We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
(DD-415: dp. 1,960; 1. 347'10", b. 36'1"; dr. 11'5", s. 35 k. cpl. 192; a. 5 5", 4 .50 eal., 8 21" tt.; cl. Sims)
The third O'Brien (DD-415) was laid down at Boston Navy Yard, Boston, Mass., 31 May 1938; launched 20 October 1939 sponsored by Miss Josephine O'Brien Campbell, great-greatgreat granddaughter of Gideon O'Brien, and commissioned 2 March 1940, Lt. Comdr. Carl F. Espe, in command. Since the ship was built in drydock with Walke, Landedale, and Madison, the ehristenmg ceremonies were combined.
Throughout 1940 and 1941, the ship operated along the eastern seaboard. After drydocking and repairs in the fall of 1941, the ship left Norfolk 15 January 1942 with Idaho and Mustin and steamed for the Pacific. Transiting the Panama Canal on the 20th, the trio arrived in San Francisco, 31 January 1942.
O'Brien sailed with a convoy for the western Pacific 4 February, but was forced to return when a collision with destroyer Cass damaged her port side. Following repairs at Mare Island, the ship sailed 20 February via San Diego, to Pearl Harbor. There Commander Destroyer Division 4 shifted his flag to O'Brien 5 March.
After operating out of Pearl Harbor and patrolling French Frigate Shoals the ship called at Midway in the latter part of March, eseortmg Curtiss to evacuate civilian personnel. The two returned to Pearl on 3 April 1942. After increase and improvement of her antiaircraft batteries, the ship embarked passengers for the Naval Air Station at Palmyra and sailed 18 April with Flusser and Muplord. The OD then joined convoys from San Diego and San Francisco escorting them to Samoa, arriving Pago Pago, 28 April.
O'Brien was retained at Pago Pago for local escort work. On 26 May she supported the occupation of Wallis Island, previously taken over by the Free French and joined Procgon 19 June for the return voyage to Pearl Harbor.
Operating out of Pearl Harbor, the ship performed escort duty and acted as patrol and plane guard. She got underway 17 August 1942 with TF 17 to reinforce the South Pacific Force, screening the oiler Guadalupe. While eseortingaeonvoy of transports enroute to Guadaleanal, joint TFs 17 and 18 were attacked by the Japanese submarines I-16 and I-19 on 15 Septenlber 1942. Wasp was sunk; North Carolina and O'Brien were damaged by torpedo attacks.
At 1452 that afternoon O'Brien sighted smoke coming from Wasp. As a member of Hornet's ASW screen she made an emergency turn to the right. At about 1454, while accelerating and swinging right, her lookouts spotted a torpedo two points forward of the port beam 1000 yards away. This torpedo missed close astern, but while attention was eoncentrated on it another "fish" hit the port bow.
The explosion did little local damage, but set up severe struetual stresses through the ship. Able to proceed under her own power, the destroyer on 16 September reached Espiritu Santo, where Curtiss made temporary repairs. O'Brien sailed on the 21st for Noumea, New Caledonia, for further repairs by Argonne before proceeding 10 October to San Francisco.
She made Suva on the 13th and sailed once more on the 16th. The rate of leaking continued to increase, and the 18th it was necessary for O'Brien to proceed to the nearest anchorage. Topside weight was jettisoned and preparations were made for abandoning ship, but it was still thought that the ship could be brought intact to Pago Pago, However at 0600 on 19 October the bottom suddenly opened up considerably and the forward and after portions of the hull began to work independently. At 0630 all hands except a salvage crew went over the side; and half an hour later the ship was abandoned entirely. Just before 0800 she went under, after steaming almost 3000 miles since torpedoed. All the crew were saved.
DD 415 earned 1 battle star during World War II.
UNITED STATES v. O'BRIEN
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 233, O'Brien v. United States, also on certiorari to the same court.
O'Brien burned his Selective Service registration certificate before a sizable crowd in order to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs. He was indicted, tried, and convicted for violating 50 U.S.C. App. 462 (b), a part of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, subdivision (3) of which applies to any person "who forges, alters, knowingly destroys, knowingly mutilates, or in any manner changes any such certificate . . .," the words italicized herein having been added by amendment in 1965. The District Court rejected O'Brien's argument that the amendment was unconstitutional because it was enacted to abridge free speech and served no legitimate legislative purpose. The Court of Appeals held the 1965 Amendment unconstitutional under the First Amendment as singling out for special treatment persons engaged in protests, on the ground that conduct under the 1965 Amendment was already punishable since a Selective Service System regulation required registrants to keep their registration certificates in their "personal possession at all times," 32 CFR 1617.1, and wilful violation of regulations promulgated under the Act was made criminal by 50 U.S.C. App. 462 (b) (6). The court, however, upheld O'Brien's conviction under 462 (b) (6), which in its view made violation of the nonpossession regulation a lesser included offense of the crime defined by the 1965 Amendment. Held:
- 1. The 1965 Amendment to 50 U.S.C. App. 462 (b) (3) is constitutional as applied in this case. Pp. 375, 376-382.
- (a) The 1965 Amendment plainly does not abridge free speech on its face. P. 375.
- (b) When "speech" and "nonspeech" elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms. P. 376.
- (c) A governmental regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government and furthers [391 U.S. 367, 368] an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of free expression, and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedom is no greater than is essential to that interest. The 1965 Amendment meets all these requirements. P. 377.
- (d) The 1965 Amendment came within Congress' "broad and sweeping" power to raise and support armies and make all laws necessary to that end. P. 377.
- (e) The registration certificate serves purposes in addition to initial notification, e. g., it proves that the described individual has registered for the draft facilitates communication between registrants and local boards and provides a reminder that the registrant must notify his local board of changes in address or status. The regulatory scheme involving the certificates includes clearly valid prohibitions against alteration, forgery, or similar deceptive misuse. Pp. 378-380.
- (f) The pre-existence of the nonpossession regulation does not negate Congress' clear interest in providing alternative statutory avenues of prosecution to assure its interest in preventing destruction of the Selective Service certificates. P. 380.
- (g) The governmental interests protected by the 1965 Amendment and the nonpossession regulation, though overlapping, are not identical. Pp. 380-381.
- (h) The 1965 Amendment is a narrow and precisely drawn provision which specifically protects the Government's substantial interest in an efficient and easily administered system for raising armies. Pp. 381-382.
- (i) O'Brien was convicted only for the wilful frustration of that governmental interest. The noncommunicative impact of his conduct for which he was convicted makes his case readily distinguishable from Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). P. 382.
- 2. The 1965 Amendment is constitutional as enacted. Pp. 382-385.
- (a) Congress' purpose in enacting the law affords no basis for declaring an otherwise constitutional statute invalid. McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27 (1904). Pp. 383-384.
- (b) Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936) and Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960), distinguished. Pp. 384-385.
376 F.2d 538, vacated judgment and sentence of District Court reinstated. [391 U.S. 367, 369]
Solicitor General Griswold argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Francis X. Beytagh, Jr., Beatrice Rosenberg, and Jerome M. Feit.
Marvin M. Karpatkin argued the cause for respondent in No. 232 and petitioner in No. 233. With him on the brief were Howard S. Whiteside, Melvin L. Wulf, and Rhoda H. Karpatkin.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the morning of March 31, 1966, David Paul O'Brien and three companions burned their Selective Service registration certificates on the steps of the South Boston Courthouse. A sizable crowd, including several agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, witnessed the event. 1 Immediately after the burning, members of the crowd began attacking O'Brien and his companions. An FBI agent ushered O'Brien to safety inside the courthouse. After he was advised of his right to counsel and to silence, O'Brien stated to FBI agents that he had burned his registration certificate because of his beliefs, knowing that he was violating federal law. He produced the charred remains of the certificate, which, with his consent, were photographed.
For this act, O'Brien was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 2 He did not contest the fact [391 U.S. 367, 370] that he had burned the certificate. He stated in argument to the jury that he burned the certificate publicly to influence others to adopt his antiwar beliefs, as he put it, "so that other people would reevaluate their positions with Selective Service, with the armed forces, and reevaluate their place in the culture of today, to hopefully consider my position."
The indictment upon which he was tried charged that he "willfully and knowingly did mutilate, destroy, and change by burning . . . [his] Registration Certificate (Selective Service System Form No. 2) in violation of Title 50, App., United States Code, Section 462 (b)." Section 462 (b) is part of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948. Section 462 (b) (3), one of six numbered subdivisions of 462 (b), was amended by Congress in 1965, 79 Stat. 586 (adding the words italicized below), so that at the time O'Brien burned his certificate an offense was committed by any person,
- "who forges, alters, knowingly destroys, knowingly mutilates, or in any manner changes any such certificate . . . ." (Italics supplied.)
