document_title: U.S. history of alcohol minimum purchase age by state

question_text: when did michigan raise drinking age to 21

text: The alcohol laws of the United States regarding minimum age for purchase have changed over time. The history is given in the table below. Unless otherwise noted, if different alcohol categories have different minimum purchase ages, the age listed below is set at the lowest age given (e.g. if the purchase age is 18 for beer and 21 for wine or spirits, as was the case in several states, the age in the table will read as "18", not "21"). In addition, the purchase age is not necessarily the same as the minimum age for consumption of alcoholic beverages, although they have often been the same.

text: As one can see in the table below, there has been much volatility in the states' drinking ages since the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. Shortly after the ratification of the 21st amendment in December, most states set their purchase ages at 21 since that was the Voting age at the time. Most of these limits remained constant until the early 1970s. From 1969 to 1976, some 30 states lowered their purchase ages, generally to 18. This was primarily because the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in 1971 with the 26th amendment. A lot of states started to lower their minimum drinking age in response, most of this occurring in 1972 or 1973.[1][2][3] Twelve states kept their purchase ages at 21 since repeal of Prohibition and never changed them.

text: From 1976 to 1983, several states voluntarily raised their purchase ages to 19 (or, less commonly, 20 or 21), in part to combat drunk driving fatalities.[citation needed] In 1984, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which required states to raise their ages for purchase and public possession to 21 by October 1986 or lose 10% of their federal highway funds. By mid-1988, all 50 states and the District of Columbia had raised their purchase ages to 21 (but not Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, see Additional Notes below). South Dakota and Wyoming were the final two states to comply with the age 21 mandate. The current drinking age of 21 remains a point of contention among many Americans, because of it being higher than the age of majority (18 in most states) and higher than the drinking ages of most other countries. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act is also seen as a congressional sidestep of the tenth amendment. Although debates have not been highly publicized, a few states have proposed legislation to lower their drinking age,[4] while Guam has raised its drinking age to 21 in July 2010.[5]

text:
State
Pre-Prohibition
(prior to 1919)
Post-Prohibition
(after 1933)
1970s / 26th Amendment
(adopted in 1971)
1980s /
Drinking Age Act of 1984
21st century

Alabama
Pre 1881:
None
1881:
21 (none with consent of parent)[6]
21
1975:
Lowered to 19[7]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21 (no one underage is allowed consumption Section 28-1)

Alaska
?
21[7]
1970:
Lowered to 19[9]
1984:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause (if born before January 1, 1965)[10][11]
21

Arizona
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 19[12][13]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Arkansas
Pre 1925:
None[7]
1925:
21[7]
21
21[14]
21[8]
21

California
Pre 1891:
Regulated by municipality/county (common age was 16)[15][16][17]
1891:
18 (statewide)[18]
1933:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21 (except small amounts for religious ceremonies)

Colorado
None[11]
1945:
18: for beer
21: for wine and liquor[7]
18[19]
Raised to 21 in 1987[8]
21

Connecticut
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 18[20]
1982:
Raised to 19
1983:
Raised to 20
1985:
Raised to 21[21]
21 (exemptions: (1) a person over age eighteen who is an employee or permit holder under section 30-90a and who possesses alcoholic liquor in the course of such person’s employment or business, (2) a minor who possesses alcoholic liquor on the order of a practicing physician, or (3) a minor who possesses alcoholic liquor while accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse of the minor, who has attained the age of twenty-one. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to burden a person’s exercise of religion under section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state in violation of subsection (a) of section 52-571b.[22]

Delaware
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 20[13]
1984:
Raised to 21[8]
21

District of Columbia
?
18: for beer and wine[11]
21: for liquor[23][24]
18: for beer and wine[13][24]
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause.[25][26]
21

Florida
?
18[7]
1980:
19[27]
1985:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause[27]
21[28]

Georgia
?
21[11]
1972:
Lowered to 18[12]
1984:
Raised to 19[14]
1985:
Raised to 20[14]
1986:
Raised to 21[14]
21

Hawaii
?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 18[13]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Idaho
?
20: for beer[29][30]
21: for wine and liquor[11][31]
1972:
Lowered to 19 (all)[13][32]
1987:
Raised to 21 in 1987 (Apr 11) with grandfather clause[8][33]
21

Illinois
1872:
Age of majority
(none with written consent of parent)[34]
pre 1961: Age of majority 1961: Raised to 21[35]
1973:
Lowered to 19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[36]
1980:
Raised to 21[37]
21

Indiana
?
Post-1934:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

Iowa
?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 19 in 1972 (Jul 1)
1973:
Lowered to 18 in 1973 (Jul 1)
1978:
Raised to 19 in 1978 (Jul 1)[38]
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Jul 1) with grandfather clause.[14][38]
21

Kansas
?
1949:
18: for beer and wine with less than 4% ABV
21: for liquor[7]
18: for beer and wine with less than 4% ABV[14]
21: for beer and wine with 4% ABV or more[14]
21: for liquor[14][19]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21 (However, anyone under 21 may consume cereal malt beverages with parental supervision on their own property)

Kentucky
?
1938:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

Louisiana
?
As of 1948:
18[13]
18[19]
1987:
Raised to 21 de jure in 1987,[8]
but de facto age was still 18 until 1995 due to a sale loophole.
1995:
De facto age raised to 21 in 1995 when loophole was closed.[39]
1996:
In 1996, briefly lowered by Louisiana Supreme Court to 18 until it reversed its decision, raising to 21 three months later.[40]
Other exceptions still remain.[41]
21 (Exceptions to state law include:[42]

For an established religious purpose;
When a person under twenty-one years of age is accompanied by a parent, spouse, or legal guardian twenty-one years of age or older;
For medical purposes when purchased as an over the counter medication, or when prescribed or administered by a licensed physician, pharmacist, dentist, nurse, hospital, or medical institution;
In a private residence, which shall include a residential dwelling and up to twenty contiguous acres, on which the dwelling is located, owned by the same person who owns the dwelling;
The sale, handling, transport, or service in dispensing of any alcoholic beverage pursuant to lawful ownership of an establishment or to lawful employment of a person under twenty-one years of age by a duly licensed manufacturer, wholesaler, or retailer of beverage alcohol.)

Maine
?
21[7]
1969:
Lowered to 20
1972:
Lowered to 18[12]
1977:
Raised to 20[8][43]
1985:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Maryland
?
21[7]
1974:
Lowered to 18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[44][45]
1982:
Raised to 21 with grandfather clause[8][46]
21 (however anyone can drink when parents, spouses, teachers are present)

Massachusetts
?
21[11]
1973:
Lowered to 18
1979:
Raised to 20 in 1979 (Apr 16)[47][48][49]
Raised to 21 in 1985[8]
21

Michigan
?
21[7]
1972:
Lowered to 18 in 1972 (Jan 1)[50]
1978:
Raised to 19 in 1978 (Dec 3)[51][52]
1978:
Raised to 21 in 1978 (Dec 21), 18 days later.[8]
First state to raise age to 21 since it was lowered
21

Minnesota
?
21[11]
1973:
Lowered to 18 (June 1)
1976:
Raised to 19 (Sept 1)[53]
First state to raise age after lowering.
1986:
Raised to 21[54]
21

Mississippi
?
1966:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[7]
(alcohol not legalized until 1966)
18[19]
Raised to 21 in 1986[8]
21

Missouri
?
1945:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21

Montana
?
21[11]
1971:
Lowered to 19[55]
1973:
Lowered to 18[56][57]
1979:
Raised to 19
1987:
Raised to 21[8][58]
21

Nebraska
?
21[59]
1969:
Lowered to 20
1972:
Lowered to 19[59]
1980:
Raised to 20[14]
1985:
Raised to 21[14]
21

Nevada
?
1933:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21

New Hampshire
?
21[11]
1973:
Lowered to 18[60]
1979:
Raised to 20
1985:
Raised to 21[8][21]
21

New Jersey
Before 1880:
None
Post-1880:
18 (penalties only against businesses)[61][62][63]
21[citation needed]
1973:
Lowered to 18[12]
1980:
Raised to 19
1983:
Raised to 21[8][64]
21

New Mexico
?
1934:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

New York
21
18[65]
18
1982:
Raised to 19 in 1982 (Dec)
1985:
Raised to 21 in 1985 (Dec)[21][66][67]
21

North Carolina
?
18[11]
18: for beer and wine[19]
21: for liquor
1983:
19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Sep 1)[8][26]
21

North Dakota
?
1936:
21[7]
21[14]
21[68]
21

Ohio
?
1935:
18: for 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[69]
18: for 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor
1982 (Aug. 19 to Oct. 1):
19: for 3.2% ABW beer[14]
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[14]
1982 (From Oct. 1):
19: beer
21: wine and liquor[70]
1988:
21[14]
21 (However, anyone can drink with parents or legal-age spouse)

Oklahoma
?
Men:
21
Women:
18: 3.2% ABW beer
21: for beer stronger than 3.2% ABW, wine and liquor[71]
1976:
Lowered to 18 (for 3.2% ABW beer) for both sexes in 1976 (Dec)[72]
Last state to lower the drinking age.
1983:
Raised to 21[11][73]
21

Oregon
?
1933:
21[7]
21
21[8]
21

Pennsylvania
?
1935:
21[7]
21
21[8][52]
21

Rhode Island
?
21[11]
1970:
Lowered to 18[12][74]
1980:
Raised to 19
1981:
Raised to 20
1984:
Raised to 21[21]
21

