Dr. Kristen "NO KINGS" Keegan
@knkeegan.bsky.social
Public and academic history & geography in action. She/her. Sometimes cake, sometimes politics. In the distance, sirens. https://kristen-noble-keegan.com & https://bywaterhistorical.com/
Former gas stations should become "third spaces" with comfortable seating, food, books, games, toilets, and wi-fi for the people waiting.
November 14, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Former gas stations should become "third spaces" with comfortable seating, food, books, games, toilets, and wi-fi for the people waiting.
"and in all prosecutions by indictment or information, to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury."
The state website indicates that the 1982 revision took out "indictment or," which I'm inclined to think is a typo. It's not like indictments have gone away.
(30/??) Back tomorrow.
The state website indicates that the 1982 revision took out "indictment or," which I'm inclined to think is a typo. It's not like indictments have gone away.
(30/??) Back tomorrow.
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
"and in all prosecutions by indictment or information, to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury."
The state website indicates that the 1982 revision took out "indictment or," which I'm inclined to think is a typo. It's not like indictments have gone away.
(30/??) Back tomorrow.
The state website indicates that the 1982 revision took out "indictment or," which I'm inclined to think is a typo. It's not like indictments have gone away.
(30/??) Back tomorrow.
Lately, the concept of requiring bail is itself being contested as an undue and unnecessary burden in many cases. Flexibility on the subject is built into the Constitution.
Last clause of the first sentence, coming up! (29/??)
Last clause of the first sentence, coming up! (29/??)
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
Lately, the concept of requiring bail is itself being contested as an undue and unnecessary burden in many cases. Flexibility on the subject is built into the Constitution.
Last clause of the first sentence, coming up! (29/??)
Last clause of the first sentence, coming up! (29/??)
What's "excessive"? @merriam-webster.com says "exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal." All of which is context-dependent - in terms of the nature of the alleged crime, the time period.
Really, it *has* to be fuzzy. If it's too specific, it's likely to become unjust. (28/??)
Really, it *has* to be fuzzy. If it's too specific, it's likely to become unjust. (28/??)
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
What's "excessive"? @merriam-webster.com says "exceeding what is usual, proper, necessary, or normal." All of which is context-dependent - in terms of the nature of the alleged crime, the time period.
Really, it *has* to be fuzzy. If it's too specific, it's likely to become unjust. (28/??)
Really, it *has* to be fuzzy. If it's too specific, it's likely to become unjust. (28/??)
Still Sec. 8: "to be released on bail upon sufficient security, except in capital offenses, where the proof is evident or the presumption great;"
In the 1818 version, bail was in Sec. 13: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed." (27/??)
In the 1818 version, bail was in Sec. 13: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed." (27/??)
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
Still Sec. 8: "to be released on bail upon sufficient security, except in capital offenses, where the proof is evident or the presumption great;"
In the 1818 version, bail was in Sec. 13: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed." (27/??)
In the 1818 version, bail was in Sec. 13: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed." (27/??)
"to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his behalf;" - the 1818 version said "in his favor."
It's an interesting change. The difference between "in his favor" and "in his behalf" is subtle but real - the testimony might be unfavorable, but no backsies because of that. (26/??)
It's an interesting change. The difference between "in his favor" and "in his behalf" is subtle but real - the testimony might be unfavorable, but no backsies because of that. (26/??)
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
"to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his behalf;" - the 1818 version said "in his favor."
It's an interesting change. The difference between "in his favor" and "in his behalf" is subtle but real - the testimony might be unfavorable, but no backsies because of that. (26/??)
It's an interesting change. The difference between "in his favor" and "in his behalf" is subtle but real - the testimony might be unfavorable, but no backsies because of that. (26/??)
A demand by an accused person might not get a response, after all. The US constitution uses "informed."
Next: "to be confronted by the witnesses against him;" - No change. These first 3 clauses have an underlying theme: NO SECRET TRIALS. No faceless tribunals passing judgment on people. (25/??)