In the District Court, O'Brien argued that the 1965 Amendment prohibiting the knowing destruction or mutilation of certificates was unconstitutional because it was enacted to abridge free speech, and because it served no legitimate legislative purpose. 3 The District Court rejected these arguments, holding that the statute on its face did not abridge First Amendment rights, that the court was not competent to inquire into the motives of Congress in enacting the 1965 Amendment, and that the [391 U.S. 367, 371] Amendment was a reasonable exercise of the power of Congress to raise armies.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held the 1965 Amendment unconstitutional as a law abridging freedom of speech. 4 At the time the Amendment was enacted, a regulation of the Selective Service System required registrants to keep their registration certificates in their "personal possession at all times." 32 CFR 1617.1 (1962). 5 Wilful violations of regulations promulgated pursuant to the Universal Military Training and Service Act were made criminal by statute. 50 U.S.C. App. 462 (b) (6). The Court of Appeals, therefore, was of the opinion that conduct punishable under the 1965 Amendment was already punishable under the nonpossession regulation, and consequently that the Amendment served no valid purpose further, that in light of the prior regulation, the Amendment must have been "directed at public as distinguished from private destruction." On this basis, the court concluded that the 1965 Amendment ran afoul of the First Amendment by singling out persons engaged in protests for special treatment. The court ruled, however, that O'Brien's conviction should be affirmed under the statutory provision, 50 U.S.C. App. 462 (b) (6), which in its view made violation of the nonpossession regulation a crime, because it regarded such violation to be a lesser included offense of the crime defined by the 1965 Amendment. 6 [391 U.S. 367, 372]
The Government petitioned for certiorari in No. 232, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in holding the statute unconstitutional, and that its decision conflicted with decisions by the Courts of Appeals for the Second 7 and Eighth Circuits 8 upholding the 1965 Amendment against identical constitutional challenges. O'Brien cross-petitioned for certiorari in No. 233, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining his conviction on the basis of a crime of which he was neither charged nor tried. We granted the Government's petition to resolve the conflict in the circuits, and we also granted O'Brien's cross-petition. We hold that the 1965 Amendment is constitutional both as enacted and as applied. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment and sentence of the District Court without reaching the issue raised by O'Brien in No. 233.
Both the registration and classification certificates are small white cards, approximately 2 by 3 inches. The registration certificate specifies the name of the registrant, the date of registration, and the number and address of the local board with which he is registered. Also inscribed upon it are the date and place of the registrant's birth, his residence at registration, his physical description, his signature, and his Selective Service number. The Selective Service number itself indicates his State of registration, his local board, his year of birth, and his chronological position in the local board's classification record. 18
The classification certificate shows the registrant's name, Selective Service number, signature, and eligibility classification. It specifies whether he was so classified by his local board, an appeal board, or the President. It [391 U.S. 367, 374] contains the address of his local board and the date the certificate was mailed.
Both the registration and classification certificates bear notices that the registrant must notify his local board in writing of every change in address, physical condition, and occupational, marital, family, dependency, and military status, and of any other fact which might change his classification. Both also contain a notice that the registrant's Selective Service number should appear on all communications to his local board.
Congress demonstrated its concern that certificates issued by the Selective Service System might be abused well before the 1965 Amendment here challenged. The 1948 Act, 62 Stat. 604, itself prohibited many different abuses involving "any registration certificate, . . . or any other certificate issued pursuant to or prescribed by the provisions of this title, or rules or regulations promulgated hereunder . . . ." 62 Stat. 622. Under 12 (b) (1)-(5) of the 1948 Act, it was unlawful (1) to transfer a certificate to aid a person in making false identification (2) to possess a certificate not duly issued with the intent of using it for false identification (3) to forge, alter, "or in any manner" change a certificate or any notation validly inscribed thereon (4) to photograph or make an imitation of a certificate for the purpose of false identification and (5) to possess a counterfeited or altered certificate. 62 Stat. 622. In addition, as previously mentioned, regulations of the Selective Service System required registrants to keep both their registration and classification certificates in their personal possession at all times. 32 CFR 1617.1 (1962) (Registration Certificates) 19 32 CFR 1623.5 [391 U.S. 367, 375] (1962) (Classification Certificates). 20 And 12 (b) (6) of the Act, 62 Stat. 622, made knowing violation of any provision of the Act or rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto a felony.
By the 1965 Amendment, Congress added to 12 (b) (3) of the 1948 Act the provision here at issue, subjecting to criminal liability not only one who "forges, alters, or in any manner changes" but also one who "knowingly destroys, [or] knowingly mutilates" a certificate. We note at the outset that the 1965 Amendment plainly does not abridge free speech on its face, and we do not understand O'Brien to argue otherwise. Amended 12 (b) (3) on its face deals with conduct having no connection with speech. It prohibits the knowing destruction of certificates issued by the Selective Service System, and there is nothing necessarily expressive about such conduct. The Amendment does not distinguish between public and private destruction, and it does not punish only destruction engaged in for the purpose of expressing views. Compare Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931). 21 A law prohibiting destruction of Selective Service certificates no more abridges free speech on its face than a motor vehicle law prohibiting the destruction of drivers' licenses, or a tax law prohibiting the destruction of books and records. [391 U.S. 367, 376]
O'Brien nonetheless argues that the 1965 Amendment is unconstitutional in its application to him, and is unconstitutional as enacted because what he calls the "purpose" of Congress was "to suppress freedom of speech." We consider these arguments separately.
We cannot accept the view that an apparently limitless variety of conduct can be labeled "speech" whenever the person engaging in the conduct intends thereby to express an idea. However, even on the assumption that the alleged communicative element in O'Brien's conduct is sufficient to bring into play the First Amendment, it does not necessarily follow that the destruction of a registration certificate is constitutionally protected activity. This Court has held that when "speech" and "nonspeech" elements are combined in the same course of conduct, a sufficiently important governmental interest in regulating the nonspeech element can justify incidental limitations on First Amendment freedoms. To characterize the quality of the governmental interest which must appear, the Court has employed a variety of descriptive terms: compelling 22 substantial 23 subordinating 24 [391 U.S. 367, 377] paramount 25 cogent 26 strong. 27 Whatever imprecision inheres in these terms, we think it clear that a government regulation is sufficiently justified if it is within the constitutional power of the Government if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression and if the incidental restriction on alleged First Amendment freedoms is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest. We find that the 1965 Amendment to 12 (b) (3) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act meets all of these requirements, and consequently that O'Brien can be constitutionally convicted for violating it.
The constitutional power of Congress to raise and support armies and to make all laws necessary and proper to that end is broad and sweeping. Lichter v. United States, 334 U.S. 742, 755 -758 (1948) Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) see also Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 25 -26 (1942). The power of Congress to classify and conscript manpower for military service is "beyond question." Lichter v. United States, supra, at 756 Selective Draft Law Cases, supra. Pursuant to this power, Congress may establish a system of registration for individuals liable for training and service, and may require such individuals within reason to cooperate in the registration system. The issuance of certificates indicating the registration and eligibility classification of individuals is a legitimate and substantial administrative aid in the functioning of this system. And legislation [391 U.S. 367, 378] to insure the continuing availability of issued certificates serves a legitimate and substantial purpose in the system's administration.
O'Brien's argument to the contrary is necessarily premised upon his unrealistic characterization of Selective Service certificates. He essentially adopts the position that such certificates are so many pieces of paper designed to notify registrants of their registration or classification, to be retained or tossed in the wastebasket according to the convenience or taste of the registrant. Once the registrant has received notification, according to this view, there is no reason for him to retain the certificates. O'Brien notes that most of the information on a registration certificate serves no notification purpose at all the registrant hardly needs to be told his address and physical characteristics. We agree that the registration certificate contains much information of which the registrant needs no notification. This circumstance, however, does not lead to the conclusion that the certificate serves no purpose, but that, like the classification certificate, it serves purposes in addition to initial notification. Many of these purposes would be defeated by the certificates' destruction or mutilation. Among these are:
1. The registration certificate serves as proof that the individual described thereon has registered for the draft. The classification certificate shows the eligibility classification of a named but undescribed individual. Voluntarily displaying the two certificates is an easy and painless way for a young man to dispel a question as to whether he might be delinquent in his Selective Service obligations. Correspondingly, the availability of the certificates for such display relieves the Selective Service System of the administrative burden it would otherwise have in verifying the registration and classification of all suspected delinquents. Further, since both certificates are in the nature of "receipts" attesting that the registrant [391 U.S. 367, 379] has done what the law requires, it is in the interest of the just and efficient administration of the system that they be continually available, in the event, for example, of a mix-up in the registrant's file. Additionally, in a time of national crisis, reasonable availability to each registrant of the two small cards assures a rapid and uncomplicated means for determining his fitness for immediate induction, no matter how distant in our mobile society he may be from his local board.
2. The information supplied on the certificates facilitates communication between registrants and local boards, simplifying the system and benefiting all concerned. To begin with, each certificate bears the address of the registrant's local board, an item unlikely to be committed to memory. Further, each card bears the registrant's Selective Service number, and a registrant who has his number readily available so that he can communicate it to his local board when he supplies or requests information can make simpler the board's task in locating his file. Finally, a registrant's inquiry, particularly through a local board other than his own, concerning his eligibility status is frequently answerable simply on the basis of his classification certificate whereas, if the certificate were not reasonably available and the registrant were uncertain of his classification, the task of answering his questions would be considerably complicated.
3. Both certificates carry continual reminders that the registrant must notify his local board of any change of address, and other specified changes in his status. The smooth functioning of the system requires that local boards be continually aware of the status and whereabouts of registrants, and the destruction of certificates deprives the system of a potentially useful notice device.