South Carolina
21[75]
1935:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[7]
18: for beer and wine[19]
21: for liquor
1984:
19: for beer and wine[7]
21: for liquor
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

South Dakota
?
1934:
21 (all)
1939:
Lowered to 18: for 3.2% beer
Raised to 19: for 3.2% beer[76]
1972:
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[13]
1984:
19: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[8]
1988:
Raised to 21[58]
21

Tennessee
Pre 1881:
None
1881:
21[77]
21[7]
1964:
Lowered to 18[7]
1979:
Raised to 19
1984:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Texas
Pre 1909:
21
None (with written permission of parent or guardian)
Post 1909:
21[78][79]
21[7]
1973:
Lowered to 18[80]
1981:
Raised to 19[81]
1986:
Raised to 21 in 1986 (Sep 1)[8][26]
21

Utah
?
1935:
21[7]
21[14]
21[8]
21

Vermont
?
21[7]
1971:
Lowered to 18[82][83]
1986:
Raised to 21[21][83]
21

Virginia
?
21[84]
1974:
Lowered to 18: for beer and wine
(21: for liquor remained)[84]
1981:
Raised to 19 for off-premises consumption
1983:
Raised to 19 (all beer)
1985:
Raised to 21[84]
21

Washington
"Age of majority"
since 1877[85]
21[citation needed]
21
21[8]
21

West Virginia
?
18: for beer and wine
21: for liquor[11]
1972:
Lowered to 18 (all)[86]
1983:
Raised to 19
(& 21 for non-residents)[8][43]
1986:
Raised to 21[8]
21

Wisconsin
1839–1866:
18: for wine and liquor
None: for beer
Post-1866:
21 (all)[87]
18: for beer
21: for wine and spirits
1957:
21: for residents of bordering states with age limit 21.[88]
1963:
Raised to 21 (off-premises beer sales, remained 18 for on-premises).[88]
1972:
Lowered to 18 (all) in 1972 (Mar)[88]
1977:
Border state restriction lifted.[88]
1984:
Raised to 19
1986:
Raised to 21 (September 1, 1986)[88]
21 (however anyone can drink when parents, spouses, teachers are present)[citation needed]

Wyoming
?
21[7]
1973:
Lowered to 19[13]
1988:
Raised to 21 in 1988 (Jul 1)[89][90]
Last state to raise de jure drinking age to 21
21

American Samoa
?
?
?
21?
21[91]

Northern Mariana Islands
–
–
?
21?
21[92]

Puerto Rico
?
18
18
Kept at 18
despite 10% highway funding
penalty under Drinking Age Act.
18[93]

Virgin Islands
?
?
?
18
18[94]

Guam
?
21?
18
18
Raised to 21 in 2010[5]

text: Additional notes[edit]

text:
Contrary to popular belief, since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, not all states specifically prohibit minors' and young adults' consumption of alcohol in private settings. That is because the federal law is concerned only with purchase and public possession, not private consumption, and contains several exceptions. As of January 1, 2007, 14 states and the District of Columbia ban underage consumption outright, 19 states do not specifically ban underage consumption outright, and 17 states have family member or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws. Federal law explicitly provides for religious, medical, employment and private club possession exceptions; as of 2005, 31 states have family member or location exceptions to their underage possession laws.[41]
In the 1960s the age for buying or drinking beer and wine in the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.) was 18; the age for hard liquor was 21.[23][24] Residents from Virginia and Maryland would often drive to D.C. to obtain alcohol. In Louisiana, the 1987 law raising the age from 18 to 21 was deliberately written solely to comply with the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 to avoid losing highway funding, while still allowing 18- to 20-year-olds to drink as before. Not only did it still allow 18- to 20-year-olds to consume in private, it contained a major loophole allowing bars and stores to sell alcohol to 18- to 20-year-olds without penalty (despite purchase being technically illegal) which meant that the de facto age was still 18.[39] In other words, the drinking age was 21 only on paper. This loophole was closed in 1995, but in 1996 the Louisiana Supreme Court declared a drinking age of 21 unconstitutional.[39] That briefly lowered the de jure purchase age to 18, causing an uproar which prompted the Louisiana Supreme Court to reverse its decision, raising the age to 21 three months later.[40] Other exceptions still remain to this day, including drinking in a private residence,[41] and Louisiana still has some of the most liberal general alcohol laws of any state.
Some states were "dry" well before national Prohibition was enacted in 1919, in some cases since achieving statehood. Also, some states did not become fully "wet" until several years after the repeal of Prohibition in 1933 (e.g. Mississippi in 1966). Since 1966, all states and territories of the USA have been "wet", but dry counties and towns still exist in some states.


document_title: Pardon

question_text: the president's power to pardon is limited to

question_tokens: the president 's power to pardon is limited to

root

text: Pardon

text: By country[edit]

text: Canada[edit]

text: Pardons[edit]

text: The Parole Board of Canada (PBC) is the federal agency responsible for making pardon decisions under the Criminal Records Act (CRA). Under the CRA, the PBC can issue, grant, deny, and revoke pardons.

tag: p

text: In 2012, the Parliament of Canada passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act,[1] which changed a number of elements regarding the criminal justice system. The Act replaced the term "pardon" with "record suspension",[2] and the pardon system was similarly changed.[3]

text: A pardon keeps a judicial record of a conviction separate and apart from other criminal records, and gives law-abiding citizens an opportunity to reintegrate into Canadian society.

text: The CRA removes all information about the conviction for which an individual received the pardon from the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC). Federal agencies cannot give out information about the conviction without approval from the Minister of Public Safety Canada.

text: A pardon does not, however, erase the fact that an individual was convicted of a crime. The criminal record is not erased, but it is kept separate and apart from other (non-pardoned) criminal records.

text: A pardon removes disqualifications caused by a criminal conviction, such as the ability to contract with the federal government, or eligibility for Canadian citizenship.

text: If an individual in receipt of a pardon is convicted of a new offence, the information may lead to a reactivation of the criminal record for which the pardon was received in CPIC.

text: A pardon does not guarantee entry or visa privileges to another country. Before travelling to another country, individuals must still contact the authorities of the country in question to find out what the requirements are to enter that country.

text: Processing of pardons by the National Parole Board generally takes six months for a summary offence and 12 months for an indictable offence. If the Parole Board proposes to deny the application, it can take 24 months to process.[4]

text: Individuals can apply for a Pardon if they were convicted as an adult of a criminal offence in Canada, or of an offence under a federal act or regulation of Canada, or if they were convicted of a crime in another country and were transferred to Canada under the Transfer of Offenders Act or International Transfer of Offenders Act. Non-Canadian citizens are not eligible for a Canadian pardon unless they were convicted of a crime in Canada.

text: To be eligible for a pardon or record suspension, individuals must have completed all of their sentences and a waiting period.

text: Individuals are considered to have completed all of their sentences if they have:

text:
Paid all fines, surcharges, costs, restitution and compensation orders
Served all sentences of imprisonment, conditional sentences, including parole or statutory release
Completed their probation order

tag: ul

text: Prior to 2012, following completion of all of their sentences, individuals must have completed a waiting period, as follows:

text:
3 years for summary convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation, except sexual crimes against children
3 years under the National Defence Act, if fined $2,000 or less, detained or imprisoned 6 months or less, or subjected to various lesser punishments for a service offence
5 years for indictable convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation and summary convictions of sexual crimes against children
5 years for all convictions by a Canadian offender transferred to Canada under the Transfer of Offenders Act or International Transfer of Offenders Act
5 years under the National Defence Act, if you were fined more than $2,000, detained or imprisoned more than 6 months, or dismissed from service
10 years for indictable convictions for sexual crimes against children and criminals receiving more than 2 years of imprisonment time for "serious personal injury offence" such as manslaughter or other designated offence under section 752 of the Criminal Code.[5]

text: Effective 13 March 2012, the eligibility criteria and waiting periods changed:

text:
5 years for summary convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation, except sexual crimes against children
5 years under the National Defence Act, if fined $2,000 or less, detained or imprisoned 6 months or less, or subjected to various lesser punishments for a service offence
10 years for indictable convictions under the Criminal Code or other federal act or regulation and summary convictions of sexual crimes against children
10 years for all convictions by a Canadian offender transferred to Canada under the Transfer of Offenders Act or International Transfer of Offenders Act
10 years under the National Defence Act, if you were fined more than $2,000, detained or imprisoned more than 6 months, or dismissed from service
"Not Eligible" for indictable convictions for sexual crimes against children (Schedule 1 Offence under CRA)
"Not Eligible" for criminals with more than three (3) offences prosecuted by indictment, each with a prison sentence of 2 or more years.[6]

text: Applicants for a record suspension must be able to show that they have completed their sentences in full and provide proof of payment.[7]

text: Individuals can apply for a pardon by filling out the application forms available from the Parole Board and by paying a $631 pardon application fee.[8]

text: Clemency[edit]

text: In Canada, clemency is granted by the Governor-General of Canada or the Governor in Council (the federal cabinet) under the royal prerogative of mercy. Applications are also made to the National Parole Board, as in pardons, but clemency may involve the commutation of a sentence, or the remission of all or part of the sentence, a respite from the sentence (for a medical condition) or a relief from a prohibition (e.g., to allow someone to drive that has been prohibited from driving).