Next: "to be confronted by the witnesses against him;" - No change. These first 3 clauses have an underlying theme: NO SECRET TRIALS. No faceless tribunals passing judgment on people. (25/??)
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
A demand by an accused person might not get a response, after all. The US constitution uses "informed."
Next: "to be confronted by the witnesses against him;" - No change. These first 3 clauses have an underlying theme: NO SECRET TRIALS. No faceless tribunals passing judgment on people. (25/??)
Next: "to be confronted by the witnesses against him;" - No change. These first 3 clauses have an underlying theme: NO SECRET TRIALS. No faceless tribunals passing judgment on people. (25/??)
The US Bill of Rights doesn't include the accused's right to be heard, interestingly, just to have "the assistance of counsel."
Next clause: "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;" - in 1818, it said "to demand" - a wise change, this *requires* provision of the info. (24/??)
Next clause: "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;" - in 1818, it said "to demand" - a wise change, this *requires* provision of the info. (24/??)
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
The US Bill of Rights doesn't include the accused's right to be heard, interestingly, just to have "the assistance of counsel."
Next clause: "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;" - in 1818, it said "to demand" - a wise change, this *requires* provision of the info. (24/??)
Next clause: "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;" - in 1818, it said "to demand" - a wise change, this *requires* provision of the info. (24/??)
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and by counsel;"
No changes. Imagine a system where you could be charged with a crime and not allowed to defend yourself, directly or indirectly, and you'll see why this is in our Constitution. (23/??)
No changes. Imagine a system where you could be charged with a crime and not allowed to defend yourself, directly or indirectly, and you'll see why this is in our Constitution. (23/??)
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and by counsel;"
No changes. Imagine a system where you could be charged with a crime and not allowed to defend yourself, directly or indirectly, and you'll see why this is in our Constitution. (23/??)
No changes. Imagine a system where you could be charged with a crime and not allowed to defend yourself, directly or indirectly, and you'll see why this is in our Constitution. (23/??)
those in the federal constitution.
Section 8 is about rights in criminal prosecutions, and saw a number of changes between 1818 and 1865, and some more in 1982. Let's go! (22/??)
Section 8 is about rights in criminal prosecutions, and saw a number of changes between 1818 and 1865, and some more in 1982. Let's go! (22/??)
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
those in the federal constitution.
Section 8 is about rights in criminal prosecutions, and saw a number of changes between 1818 and 1865, and some more in 1982. Let's go! (22/??)
Section 8 is about rights in criminal prosecutions, and saw a number of changes between 1818 and 1865, and some more in 1982. Let's go! (22/??)
"... describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation."
I think one of the interesting things about these rights is that 1818 was *after* the U.S. Constitution was adopted (1789). It binds the state government to standards at least as high as (21/??)
I think one of the interesting things about these rights is that 1818 was *after* the U.S. Constitution was adopted (1789). It binds the state government to standards at least as high as (21/??)
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
"... describing them as nearly as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation."
I think one of the interesting things about these rights is that 1818 was *after* the U.S. Constitution was adopted (1789). It binds the state government to standards at least as high as (21/??)
I think one of the interesting things about these rights is that 1818 was *after* the U.S. Constitution was adopted (1789). It binds the state government to standards at least as high as (21/??)
"SEC. 7. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or things, shall issue without ...
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
"SEC. 7. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from unreasonable searches or seizures; and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or things, shall issue without ...
... appearance of uprightness and liked having the ability keep their wrongdoings quiet using the libel laws.
The expenses of the legal system may have damaged the utility of this provision during the last ... half-century, maybe? 19/??
The expenses of the legal system may have damaged the utility of this provision during the last ... half-century, maybe? 19/??
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
... appearance of uprightness and liked having the ability keep their wrongdoings quiet using the libel laws.
The expenses of the legal system may have damaged the utility of this provision during the last ... half-century, maybe? 19/??
The expenses of the legal system may have damaged the utility of this provision during the last ... half-century, maybe? 19/??