4. The regulatory scheme involving Selective Service certificates includes clearly valid prohibitions against the alteration, forgery, or similar deceptive misuse of certificates. [391 U.S. 367, 380] The destruction or mutilation of certificates obviously increases the difficulty of detecting and tracing abuses such as these. Further, a mutilated certificate might itself be used for deceptive purposes.
The many functions performed by Selective Service certificates establish beyond doubt that Congress has a legitimate and substantial interest in preventing their wanton and unrestrained destruction and assuring their continuing availability by punishing people who knowingly and wilfully destroy or mutilate them. And we are unpersuaded that the pre-existence of the nonpossession regulations in any way negates this interest.
In the absence of a question as to multiple punishment, it has never been suggested that there is anything improper in Congress' providing alternative statutory avenues of prosecution to assure the effective protection of one and the same interest. Compare the majority and dissenting opinions in Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386 (1958). 28 Here, the pre-existing avenue of prosecution was not even statutory. Regulations may be modified or revoked from time to time by administrative discretion. Certainly, the Congress may change or supplement a regulation.
Equally important, a comparison of the regulations with the 1965 Amendment indicates that they protect overlapping but not identical governmental interests, and that they reach somewhat different classes of wrongdoers. 29 The gravamen of the offense defined by the statute is the deliberate rendering of certificates unavailable for the various purposes which they may serve. Whether registrants keep their certificates in their personal [391 U.S. 367, 381] possession at all times, as required by the regulations, is of no particular concern under the 1965 Amendment, as long as they do not mutilate or destroy the certificates so as to render them unavailable. Although as we note below we are not concerned here with the nonpossession regulations, it is not inappropriate to observe that the essential elements of nonpossession are not identical with those of mutilation or destruction. Finally, the 1965 Amendment, like 12 (b) which it amended, is concerned with abuses involving any issued Selective Service certificates, not only with the registrant's own certificates. The knowing destruction or mutilation of someone else's certificates would therefore violate the statute but not the nonpossession regulations.
We think it apparent that the continuing availability to each registrant of his Selective Service certificates substantially furthers the smooth and proper functioning of the system that Congress has established to raise armies. We think it also apparent that the Nation has a vital interest in having a system for raising armies that functions with maximum efficiency and is capable of easily and quickly responding to continually changing circumstances. For these reasons, the Government has a substantial interest in assuring the continuing availability of issued Selective Service certificates.
It is equally clear that the 1965 Amendment specifically protects this substantial governmental interest. We perceive no alternative means that would more precisely and narrowly assure the continuing availability of issued Selective Service certificates than a law which prohibits their wilful mutilation or destruction. Compare Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 407 -408 (1963), and the cases cited therein. The 1965 Amendment prohibits such conduct and does nothing more. In other words, both the governmental interest and the operation of the 1965 Amendment are limited to the noncommunicative [391 U.S. 367, 382] aspect of O'Brien's conduct. The governmental interest and the scope of the 1965 Amendment are limited to preventing harm to the smooth and efficient functioning of the Selective Service System. When O'Brien deliberately rendered unavailable his registration certificate, he wilfully frustrated this governmental interest. For this noncommunicative impact of his conduct, and for nothing else, he was convicted.
The case at bar is therefore unlike one where the alleged governmental interest in regulating conduct arises in some measure because the communication allegedly integral to the conduct is itself thought to be harmful. In Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), for example, this Court struck down a statutory phrase which punished people who expressed their "opposition to organized government" by displaying "any flag, badge, banner, or device." Since the statute there was aimed at suppressing communication it could not be sustained as a regulation of noncommunicative conduct. See also, NLRB v. Fruit & Vegetable Packers Union, 377 U.S. 58, 79 (1964) (concurring opinion).
In conclusion, we find that because of the Government's substantial interest in assuring the continuing availability of issued Selective Service certificates, because amended 462 (b) is an appropriately narrow means of protecting this interest and condemns only the independent noncommunicative impact of conduct within its reach, and because the noncommunicative impact of O'Brien's act of burning his registration certificate frustrated the Government's interest, a sufficient governmental interest has been shown to justify O'Brien's conviction.
It is a familiar principle of constitutional law that this Court will not strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive. As the Court long ago stated:
- "The decisions of this court from the beginning lend no support whatever to the assumption that the judiciary may restrain the exercise of lawful power on the assumption that a wrongful purpose or motive has caused the power to be exerted." McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 56 (1904).
This fundamental principle of constitutional adjudication was reaffirmed and the many cases were collected by Mr. Justice Brandeis for the Court in Arizona v. California, 283 U.S. 423, 455 (1931).
Inquiries into congressional motives or purposes are a hazardous matter. When the issue is simply the interpretation of legislation, the Court will look to statements by legislators for guidance as to the purpose of the legislature, 30 because the benefit to sound decision-making in [391 U.S. 367, 384] this circumstance is thought sufficient to risk the possibility of misreading Congress' purpose. It is entirely a different matter when we are asked to void a statute that is, under well-settled criteria, constitutional on its face, on the basis of what fewer than a handful of Congressmen said about it. What motivates one legislator to make a speech about a statute is not necessarily what motivates scores of others to enact it, and the stakes are sufficiently high for us to eschew guesswork. We decline to void essentially on the ground that it is unwise legislation which Congress had the undoubted power to enact and which could be reenacted in its exact form if the same or another legislator made a "wiser" speech about it.
O'Brien's position, and to some extent that of the court below, rest upon a misunderstanding of Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233 (1936), and Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960). These cases stand, not for the proposition that legislative motive is a proper basis for declaring a statute unconstitutional, but that the inevitable effect of a statute on its face may render it unconstitutional. Thus, in Grosjean the Court, having concluded that the right of publications to be free from certain kinds of taxes was a freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment, struck down a statute which on its face did nothing other than impose [391 U.S. 367, 385] just such a tax. Similarly, in Gomillion, the Court sustained a complaint which, if true, established that the "inevitable effect," 364 U.S., at 341 , of the redrawing of municipal boundaries was to deprive the petitioners of their right to vote for no reason other than that they were Negro. In these cases, the purpose of the legislation was irrelevant, because the inevitable effect - the "necessary scope and operation," McCray v. United States, 195 U.S. 27, 59 (1904) - abridged constitutional rights. The statute attacked in the instant case has no such inevitable unconstitutional effect, since the destruction of Selective Service certificates is in no respect inevitably or necessarily expressive. Accordingly, the statute itself is constitutional.
We think it not amiss, in passing, to comment upon O'Brien's legislative-purpose argument. There was little floor debate on this legislation in either House. Only Senator Thurmond commented on its substantive features in the Senate. 111 Cong. Rec. 19746, 20433. After his brief statement, and without any additional substantive comments, the bill, H. R. 10306, passed the Senate. 111 Cong. Rec. 20434. In the House debate only two Congressmen addressed themselves to the Amendment - Congressmen Rivers and Bray. 111 Cong. Rec. 19871, 19872. The bill was passed after their statements without any further debate by a vote of 393 to 1. It is principally on the basis of the statements by these three Congressmen that O'Brien makes his congressional-"purpose" argument. We note that if we were to examine legislative purpose in the instant case, we would be obliged to consider not only these statements but also the more authoritative reports of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees. The portions of those reports explaining the purpose of the Amendment are reproduced in the Appendix in their entirety. While both reports make clear a concern with the "defiant" [391 U.S. 367, 386] destruction of so-called "draft cards" and with "open" encouragement to others to destroy their cards, both reports also indicate that this concern stemmed from an apprehension that unrestrained destruction of cards would disrupt the smooth functioning of the Selective Service System.
MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
- APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
- PORTIONS OF THE REPORTS OF THE COMMITTEES ON ARMED SERVICES OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE EXPLAINING THE 1965 AMENDMENT.
The "Explanation of the Bill" in the Senate Report is as follows:
- "Section 12 (b) (3) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1951, as amended, provides, among other things, that a person who forges, alters, or changes [391 U.S. 367, 387] a draft registration certificate is subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. There is no explicit prohibition in this section against the knowing destruction or mutilation of such cards.
- "The committee has taken notice of the defiant destruction and mutilation of draft cards by dissident persons who disapprove of national policy. If allowed to continue unchecked this contumacious conduct represents a potential threat to the exercise of the power to raise and support armies.
- "For a person to be subject to fine or imprisonment the destruction or mutilation of the draft card must be `knowingly' done. This qualification is intended to protect persons who lose or mutilate draft cards accidentally." S. Rep. No. 589, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965).
And the House Report explained:
- "Section 12 (b) (3) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1951, as amended, provides that a person who forges, alters, or in any manner changes his draft registration card, or any notation duly and validly inscribed thereon, will be subject to a fine of $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years. H. R. 10306 would amend this provision to make it apply also to those persons who knowingly destroy or knowingly mutilate a draft registration card.
- "The House Committee on Armed Services is fully aware of, and shares in, the deep concern expressed throughout the Nation over the increasing incidences in which individuals and large groups of individuals openly defy and encourage others to defy the authority of their Government by destroying or mutilating their draft cards.
