Authorization For Chair To Execute Agreements With State Of New York: Fill & Download for Free

Almost always they do, with very rare exceptions.First, an execution is a homicide - a legal homicide - but this cause of death usually requires an autopsy in most jurisdictions. Second, there is a more macabre reason: It is to establish that the person executed was actually dead. When the electric chair was first invented, far less was known about electrocution. There were cases were people had been revived after appearing “dead.” So New York state required an autopsy for those who had been executed to make sure they were really dead. In an old ‘A-Team” episode, the team escaped a firing squad by having someone replace the bullets with blanks and then they ingested a chemical to make them appear dead when the rifles were fired. Although implausible, that is one reason why an autopsy is preformed. That is difficult to fake.However, as mentioned, there are exceptions. Most notably Timohty McVeigh reached an agreement with the local coroner that only an external examination of his body would be conducted. In this specific case, once the execution was carried out, the authority of the court ended, he had “paid his debt”, and he was no different than any deceased person in that county with the ability to waive an autopsy - to a certain, limited, extent.Federal judge lets stand McVeigh autopsy agreement

It all started with a long-simmering intraparty dispute. By 1846, Northern Democrats had a lot to be angry about. The roots of this discontent had been planted in the process that had culminated in the selection of James K. Polk as the Democratic Party’s candidate for the election of 1844.In 1846, a freshman representative from Pennsylvania rose to propose an amendment to an appropriation bill, in order to exclude slavery from any territory that might be acquired from Mexico. Instead of dividing along party lines, the House divided along sectional lines. The amendment ended up not becoming law. But, in retrospect, it was the first salvo in a protracted fight that would culminate in civil war 15 years later.That is the crux of the story. But, as ever with such stories, there is a longer version. Read on.Every Jesus has a Paul, and every Louis XIII has a Richelieu, an éminence grise, an architect and master of logistics who builds and organizes the structures that will stand the test of time. For the Democratic Party, that figure was Martin Van Buren. Conscious of the division that sectionalism could engender, he used the spoils system, a vast system of patronage politics, as a glue to ensure party loyalty and discipline.He was elected to the presidency in 1836, after Andrew Jackson’s two terms, in time to be blamed for the Panic of 1837, a recession that would last nearly a decade. He was voted out of office in 1840, to the benefit of William Henry Harrison, but had good reason to expect to be nominated as the Democratic Party’s candidate for the election of 1844. He was from New York, and Northern Democrats were firmly in his camp. Southern Democrats, too, had pledged their support before the Democratic convention. But then the problem of Texas intervened and changed everything.The great question before the American public in 1844 was whether Texas should be annexed. Annexation meant war with Mexico, the admission of Texas in the Union as a slave state, and possibly further territorial expansion in a Southwestern direction. Martin Van Buren, as a Northerner, was opposed. He drafted a noncommittal letter in which he let it be known that he would be for annexation only with stipulations that would delay the acquisition of territory into the indefinite future. This cost him the support of his Southern and expansionist delegates.They could not simply renege on their pledge to support him, so they came up with a stratagem: rather than nominating a candidate based on majority support, as had been done in 1840, they would introduce a motion to require a 2/3 vote for the nomination of a candidate, as had been done in 1832. Van Buren had the lead on the first ballot, but he fell short of the 2/3 needed to win outright. He gradually lost ground in the next few rounds of voting, until Polk was proposed as a compromise candidate. Polk’s campaign managers were smart enough to make sure his name was brought forth by a Northerner, in order to make it more palatable to the Van Burenites. And on the 9th ballot, Polk was chosen unanimously, in a vote that masked the deep discontent of the Northern wing of the party. Polk might have had broad support, but many Northern Democrats still felt betrayed. They would get their revenge in 1852, when Van Buren would siphon off enough votes from Lewis Cass to enable Zachary Taylor to win.Part of what had made Polk palatable was that, although he supported the annexation of Texas, he also supported the annexation of the Oregon territory. What was called the Oregon territory at the time included our modern states of Oregon, Washington, and the Southern half of British Columbia. Because 54°40′ was the northern