The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798

The Alien and Sedition Acts were four national security bills passed by the 5th U.S. Congress in 1798 and signed into law by President John Adams in the midst of fears that a war with France was imminent. The four laws restricted the rights and actions of U.S. immigrants and limited the First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of the press rights. The four acts—the Naturalization Act, the Alien Friends Act, the Alien Enemies Act, and the Sedition Act—increased the minimum U.S. residency requirement for the naturalization of aliens from five to fourteen years; empowered the President of the United States to order aliens considered â€Å"dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States† or who came from a hostile county deported or imprisoned; and restricted speech that criticized the government or government officials.   Alien and Sedition Acts Key Takeaways The Alien and Sedition Acts were four bills passed in 1798 by the 5th U.S. Congress and signed into law by President John Adams.The four national security bills were passed amid fears that a war with France could not be avoided.The four acts were: the Naturalization Act, the Alien Friends Act, the Alien Enemies Act, and the Sedition Act.The Alien and Sedition Acts restricted the rights and actions of immigrants and limited the freedoms of speech and of the press contained in the Constitution’s First Amendment.The Sedition Act, limiting the freedoms of speech and of the press, was by far the most controversial of the four laws.The Alien and Sedition Acts were also a part of a power struggle between America’s first two political parties; the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. While presented on the premise of preparing for war, the laws were also part of a larger power struggle between the nation’s first two political parties—the Federalist Party and the Anti-federalist, Democratic-Republican Party. The negative public opinion of the Federalist-backed Alien and Sedition Acts proved a major factor in the controversial 1800 presidential election, in which Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson defeated incumbent federalist President John Adams. The Political Aspect When John Adams was elected as the second President of the United States in 1796, his Federalist Party, which favored a strong federal government, had started losing its political dominance. Under the Electoral College system at the time, Thomas Jefferson, of the opposing Democratic-Republican Party, had been elected as Adams’ vice president. Democratic-Republicans—especially Jefferson—believed the states should have more power and accused the Federalists of trying to turn the United States into a monarchy.   When the Alien and Sedition Acts came before Congress, the laws’ Federalist backers argued they would strengthen America’s security during the looming war with France. Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans opposed the laws, calling them an attempt to silence and disenfranchise voters who disagreed with the Federalist Party by violating the right of freedom of speech in the First Amendment. At a time when most immigrants supported Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans, the Naturalization Act raised the minimum residency requirement to qualify for American citizenship from five to 14 years.The Alien Friends Act empowered the president to deport or jail any immigrant deemed to be â€Å"dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States† at any time.The Alien Enemies Act authorized the president to deport or jail any male immigrant above age 14 from a â€Å"hostile nation† during times of war.Finally, and most controversially, the Sedition Act restricted speech considered critical of the federal government. The law prevented people accused of violating the Sedition Act from using the fact that their critical statements had been true as a defense in court. As a result, several newspaper editors who criticized the Federalist Adams administration were convicted of violating the Sedition Act. The XYZ Affair and the Threat of War Their fight over the Alien and Sedition Acts was just one example of how America’s first two political parties were split over foreign policy. In 1794, Britain was at war with France. When Federalist President George Washington signed the Jay Treaty with Britain it greatly improved Anglo-American relations but enraged France, America’s Revolutionary War ally.   Shortly after taking office in 1797, President John Adams tried to smooth things over with France by sending diplomats Elbridge Gerry, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and John Marshall to Paris to meet face-to-face with French foreign minister, Charles Talleyrand. Instead, Talleyrand sent three of his representatives—referred to as X, Y, and Z by President Adams—who demanded a $250,000 bribe and a $10 million loan as conditions of meeting with Talleyrand. After the U.S. diplomats rejected Talleyrand’s demands, and the American people became angered by the so-called XYZ Affair, fears of an outright war with France spread. While it never escalated beyond a series of naval confrontations, the resulting undeclared Quasi-War with France further strengthened the Federalists argument for passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts.   