- "While the present provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to the destruction of Government property [391 U.S. 367, 388] may appear broad enough to cover all acts having to do with the mistreatment of draft cards in the possession of individuals, the committee feels that in the present critical situation of the country, the acts of destroying or mutilating these cards are offenses which pose such a grave threat to the security of the Nation that no question whatsoever should be left as to the intention of the Congress that such wanton and irresponsible acts should be punished.
- "To this end, H. R. 10306 makes specific that knowingly mutilating or knowingly destroying a draft card constitutes a violation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act and is punishable thereunder and that a person who does so destroy or mutilate a draft card will be subject to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment of not more than 5 years." H. R. Rep.
[ Footnote 2 ] He was sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. 5010 (b), to the custody of the Attorney General for a maximum period of six years for supervision and treatment.
[ Footnote 3 ] The issue of the constitutionality of the 1965 Amendment was raised by counsel representing O'Brien in a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment. At trial and upon sentencing, O'Brien chose to represent himself. He was represented by counsel on his appeal to the Court of Appeals.
[ Footnote 4 ] O'Brien v. United States, 376 F.2d 538 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1967).
[ Footnote 5 ] The portion of 32 CFR relevant to the instant case was revised as of January 1, 1967. Citations in this opinion are to the 1962 edition which was in effect when O'Brien committed the crime, and when Congress enacted the 1965 Amendment.
[ Footnote 6 ] The Court of Appeals nevertheless remanded the case to the District Court to vacate the sentence and resentence O'Brien. In [391 U.S. 367, 372] the court's view, the district judge might have considered the violation of the 1965 Amendment as an aggravating circumstance in imposing sentence. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied O'Brien's petition for a rehearing, in which he argued that he had not been charged, tried, or convicted for nonpossession, and that nonpossession was not a lesser included offense of mutilation or destruction. O'Brien v. United States, 376 F.2d 538, 542 (C. A. 1st Cir. 1967).
[ Footnote 7 ] United States v. Miller, 367 F.2d 72 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 911 (1967).
[ Footnote 8 ] Smith v. United States, 368 F.2d 529 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1966).
Virtual crack closure technique: History, approach, and applications
An overview of the virtual crack closure technique is presented. The approach used is discussed, the history summarized, and insight into its applications provided. Equations for two-dimensional quadrilateral finite elements with linear and quadratic shape functions are given. Formulas for applying the technique in conjunction with three-dimensional solid elements as well as plate/shell elements are also provided. Necessary modifications for the use of the method with geometrically nonlinear finite element analysis and corrections required for elements at the crack tip with different lengths and widths are discussed. The problems associated with cracks or delaminations propagating between different materials are mentioned briefly, as well as a strategy to minimize these problems. Due to an increased interest in using a fracture mechanics–based approach to assess the damage tolerance of composite structures in the design phase and during certification, the engineering problems selected as examples and given as references focus on the application of the technique to components made of composite materials.
O' Brien III DD- 415 - History
Watch my presentation at GGI2016 Dublin - Oct 2016.
This site is hosted by JustHost - recommended. Click on the link below to find out more.
Disclosure:- We are a website that needs compensation to operate like any other website on the internet. We may receive consideration for our recommendations.
"We are merely the present-day custodians of our Ancestor's Genes."
This website is best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer ver 6 and above. It is suggested that you upgrade to ver 7 or 8. Click here to upgrade your browser:- Microsoft Internet Explorer 8
Some are using this technique to investigate connections with others bearing the same surname and in this way are making contact with 4th, 5th and 6th cousins for the first time. If this is your aim, I strongly recommend joining your surname project as administrators there concentrate on grouping like results and finding recent connections.
Others are interested in the ancient origins of their cluster and this website looks at the origins and age of the R1b cluster called "Irish Type III", believed to be that of the Dál gCais sept that lived in the area of Ireland called Thomond.
If you have come across this website by chance, think you are "Irish Type III" and have not contacted me before, I may have been trying to contact you. Please go to the Lost Members Page. If your name appears there, please contact me.
For those that are new to Genetic Genealogy, as the use of DNA in genealogy is called, and believe they will find this discussion a little daunting, I suggest it may be worthwhile spending a little time with some basic reading:-
Is the Answer in your Genes? - Debbie Kennett - a succinct primer on DNA testing
ISOGG Wiki - A comprehensive Wiki with all you need to know concerning Genetic Genealogy.
Blair DNA 101 - A series of three pages, DNA101, DNA102, DNA103 to explain DNA in "Layman's Terms".
R1b is the most common haplogroup in Western Europe with especially high incidence in Spain, Portugal, Western France and Ireland. The modal, (or most commonly occurring haplotype), for this R1b of Western Europe is called the Atlantic Modal Haplotype, (AMH) . For more information on AMH see the Links page.
Because of the large number of males that fall within this haplogroup, efforts have been made to find clusters that show differences in the Short Tandem Repeat,(STR) , of their alleles from the AMH by looking for similar variations in the haplotypes.
What Haplogroup do I belong to?
Your testing company has probably already suggested the broad haplogroup that you belong to, and if you are reading this page, you probably already know you are part of the R1b population. If you are unsure of your haplogroup, try Jim Cullen's Haplogroup Predictor program. R1b-IrishIII is one of the possible predictions of Jim's program and if your markers predict this sub-clade at greater than 95%, then you are in all probability Irish Type III.
Defining Haplogroups - SNP testing
While isolating clusters of haplotypes that have similar allele variations gives a reasonable probability of the haplogroup, a Single Nucleotide Polymorphorism, or (SNP) mutation formally differentiates them, and it is only after SNP testing that you can be sure you are a member of that haplogroup. To learn more on SNP s see:- SNPMedia or Genetics 101 - What are SNP s?
R1b1a2 - R-M269 'Clusters'
The Irish Type III cluster
In April 2006, researcher Dr Ken Nordtvedt, identified another small grouping where the ancestral geographical area appeared to be predominately Irish, but the haplogroup was quite different from NWIrish and South Irish. As the third STR defined Irish grouping, it has been given the name 'Irish Type III' and its distinctive markers where it differs from AMH are:
Some variation from these values can and does occur but two that almost always have the modal values are DYS459 = 8,9 and DYS463 = 25.
Testing of DYS463 forms part of DNA-Heritage and Relative Genetics 43 marker test and the now defunct Ancestry 30 STR marker test and is available from FTDNA in the extended 111 STR marker test. It used to be recommended that this marker be tested to confirm membership of the Irish Type III cluster. However, testing the SNP L226 is now cheap and is readily available as a superior confirmatory test. Searches were conducted in the Ysearch (a now defunct public database) and other STR databases, and 1,390 haplotypes have now been found which relate to this grouping 1,293 within a Genetic Distance, GD, of 8 to the modal on 37 markers, together with a further 98 ´Outliers´ (those that a part of the cluster but are some distance from the modal). This spreadsheet shows all 983 Irish Type III haplotypes presently identified from FTDNA projects. Some are interested in the spread of alleles at each marker and these can be viewed on this spreadsheet.
Where does 'Irish Type III' originate?
Looking at the ancestral geographical area for this grouping, of those who do not state 'USA' or 'Unknown', 85.6% participants state 'Ireland'. Presently this is 446 of the 1,225 haplotypes, however many surnames with 'Unknown', or a state of the USA are obviously Irish in origin, O´Brien, Casey, Hogan etc. and if/when known would increase the Irish percentage even more. The counties that are stated record:-
To see a Map of these Counties Click Here
Of the others who state an ancestral origin, 5.0% give ´Scotland´, 7.3% give ´England´ and 3 haplotypes give ´Wales´, an eight haplotypes from Europe, possibly "Wild Geese", the name given to Irish exiles to the Continent in the 17th and 18th centuries. A Dalcassian (Dál gCais) Signature? It has now been shown that this clade is that of the Dalcassian clans of Clare, Limerick and Tipperary, the principal family of whom are the O´Briens. The Chief of the O´Brien clan, who has impeccable pedigree through the Barons of Inchiquin and of Thomond back to Brian Boru and hence to Cormac Cas is a member of our cluster which is good confirming evidence that Irish Type III is indeed Dalcassian. Many Irish Type III surnames have connections with the O´Briens, such as Bryant, Kennedy, MacNamara, O´Donnell, Butler, Casey, Hogan and McGrath. So Cormac Cas´ ancestors, may very well be the progenitors of this cluster.
I have had a paper published in the Journal of Genetic Genealogy. A set of Distinctive Marker Values Defines a Y-STR Signature for Gaelic Dalcassian Families which sets out my research. www.jogg.info/51/files/Wright.pdf
In the Links section there is a link to an out-of-print book Historical Memoirs of the O´Briens by John O'Donoghue, 1860. It can be read on-line or downloaded as a 21Mb pdf download. This gives valuable information on the connections to the O´Brien clan.
For a listing of Surnames found to have Irish Type III connections, Click Here. It must be stressed that having such a surname does NOT necessarily mean you are of this Irish Type III cluster.
SNP Testing and the Search for 'Our" SNP
Over 300 Irish Type III participants have some depth of SNP testing.