boundary of the disputed territory, the slogan Fifty-Four Forty or Fight! was retroactively coined and ascribed to the campaign. But, in truth, the Oregon issue was a bit of an afterthought in the actual campaign.What is true is the fact that the Democratic Party platform called for the “reannexation” of both Oregon and Texas meant that Northerners expected a quid pro quo: in exchange for their support for the annexation of Texas (and possibly of more Mexican territory, following a war with Mexico), Polk would push to annex the entire Oregon territory. Here is what the text of the platform actually said:Resolved, That our title to the whole of the Territory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable; that no portion of the same ought to be ceded to England or any other power, and that the reoccupation of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas at the earliest practicable period are great American measures, which this Convention recommends to the cordial support of the Democracy of the Union.But, with the vote for War against Mexico in hand, Polk turned around and negotiated a peaceful partition with Britain. Northern Democrats, again, felt betrayed enough that 12 of them in the Senate voted against ratification of the treaty. But it passed anyway, thanks to unanimous Whig support.The Northern Democrats had yet another reason to be displeased with the Polk administration. This was the issue of tariffs. Tariffs are import duties. Their aim is to make foreign goods more expensive, in order to give domestic manufacturing a leg up in the local economy. Northerners had been supporters of tariffs since the days of Alexander Hamilton. But in the South, tariffs were seen as giveaways to Northern capitalists, at the expense of the South, where goods would be more expensive, without a commensurate benefit in the local economy.During the 1844 campaign, Polk had been vague enough about his intention on the tariff issue to allow everyone to read into his promises whatever they wanted to see. Democratic leaders were able to campaign in the North and tell their voters that Polk would be friendly to tariffs, and Polk won many Northern states.But then he appointed Robert J. Walker, a firm believer in free trade, as his Secretary of the Treasury. Walker then pushed for a tariff reduction bill, which was successfully pushed through, passing in the Senate by only one vote, including two votes in the affirmative from the new state of Texas. For many Northern Democrats, this was the last straw. And, as we have all learned, The North Remembers. A week later, the Wilmot Proviso was proposed.At the time of the signing of the Constitution, there was little difference between Northerners and Southerners on the question of slavery. There was broad agreement that it was desirable that someday the institution should fall into obsolescence. In 1787, Thomas Jefferson authored the Northwest ordinance, “an Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio.”The 6th and last article said this: There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, always, That any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as aforesaid.It was an open secret that Polk wanted a appropriation bill in which money would be provided for the negotiation of a Mexican cession of territory. He did not want long, embarrassing debates, so he waited until the very end of a Congressional session to have the bill introduced. On the House floor, the apparatus of party discipline was activated: total debate would be limited to 2 hours, and no one could speak more than 10 minutes. After a few speeches were made for and against the measure, the Chair recognized David Wilmot, a first-term Representative from Pennsylvania. He had been a faithful party man and had voted with the administration, even on the unpopular tariff bill. But now, he surprised everyone, first by attacking the administration, and then by proposing an amendment to the appropriation bill:Provided, That, as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted.An Indiana representative proposed the substitution of Wilmot’s amendment by another: the extension of the Missouri Compromise line, which was duly defeated. When the Wilmot Proviso came up to a vote it passed by 80 to 64. All but 3 of the no votes were from slave states.When the whole bill, with the Proviso included came up to a vote, a curious development occurred. The Southern members, who had been so keen on appropriating funds for acquisition of territory now turned against the bill. They moved to table it. Again, a sectional rather than a partisan division was apparent: all but 4 Northerners voted against tabling the motion; all but 3 Southerners voted for. The amended bill then passed 85 to 80, largely along sectional lines. It appeared that the South preferred no territorial acquisition to a territorial acquisition that would ban slavery in the new territories.The Polk administration, opposed to the Proviso, came up with a new plan: They would submit the bill to the Senate at the last possible minute, and