Sedition Act Passage and Prosecutions Not surprisingly, the Sedition Act evoked the most heated debate in the Federalist-controlled Congress. In 1798, as it is today, sedition is defined as the crime of creating a revolt, disturbance, or violence against lawful civil authority—the government— with the intent to cause its overthrow or destruction. Loyal to Vice President Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican minority argued the Sedition Act violated the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech and the press. However, President Adams’ Federalist majority prevailed, arguing that under both U.S. and British common law, seditious acts of libel, slander, and defamation had long been punishable offenses and that freedom of speech should not protect seditious false statements. President Adams signed the Sedition Act into law on July 14, 1798, and by October, Timothy Lyon, a Democratic-Republican congressman from Vermont, had become the first person convicted of violating the new law. During his current reelection campaign, Lyon had published letters criticizing Federalist Party policies in Republican-leaning newspapers. A grand jury indicted him on charges sedition for publishing material with â€Å"intent and design† to defame the U.S. government in general and President Adams personally. Acting as his own defense attorney, Lyon argued that he had no intent to harm the government or Adams by publishing the letters and that Sedition Act was unconstitutional. Despite being supported by popular opinion, Lyon was convicted and sentenced to four months in jail and fined $1,000, a sizable amount at a time when members of the House received no salary and were paid only a $1.00 per diem. While still in prison, Lyon easily won reelection and later overcame a Federalist motion to expel him from the House. Perhaps of more historic interest was the Sedition Act conviction of political pamphleteer and journalist James Callender. In 1800, Callender, originally a backer of Republican Thomas Jefferson, was sentenced to nine months in jail for what a grand jury called his â€Å"false, scandalous, and malicious writing, against the said President of the United States,† then Federalist John Adams. From jail, Callender continued to write widely-published articles supporting Jefferson’s 1800 campaign for president. After Jefferson won the controversial 1800 presidential election, Callender demanded that he be appointed to a postmaster position in return for his â€Å"services.† When Jefferson refused, Callender turned on him, taking his revenge by publishing the first evidence supporting the long-rumored claim that Jefferson had fathered children by his slave Sally Hemings. Including Lyon and Callender, at least 26 people—all opposing the Adams administration—were prosecuted for violating the Sedition Act between 1789 and 1801. The Legacy of the Alien and Sedition Acts Prosecutions under the Sedition Act spurred protests and widespread debate over the meaning of freedom of the press in the context of political speech. Credited as being the deciding factor in Jefferson’s election in 1800, the law represented the worst mistake of John Adams’ presidency. By 1802, all of the Alien and Sedition Acts except the Alien Enemies Act had been allowed to expire or had been repealed. The Alien Enemies Act remains in effect today, having been amended in 1918 to allow the deportation or imprisonment of women. The law was used during World War II to order the confinement of more than 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent in internment camps until the end of the war. While the Sedition Act violated key provisions of the First Amendment, the current practice of â€Å"Judicial Review,† empowering the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of laws and executive branch actions had not yet been perfected. Sources and Further Reading â€Å"The Alien and Sedition Acts: Defining American Freedom.† Constitutional Rights Foundationâ€Å"Alien and Sedition Acts.† The Avalon Project at Yale Law School  Ã¢â‚¬Å"Our Documents: Alien and Sedition Acts.† National Archives and Records Administrationâ€Å"The thin-skinned president who made it illegal to criticize his office.† The Washington Post (September 8, 2018)Ragsdale, Bruce A. â€Å"The Sedition Act Trials.† Federal Judicial Center (2005)

Super Bowl 2011 Commercial Pepsi Max Love Hurts - 906 Words

In the â€Å"Girls Shopping State Farm TV Commercial† the scene is set with two women and a retail store shopping when they both see a purse. The first woman is able to buy the purse because she saved money by purchasing State Farm insurance. The other woman cannot buy the purse because her insurance company is expensive. The consumerism message is by buying inexpensive State Farm insurance a consumer is able to afford their expensive wants. In the† Super Bowl 2011 Commercial Pepsi MAX: Love Hurts† A wife continuously intervenes when she catches her husband eating junk food using different methods but smiles when she witnesses her husband drinking the zero calorie Pepsi Max soft drink. The consumerism message simply states it is healthier to drink Pepsi Max soft drink than to eat junk food. Both commercials are intended to be funny but there are implicit stereotypical racial themes. For instance, in the State Farm TV