Walk Through the Y. Back in 2009, 10 members of the cluster donated $75 each to ensure one candidate from our cluster could participate in this important project. Thomas Krahn of FTDNA has searched 100Kb of the Y chromosome of a member from several L21+ clusters looking for SNP s that might separate these clusters. The chromats of our Irish Type III candidate revealed a SNP mutation which has now been called L226.
This marker, L226, has shown to be positive in the 300 that have so far tested, and importantly, negative in the hundreds of non-Irish Type III that have tested. See the Walk The Y page.
So with L226 being positive for our cluster we are called R-L226. L226 is the defining SNP for our cluster and so appears on the ISOGG 2017 R-Tree with the nomenclature listed as R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a4b2a. However as these "long" haplogroup names are constantly changing, it is better to refer to this clade as R-L226. Having a defining SNP means Irish Type III is no longer a 'cluster' . it is a Haplogroup!
There is a project set up at Family Tree DNA for our R-L226 Haplogroup. All Irish Type III are urged to order the L226 SNP test, or preferably the R1b - L226 SNP pack test, and to join this project.
PLEASE - give your Kit number and say that you have tested L226, or the SNP pack, in your Request to Join.
Significantly M222 was found to be negative clearly differentiating this group from NW Irish that has been found to be positive on this marker.
How old is this cluster
Using geneticist Anatole Klyosov's methods, a run using 336 haplotypes of 67 markers was conducted in September 2014 and gives a figure of 1450 ± 150 years to the MRCA. Our common ancestor lived between 350 AD and 650 AD. This is a little earlier than previously calculated but reflects a greater number of haplotypes in the calculation.
This gives an approximate time to TMRCA - so-called 'bottleneck' events, (where a previous colony of several/many people reach a situation where only one male has surviving male progeny and so all future members of the colony are descended from him), can mean that the progenitor of the haplogroup may have lived much earlier and so the haplogroup could be centuries older.
What more can we do?
If you are looking to find relationships with others in this haplogroup, either with your surname or another, extending your testing to 67 markers could be worthwhile. Presently, 539 members have extended to 67 markers, and recently FTDNA have added additional markers taking the total to 111 markers, and some 138 have tested to this level. If you have already tested to 67 markers, it would be better to do some SNP testing rather than extend to 111 markers.
If you are a genetic distance (GD) of 8 or more from the NT4BZ modal, I would suggest testing the SNP L226 as final proof of membership of the cluster rather than testing either DYS463 or DYS716.
But the most extensive SNP testing now available, is the Big-Y test, see the Big-Y Testing page, which not only tests known branching but also discovers your 'private' SNPs and so is a 'discovery' test, rather than just a comparison test.
As time goes on, more will be discovered about the Irish Type III grouping, but be happy in the knowledge that the DNA of your ancestors is calling you from the Emerald Isle.
An American widow&rsquos account of her travels in Ireland in 1844&ndash45 on the eve of the Great Famine:
Sailing from New York, she set out to determine the condition of the Irish poor and discover why so many were emigrating to her home country.
Mrs Nicholson&rsquos recollections of her tour among the peasantry are still revealing and gripping today.
The author returned to Ireland in 1847&ndash49 to help with famine relief and recorded those experiences in the rather harrowing:
Annals of the Famine in Ireland is Asenath Nicholson's sequel to Ireland's Welcome to the Stranger. The undaunted American widow returned to Ireland in the midst of the Great Famine and helped organise relief for the destitute and hungry. Her account is not a history of the famine, but personal eyewitness testimony to the suffering it caused. For that reason, it conveys the reality of the calamity in a much more telling way. The book is also available in Kindle.
The Ocean Plague: or, A Voyage to Quebec in an Irish Emigrant Vessel is based upon the diary of Robert Whyte who, in 1847, crossed the Atlantic from Dublin to Quebec in an Irish emigrant ship. His account of the journey provides invaluable eyewitness testimony to the trauma and tragedy that many emigrants had to face en route to their new lives in Canada and America. The book is also available in Kindle.
The Scotch-Irish in America tells the story of how the hardy breed of men and women, who in America came to be known as the &lsquoScotch-Irish&rsquo, was forged in the north of Ireland during the seventeenth century. It relates the circumstances under which the great exodus to the New World began, the trials and tribulations faced by these tough American pioneers and the enduring influence they came to exert on the politics, education and religion of the country.
10 People You Probably Didn't Know Were Black
What does it mean to be Black? Is it determined by the color of your skin, by your heritage or by the ethnic group with whom you most identify? And how does the "one-drop rule" — the idea that even a smidge of Black ancestry makes you Black — figure into this scenario?
In the American South, during the era of segregation, laws in many states mandated that a person who was at least one-sixteenth Black (i.e., had a great-great grandfather or grandmother who was Black) or some other tiny amount of Black blood was considered Black and therefore subject to the discriminatory laws that whites were not. This was informally known as the "one drop" rule [source: Davis]. Light-skinned African-Americans in the past might have determined whether it made more "sense" to embrace their Black heritage, Jim Crow laws and all, or to try and "pass" for white for more economic opportunities but at the cost of cutting themselves off from family and culture.
Today with the segregation laws scrapped, the choices are more nuanced. Where a person is raised, or who raised her might determine which ethnic group she identifies with. Or she may feel she shouldn't have to pick one group over the other.
While it hasn't always been in vogue to claim all the branches of one's family tree, embracing a multicultural past is becoming increasingly common. Take Hollywood, for example. Gone are the days of film stars escaping outdated perceptions by denying their ethnicity. Many of today's celebrities are racially ambiguous, from Mariah Carey to Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. Today, we're sharing the stories of 10 people (past and present) you may not have known were Black. Let's start with an illustrious French family.
Napoleon Bonaparte was a well-known figure who rose to power during the French Revolution. But Bonaparte was not its only hero. Meet Gen. Alexandre Dumas.
Dumas was born in what is now Haiti to a white father who was a member of the aristocracy and a Black mother who was enslaved. Although Dumas kept his mother's familial name, his father raised him in France, which guaranteed opportunities to people of mixed race. There, Dumas completed his education and entered the military, where he became a master of strategy and sword. Dumas rose to the rank of general, led more than 50,000 soldiers and earned a reputation for action. He reportedly captured 13 soldiers singlehandedly, rode into enemy territory to imprison 16 more and led his men up icy cliffs in the dark to surprise opposing forces [source: Taylor].
Although Dumas continued his military career in the subsequent French campaign to conquer Egypt, he attracted the ire of his chief rival, the up-and-coming Bonaparte. Whether Bonaparte was jealous of Dumas' greater height (he was over 6 feet to Bonaparte's 5' 7"), charisma or infantry skills is impossible to say. One thing is for certain, though: The competition (even if only in Napoleon's own mind) would be Dumas' undoing.
In the late 1790s, when Dumas found himself washed onto Italian shores because of an alarmingly leaky vessel, Napoleon's followers tossed Dumas into a dungeon. There he languished for two years as he suspected the prison physician of poisoning him. Although Dumas was eventually released, his military career was over. Stories of his exploits, however, inspired "The Count of Monte Cristo," a novel written by his son Alexandre, who also wrote "The Three Musketeers" [source: Damrosch].
Anatole Broyard was born in New Orleans in 1920 to light-skinned Black parents, spent much of his childhood in a predominantly Black Brooklyn neighborhood and then crafted a carefully constructed image devoid of his ethnic heritage.
Broyard's light skin allowed him to join the segregated Army as a white man, where he led a battalion of Black soldiers. Upon his discharge from the military, he opened a bookstore in New York City's Greenwich Village, ensconced himself in the literary landscape and eventually became a copywriter at an advertising firm. Although he wrote a few short stories that were met with critical acclaim, Broyard initially struggled to complete a full-length work. The attention, however, helped him secure a job as a book reviewer with The New York Times in the early 1970s, a position he held for more than a decade.
During this time, he became one of the most influential literary critics in the U.S. And, despite rumors to the contrary, continued to live as a white man. Broyard's wife and children did not know he had been born Black, nor did his colleagues or friends.
Broyard, who died of prostate cancer in 1990, never revealed the reasons for his ruse. Likely, the limited opportunities for Blacks in the 1940s had something to do with his original decision. But many who knew him also believed Broyard wanted to live as a white man because he wanted to escape the expectations of race. He wanted to be known, not for being a "Black writer," but a writer, period. Even his memoir, "Kafka Was The Rage," did not reveal his race [source: Gates].
"One could concede that the passing of Anatole Broyard involved dishonesty but is it so very clear that the dishonesty was mostly Broyard's?" wrote scholar Henry Louis Gates. "To pass is to sin against authenticity, and 'authenticity' is among the founding lies of the modern age."
In 2007, his daughter Bliss published a book about her father titled "One Drop: My Father's Hidden Life — A Story of Race and Family Secrets."
Malcolm Gladwell, decorated staff writer at The New Yorker and author of several best-selling books — "The Tipping Point," "Blink," "Outliers" and "What the Dog Saw" — won a National Magazine Award in 1999 and was named Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People" in 2005. Born in 1963 to a Jamaican mother and British father, he has found his mixed heritage to provide plenty of fodder for writing.