ensure that it pass with a motion to remove the offending amendment. Then they would rush the bill back to the House for an up or down vote, without any time for new amendments. At this point, Whig Senator John Davis conceived of a novel idea: he would just talk, and talk, and talk…There is debate about what Davis was trying to accomplish. Some say that he was trying to waste time in order to force the Senate to vote on and approve the version of the bill containing the Proviso. Other say that he was trying to kill the bill because he anticipated the division it would cause. Either way, by the time the clock showed 8 minutes left on the session, he was informed that the House, whose clock was running faster, had already adjourned.It is likely that Polk would have vetoed the measure with the Proviso attached, but one can say for sure. All that is certain is that the Proviso did not become law. And yet, in the years to come, it would prove a rallying point for many Northerners.From the point of view of Northerners in the 1840s, it seemed clear that the founders had exhibited a clear pro-freedom preference. Yes, some of them may have been slave owners, including the author of the Northwest Ordinance, but this had not precluded them from setting the nation on the path to the eventual abolition of slavery.The Northern public did not believe in racial equality. And, indeed, the “free” negro of the North was decidedly a second-class citizen:He could vote but in very few placesHe could not serve on a jury.Except in some parts of Massachusetts, he could not attend non-segregated schools.He was considered a human being, but one of an inferior race.The majority of those who opposed slavery wanted to deport the negro to Africa or to some Caribbean island. This was called “colonization.” Lincoln himself remained a supporter of colonization far into his presidency.But in spite of this, much of the North had, by the 1830s, developed a dislike for slavery, as it became clear that it would not become extinct on its own. In the South, people had gone from acknowledging that slavery was morally problematic to praising it as a positive for the negro, who was content to live as a slave, and whose soul had been saved by Christianization. Southerners argued that the anti-slavery agitators in the North were not concerned one bit for the fate of the negro, but were trying to impose their economic hegemony on the South. In 1858, Senator Jefferson Davis would give the following speech in Congress:What do you propose, you gentlemen of the Free-Soil party? Do you propose to better the condition of the slave? Not at all. Do you propose to emancipate the slave? Not at all. What then do you propose? You say you are opposed to the expansion of the institution of slavery; that you are unwilling that one more foot of territory shall be dedicated to slavery; but that you are determined that all territory shall hereafter be free soil. Now, who is to be benefited by that? Is the white man of the South to be benefited by it? Not at all. Is the slave to be benefited by it? Not at all.Then it is not the interests of the slave which you are after, gentlemen of the Free-Soil party. It is not humanity that influences you in the position which you now occupy before the country. But you are influenced by a desire on your part to take from us unjustly the proceeds of our labor. In other words, your desire is to reduce us to the attitude which Prometheus was made to occupy, that you, like the vulture, may fatten on the products of our soil and industry. It is that you may have an opportunity of cheating us that you want to limit slave territory within circumscribed bounds. It is that you may have a majority in the Congress of the United States, and convert the Government into an engine of northern aggrandizement. It is that your section may grow in power and prosperity upon treasures unjustly taken from the South, like the vampire bloated and gorged with the blood which it has secretly sucked from its victim.Jefferson Davis had a point. The Northern position was inconsistent. Some few called for immediate abolition, but they constituted the radical left-wing fringe. Most people understood that a call for immediate abolition was tantamount to a call for the dissolution of the Union. And, torn between their love of the Union and their distaste of slavery, most Northerners opted for the preservation of the Union.Because of this, they would not push for the abolition of slavery where it already existed. Many did not even think that Congress had the authority to abolish slavery. But, what they were not willing to countenance was to extend slavery into a place where it did not exist. Mexican territory was such a place. True, slavery had not existed in Texas before its importation there by American settlers, but Texas had not been under the control of the American government at the time. But extending slavery into further Mexican territory, territory now under the control of Congress would be to partake in the sin of the perpetuation of slavery. And this, they would