The 1967 Referendum marked a momentous victory for the indigenous people of Australia and their bid for civil rights. This digital exhibition explores the causes and effects of the referendum. Images and documents in the causes gallery focus on the factors that led to the referendum whilst the effects gallery centres on its consequences. Causes The sources exhibited in the Causes gallery range from strategies, to key figures to provide a detailed picture of the factors that led to the 1967 Referendum.
The government’s power would be placed in the hands of the people, who would choose people to represent them and make decisions (Doc. I). The American people, now united and independent from Great Britain, developed a strong sense of nationalism. People were proud to be an American, and believed strongly in their country (Doc. C). In the late 1700s and early 1800s, Americans began to question slavery. In the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, slavery was banned in the territory northwest of the Ohio River.
Over the course of American history, society has dealt with many flaws, and dilemmas. In Source B, it illustrates that Abigail Adams, John’s wife, wanted the Continental Congress to remember the ladies when they write The Declaration of Independence. In Source C, it rationalizes how slaves didn’t have equal rights as white men, and the petition is trying to give their natural rights back. Furthermore, in Source D, a miniseries that depicted John Adams life, given particular the Revolutionary War. This source allows the viewer to visualize the conflicts that the Continental Congress had, with the colonists, and the British.
The ideology of the Sovereign Citizens movement very from faction to faction and person to person but the centralized belief is that the federal government of the United State, along with state and local governments, are illegitimate and hold no control or authority (FBI's Counterterrorism Analysis Section, 2013). One pro-sovereign site states sovereignty as “having supreme dominion over your realm – That you are the king of your own territory and governed by the law of God, not the laws of bankrupt corporations [states] and their security guards [law enforcement]” (Sovereign Authority , 2014). Evident from this definition, this particular view of the sovereign citizen is weighed heavy against government’s control of money and enforcement of
Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists that believe that even though they reside in the United States that they are separate from the country. They do not believe that the government has any control or authority over them. Sovereign citizens believe that the government has no right to tax them, issue licenses, or do many of the other things that the average American citizen has accepted as the roles of government. Sovereign citizens have been known to commit murder or threaten harm of judges, law enforcement and government officials. Some groups or individuals use their sovereign claims in an attempt to avoid legal trouble and circumvent common traffic laws.
In the 1800’s the newly formed country was split into Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Federalist were those who were supportive of the growth of the government towards a stronger federal government and agreed upon the ratification of the Constitution. Anti-federalist were those who did not support the growth of the government and did not agree with the ratification of the Constitution. When talking about the indifference people felt about the purchasing of the Louisiana Territory it is said that, “Members of the Federalist Party, already a significant minority in both houses of Congress, worried that the Louisiana Purchase would further reduce their clout” (Jesse Greenspan). In other words, the Federalists were worried they would lose their already set status when it came to society and the political world.
HIST 3005 Contreras 1 Luis Contreras Sophie Tunney 12/3/2018 The Needs of the people When a form of governing a state becomes obsolete it is sometimes best to do away with that form of governance and install a new form of government. In our “Shaping Of The Modern World” textbook we can find the source “Common sense” by Thomas Paine explaining how ineffective England’s rule over the colonies is, and we can also find “Social Order And Absolute Monarchy” by Jean Domat which argues in favor of absolute rule by the monarchy. Domat’s idea of absolute monarchy is flawed however because when a monarchy is in power it limits the growth of the state, stomp on the natural rights of its citizen’s, their decisions will affect their people
The solution to this was “threefold”: the first fold was to elect government leaders, the second fold was to limit those government powers, and the third and final fold was to hinder the paths of the majority. Electing government representatives was to deter dictatorships and the elites of the upper class and gain popular consent. Limiting the powers given to those government officials prevented tyranny from anyone who gained any control, and having the only
All writers wanted to deliver a sense of sovereignty
Popular sovereignty: Power that the people have to vote for their leaders or other issues. Constitution example Article l, Section 4, clause 1 - “The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof:” This portion of the constitution is stating that the state will organize their own congressional elections. This is connected to popular sovereignty because voting polls and elections is how people vote for leaders of the country and issues of their state. Current event Votes in for Minnesota School Districts - 11/04/15 - wdaz8 News On election day, East Grand Forks polls have been crowded to decide the future of three close by school districts.
According to Jean Bodin, sovereignty is the complete power of a state to govern itself. King Louis XIV strived to bring sovereignty to his land by attempting to consolidate his power. Louis XIV’s Advice to His Son, Historical Memoirs of the Duc De Saint- Simon, and The Duke of Saint- Simon on the Reign of Louis XIV all detail King Louis XIV’s efforts to become a sovereign leader through control over the government and exerting his power on his subjects in order to limit and assess potential threats to his power.
Civil Disobedience and Manifest Destiny? What is Civil Disobedience exactly? Well in 1849, an American Author by the name of Henry David Thoreau wrote an inspiring piece of literature stating the injustice and unruliness of the governments ways and how America was being run. In the essay that he wrote, he states “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government,” (Henry David Thoreau). What he means is that he’s not asking for there not to be a government, but for there to be a better one.
A big question during this time was whether a government would bring better results to people than they would to themselves in the state of nature. Based on their life experiences and philosophical
They believed that because people are instinctively selfish, that people would have a hard time coexisting in a land where all people were supposed to be treated equal. Though the government was created to aid the people, it was also established to teach the people how to “live properly”. The fact that the constitution was written in the mindset that people needed to be, in a sense, controlled is was and remains a controversial topic. Many view the constitution’s favor for the rich, white, and male property owners was not so much of an “easier way to unify a nation” but more of a list of who it was going to be more desireable to govern. These facts aside, in order to instill equality to a newlywed nation, the people were given some basic human rights and the power to choose who was going to represent them in order to still make sure that the people were still the basis of the new government while still having control over them.
None of this thinking of the “rights of the individual” was present in the Renaissance, when it was still widely assumed that Kings were essentially ordained by God, that monarchy was the natural order of things and that Monarchs were not subject to the laws of ordinary men, and that the ruled were not citizens but subjects and serfs. This is the view documented in the 17th century by Thomas Hobbes in his study on government. He attacked the divine right of monarchy but strongly believe that subjects required a strong ruler to keep them in check otherwise their “passions” would prevail to the detriment of the Monarch and the worthy (wealthy land owners) in society. Hobbes developed this political philosophy in two books. The first was entitled The Elements of Law (1640); this was Hobbes's attempt to provide arguments supporting the King against his challengers.