text: Chile[edit]

text: In Chile, the institution of pardon (indulto) is regulated in the Criminal Code (article 93, Nº 4º),[9] which deals with the extinction of criminal liability. A pardon "only grants the remission or the commutation of the sentence; it does not remove the condition of having been condemned". The pardon may be either general, when it is granted to all those covered by a specific law passed by qualified quorum in National Congress, or particular, when it is granted by Supreme Decree of the President of the Republic. In Chile's presidential regime, the President is the Head of State; in this capacity, he or she has the discretionary power to grant particular pardons. He or she is not obliged to seek opinion or approval from other authorities, although, the granting of pardons is limited by the norms of Law No. 18.050 (1981),[10] and its Regulations (Decree No. 1542 of 1981 on particular pardons),[11] which forbid particular pardons for those convicted of a crime of terrorism.[12]

text: France[edit]

text: Pardons and acts of clemency (grâces) are granted by the President of France, who, ultimately, is the sole judge of the propriety of the measure. It is a prerogative of the President which is directly inherited from that of the Kings of France. The convicted person sends a request for pardon to the President of the Republic. The prosecutor of the court that pronounced the verdict reports on the case, and the case goes to the Ministry of Justice's directorate of criminal affairs and pardons for further consideration.

text: If granted, the decree of pardon is signed by the President, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and possibly other ministers involved in the consideration of the case. It is not published in the Journal Officiel.

text: The decree may spare the applicant from serving the balance of his or her sentence, or commute the sentence to a lesser one. It does not suppress the right for the victim of the crime to obtain compensation for the damages it suffered, and does not erase the condemnation from the criminal record.

text: When the death penalty was in force in France, all capital sentences resulted in a presidential review for a possible clemency. Executions were carried out if and only if the President reject clemency, by signing a document on which it was written: "decides to let justice take its course".

text: The Parliament of France, on occasions, grants amnesty. This is a different concept and procedure from that described above, although the phrase "presidential amnesty" (amnistie présidentielle) is sometimes pejoratively applied to some acts of parliament traditionally voted upon after a presidential election, granting amnesty for minor crimes.

text: Germany[edit]

text: Similar to the United States, the right to grant pardon in Germany is divided between the federal and the state level. Federal jurisdiction in matters of criminal law is mostly restricted to appeals against decisions of state courts. Only "political" crimes like treason or terrorism are tried on behalf of the federal government by the highest state courts. Accordingly, the category of persons eligible for a federal pardon is rather narrow. The right to grant a federal pardon lies in the office of the President of Germany, but he or she can transfer this power to other persons, such as the chancellor or the minister of justice.

text: In early 2007, there was a widespread public discussion about the granting of pardons in Germany after convicted Red Army Faction terrorist Christian Klar, who was serving six consecutive sentences of life imprisonment, filed a petition for pardon. President Horst Köhler ultimately denied his request.

text: For all other (and therefore the vast majority of) convicts, pardons are in the jurisdiction of the states. In some states it is granted by the respective cabinet, but in most states the state constitution vests the authority in the state prime minister. As on the federal level, the authority may be transferred. Amnesty can be granted only by federal law.

text: Greece[edit]

text: The Constitution of Greece grants the power of pardon to the President of the Republic (Art. 47, § 1). He/She can pardon, commute or remit punishment imposed by any court, on the proposal of the Minister of Justice and after receiving the opinion (not the consent necessarily) of the Pardon Committee.

text: Hong Kong[edit]

text: Prior to the Transfer of the sovereignty in 1997, the power of pardon was a royal prerogative of mercy of the monarch of the United Kingdom. This was used and cited the most often in cases of inmates who had been given the death penalty: from 1965 to 1993 (when the death penalty was formally abolished) those who were sentenced to death were automatically commuted to life imprisonment under the Royal Prerogative.

text: Since the Transfer, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong now exercises the power to grant pardons and commute penalties under section 12 of article 48 Basic Law of Hong Kong. "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise the following powers and functions...to pardon persons convicted of criminal offences or commute their penalties".

text: India[edit]

text: Under the Constitution of India (Article 72), the President of India can grant a pardon or reduce the sentence of a convicted person, particularly in cases involving capital punishment. A similar and parallel power vests in the Governors of each State under Article 161.

text: The Constitution of India vests sovereign power in the President and governors. The governance in the Centre and states are carried out in the name of President and Governor respectively. A President is empowered with the power to pardon under Article 72 of the Indian Constitution. Article 72 says that the President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence. The meaning of these terms is as follows:

text: The pardoning powers of the Indian President are elucidated in Art 72 of the Indian Constitution. There are five different types of pardoning which is mandated by law. 1. Pardon: means completely absolving the person of the crime and letting him go free. The pardoned criminal will be like a normal citizen. 2. Commutation: means changing the type of punishment given to the guilty into a less harsher one. For example, a death penalty commuted to a life sentence 3. Reprieve: means a delay allowed in the execution of a sentence, usually a death sentence, for a guilty person to allow him some time to apply for Presidential Pardon or some other legal remedy to prove his innocence or successful rehabilitation. 4. Respite: means reducing the quantum or degree of the punishment to a criminal in view of some special circumstances, like pregnancy, mental condition etc. 5. Remission: means changing the quantum of the punishment without changing its nature. for eg. reducing 20 year rigorous imprisonment to 10 years.

text: The Article 72 reads:

text: (1) The President shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remission of punishment or to suspend remit or commute the sentence of any persons convicted of any offence-

text: (a) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court martial;

text: (b) in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;

text: (c) in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.

text: (2) Nothing in sub- clause (a) of clause (1) shall after the power conferred by law on any officer of the Armed Forces of the Union to suspend, remit or commute a sentence passed by a Court Martial.

text: (3) Nothing in sub-clause (c) of clause (1) shall affect the power to suspend remit or commute a sentence of death exercisable by the Governor of a State under any law for the time being in force.

text: Similarly, as per article 161: Governor of a State has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends. Please note that President can grant pardon to a person awarded death sentence. But Governor of State does not enjoy this power.

text: The question is that whether this power to grant pardon is absolute or this power of pardon shall be exercised by the President on the advice of Council of Ministers. The pardoning power of President is NOT absolute. It is governed by the advice of the Council of Ministers. This has not been discussed by the Constitution but is the practical truth. Further, the Constitution does not provide for any mechanism to question the legality of decisions of President or governors exercising mercy jurisdiction. But the SC in Epuru Sudhakar case has given a small window for judicial review of the pardon powers of President and governors for the purpose of ruling out any arbitrariness. The court has earlier held that court has retained the power of judicial review even on a matter which has been vested by the Constitution solely in the Executive.

text: However, it is important to note that India has a unitary legal system and there is no separate body of state law. All crimes are crimes against the Union of India. Therefore, a convention has developed that the Governor's powers is exercised for only minor offenses, while requests for pardons and reprieves for major offenses and offenses committed in the Union Territories are deferred to the President.

text: Both the President and Governor are bound by the advice of their respective Councils of Ministers and hence the exercise of this power is of an executive character. It is therefore subject to Judicial Review as held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Maru Ram v. Union of India [1980] INSC 213, 1981 (1) SCC 107, Supreme Court. It was subsequently confirmed by Kehar Singh v. Union of India [1988] INSC 370, 1989(1) SCC 204, Supreme Court. In the case of Epuru Sudhakar & Anr vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors [2006] INSC 638, Supreme Court, it was held that "clemency is subject to judicial review and that it cannot be dispensed as a privilege or act of grace". The court made these observation while quashing the decision of then Governor of Andhra Pradesh Sushil Kumar Shinde in commuting the sentence of a convicted Congress activist.[13]

text: Iran[edit]

text: In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Supreme Leader has the power to pardon and offer clemency under Article 110, § 1, §§ 11.

text: Ireland[edit]

text: Constitutional basis[edit]

text: The Irish constitution states (in Article 13.6) that "The right of pardon and the power to commute or remit punishment imposed by any court exercising criminal jurisdiction are hereby vested in the President, but such power of commutation or remission may also be conferred by law on other authorities".

text: The power of clemency is nominally exercised by the president. However, the President of Ireland must act "on the advice" of the Government (cabinet), so in practice the clemency decisions are made by the government of the day and the president has no discretion in the matter. The responsibility can also be delegated to people or bodies other than the president.

text: Amnesty and immunity, on the other hand, are usually dealt with by an Act of the Oireachtas rather than by a general form of pardon or a slate of individual pardons.

text: There are two methods by which a pardon may proceed:

text: Method I[edit]

text: In the first procedure, aimed at miscarriages of justice, the Minister for Justice may recommend to the Government that they formally advise the President to grant a pardon, and any conditions along with it. 1993 Criminal Procedure Act provides the method by which a person convicted of an offense may apply for a pardon. Under this procedure, the person must:

text:
Have already been convicted.
Used up their appeals.
Allege a newly discovered fact showing a miscarriage of justice has taken place.

text: Then they can apply in writing to the Minister for Justice for a pardon. The minister may then "make or cause to be made such inquiries as they consider necessary" and may refuse to grant the pardon on his/her own initiative, or if they think the person should be pardoned, bring such argument to cabinet.

text: Method II[edit]

text: Section six of the act allows a Minister for Justice to seek or receive a pardon request from someone whose case is not a 'miscarriage of justice', but has some other fault, such as an archaic law, a law being misapplied by a rogue judge, a reduction in the harshness of a sentence or a substitution of a sentence, without having to go through the procedure above, gone through appeals, or presented new facts. It also allows the minister to waive the procedure in a case of miscarriage of justice if the specific case warrants it. It may also allow prospective pardons as it allows the minister to pardon someone who has not been convicted yet, which the other procedure requires.