The right to say things is meaningless if somebody can get you convicted you for libel over it, even if it's true. Which was the law before this.
It also places truth above reputation, a radical idea back when nobles and government officials valued the ... 18/??
It also places truth above reputation, a radical idea back when nobles and government officials valued the ... 18/??
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
The right to say things is meaningless if somebody can get you convicted you for libel over it, even if it's true. Which was the law before this.
It also places truth above reputation, a radical idea back when nobles and government officials valued the ... 18/??
It also places truth above reputation, a radical idea back when nobles and government officials valued the ... 18/??
"SEC. 6. In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court."
Why's this in the "rights" section? Well, first, it backs up the speech & press freedoms. 17/??
Why's this in the "rights" section? Well, first, it backs up the speech & press freedoms. 17/??
November 14, 2025 at 1:33 AM
"SEC. 6. In all prosecutions or indictments for libels, the truth may be given in evidence, and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court."
Why's this in the "rights" section? Well, first, it backs up the speech & press freedoms. 17/??
Why's this in the "rights" section? Well, first, it backs up the speech & press freedoms. 17/??
Instead the press gets its own specific protection: "SEC. 5. No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press."
Nice clear language from 1818. 16/??
[pausing here]
Nice clear language from 1818. 16/??
[pausing here]
November 13, 2025 at 2:42 PM
Instead the press gets its own specific protection: "SEC. 5. No law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press."
Nice clear language from 1818. 16/??
[pausing here]
Nice clear language from 1818. 16/??
[pausing here]
"SEC. 4. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."
Formerly Sec. 5. "Abuse" being libel, slander, incitement to violence, etc. Notice that it's not just "the press" here, it's everybody. 15/??
Formerly Sec. 5. "Abuse" being libel, slander, incitement to violence, etc. Notice that it's not just "the press" here, it's everybody. 15/??
November 13, 2025 at 2:42 PM
"SEC. 4. Every citizen may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."
Formerly Sec. 5. "Abuse" being libel, slander, incitement to violence, etc. Notice that it's not just "the press" here, it's everybody. 15/??
Formerly Sec. 5. "Abuse" being libel, slander, incitement to violence, etc. Notice that it's not just "the press" here, it's everybody. 15/??
Section 4 is the first divergence between 1818 and the 1965 version. The 1818 one said "No preference shall be given by law to any christian sect or mode of worship." That's another stroke against the old established religion, later deemed unnecessary. 14/??
November 13, 2025 at 2:42 PM
Section 4 is the first divergence between 1818 and the 1965 version. The 1818 one said "No preference shall be given by law to any christian sect or mode of worship." That's another stroke against the old established religion, later deemed unnecessary. 14/??
This clause was a clean break with that past, following a long period of a gradual shift away from adherence to the principle.
The hedging at the end there is problematic - licentiousness is so subjective! - but still, overall an improvement. 13/??
The hedging at the end there is problematic - licentiousness is so subjective! - but still, overall an improvement. 13/??
November 13, 2025 at 2:42 PM
This clause was a clean break with that past, following a long period of a gradual shift away from adherence to the principle.
The hedging at the end there is problematic - licentiousness is so subjective! - but still, overall an improvement. 13/??
The hedging at the end there is problematic - licentiousness is so subjective! - but still, overall an improvement. 13/??
"... excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state."
This was a big deal in 1818 Connecticut, because we had a history of having an established church (the Congregational one). Supported by specific taxes and everything. 12/??
This was a big deal in 1818 Connecticut, because we had a history of having an established church (the Congregational one). Supported by specific taxes and everything. 12/??
November 13, 2025 at 2:42 PM
"... excuse acts of licentiousness, or to justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state."
This was a big deal in 1818 Connecticut, because we had a history of having an established church (the Congregational one). Supported by specific taxes and everything. 12/??
This was a big deal in 1818 Connecticut, because we had a history of having an established church (the Congregational one). Supported by specific taxes and everything. 12/??