not do.Before the acquisition of territory from Mexico, this question would have been academic. But, with the prospects of new territory to be governed by Congress, people had to take a stand. And the Wilmot Proviso proved to be that stand, for many Northerners. The problem with that stand, and what made it so controversial, was that it was a recipe for conflict with the South. The North was, in effect, asking for the South to concede everything and get nothing in return. In the conflicts that would follow in the years following the Proviso, both the Whigs and the Democrats would see their parties torn asunder for the forces of sectionalism. The Southern response to the Proviso became the mirror response, namely that slave property was as valid as any other form of property and that Congress had no right to interfere with it in any of the territories. Between these two extremes, were partisans of Compromise, some who supported letting the inhabitants of the territories decide (this was called popular sovereignty), and others who supported extending the Missouri Compromise line.But, after the compromises failed, after the Supreme Court adopted the Southern position in the Dredd Scott decision, thereby infuriating the North, and after Lincoln was elected, a president from a purely sectional party dedicated to the abolition of slavery, the South decided that it no longer wanted any part of such a union. Secession came, and the the war was on.

What state are you in? Recent changes to state and local laws may prohibit the employer from seeking this information. I have listed a few states below.State and local governments are increasingly adopting laws and regulations that prohibit employers from requesting salary history information from job applicants.The laws are aimed at ending the cycle of pay discrimination and some go further than merely banning pay history questions. A few also prohibit an employer from relying on an applicant's pay history to set compensation if discovered or volunteered; others prohibit an employer from taking disciplinary action against employees who discuss pay with coworkers.CALIFORNIA-Effective Date: Jan. 1, 2018Employers Affected: All employers, including state and local government employers and the legislatureCalifornia's ban prohibits private and public employers from seeking a candidate's pay history. Even if an employer already has that information or an applicant volunteers it, it still can't be used in determining a new hire's pay. The law also requires employers to give applicants pay scale information if they request it.San FranciscoEffective Date: July 1, 2018Employers Affected: All employers, including city contractors and subcontractorsA city ordinance in San Francisco prohibits employers from both asking and considering a job applicants' current or prior compensation in setting pay. It also bars them from disclosing a current or former employee’s salary information without their consentCOLORADO - State-wideEffective Date: Jan. 1, 2021Employers Affected: All employers, including the state and any political subdivision, commission, department, institution or school district thereof.Employers may not ask about an applicant's pay history, nor can they rely on pay history to determine wages. Employers may not discriminate or retaliate against a prospective employee for failing to disclose their pay history.CONNECTICUT-State-wideEffective Date: Jan. 1, 2019Employers Affected: Any individual, corporation, limited liability company, firm, partnership, voluntary association, joint stock association, the state and any political subdivision thereof and any public corporation within the stateEmployers may not ask about an applicant's pay history, unless it was voluntarily disclosed.DELAWARE-State-wideEffective Date: Dec. 14, 2017Employers Affected: All employers, or an employer's agentEmployers are prohibited from screening applicants based on past compensation and from asking about salary history. They may, however, confirm that information after an offer is extended.NEW YORK-State-wideEffective Date: Jan. 9, 2017Employers Affected: All agencies and departments over which the governor has executive authority, and all public benefit corporations, public authorities, boards and commission for which the governor appoints the chair, the chief executive or the majority of board members, except for the Port Authority of New York and New JerseyState agencies and departments may not request salary history from applicants until after an offer of employment is extended. If an applicant's prior compensation is already known, that information may not be relied upon in determining such applicant's salary, unless required by law or collective bargaining agreement.New York CityEffective Date: Oct. 31, 2017Employers Affected: All employers, employment agencies or employees or agents thereofEmployers in New York City are prohibited from requesting information about job applicants' previous pay or benefits. If an employer already has that information, it is prohibited from using that information to set pay.