent suspensions of students in HHS, it can be concluded that the school’s phantom procedures include no more than [1] Telling a student that he will be suspended effective the next day, [2] Calling the parents, if they can be reached, and [3] Sending home a letter alerting parents about the suspension a few days later.

In the past and even recently, the Hillside High School administration has refused to explain to the students why they are being suspended, they have refused to take the student’s side of events into consideration and virtually never called parents in for a hearing before the student was suspended.

Not only is this a violation of students’ constitutional rights, but it is also resulting in the wrongfully ruined reputations of many students.

The Goss ruling does not recommend that schools follow these steps in all cases. For instance, if the school feels it must remove a student from school because he or she is presenting a continued danger to the school, then the school can skip due process. However, there is no excuse that your high school should deny you your rights when it comes to incidents such as alleged insubordination, theft, truancy, or peeling off test labels.

Few students and parents have ever challenged suspensions. Perhaps it was because they had no idea how serious suspensions were, or because they felt nothing could be done. In actuality, no one has the right to violate your rights – not even a school. Not only should parents and students protest whenever due process is denied to a suspended student, but they should also demand that fair and reasonable procedures be established for suspensions in their schools.

More Stories

• Zero tolerance punishes hero
• They want your money, not your brain
• 1997 San Diego Curfew Protests: July 12 Protest
• Website creator wins in Federal Court
• Student wins right to sue principals