text: Committee of Inquiry[edit]

text: The government itself may assemble a committee to study the case in more detail on their behalf. This may consist of anyone, and any number, but the chair must be:

text:
A judge or former judge or
A Barrister of at least 10 years standing or
A solicitor of at least 10 years standing.

text: This special committee may look to any material it sees fit to make its decision, even if it was not, or would not be, available to a jury or trial judge in a normal court. The government do not have to be bound by the committee recommendations.

text: Pardons under Military Law[edit]

text: Under Section 7(5) of the act, the same powers of the Minister for Justice apply to the Minister for Defense in the case of military officers and enlisted convicted by courts martial.

text: Compensation[edit]

text: The Minister for Justice or Defense may also, in their absolute discretion, pay compensation, determined by them alone, to any person given a pardon, if this compensation is applied for. If they think the compensation is too low they may challenge for a higher figure in the High Court.

text: List of people who have received a Presidential Pardon since 1938

text: The power is used very infrequently compared to, for example, pardons in the United States.

text:
1940 – Thomas Quinn granted by Douglas Hyde
1943 – Walter Brady granted by Douglas Hyde
1992 – Nicky Kelly granted by Mary Robinson
1999 – William Geary granted by Mary McAleese
Source: Murdoch's Dictionary of Irish Law by Henry Murdoch, Page 566: 3rd Edition: ISBN 0-9514032-5-7

text: Israel[edit]

text: In Israel the President has the power to pardon criminals or give them clemency. The pardon is given following a recommendation by the Minister of Justice.

text: After the Kav 300 affair, President Chaim Herzog issued a pardon to four members of the Shin Bet prior to them being indicted. This unusual act was the first of its kind in Israel.

text: Italy[edit]

text: In Italy, the President of the Republic may "grant pardons, or commute punishments" according to article 87 of the Italian Constitution. Like other acts of the president, the pardon requires the countersignature of the competent government minister. The Constitutional Court of Italy has ruled that the Minister of Justice is obliged to sign acts of pardon.[14]

text: The pardon may remove the punishment altogether or change its form. Unless the decree of pardon states otherwise, the pardon does not remove any incidental effects of a criminal conviction, such as a mention in a certificate of conduct (174 c.p.) or the loss of civil rights.

text: According to article 79 of the Italian Constitution the Parliament may grant amnesty (article 151 c.p.) and pardon (article 174 c.p.) by law deliberated a majority of two thirds of the components. The last general pardon, discounting 3 years from sentences, was approved in 2006.

text: Poland[edit]

text: In Poland, the President is granted the right of pardon by Article 139 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland. As of October 2008, 7,819 people were pardoned, while 3,046 people's appeals were declined.

text:
Lech Wałęsa

Approved – 3,454
Declined – 384

Aleksander Kwaśniewski

Approved – 3,295 (the first term); 795 (the second term); total – 4,090
Declined – 993 (the first term); 1,317 (the second term); total – 2,310

Lech Kaczyński (until October 2007)

Approved – 77
Declined – 550

Bronisław Komorowski

Approved - 219
Declined - 189

text: Russia[edit]

text: The President of the Russian Federation is granted the right of pardon by Article 89 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The chain of pardon committees manage lists of people eligible for pardon and directs them to the President for signing. While President Boris Yeltsin frequently used his power of pardon (1998 - 7,8 thousand cases), his successor Vladimir Putin is much more hesitant; he granted five pardons in 2014 and two in 2015.[15]

text: Pardon can be requested in any time. The next request can be submitted in minimum one year after the previous one.[16]

text: South Africa[edit]

text: Under section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Act 108 of 1996), the President of the Republic of South Africa is responsible for pardoning or reprieving offenders. This power of the President is only exercised in highly exceptional cases.

text: To pardon a person is to forgive a person for his/her deeds. The pardon process is therefore not available to persons who maintain their innocence and is not an advanced form of appeal procedure.

text: Pardon is only granted for minor offences after a period of ten years has elapsed since the relevant conviction.

text: For many serious offences (for example if the relevant court viewed the offence in such a serious light that direct imprisonment was imposed) pardon will not be granted even if more than ten years have elapsed since the conviction.

text: Spain[edit]

text: The derecho de gracia ("right of grace") or indulto ("pardon") is acknowledged by the Spanish Constitution of 1978 as a privilege of the King of Spain (article 62.i: "Functions of the King"). The Spanish Constitution defines it as a renounce on the State's part of its own punitive power on behalf of an individual, founded on reasons of equity or public interest. The Constitution subjects royal pardons to the Law and forbids general pardons, so they have to be granted individually. Theoretically, royal pardon can be granted for the general offense or the accessory offenses alone; if it is granted for the general offense, the accessory ones it implies are also pardoned, with the exception of punishments involving political rights (i.e., removal of the right to run for a public office as a result of a sentence), which have to be explicitly mentioned in the pardon decree if they are going to be pardoned.

text: The procedure and requirements for the grant of the pardon are given by the Law of 18 June 1870, modified by the Law 1/1988 of 14 January. The application for royal pardon has to be carried out by the convicted person himself, his relatives or any other person in his name. The convicting Court will then issue a report of the case, which shall be considered along with the public comments of the Prosecutor and the victims of the crime if there were any. All of this is gathered by the Minister of Justice, who will present the pardon issue it to the Cabinet of Ministers. If the Cabinet decides pardon to be granted, then the Minister of Justice will recommend it to be granted to the King. Pardons are issued by Royal Decree and have to be published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado ("Public Journal").

text: Pardons are not commonly conceded in Spain but for offenders convicted for minor crimes who are about to complete their sentence and have shown good behaviour and repentance. Dating back to medieval times, several organisations and religious brotherhoods still hold the right of granting pardons as part of some privilege or other granted to them by the King of Spain. The scope of this privilege depends on the royal charter received by the organisation when their right to concede pardons was granted, though it usually holds only for minor offenses in very especial conditions; this right is implicitly acknowledged by the public offices nowadays, though it is not exercised but following the usual procedure for royal pardons. Traditionally, they will propose some petty criminal about to end his sentence for pardon being granted to him, and he/she will be released following the tradition to which the pardon holds, usually during the Holy Week. This type of pardons are distinguished from the usual ones in that they only release the prisoner from jail, halting the sentence, but do not pardon the offense itself.

text: Switzerland[edit]

text: In Switzerland, pardons may be granted by the Swiss Federal Assembly for crimes prosecuted by the federal authorities. For crimes under cantonal jurisdiction, cantonal law designates the authority competent to grant pardons (if any). In most cantons, the cantonal parliament may pardon felonies, and the cantonal government may pardon misdemeanors and minor infractions.

text: Turkey[edit]

text: The president of Turkey is granted the right of pardon under certain circumstances defined in the constitution, article 104. According to the article, the president can "remit, on grounds of chronic illness, disability, or old age, all or part of the sentences imposed on certain individuals". After the convict's or his or her proxy's application, if the Council of Forensic Medicine determines that the convict suffers from chronic illness, disability, or old age, the Ministry of Justice presents the situation to the president, and the president can choose to grant a pardon.

text: Additionally, the parliament of Turkey has the power to announce general amnesty.

text: United Kingdom[edit]

text: The power to grant pardons and reprieves in the United Kingdom is known as the Royal prerogative of mercy. It was traditionally in the absolute power of the monarch to pardon an individual for a crime, whether or not he or she had been convicted, and thereby commute any penalty; the power was then delegated both to the judiciary and the Sovereign's ministers. Since the creation of legal rights of appeal, the Royal prerogative of mercy is no longer exercised by the person of the sovereign, or by the judiciary, but only by the government.

text: In constitutional terms, under the doctrine of the Rule of Law, the power of ministers to overrule the judiciary by commuting criminal sanctions imposed resolves different and sometimes conflicting public interests. In civil matters, only the legislative branch, and not ministers, have the power to override the judiciary.

text: Until the nineteenth century, for many crimes the sentence was mandatory and was formally pronounced in court immediately upon conviction, but judges and ministers were given powers to exercise the Royal prerogative of mercy out of court, in order to mitigate the rigour of the law. Before there was any general form of criminal appeal, a judge might grant a pardon either by way of clemency, because he felt in his opinion that the law was unduly harsh (for example, in the case of convictions of minors), that the verdict was dubious, that to seek public approval, or it was otherwise in the public interest. Capital sentences imposed by the Assizes were generally executed when the Assize was concluded and as the circuit judge left the town, so there was a limited window of time to apply to a judge or directly to the Crown for a pardon. Especially for Assizes that were far away from the then capital and major cities of London, York, Durham, Edinburgh, or Dublin, a pardon might well arrive too late. Perhaps as a form of temporary punishment, to give solace, to avoid public disorder, to consult or obtain further evidence, or to maximise the public approval of the King's mercy, judges often did not grant their pardons until their departures; the convict often hoped until his last moments that the sentence of death would not actually be executed, and it was generally popular for a reprieve to arrive at the scaffold at the very moment of the execution.[17]

text: Conditional pardons were granted to many in the 18th century, in return for transportation to British colonies overseas for life in lieu, especially to the Australian Colonies.

text: The first known General Pardon in post-Conquest England was issued during the celebrations at the coronation of King Edward III in 1327. In 2006, all soldiers from England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland who were executed for cowardice during the First World War were given a statutory pardon by an Act of Parliament, resolving a long-running controversy about the justice of their executions.[18] (See the Armed Forces Act 2006.)