Commercial the woman who wins the purse is a White American woman the woman who loses out is an Asian-American woman which stereotypically directs that white women make smarter decisions. Once the White American woman â€Å"summons† her agent by singing the State Farm jingle an African American man name Anthony appears to service her. Service jobs are stereotypically regarded as a type of unskilled labor occupation held by black people. When the Asian-American woman summons her insurance singing a similar tune a an old white fisherman shows up dangling a dollar on theShow MoreRelatedStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesCover Printer: Courier/Kendalville Text Font: 10.5/12 ITC New Baskerville Std Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on the appropriate page within text. Copyright  © 2013, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2005 by Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice Hall. All rights reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior toRead MoreInnovators Dna84615 Words   |  339 PagesMASTERING THE FIVE SKILLS OF DISRUPTIVE INNOVATORS Jeff Dyer Hal Gregersen Clayton M. Christensen H A R VA R D B U S I N E S S R E V I E W P R E S S BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 100092 00 i-vi r1 rr.qxp 5/13/11 6:52 PM Page iv Copyright 2011 Jeff Dyer, Hal Gregersen, and Clayton M. Christensen All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmittedRead MoreExploring Corporate Strategy - Case164366 Words   |  658 Pagesthe future in the wake of a global shock. Amazon (A) – long term planning of a successful dot.com. Jordan – the challenge of building capabilities for success in Formula 1. Shefï ¬ eld Theatres – strategy formulation for a wide audience of public and commercial stakeholders. Fisons – disastrous consequences of stakeholder management. Iona – Mission-driven strategy and stakeholder management. HomeCo – wrestling with governance and strategy in the boardroom; a role play. BMW – driving organic growth throughRead MoreProject Mgmt296381 Words   |  1186 PagesUniversity Clifford F. Gray Oregon State University PROJECT MANAGEMENT: THE MANAGERIAL PROCESS Published by McGraw-Hill/Irwin, a business unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10020. Copyright  © 2011 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of The McGraw-Hill Companies

Does diversity affect ethical decisions free essay sample

Does diversity affect ethical decisions? Maintaining diversity and ethics practices is important to most businesses who want to gain the loyalty of employees and trust of consumers. Diversity is much more than one of several ethical issues. Ethics and diversity, in fact, have a multi-dimensional relationship that affects not only what issues we consider, but also the very process of engaging in ethical reflection. Ethical thinking involves the intricate process used to consider the impact of our actions on the individuals or institution we serve. While most decisions are routine, we can unexpectedly face an ethical dilemma when unusual situations occur suddenly for which an immediate response is needed. The foundation of ethical decision-making involves choice and balance, it is a guide to discard bad choices in favor of good ones. No matter the size of a company, unethical behavior can cripple the companys ability to attract customers, be approved for credit or maintain business partnerships. Different organizations and jobs may have different ethical issues arise and require a set standard of ethics. Diversity in the workplace strives to make people of all socio-economic backgrounds feel comfortable working within the organization. It further promotes equal opportunities among all employees or prospective employees to be hired and promoted based on merit not race, gender or creed. Valuing diversity means valuing everyone’s differences, even one’s own. It means preventing anyone from being shut down by others, by patterns of communication and interaction, or by mindlessness. It also means that whoever in the group or team knows what needs to be said has the support to say it. Ethics, too, depends on the speaker who can say what needs to be said. The tremendous amount of social issues surrounding diversity has a major effect on the roots of ethical decisions made by management staffs across the globe. The leaders in all our businesses must focus on following standard practices that represent the ideas of our judicial system. But is staying within the laws governing inclusion enough to meet the needs of making ethical decisions that support diversity? In order to be successful in the marketplace, businesses must develop new perspectives from many different  backgrounds and lifestyles. That being said, diversity certainly is one of the driving forces in how a company operates from a production and an ethical perspective. A diverse work environment helps produce a wide range of ideas and experiences within an organization. However, many workplaces have been slow to embrace diversity and maximize its benefits. Basic ethics indicate that a company should offer diversity training and that its leadership should support a diverse environment. Placing people from various backgrounds together and not helping them learn how to work together leads to unnecessary tension and productivity loss. Ethical