In "Black Like them," published in an April 1996 issue of The New Yorker, Gladwell examined the differences between American Blacks and West Indians, along with observations about his childhood and family. He detailed the discrimination among his dark- and light-skinned ancestors. For example, a widow on his mother's side had two dark-skinned daughters, but once pretended she didn't know them as she made conversation with a light-skinned suitor.
Gladwell grew up in rural Ontario and contended that race there was a nonissue. "Blacks knew what I was. They could discern the hint of Africa beneath my fair skin," he wrote in his essay. "But it was a kind of secret — something that they would ask me about quietly when no one else was around . But whites never guessed, and even after I informed them it never seemed to make a difference. Why would it? In a town that is ninety-nine per cent white, one modest alleged splash of color hardly amounts to a threat."
That changed when he went to Toronto for university and discovered the reputation of Jamaicans who were purportedly heading Canada's drug trade. "After I had moved to the United States, I puzzled over this seeming contradiction — how West Indians celebrated in New York for their industry and drive could represent, just five hundred miles northwest, crime and dissipation . In America, there is someone else to despise. In Canada, there is not" [source: Gladwell].
Carol Channing, born in 1921, was already a Broadway star known for her performances in "Gentleman Prefer Blondes" and "Hello Dolly" when she learned something surprising about her heritage. Her father, George Channing, had been a light-skinned Black man.
And although Channing went on to become a well-known gay rights activist, being of mixed race was something she only briefly alluded to in her memoir "Just Lucky I Guess," which was published at age 81. In it, she recounted her father singing gospel music with her and flipping from one pattern of speech in the predominantly white community to a distinctly different pattern of speech in their home.
Nearly a decade later Channing, a three-time Tony award winner, seemed to change her mind again. On a 2010 episode of The Wendy Williams Show, Channing said that her parents "had many disagreements," and before she went off to college her mother thought "she would get even with me" and warned her that if she had a baby it might come out Black. Channing, who died in January 2019 at the age of 97, admitted she did not know if the story that her father was Black was true, but she hoped it was [sources: Parker, Williams].
Pete Wentz sported a signature look during the years he spent as a member of the Fall Out Boy rock band: singularly straight hair. As the band's bassist and chief lyricist, Wentz penned hit songs, including "Infinity on High," before the group's lengthy hiatus began in 2009 [source: Hasty]. Then he did something different. And we don't mean finalizing his divorce from pop singer Ashlee Simpson or forming the band Black Cards with fellow musician Spencer Peterson in 2010 [source: Gomez].
In 2011, Wentz began to forgo his strategically mussed straight locks for a more natural look: curls. He'd made no secret of the effort it required to style his hair, or the fact that he thought it was an important part of his appearance [source: Lucey]. The tight curls also prompted speculation that Wentz has Black ancestors, and indeed he does.
In an interview with Alternative Press, Wentz says, "My mom, my family, is from Jamaica." His only regret? That when he spent time in Jamaica as a child, he didn't fully appreciate the musical influences of Bob Marley or the Wailers [source: Alternative Press]. Fortunately, Wentz's penchant for starting rock bands turned out OK despite this shortcoming. In addition, he's authored two books, opened a bar and runs Clandestine Industries, a book and clothing distributor [source: All Music].
When Soledad O'Brien debuted as host of CNN's "Black in America" documentary series, she volleyed plenty of questions — especially from the Black community — about why she should be the one to tackle the premise.
Turns out, O'Brien is Black, too. She is the daughter of a Black Latina mother and a white Australian father she grew up in a primarily white neighborhood with parents who insisted she identify as Black. As a mixed-race, first-generation American, O'Brien became a broadcast journalist and found herself fighting for equal coverage for people of color [source: O'Brien].
"At screenings for 'Black in America' I've heard people say, 'Well you know I never thought you were Black until you did [pieces on Hurricane] Katrina and then I thought you were Black.' And I'd say, 'That's so fascinating. What was it that made you think I was Black?'" said O'Brien in an interview to promote "Who is Black in America?", her latest installment in the documentary series.
"And then someone else would say, 'Yeah, but she's married to a white man.' And I'm like 'OK, so does that make me less Black and how in your mind does that math work?'"
In the end, O'Brien (who's also produced documentaries for CNN on being Latino in America) relied on a lesson learned in her childhood: "My parents taught me very early that how other people perceive me really was not my problem or my responsibility. It was much more based on how I perceived me" [source: O'Brien].
4: Queen Charlotte of England
In the 18th century, a painting of Queen Charlotte — wife of the British King George III — sparked a flurry of debate because her facial features seemed more in keeping with someone of African heritage. And with good reason: It seems that Queen Charlotte was descended from a branch of a Portuguese royal family who traced their ancestry to a 13th-century ruler named Alfonso III and his lover Madragana, who was "a Moor" ( an old term for someone of African or Arabic descent) [source: Jeffries].
Some historians cast doubt on this theory but scholar Mario de Valdes y Cocom notes that the queen's personal physician said she had a "true mulatto face." Further, the royal family spelled out its link to African ancestors in a published report released before Queen Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953, in conjunction with her position as head of the Commonwealth [source: Cocom].
If correct, the royal link to Black heritage would mean that Queen Charlotte's granddaughter, Queen Victoria, was of mixed race. The same goes for her still-living descendants, Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, Prince William, and any future heirs.
Considered the father of Russia's Golden Age of literature, Alexander Pushkin, was born into nobility in the summer of 1799. He was the great-grandson of an Ethiopian prince named Ibrahim Gannibal, who had relocated to Russia and become a general in the army of Peter the Great [source: PBS].
Pushkin became a member of a revolutionary group dedicated to social reform and wrote poems that reflected his views. His work, which included "Freedom" and "The Village," came under scrutiny by Russian authorities and led to his exile in 1820 to his mother's estate [source: Shaw].
Six years later, he was pardoned by Czar Nicholas I and free to travel he married in 1831 and later challenged one of his wife's admirers to a duel in 1837. He died two days later from injuries he sustained in the battle. Pushkin's most famous works include the poem "The Bronze Horseman," the verse novel "Eugene Onegin" and the play "Boris Gudunov" [source: Shaw]. He also left behind an unfinished novel about his Ethiopian great-grandfather.
If you're an action-movie fan, odds are you'll recognize Michael Fosberg for the roles he landed in "Hard to Kill" and "The Presidio." Fosberg, who played white characters in these movies, didn't really have to stretch for the roles. After all, he'd grown up white in an upper-class family his mother was a brunette and his father was a fair-skinned blonde.
When Fosberg was 32, however, his parents divorced and spilled a family secret that would change the course of his life. The man Fosberg had always known as his father was actually his stepfather. His biological father and his mother had only been briefly married after his unexpected conception, and Fosberg set out to find the man. When he did, he was stunned to discover his father was Black.
The emotional reunion changed Fosberg's perception, not only about himself, but the world around him. It's a journey he chronicled in a memoir, "Incognito: An American Odyssey of Race and Self-Discovery." Fosberg discovered that the African-American side of his family included a grandfather who was chairman of the science and engineering department at Norfolk State University, Va., and a great-grandfather who was a star pitcher for the Negro Leagues [source: Ihejirika].
Since 2000, he's toured the nation performing a one-man play based on his life story. "It's important to embrace all of who you are," Fosberg said in an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times.
An exploration of the Italian Renaissance wouldn't be complete without talking about the powerful banking and political family the Medicis. And Alessandro de Medici, the first Duke of Florence, supported some of the era's leading artists. In fact, he is one of only two Medici princes to be buried in a tomb designed by Michelangelo.
You could say Medici was the first Black ruler in Italy, in fact the first Black head of state in the Western world, though his African heritage was rarely talked about. He was born in 1510 to a Black servant and a white 17-year-old named Giulio de Medici, who would later become Pope Clement VII. Upon his election to pope, Clement VII had to relinquish his position as Duke of Florence and appointed his son instead.
But the teenage Medici faced a changing political climate. Emperor Charles V sacked Rome in 1527, and Florentines took advantage of the turmoil to establish a more democratic form of government. Medici fled his hometown. He returned when tensions eased two years later and was again appointed by the Emperor Charles V, who offered his own daughter – also born out of wedlock — as Medici's wife. Despite the family ties, Medici was killed by a cousin shortly after he married in 1537 [source: African American Registry].
Originally Published: Feb 4, 2013
Author's Note: 10 People You Probably Didn't Know Were Black
This was a fascinating article to research, especially because I was able to delve into personal histories. I found the experiences of Anatole Broyard and Michael Fosberg to be particularly poignant: Broyard for his ability and desire to skirt the issue of being born Black, and Fosberg for embracing life as a Black man after growing up white. And then there's the one-drop rule. What does it mean to be Black? Or, in my case, Native American? I have Cherokee blood in my veins (and probably other ethnicities I don't even know about), but was adopted by a fantastic family when I was just seven days old. Naturally, I grew up identifying with my family. The idea of biology versus environment is an interesting one. With so many factors to shape our personalities and perceptions, who's to say whether we're formed by experience or ethnicity?
In times of unprecedented crisis, like the one we are living in, there are opportunities for true leaders to rise to the occasion.