text: Today the Sovereign only grants pardons upon the advice of her ministers: currently they are the Secretary of State for Justice, for England and Wales, the First Minister of Scotland, or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Defence is responsible for military cases. It is the standard policy of the Government to only grant pardons to those who are considered "morally" innocent of the offence, as opposed to those who may have been wrongly convicted by a misapplication of the law. Pardons are generally no longer issued prior to a conviction, but only after the conviction. The use of the Royal prerogative of mercy is now a rare occurrence, given that the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission are now avenues to statutory remedies against miscarriages of justice.

text: Therefore, the grant of pardons is now very rare occurrence indeed, and the vast majority of acknowledged miscarriages of justice were decided upon by the courts. During the Birmingham Six case, Home Secretary Douglas Hurd stressed that he could only make the decision for a pardon if he was "convinced of [their] innocence", which at the time he was not.[19]

text: One recent case was that of two drug smugglers, John Haase and Paul Bennett. They were pardoned in July 1996 from their sentences of imprisonment both of 18 years, having served some ten months, on the advice of Home Secretary Michael Howard.[20] This was intended as a reward for their information given to the authorities, but there were speculations as to the motives of the Home Secretary.[21] In 2008 they were sentenced to imprisonment for 20 and 22 years, respectively, after subsequent discovery that their information given was unreliable.

text: In 1980, after the courts had dismissed their appeals, the Home Secretary, William Whitelaw, used the Royal prerogative of mercy to free David Cooper and Michael McMahon from their imprisonment, both having been convicted of murder on poor evidence.[22][23]

text: Under the Act of Settlement, a pardon cannot prevent a person from being impeached by Parliament, but a pardon may commute any penalties imposed for the conviction. In England and Wales no person may be pardoned for an offence under Section 11 of the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (unlawfully transporting prisoners out of England and Wales).[24]

text: United States[edit]

text: Federal law[edit]

text: In the United States, the pardon power for federal crimes is granted to the President of the United States under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution which states that the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment". The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.[25]

text: All federal pardon petitions are addressed to the President, who grants or denies the request. Typically, applications for pardons are referred for review and non-binding recommendation by the Office of the Pardon Attorney, an official of the United States Department of Justice.[26] The percentage of pardons and reprieves granted varies from administration to administration; however, fewer pardons have been granted since World War II.[27]

text: The pardon power has been controversial from the enactment of the United States Constitution.

text: State law[edit]

text: The pardon power of the President extends only to an offense recognizable under federal law.[28] However, the governors of most of the 50 states have the power to grant pardons or reprieves for offenses under state criminal law. In other states, that power is committed to an appointed agency or board, or to a board and the governor in some hybrid arrangement (in some states the agency is merged with that of the parole board, as in the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board).[29]

text: Nine states in the United States have Boards of Pardons and Paroles that exclusively grant all state pardons. These states are: Alabama (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Connecticut (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Georgia (Board of Pardons and Paroles), Idaho (Commission of Pardons and Paroles), Minnesota (Board of Pardons), Nebraska (Board of Pardons), Nevada (Board of Pardon Commissioners), South Carolina (Board of Probation, Parole and Pardon), and Utah (Board of Pardons and Parole).

text: On at least three occasions, state governors—George Ryan[30] of Illinois in 2003, Toney Anaya[31] of New Mexico in 1986 and Martin O'Malley[32] of Maryland in 2014—have commuted all death sentences in their respective states prior to leaving office.

text: Related concepts[edit]

text: These terms differ subtly from country to country, but generally:[33][34]

text:
Amnesty: A pardon applied to a group of people rather than an individual. President Jimmy Carter offered amnesty to anyone who had evaded the draft. Weapon amnesties are often granted so that people can hand in weapons to the police without any legal questions being asked as to where they obtained them, why they had them, etc. After a civil war a mass amnesty may be granted to absolve all participants of guilt and "move on". Amnesties are typically applied in advance of any prosecution for the crime.
Commutation: Substituting the imposed penalty for a crime with a lesser penalty, whilst still remaining guilty of the original crime (e.g., someone who is guilty of murder may have their sentence commuted to life imprisonment rather than death, or the term of imprisonment may be reduced).
Remission: Complete or partial cancellation of the penalty, whilst still being considered guilty of said crime (i.e., reduced penalty). Also known as remand, the proceedings by which a case is sent back to a lower court from which it was appealed, with instructions as to what further proceedings should be had.
Reprieve: Temporary postponement of a punishment, usually so that the accused can mount an appeal (especially if he or she has been sentenced to death).[35]
Respite: The delay of an ordered sentence, or the act of temporarily imposing a lesser sentence upon the convicted, whilst further investigation, action, or appeals can be made.[36]
Clemency: Catch-all term for all of the above, or just referring to amnesty and pardons.
Expungement: The process by which the record of a criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the official repository, thus removing any traces of guilt or conviction.
Immunity from prosecution: A prosecutor may grant immunity, usually to a witness, in exchange for testimony or production of other evidence. The prosecutor (conditionally) agrees not to prosecute a crime that the witness might have committed in exchange for said evidence. e.g. If a car thief witnesses a murder, he will often be granted immunity for his crime in order to allow him to testify against the murderer.
Other immunity: Several other types of immunity are available, depending on the status of a person as a member of the government.

text: Some criminals who testify for the prosecution put their life in jeopardy by doing so. To encourage witnesses to testify, the government may offer witness protection. In the United States Federal Witness Protection Program, about "95% of [witnesses in the program] are ... criminals."[37] Those who testify for the prosecution may be offered immunity from prosecution for their own crimes.[37]


document_title: Bolt (2008 film)

question_text: who did the voice of mittens in bolt

question_tokens: who did the voice of mittens in bolt

text: Bolt (2008 film)

text: Plot

text: In the prologue, a puppy named Bolt is adopted by a seven-year-old girl named Penny (Chloë Grace Moretz).

text: Five years later, Bolt (John Travolta) and Penny (Miley Cyrus) star on a hit adventure television series called Bolt in which the titular character has various superpowers and must constantly thwart the evil plans of the nefarious Doctor Calico (Malcolm McDowell). To gain a more realistic performance, the TV show's producers have deceived Bolt his entire life, arranging the filming in such a way that Bolt believes the television show is real and that he really has superpowers, including a powerful sonic scream-like "superbark". After a cliffhanger episode causes Bolt to believe Penny has been kidnapped by the villain, he escapes from his on-set trailer in Hollywood but knocks himself unconscious trying to break through a window and falls into a box of foam peanuts and unknown to the film company is accidentally shipped to New York City. In New York, Bolt eventually comes round, and starts to notice that his "superpowers" aren't working, and rationalizes this is the effect that styrofoam has on his body. He then meets Mittens (Susie Essman), a female alley cat who bullies pigeons out of their food. Bolt (believing she's one of Calico's minions) forces Mittens to help him get back to Penny, and after Bolt ends up knocking Mittens unconscious into a letter box, the two start their epic journey westward on a truck. In Hollywood, Penny is deeply saddened over Bolt's disappearance but is convinced by the studio to continue filming with a Bolt lookalike.

text: Surprised at his first feelings of hunger, Bolt is shown by Mittens how to act like a cute, but needy dog, and is rewarded by food for the both of them at a nearby RV park in Elmwood Place, Ohio. Here, they meet Rhino (Mark Walton), a fearless, TV-obsessed hamster and Bolt fan who joins their team. Rhino’s unwavering faith in Bolt substantiates the dog’s illusions about his superpowers, but Mittens, who learned from Rhino that Bolt is from a television show, tries to convince Bolt that his superpowers aren't real. Bolt refuses to listen to Mittens, and instead becomes frustrated and attempts to "superbark" her repeatedly. The noise attracts Animal Control, who captures them both and transports them to an animal shelter. After being freed en route by Rhino, Bolt finally realizes that he is just a normal dog, but regains his confidence after Rhino (oblivious to this revelation) gives him a pep talk. They rescue Mittens from the shelter and escape, allowing them to continue their journey. Along the way, Mittens helps Bolt through his identity crisis by teaching him typical dog activities (such as hanging his head out car windows and chasing sticks), but Mittens refuses to go farther than Las Vegas. She tells Bolt that his Hollywood life is fake and there is no real love for him there. Her emotional rant reveals that she was once a house cat, but was abandoned by her previous owner and left to brave the harsh streets alone and declawed. Bolt refuses to believe that Penny doesn't love him, and continues on alone, wishing Mittens the best. Rhino, learning of Bolt's departure, convinces Mittens that they must help him, and the two set off to find Bolt once again.

text: Bolt reaches the studio and finds Penny embracing his lookalike. Unaware that Penny still misses him and that her affection for the lookalike is only a part of a rehearsal for the show, he leaves, brokenhearted. Mittens, on a gantry in the studio, sees what Bolt does not: Penny telling her mother how much she misses Bolt. Realizing that Penny truly does love Bolt, Mittens follows Bolt and explains. At the same time, the Bolt-lookalike panics during the show's filming and accidentally knocks over some flaming torches, setting the sound stage on fire with Penny trapped inside. Bolt arrives and reunites with Penny inside the burning studio, but are unable to escape before Penny begins to suffocate from the smoke. Bolt refuses to leave Penny, and with the strength he has left, Bolt uses his "superbark" through the building's air vent. Hearing the noise, the firefighters rescue them before they both succumb to smoke inhalation.

text: Penny and her mother subsequently quit when their overeager agent attempts to exploit the incident for publicity purposes. The show continues with a replacement "Bolt" and "Penny" – "Penny's" new appearance being explained in the show as being serious injuries necessitating her undergoing facial reconstruction surgery, and adopting a new storyline that involves alien abduction. Penny herself adopts Mittens and Rhino, and she and her family move to a rural home to enjoy a simpler, happy lifestyle with Bolt and her new pets.