diversity includes fairness in evaluations and promotions, effective training and fair pay. These decisions are also based on ethics, general morality, and on the individuals understanding of diversity. The tremendous amount of social issues surrounding diversity has a major effect on the roots of ethical decisions made by management staffs across the globe. The leaders in all our businesses must focus on following standard practices that represent the ideas of our judicial system. But is staying within the laws governing inclusion enough to meet the needs of making ethical decisions that support diversity? In order to be successful in the marketplace, businesses must develop new perspectives from many different backgrounds and lifestyles. That being said, diversity certainly is one of the driving forces in how a company operates from a production and an ethical perspective. Many companies see the benefits in having cultural diversity in their workplace. They see it as an opportunity to explore new markets and revenue streams. International Airlines have long been the epitome of a culturally diverse workplace enabling them to serve new routes to more countries. Some of the biggest corporations in the America are pillars of cultural diversity, such as: General Motors, IBM, Verizon, UPS, McDonald’s, Procter Gamble, Citi Group, Coca Cola and PepsiCo. Companies aiming to attain a global market presence benefit from cultural diversity not just in numbers but more from the various ways of innovation. Entering overseas markets, for instance, can be made less problematic with managers who know the market inside and out, not just the idioms. They also understand the values, lifestyles and buying decisions that can define the right marketing strategies for foreign customers. As many companies have learned developing a culturally diverse workforce that reflects the rich diversity of its markets; provides a better opportunity to grow the business. However, a diverse workplace does present some challenges. Cultural diversity presents some social problems unique to a diverse workplace. It opens up ethnic tensions, conflicts, misunderstandings and some rivalries have turned violent in the worst cases. Construction workers employed by multinational companies with projects overseas have been known to break into confrontations because of the employees disagreeing with management styles. If left unmanaged, language diversity creates communication barriers between local or contractual overseas workers as well as between ethnic groups. There is often a feeling of being left out from decision-making processes. It is not uncommon for cultural diversity to turn into segregated groups where workers sharing the same ethnicity congregate among themselves and not blend with the other employees in the workplace. Cultural diversity needs to be supported by leadership and the management team. Managers who are unprepared to deal with the social problems presented by an ethnically diverse workplace can further aggravate the situation. They can easily be perceived as callous, insensitive, and showing favoritism which only serves to foster low morale and little group participation affecting the overall productivity. A widely disseminated commitment to cultural diversity in terms of policies and organizational support, public pronouncements, internal memos and day-to-day actions can encourage management to embrace cultural diversity as integral to the corporate culture. We also know from social phenomena such as groupthink that more homogeneous groups experience more conformity than diverse groups people in a homogeneous group are more likely to try getting along and going along as a way to remain part of the group and are less likely to counter questionable behavior. Its not hard to imagine then that companies that are too homogeneous can create environments where people are more concerned about conforming rather than solving problems, which then leads them to be more susceptible to unethical behaviors. And it is here that diversity can provide the necessary checks and balances for actions and behavior that would otherwise be left unchecked. Overall, diversity contributes to the perception of ethicality. A diverse workforce brings more skills, abilities and perspectives to a business, allowing companies to come up with more creative solutions to problems and better allocate workers to jobs which are suited for their individual skills and backgrounds. For organizations, having a balanced workforce is central to instill confidence in consumers that this is an ethical organization worthy of their trust. Diversity in the workplace can also increase understanding between employees, boost the companys image and reduce lawsuits, according to University of Florida research on diversity. An effective program optimizing a culturally diverse workplace can improve job performance and work-life satisfaction among both local and foreign employees. Diversity training programs include inviting employees to speak about their different backgrounds or hiring a professional diversity speaker to come and lead a seminar on the topic. Companies can also institute a no tolerance policy for harassment and teasing based on diversity issues. Ensuring a cohesive and unified workforce that works like a sports team should be the goal of the company.