That was one of my main takeaways from a conversation earlier today with Soledad O&rsquoBrien, the award-winning journalist who&rsquos chronicled more than her fair share of seismic global events over the course of her career.
&ldquoEvery disaster I&rsquove covered &mdash the tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, Haiti earthquake &mdash these are opportunities where I&rsquove seen leaders emerge,&rdquo she told me. "In a crisis &hellip how do you support those people who are stressed &hellip and how do you give people a chance to lead?"
This morning&rsquos conversation with Soledad is part of our Leading Through Change content initiative, aiming to inspire and help during this time of uncertainty. I believe that, for the content marketing community, it&rsquos important to be hyper-sensitive now, to what people are going through. If you don&rsquot have something relevant and helpful to say, consider taking a step back.
That said, the rules for content creators are radically changing in this new homebound economy. As CEO of Soledad O&rsquoBrien Productions, she sees opportunity for her 11-person company to be creative, with remote video interviews at the forefront.
&ldquoHow do we think of shooting things that don&rsquot require you to be next to somebody?&rdquo she said. &ldquoPeople can shoot themselves now and the quality of video is great &mdash that kind of opens up a lot of new pathways.
That idea &mdash creativity borne out of necessity &mdash was also something I discussed today with Sheryl Crow, the nine-time Grammy Award-winner who joined us from her home studio.
&ldquoWhen this whole thing started happening &hellip we made three lists. We made a list of things I have to do, things I want to do &mdash like that I&rsquove never done &mdash and ways to give back,&rdquo Sheryl said. "I&rsquove always believed boredom is the greatest proponent for creativity. Now [my kids] are literally using boredom to figure out ways to create worlds around them."
These are just a few of the many subjects we touched on in today&rsquos discussion: from managing today&rsquos deluge of news to supporting the small businesses that need us most to a little forecasting around where Soledad thinks things will land once this pandemic is over. I encourage you to watch the videos if any of this resonates. (Spoiler: Sheryl talks about the baby chicks her sons adopted so they can give eggs away to their neighbors in the midst of an egg shortage.)
Watch the complete interview with Soledad O&rsquoBrien and special performance by Sheryl Crow:
In this time of crisis, many of us are thinking about how to uplift those who need it most. That&rsquos why we also asked those who are fortunate enough to be in a position to help to support Jose Andres&rsquo World Central Kitchen, whose mission is to mobilize local chefs and communities to provide first responder disaster relief in the form of hot, nutritious meals. If you can, please make a donation and support their efforts.
Our Leading Through Change series provides thought leadership, tips, and resources to help business leaders manage through crisis. Check out some of our most recent articles:
- Here are five ways we help our employees navigate work now
- See how we pivoted a live event into an online experience
- You need to have a crisis comms plan in place
Update: April 17, 2020: This post was updated to more properly contextualize quotes from Soledad O&rsquoBrien.
Marsh McLennan Agency
Marsh & McLennan Agency and its colleagues play an active role in our local communities - making a difference in the moments that matter to community members.
Join Our Team!
It's our mission as an organization to always do what's right for our clients, colleagues, and community.
We are providing this information to you in our capacity as consultants with knowledge and experience in the insurance industry and not as legal or tax advice. The issues addressed may have legal or tax implications to you, and we recommend you speak with your legal counsel and/or tax advisor before choosing a course of action based on any of the information contained herein.
Changes to factual circumstances or to any rules or other guidance relied upon may affect the accuracy of the information provided. Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC is not obligated to provide updates on the information presented herein
Securities and investment advisory services offered through MMA Securities LLC (MMA Securities), member FINRA/SIPC, and a federally registered investment advisor. Main Office: 1166 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10036. Phone: (212) 345-5000. Variable insurance products distributed by MMA Securities LLC, CA OK 81142. Marsh & McLennan Insurance Agency LLC and MMA Securities LLC are affiliates owned by Marsh & McLennan Companies. Investment advisory services for MMA Prosper Wise SM are offered solely as a Registered Investment Adviser through MMA Securities. Certain of our investment adviser representatives are registered representatives of MMA Securities. A copy of our written disclosure statement discussing our advisory services and fees is available for your review upon request. Please consult a tax professional for specific tax inquiries and recommendations.
Medical Therapy and Attainment of Risk-Factor Goals
The types of medications and attainment of risk-factor goals were similar in the two groups (Table S5). The median level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was 83 mg per deciliter (2.1 mmol per liter) at baseline and 70 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) at the last visit. The median systolic blood pressure was 135 mm Hg at baseline and 130 mm Hg at the last visit. There was more use of antianginal medications in the conservative-strategy group and more use of dual antiplatelet therapy in the invasive-strategy group (Fig. S3).
- " Encounter at Farpoint " (Season 1)
- " Lonely Among Us "
- " The Child " (Season 2)
- " Where Silence Has Lease "
- " Loud As A Whisper "
- " Unnatural Selection "
- " A Matter Of Honor "
- " The Measure Of A Man "
- " The Dauphin "
- " Contagion "
- " The Royale "
- " Time Squared "
- " The Icarus Factor "
- " Pen Pals "
- " Q Who "
- " Up The Long Ladder "
- " Manhunt "
- " The Emissary "
- " Shades of Gray "
- " The Ensigns of Command " (Season 3)
- " The Bonding "
- " Booby Trap "
- " The Enemy "
- " The Price " (voice only)
- " The Hunted "
- " A Matter of Perspective "
- " Tin Man "
- " Hollow Pursuits "
- " The Most Toys "
- " Sarek "
- " Transfigurations "
- " The Best of Both Worlds "
- " The Best of Both Worlds, Part II " (Season 4)
- " Family "
- " Brothers "
- " Remember Me "
- " Legacy "
- " Data's Day "
- " The Wounded "
- " Clues "
- " Night Terrors "
- " Half a Life "
- " The Mind's Eye "
- " In Theory "
- " Redemption II " (Season 5)
- " Darmok "
- " Disaster "
- " The Game "
- " Power Play "
- " Realm of Fear " (Season 6)
- " Rascals "
- " All Good Things. " (Season 7 anti-time version)
- Miles O'Brien appeared in all episodes of DS9 except:
- " Dax "
- " The Passenger "
- " Move Along Home "
- " Blood Oath "
- " Second Skin "
- " Through the Looking Glass " (mirror counterpart appeared)
- " Let He Who Is Without Sin. "
- " Things Past "
- " Far Beyond the Stars " (Colm Meaney portrayed Albert Macklin)
- " In the Pale Moonlight "
- " The Reckoning "
- " Valiant "
- " The Emperor's New Cloak " (mirror counterpart appeared)
- In " Tribunal ", O'Brien told Raymond Boone he was Chief Engineer of Deep Space 9, rather than Chief of Operations.
- In " Facets ", after Nog passes the entry exam for Starfleet Academy, O'Brien mentions to Bashir that if Nog graduates from the Academy, he [O'Brien] will have to address Nog as "sir." Despite this, Nog (upon becoming an ensign) still referred to the chief as "sir."
- During some points of The Next Generation, O'Brien may have held a field commission as an officer, which would explain why Riker once called him a lieutenant. His continuous wearing of two pips (which is the standard insignia of a lieutenant) might be a type of "honorary insignia" even though he was later clearly referred to as a chief petty officer.
- Starfleet non-commissioned officer insignia might be identical to officer insignia, with the number of pips worn by an noncom indicating level of seniority as a chief petty officer. Under this system, one pip would equal a chief petty officer, two a senior chief, and three a master chief. With O'Brien wearing two pips throughout The Next Generation, this would equate with his final rank of senior chief petty officer in Deep Space Nine.
- Ranks for starbase personnel may simply differ in name from personnel serving on starships.
- The original intention for warrant officers (senior enlisted personnel) in the old British system most Western militaries take their traditions from, was that they held a "warrant" entitling them to the same authority of a commissioned officer but within the narrow field in which they are an expert. Thus, a transporter "chief" may, with respect to the operation and maintenance of transporters, hold a warrant granting the same authority as a lieutenant and therefore he may wear the rank insignia designating him as such. This could explain the slight hesitation he displayed in the 1989 episode "The Emmisary" where Worf, a Lieutenant JG, relieves him. Normally in the operation of a transporter, his authority may supersede Worf's , but as a commissioned officer, Worf may have held a more general authority and was exercising that. His response to Worf is the correct formal response of a superior rank to a junior who, is by nature of position or authority, relieving him.
- The entire backstory seen in " The Wounded " reveals that O'Brien was once a senior department head officer under the command of Captain Benjamin Maxwell. With O'Brien being a chief petty officer on board the Enterprise, it stands to reason that he was either a very junior CPO or perhaps even an ordinary petty officer under Maxwell. With the duties O'Brien was stated to have held (tactical officer), this creates a problem since nowhere else in Star Trek has an enlisted person been seen holding such a high-level position. It is important to note that O'Brien's service under Maxwell occurred during the Federation-Cardassian Border War. Under wartime conditions, lower ranked officers and perhaps even non-commissioned crew members may have been pressed into service in places where they would not otherwise have the opportunity to serve during peacetime.