text: The epilogue scenes during the credits show Bolt, Penny, her mother, Mittens, and Rhino enjoying their new life together.

text: Cast

text:
John Travolta as Bolt
Susie Essman as Mittens
Mark Walton as Rhino
Miley Cyrus as Penny

Chloë Grace Moretz as Young Penny

Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Calico
Nick Swardson as Blake
Diedrich Bader as Veteran Cat
Greg Germann as The Agent
James Lipton as The Director
Randy Savage as Thug
Kari Wahlgren as Mindy
Grey DeLisle as Penny's Mother
J.P. Manoux as Tom
Brian Stepanek as Martin
John DiMaggio as Saul
Jenny Lewis as Assistant Director

text: Production

text: Development

text: At first, the film was going to be titled American Dog, and was written and directed by Chris Sanders. Eventually, Sanders was removed from the project and replaced by Chris Williams and Byron Howard.[2] The film's previous plot told the story of a dog named Henry, a famous TV star, who one day finds himself stranded in the Nevada desert with a testy, one-eyed cat and an oversized, radioactive rabbit who are themselves searching for new homes, all the while believing he is still on television. In 2006, after becoming Chief Creative Officer at Disney Animation, John Lasseter along with other directors from Pixar and Disney attended two screenings of the film and gave Sanders notes on how to improve the story. According to Lasseter, Sanders was replaced because he resisted the changes that Lasseter and the other directors had suggested. Lasseter was quoted as saying "Chris Sanders is extremely talented, but he couldn't take it to the place it had to be."[3] After Sanders left and the original title was removed, the animation team was told to complete the filming in 18 months instead of the usual four years that is normally required to produce a computer-animated feature.[4] On June 8, 2007, Disney announced that the film, now under its current name, would be released on November 21, 2008 in Disney Digital 3-D.[5][6]

text: Animation

text: The look of the film was inspired by the paintings of Edward Hopper and the cinematography of Vilmos Zsigmond.[7] New technology in non-photorealistic rendering (NPR) was used to give it a special visual appearance, a technique also used in Tangled (2010). To give the film's 3D backgrounds a hand-painted look, the company artists used new patented technology designed specifically for the film.[8]

text: Bolt's characteristics are based on an amalgam of breeds, although the designers started with the American White Shepherd.[9] Joe Moshier, lead character designer, said, "they American White Shepherds have really long ears, a trait that I tried to caricature in order to allow the animators to emphasize Bolt's expressiveness."[9]

text: The design of Rhino in his plastic ball was based on executive producer John Lasseter's pet chinchilla, which was brought to an animators' retreat during the film's production.[10]

text: Music

text:
Bolt

Soundtrack album by John Powell

Released
November 25, 2008 (2008-11-25)

Genre
Score

Length
36:59

Label
Walt Disney

Walt Disney Animation Studios chronology

Meet the Robinsons
(2007)Meet the Robinsons2007
Bolt
(2008)
The Princess and the Frog: Original Songs and Score
(2009)The Princess and the Frog: Original Songs and Score2009

tag: table

text: The score to Bolt was composed by John Powell.[11] The soundtrack featured the film's score and two original songs – I Thought I Lost You by Bolt's stars Miley Cyrus and John Travolta (nominated for a Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song on 2009) as well as "Barking at the Moon" by Rilo Kiley singer Jenny Lewis.[11] The soundtrack was released on November 18, 2008.[12]

text: Although Motörhead has a song in the film, they do not seem to appear in either the soundtrack or the score. Motörhead's song "Dog-Face Boy" (from their Sacrifice album) is in a mailroom scene where a young worker is listening to it on his headphones and inadvertently wraps Bolt up in a box that gets shipped off to New York City.[13]

text: Track listing:

text: All music composed by John Powell, except as noted.

text:
No.
Title
Artist
Length

1.
"I Thought I Lost You"
Miley Cyrus & John Travolta
3:36

2.
"Barking at the Moon"
Jenny Lewis
3:17

3.
"Meet Bolt"

1:49

4.
"Bolt Transforms"

1:00

5.
"Scooter Chase"

2:29

6.
"New York"

1:44

7.
"Meet Mittens"

1:25

8.
"The RV Park"

2:14

9.
"A Fast Train"

2:38

10.
"Where Were You on St. Rhino's Day?"

1:58

11.
"Sing-Along Rhino"

0:42

12.
"Saving Mittens"

1:02

13.
"House on Wheels"

3:07

14.
"Las Vegas"

2:01

15.
"A Friend in Need"

1:13

16.
"Rescuing Penny"

3:09

17.
"A Real Life Superbark"

0:46

18.
"Unbelievable TV"

1:20

19.
"Home at Last/Barking at the Moon (Reprise)"
Jenny Lewis
1:29

Total length:
36:59

text: Release

text: Bolt was theatrically released in the United States on November 21, 2008. Beginning in its fourth week in theaters, the film was accompanied by Pixar's Cars Toons short Tokyo Mater.[14]

text: Home media

text: Bolt was released on Region A Blu-ray Disc in the United States on March 22, 2009. The BD set included standard DVD and digital copy versions of the film. Single-disc DVD and Special Edition DVD with Digital Copy versions followed in Region 1 on March 24.[15] This marked the first time a major home-video release debuted on Blu-ray Disc before DVD.[16] Bolt was released on both Blu-ray and DVD in the United Kingdom on June 15, 2009.[17]

text: A short film called Super Rhino is included in the DVD and Blu-ray versions of the film.[18] The DVD has sold 4,581,755 copies, generating $81.01 million in sales as of December 31, 2009.[19] The 3D Blu-ray version of the film was released in November 2010, in France[20] and UK.[21] A month later it was released worldwide, exclusively to select Sony TVs.[22][23] In US, it was released on November 8, 2011.[24]

text: Reception

text: Critical reception

text: On Rotten Tomatoes the film has a rating of 89% based on 179 reviews. The site's critical consensus reads: "Bolt is a pleasant animated comedy that overcomes the story's familiarity with strong visuals and likable characters."[25] Another review aggregator, Metacritic, gave the film a 67/100 approval rating based on 29 reviews following under the category "generally favorable reviews".[26]

text: Perry Seibert of TV Guide gave the film 3 stars out of 4 and wrote the film "amuses both those who make up the film's target audience and the parents along for the ride. This winning mix of exciting action, heart-tugging sentiment, and gentle character comedy makes Bolt yet another solid addition to Disney's history of family-friendly fare."[27] Tasha Robinson of The A.V. Club gave the film a B+ stating that "Bolt is the studio's first film since Lilo & Stitch that feels like it's trying to recapture the old Disney instead of aggressively shedding it in favor of something slick and new. And yet it comes with a healthy cutting-edge Pixar flavor as well."[28] Kenneth Turan of The Los Angeles Times wrote that "[Bolt] also has an intriguing plot that is kind of the family animation version of the Jim Carrey-starring The Truman Show."[29]

text: Box office

text: On its opening weekend, the film opened number 3 with $26,223,128 behind Twilight and Quantum of Solace.[30] On its second weekend, it rose to No. 2 behind Four Christmases with a 1.4% increase.[31] In the United States and Canada, the film grossed $114,053,579 by its closing date on February 22, 2009.[32] An additional $195,926,415 was made internationally as of January 2, 2011, for a worldwide total of $309,979,994.[1][33]

text: Award nominations

text: Bolt was nominated for the following awards:

text:
2008 Academy Award for Best Animated Feature – lost to WALL-E[34]
2008 Annie Award for Best Animated Feature – lost to Kung Fu Panda[35]
2008 Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Animated Feature – lost to WALL-E[36][37]
2008 Chicago Film Critics Association Award for Best Animated Film – lost to WALL-E[38]
2008 Golden Globe Award for Best Animated Feature Film – lost to WALL-E[39]
2008 Golden Globe Award for Best Original Song - lost to The Wrestler[39]
2008 Online Film Critics Society Award for Best Animated Film – lost to WALL-E[40]
2008 Produce Guild of America's Best Animated Motion Picture – lost to WALL-E[41]
2008 Satellite Award for Best Animated or Mixed Media Feature – lost to WALL-E[42]
2009 Kids' Choice Awards for Favorite Animated Movie – lost to Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa[43]

text: Video games

text: Disney Interactive Studios produced a video game based on the film, released in November 2008 for Nintendo DS, Wii, PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and PC.[44] The game focuses on Bolt's fake TV life, not the actual storyline.[45] A separate game was released for mobile phones,[46] and a third game, RhinoBall, was released as an application on Apple's App Store.[47]


document_title: International Children's Peace Prize

question_text: who won the international children's peace prize

question_tokens: who won the international children 's peace prize

text: International Children's Peace Prize

text: The International Children’s Peace Prize is awarded annually to a child who has made a significant contribution to advocating children's rights and improving the situation of vulnerable children such as orphans, child labourers and children with HIV/AIDS.

text: The prize is an initiative of the KidsRights Foundation, an international children's aid and advocacy organisation based in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. KidsRights should not be confused with the group which grants the Nobel Peace Prize.

text: The first Children's Peace Prize was launched in November 2005 during the World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates in Rome, an annual meeting of Nobel Peace Prize winners and international organisations such as UNICEF and Amnesty International. "We welcome the launch of Children’s Peace Prize during our summit," the summit's closing statement said.

text: Mikhail Gorbachev presented the 2005 prize, which was posthumously awarded to Nkosi Johnson, a South African boy who brought international attention to children with HIV/AIDS and founded the Nkosi's Haven home for HIV-positive mothers and children. The winner receives a 100,000 euro donation to benefit a charitable project for children, as well as a statuette which has been named the Nkosi in Nkosi Johnson's honour.

text: The 2006 award was handed out by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Frederik Willem de Klerk in a ceremony at the Binnenhof, the seat of the Dutch parliament in The Hague. The 2007 was presented at the Binnenhof by Bob Geldof and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Betty Williams. The 2008 prize was presented by Desmond Tutu.

text: Recipients[edit]

text:
2005 – Nkosi Johnson, South Africa
2006 – Om Prakash Gurjar, India
2007 – Thandiwe Chama, Zambia
2008 – Mayra Avellar Neves, Brazil
2009 – Baruani Ndume, Tanzania
2010 – Francia Simon, Dominican Republic
2011 – Michaela 'Chaeli' Mycroft, South Africa
2012 – Kesz Váldez, Philippines
2013 – Malala Yousafzai, Pakistan
2014 – Neha Gupta, United States
2015 – Abraham M Keita, Liberia
2016 – Kehkashan Basu

text: Similar awards[edit]

text: An International Children's Peace Prize is also handed out by the Children as the Peacemakers Foundation. The World's Children's Prize for the Rights of the Child is awarded yearly by Swedish organisation Children's World.

text: Sources[edit]

text:
The Children's Peace Prize
KidsRights Foundation
World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates closing statement
Telegraaf (Dutch)
Children as the Peacemakers Foundation

text:
[hide]

v
t
e

Awardees of the International Children's Peace Prize

 Nkosi Johnson
 Om Prakash Gurjar
 Thandiwe Chama
 Mayla Avellar Neves
 Banruani Ndume
 Francia Simon
 Michaeli Mycroft
 Kesz Váldez
 Malala Yousafzai
 Neha Gupta

text: Peace awardsChildren's rights organizationsHuman rights awardsAwards honoring children or youthAwards established in 2005


document_title: National Dairy Research Institute

question_text: ndri karnal developed second clone of which animal

text: National Dairy Research Institute

text: History[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: The National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal was originally started as Imperial Institute of Animal Husbandry and Dairying in 1923 at Bangalore. It was expanded and renamed as Imperial Dairy Institute in 1936 and was known as National Dairy Research Institute after independence in 1947. Subsequently, in 1955, NDRI headquarters was shifted to Karnal. Facilities at Bangalore were retained to function as a Regional Station to serve the Southern States.

text: In 1964, Eastern Regional Station of the Institute was established at Kalyani, West Bengal. Both these Regional Stations continue to provide region specific R&D support for dairy development in these areas. In 1970, NDRI was brought under the wings of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research to provide greater operational autonomy to the Institute in research management functions.

text: In 1989, status of Deemed University was conferred to the Institute for further strengthening the academic programmes for human resource development.

text: In 1990, with the birth of "Pratham", the first IVF buffalo calf of the world, NDRI reached a significant milestone.

text: Events held at NDRI[edit]

text:
Eighth Convocation; APJ Abdul Kalam's Address[2]
13th Convocation; held on 14 February 2015.
Agriculture Science Congress : In 2015.

text: Animal Biotechnology Centre Achievements[edit]

text:
PRATHAM: National Dairy Research Institute has gathered world repute by making the first IVF (in vitro fertilization) buffalo in the world.
SAMRUPA: The world's first cloned buffalo calf, was to be India's answer to Dolly the sheep. But unlike Dolly, the first mammal cloned 13 years ago, who lived for seven years, Samrupa succumbed to a lung infection, five days after it was born.[3]
First cloned Calf: On Feb 6, 2009, the first cloned calf was born; it survived for only six days and died on February 11. The Scientists of NDRI had developed a landmark technique and had created the first cloned buffalo calf.[4]
GARIMA: The world’s second cloned buffalo calf through the Advanced Hand-guided Cloning Technique was born at NDRI, Karnal on June 6, 2009. It survived for more than two years but she died of heart failure on August 18, 2011.
Gamini: On Aug 22, 2010, a cloned calf of female buffalo ‘Garima-2’ nicknamed Gamini was born from embryonic stem cell; she is the mother of a calf named ‘Mahima’.
Shrestha: On Aug 26, 2010, a cloned calf of male buffalo 'Shrestha' was born from the somatic cell from the ear of an elite bull; it has been producing a good-quality of fertile semen.
Noori: On 9 March 2012, world's first pashmina goat was born and was named Noori. She is a healthy female and the first pashmina goat to produce by a process of cloning using the nuclear transfer method. Noori was produced at the Centre for Animal Biotechnology at Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir (SKAUST), in Srinagar, India. Funded by World Bank, the clone project was a jointly worked by SKAUST and National Dairy Research Institute (NDRI).
Mahima: On 25 January 2013 at 1.51 PM by normal parturition a female calf was born from cloned buffalo Garima. NDRI has named the newborn female calf “Mahima”. In the world, it is the first calf born from cloned buffaloes, produced through hand-guided cloning technique. Mahima weighs 32 kg,
Swarn: On Mar 18, 2013, a clone of male buffalo ‘Swarn’ born from the somatic cell of semen; it is alive and healthy.
Purnima: On Sept 6, 2013, a clone of female buffalo ‘Purnima’ born from a high milk-yielding animal; it survived for 21 days before dying.
Lalima: On May 2, 2014 'Lalima’ was born through the NDRI's ‘hand-guided cloning technique’.
Rajat: On July 23, 2014, a male cloned calf named 'RAJAT’ was produced through the "Hand-guided Cloning Technique‟.

text: Dairy Achievements[edit]

text:
Two strains of cattle, namely Karan Swiss and Karan Fries developed by crossbreeding, followed by selection.
Cytogenetic profiles of various breeds of cattle, buffaloes and goats elucidated .
Development of Hansa test for detection of adulteration of cow milk with buffalo milk.
Development of ‘Degcure’ for curing Degnala disease.
Urea-molasses block lick development for use as a good source of nitrogen and minerals to cattle during scarcity period.
Protocol for induction of lactation in indigenous cows and buffaloes development.
Procedures development and standardized for estrus synchronization and super ovulation different hormone combinations in cattle and buffaloes.
Ten calves produced from a single donor cow in one year’s time through ETT.
Protocol for embryo transfer technology standardized for cattle and buffalo
The world first in vitro fertilized buffalo calf born at NDRI. Since then more buffalo calves using this technology have been produced.
Protocols for transferring IVF goat embryos to synchronized recipient goats using laparoscopy standardized resulting in the birth of first in vitro fertilized goat kid in the country at NDRI.
A large animal treadmill for cattle and buffaloes fabricated for experimentation on work capacity to determine draught animal power in bullocks. This treadmill is the only one of its kind in India and South East Asia.
Highly sensitive antiserum against progesterone has been development.
Development/standardization of processes and techniques for the manufacture of concentrated milk product such as sweetened condensed and evaporated milks from buffalo milk.
Development of powdered products such as milk powder, Rasogolla powder, gulabjamun mix powder and low-lactose milk
Development of processes for manufacturing of low fat, sugar free desserts & Rasogulla using artificial sweeteners and bulking agents.
Development of different varieties of beverages including sports drinks using whey.
Simple, accurate and rapid methods for estimation of major and minor constituents, heat stability tests and detection of adulterants etc., for milk and milk products such as “synthetic milk” adulteration in milk Development of a process for production of low cholesterol ghee.
Innovations in lactometer design and a for estimation of SNF in milk to suit Indian conditions.
Test kit for detection of various adulterants in milk.
PCR test kit development for detection of food borne pathogens in milk and milk products.
Development of continuous ghee, and channa making machines. Cream separator attachment for domestic mixies and food processors.
Development of process for conversion of ghee into recombined Butter (Butter G).
Development of a composite management index for bovines as a determinant in enhancing milk production.
Development of a test for measurement of adoption behavior of dairy farmers, training effectiveness index and skill competence scale.


document_title: Signing of the United States Declaration of Independence

question_text: who wrote their name the biggest on the declaration of independence

text: Date of signing[edit]

text: The Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, with 12 of the 13 colonies voting in favor and New York abstaining. The date that the Declaration was signed has long been the subject of debate. Within a decade after the event, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams all wrote that the Declaration was signed by Congress the day it was adopted on July 4, 1776.[1] That assertion is seemingly confirmed by the signed copy of the Declaration, which is dated July 4. Additional support for the July 4 date is provided by the Journals of Congress, the official public record of the Continental Congress. The proceedings for 1776 were first published in 1777, and the entry for July 4 states that the Declaration was engrossed and signed on that date (the official copy was handwritten).[2]

text: In 1796, signer Thomas McKean disputed that the Declaration had been signed on July 4, pointing out that some signers were not present, including several who were not even elected to Congress until after that date.[3] "[N]o person signed it on that day nor for many days after", he later wrote.[4] His claim gained support when the Secret Journals of Congress were published in 1821.[5] The Secret Journals contained two previously unpublished entries about the Declaration.

text: On July 15, New York's delegates heard that they'd gotten permission from their convention to agree to the declaration.[6] The Secret Journals entry for July 19 reads:

text: Resolved That the Declaration passed on the 4th be fairly engrossed on parchment with the title and stile of "The unanimous declaration of the thirteen united states of America" & that the same when engrossed be signed by every member of Congress.[7]

text: The entry for August 2 states:

text: The declaration of Independence being engrossed & compared at the table was signed by the Members.[8]

text: In 1884, historian Mellen Chamberlain argued that these entries indicated that the famous signed version of the Declaration had been created following the July 19 resolution, and had not been signed by Congress until August 2.[9] Subsequent research has confirmed that many of the signers had not been present in Congress on July 4, and that some delegates may have added their signatures even after August 2.[10] Both Jefferson and Adams never wavered from their belief that the signing ceremony took place on July 4, yet most historians have accepted the argument which David McCullough articulates in his biography of John Adams: "No such scene, with all the delegates present, ever occurred at Philadelphia."[11]

text: Legal historian Wilfred Ritz concluded in 1986 that about 34 delegates signed the Declaration on July 4, and that the others signed on or after August 2.[12] Ritz argued that the engrossed copy of the Declaration was signed by Congress on July 4, as Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin had stated, and that it was implausible that all three men had been mistaken.[13] Ritz believed that McKean's testimony was questionable,[14] and that historians had misinterpreted the July 19 resolution. According to Ritz, this resolution did not call for a new document to be created, but rather for the existing one to be given a new title, which was necessary after New York had joined the other 12 states in declaring independence. Ritz reasoned that the phrase "signed by every member of Congress" in the July 19 resolution meant that delegates who had not signed the Declaration on the 4th were now required to do so.[15]

text: List of signers[edit]

text: Fifty-six delegates eventually signed the Declaration of Independence:

text:
President of Congress

1. John Hancock (Massachusetts Bay)

New Hampshire

2. Josiah Bartlett
3. William Whipple
4. Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts Bay

5. Samuel Adams
6. John Adams
7. Robert Treat Paine
8. Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

9. Stephen Hopkins
10. William Ellery

Connecticut

11. Roger Sherman
12. Samuel Huntington
13. William Williams
14. Oliver Wolcott

New York

15. William Floyd
16. Philip Livingston
17. Francis Lewis
18. Lewis Morris

New Jersey

19. Richard Stockton
20. John Witherspoon
21. Francis Hopkinson
22. John Hart
23. Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania

24. Robert Morris
25. Benjamin Rush
26. Benjamin Franklin
27. John Morton
28. George Clymer
29. James Smith
30. George Taylor
31. James Wilson
32. George Ross

Delaware

33. Caesar Rodney
34. George Read
35. Thomas McKean

Maryland

36. Samuel Chase
37. William Paca
38. Thomas Stone
39. Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia

40. George Wythe
41. Richard Henry Lee
42. Thomas Jefferson
43. Benjamin Harrison
44. Thomas Nelson, Jr.
45. Francis Lightfoot Lee
46. Carter Braxton

North Carolina

47. William Hooper
48. Joseph Hewes
49. John Penn

South Carolina

50. Edward Rutledge
51. Thomas Heyward, Jr.
52. Thomas Lynch, Jr.
53. Arthur Middleton

Georgia

54. Button Gwinnett
55. Lyman Hall
56. George Walton

text: Signer details[edit]

text: Eight delegates never signed the Declaration, out of about 50 who are thought to have been present in Congress during the voting on independence in early July 1776:[16] John Alsop, George Clinton, John Dickinson, Charles Humphreys, Robert R. Livingston, John Rogers, Thomas Willing, and Henry Wisner.[17] Clinton, Livingston, and Wisner were attending to duties away from Congress when the signing took place. Willing and Humphreys voted against the resolution of independence and were replaced in the Pennsylvania delegation before the August 2 signing. Rogers had voted for the resolution of independence but was no longer a delegate on August 2. Alsop favored reconciliation with Great Britain and so resigned rather than add his name to the document.[18] Dickinson refused to sign, believing the Declaration premature, but he remained in Congress. George Read had voted against the resolution of independence, and Robert Morris had abstained—yet they both signed the Declaration.

text: The most famous signature on the engrossed copy is that of John Hancock, who presumably signed first as President of Congress.[19] Hancock's large, flamboyant signature became iconic, and John Hancock emerged in the United States as an informal synonym for "signature".[20] Future presidents Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26) was the youngest signer and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) the oldest.

text: Some delegates were away on business when the Declaration was debated, including William Hooper[22] and Samuel Chase, but they were back in Congress to sign on August 2. Other delegates were present when the Declaration was debated but added their names after August 2, including Lewis Morris, Oliver Wolcott, Thomas McKean, and possibly Elbridge Gerry. Richard Henry Lee and George Wythe were in Virginia during July and August, but returned to Congress and signed the Declaration probably in September and October, respectively.[23]

text: New delegates joining the Congress were also allowed to sign. Eight men signed the Declaration who did not take seats in Congress until after July 4: Matthew Thornton, William Williams, Benjamin Rush, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, George Ross, and Charles Carroll of Carrollton.[24] Matthew Thornton did not take a seat in Congress until November.[25] By the time that he signed it, there wasn't any space for his name next to the other New Hampshire delegates, so he placed his signature at the end of the document.[26]

text: The first published version of the Declaration was the Dunlap broadside. The only names on that version were Congress President John Hancock and Secretary Charles Thomson, and those names were printed rather than signatures. The public did not learn who had signed the engrossed copy until January 18, 1777, when the Congress ordered that an "authenticated copy" be sent to each of the 13 states, including the names of the signers.[27] This copy is called the Goddard Broadside; it was the first to list all the signers[28] except for Thomas McKean, who may not have signed the Declaration until after the Goddard Broadside was published. Congress Secretary Charles Thomson did not sign the engrossed copy of the Declaration, and his name doesn't appear on the Goddard Broadside, even though it does appear on the Dunlap broadside.

text: Stories and legends[edit]

text: Various legends emerged years later concerning the signing of the Declaration, when the document had become an important national symbol. In one famous story, John Hancock supposedly said that Congress, having signed the Declaration, must now "all hang together", and Benjamin Franklin replied: "Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." The quotation did not appear in print until more than 50 years after Franklin's death.[29]


document_title: First Battle of Mesilla

question_text: who led the confederate force that captured fort fillmore

text: First Battle of Mesilla

text: Background[edit]

text: Following the secession of Texas in February 1861 and its joining the Confederacy, a battalion of the 2nd Texas Mounted Rifles under Lieutenant Colonel John R. Baylor was sent to occupy the series of forts along the western Texas frontier which had been abandoned by the Union Army. Baylor's orders from the Department of Texas commander, Colonel Earl Van Dorn, allowed him to advance into New Mexico in order to attack the Union forts along the Rio Grande if he thought the situation called for such measures. Convinced that the Union force at Fort Fillmore would soon attack, Baylor decided to take the initiative and launch an attack of his own.

text: Leaving during the night of July 23, Baylor arrived in Mesilla the next night, preparing to launch a surprise attack the next morning. However, a Confederate deserter informed the fort's commander, Major Isaac Lynde, of the plans. The next day, Baylor led his battalion across the Rio Grande into Mesilla, to the cheers of the population. A company of Arizona Confederates joined Baylor here, and were convinced to muster into the Confederate Army.

text: On July 25, leaving a small force behind to guard the fort, Lynde led 380 Regulars to the village to drive out Baylor.

text: Battle[edit]

text: Lynde approached the town with his command and demanded Baylor's surrender. When Baylor refused, Lynde deployed his men into a skirmish line and opened fire with his mountain howitzers. The infantry was ordered to advance but heavy sand and corn fields interfered with this attack. Lynde then ordered his cavalry, three companies of the Regiment of Mounted Rifles, to charge Baylor's men.

text: The Confederates shot many of the Union soldiers during this time, which disorganized the attack. The Union assault was repulsed, and both sides began skirmishing at long range. Lynde reformed his command but decided to retreat back to the fort, with the Confederates troops and armed Arizona citizens in pursuit. Lynde lost a disputed three to thirteen men killed and two officers and four men wounded, while Baylor lost a disputed two dead and seven seriously wounded with twenty horses killed.

text: Aftermath[edit]

text: At sunset the next day, Baylor ordered his artillery and more cavalry to reinforce him, while the rest of his command moved into position to attack the fort the next day. During the same night, the Confederates captured 85 of the fort's horses, which formed most of the fort's transportation. Fearing an attack the next day, Lynde abandoned Fort Fillmore after destroying the ammunition and supplies in the citadel. He retreated northeast towards Fort Stanton across the dry Organ Mountains via San Augustin Pass. Many Union troops apparently had filled their canteens with the fort's medicinal whiskey instead of water, hardly wise for a summertime march across desert country.

text: During the pursuit the following day, the Confederates were able to capture dozens of straggling Federals. Lynde's dehydrated command, reduced to 100 men by this time, was overtaken by the Confederates, some of whom used a pass (later known as Baylor Pass) to intercept them. They were forced to surrender at San Augustine Springs on July 27. The prisoners were paroled, and Baylor concentrated his battalion at the fort. He was able to refit his command with the captured Springfield rifles and other captured equipment.

text: The Confederate victory at Mesilla actualized local overtures towards secession, which had been ratified by two conventions in March 1861. On August 1 Baylor declared the establishment of an organized Confederate Arizona Territory, consisting of the portion of the New Mexico Territory south of the 34th parallel north. Baylor installed himself as the new territory's military governor, and declared martial law. Baylor's success at Mesilla led to Henry Hopkins Sibley's ambitious New Mexico Campaign the following February.

text: On 25 November 1861 Major Lynde was, by direction of the President of the United States, dropped from the Army rolls for "abandoning his post — Fort Fillmore, N. Mex. — on the 27th of July, 1861, and subsequently surrendering his command to an inferior force of insurgents".