- At one point, O'Brien appears to have had officers working for him. Such was the case in " Clues ", in which O'Brien states that an ensign was "one of his technicians". This may be explained by O'Brien holding a type of "positional authority" which would grant him authority to officers due to his position as transporter chief, even though he was militarily junior. This continued well into his tenure on Deep Space 9, with an ensign in " Emissary " addressing him as "sir", several members of his staff appearing to be ensigns or lieutenants and Nog clearly being subordinate to O'Brien despite holding the rank of ensign. However, in the whole DS9 series, it is continuously stated that O'Brien is chief engineer of the station and as mentioned above this position often trumps the rank someone holds. once remarked in " Trials and Tribble-ations " that O'Brien had attended Starfleet Academy, which is a training school for commissioned officers and not noncoms. Ronald D. Moore remarked, "This is a mistake, plain and simple. If you want to rationalize it, I suppose we could say that the enlisted training program also takes place at the Academy." (AOL chat,1998) The idea of Starfleet Academy training enlisted personnel was also backed up by statements of Simon Tarses in " The Drumhead ".
Miles O'Brien was played by Colm Meaney in all appearances. When asked what he thought O'Brien brought to the show, during an interview in November 2009, Meaney replied, "I don't know. I think… you know, because of that world that we inhabited, with all of these extraordinary characters who could do extraordinary things, there was a terrific kind of humanity in O'Brien… and that's due to the writing, of course, but it's also in every sense, in that he was humanoid! But I think he brought that kind of contemporary sensibility to an extraordinary world, and it's nice to be able to say that. And, of course, we had the storylines with Rosalind Chao, who played my wife, Keiko, which were great, just to be able to play those storylines of domestic tension or the problems facing a kid in that environment." 
Prior to revealing his first name "Miles" in the TNG fourth season episode " Family ", Ronald D. Moore and the other writers considered "Aloysius" as a first name for O'Brien. ("Namely O'Brien", The Official Star Trek: The Next Generation Magazine issue 14, p.㺞) Commented Rick Berman, "I named him after my nephew, whose name is Miles O'Brien." (The Fifty-Year Mission: The Next 25 Years, p. 442)
On bringing Meaney and thus O'Brien to DS9, Michael Piller stated, "We've always thought he was a terrific performer and now we're giving him something much more interesting to do as a leading character on the new show. He is pulling hair out from one minute to the next because everything is breaking down. He can't get the replicators to make a good cup of coffee his wife Keiko is terribly unhappy about having been taken off the Enterprise and over to this dreadful station. So he finds himself in an uncomfortable position." (Trek: Deep Space Nine: The Unauthorized Story, p. 11) Contrasting the portrayal of O'Brien in TNG with how the character is depicted in DS9, Meaney himself commented, "He's essentially the same character [….] I haven't really changed my approach to playing the character. He's just the same guy trying to deal with many more problems." (The Official Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Magazine issue 1, pp. 22 & 23)
According to DS9 executive producer/writer Ira Steven Behr, "O'Brien is every man. In a show about humans and aliens, he's as Human as you get." Similarly, Behr's writing partner for the first four seasons of the show, Robert Hewitt Wolfe, says, "He's just a regular guy, a guy doing his job. He's just the most unlikely of all heroes because he's a family man with a daughter and eventually a son and a wife and they have arguments and a real relationship, and he's just a working class schmo, I mean obviously he's a really bright guy and very good at what he did, but basically, a working class schmo just trying to get through his day." (Crew Dossier: Miles O'Brien, DS9 Season 5 DVD, Special Features)
The DS9 writing staff had a running joke where the character would suffer significant trauma in at least one episode per season. Among these were " Whispers ", " Tribunal ", " Visionary ", " Hard Time " and " The Assignment ". (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion (pp. 328 &𧊅)) According to Ira Behr, "Every year in one or two shows we try to make his life miserable, because you empathize with him." Robert Hewitt Wolfe further explains, "If O'Brien went through something torturous and horrible, the audience was going to feel that, in a way they wouldn't feel it with any of the other characters. Because all the other characters were sort of, I wouldn't say larger than life, but nobler than life, but O'Brien was just a guy, trying to live his life and so if you tortured him that was a story." (Crew Dossier: Miles O'Brien, DS9 Season 5 DVD, Special Features)
The relationship built up on DS9 between O'Brien and Bashir was very important to all of the writers, as well as both actors. According to Ronald D. Moore, after the scene where they sing the British patriotic hymn "Jerusalem" together in DS9 : " Explorers ", all of the staff writers wanted to write scenes involving their friendship. Alexander Siddig says, "it's been said, by even the producers, that O'Brien and Bashir are the only real friendship that's ever happened on Star Trek. These two really are friends. It's not like some kind of odd couple scenario, like Spock and Kirk. It's a real friendship. These people talk about inane things, and I think that's been really refreshing." Robert Hewitt Wolfe elaborates, "It was just great. There was just great chemistry between the two actors, great chemistry between the two characters. It was brilliant of Michael and Rick to create these two characters as foils for each other. And to then see this relationship develop over the years till they're best friends, till Miles actually likes Bashir kind of almost better than his wife some days, which is very real, I mean there's days that everybody, you know, it's easier to be friends with a friend than with your wife some days." (Crew Dossier: Miles O'Brien, DS9 Season 5 DVD, Special Features) Ira Behr goes even further, and cites it as his favorite relationship in all of Star Trek "The relationship between Bashir and O'Brien is the best relationship, the best friendship, in the history of the franchise. Spock and Kirk were still about the captain and his number one. This is a friendship with two equals, two guys. It's a wonderful thing to watch how this relationship has grown." (Crew Dossier: Julian Bashir, DS9 Season 6 DVD, Special Features)
O'Brien is one of two enlisted characters in Star Trek to have received any significant character development, the other being Yeoman Janice Rand.
O'Brien is one of five characters to appear in two series premieres ( TNG : " Encounter at Farpoint " and DS9 : " Emissary "), the others being Jean-Luc Picard (same episodes as O'Brien), Quark, Morn, and Broik (in both DS9 : " Emissary " and VOY : " Caretaker ").
O'Brien is one of four characters to appear in two series finales ( TNG : " All Good Things. " and DS9 : " What You Leave Behind "), the others being Worf (same episodes as O'Brien), William T. Riker and Deanna Troi (both in TNG : " All Good Things. " and ENT : " These Are the Voyages. ").
O'Brien is the only character to appear in two series premieres and two series finales, ( TNG : " Encounter at Farpoint " and DS9 : " Emissary "), and ( TNG : " All Good Things. " and DS9 : " What You Leave Behind ").
Problematic rank history
The character of Miles O'Brien, and the exact rank he held in Star Trek, has a history of its own spanning the length of the character's existence.
In thirteen years of the character's appearances, only in the last four was his rank established to be presumably senior chief petty officer (although this term was never directly used on screen). Through various other stages of the character's development, O'Brien was referred to as a crewman, a lieutenant, and various script notes indicated he was a "warrant officer." The novelization of Emissary indicated O'Brien held a rank known as "ensign junior grade".
The exact history of O'Brien's ranks are as follows:
1987: Appears in " Encounter at Farpoint " and is referred to as "Conn" (not as a name, but showing he was conducting the movements of the ship). In this episode, O'Brien wears the single pip of a Starfleet ensign (1) and a red command division uniform. In " Lonely Among Us " he appears again, with no apparent insignia, credited as First Security Guard and in the corresponding yellow operations division uniform.
1988: Appears in " The Child ", credited as Transporter Chief. He wears the two pips of a Starfleet lieutenant (2). In " Where Silence Has Lease " he appears wearing the same uniform and insignia as "The Child" and is directly addressed by Commander Riker as "lieutenant", seemingly indicating that O'Brien is an officer.
1989: O'Brien's surname is mentioned for the first time in " Unnatural Selection ". He is wearing the two pips of a Starfleet lieutenant again and is addressed as chief.
1989: Appears in " The Emissary ", again wearing two pips. Toward the end of the episode, then Lieutenant junior grade Worf gives him transporter coordinates. After entering them, Worf says "I relieve you", to which O'Brien replies, "Well I… yes, lieutenant", which is the correct way to formally address someone of inferior rank (if Worf had been his superior, it would likely have been "sir"). There have been multiple examples in Starfleet of position trumping rank, such as a bridge officer being left in command of a ship, even when a superior officer is on duty in engineering.
1990: Appears in " Family " and is addressed as "another chief petty officer" by Sergey Rozhenko, even though he is shown wearing lieutenant's pips, and is given a first (and middle) name, three years after his first appearance. From this point on, O'Brien's character is developed as a senior enlisted member of the Enterprise crew, although he continued to wear the lieutenant's insignia.
- commented, "O'Brien was originally just a day player on TNG and very little, if any, thought went into his rank or background for quite a while. He officially became a Chief Petty Officer in "Family" when I wanted he and Worf's adoptive father to both be non-coms in contrast to Worf. Making him an enlisted man seemed to give us another color in the show and to open up another window into Starfleet that we hadn't explored before." (AOL chat,1998)
1991: Appears in " Data's Day " wearing his usual uniform and insignia. At the end of the episode, O'Brien wears a dress uniform also with the two pip insignia of a lieutenant. Later in " Clues ", he mentions Ensign Locklin to be "one of his technicians", once more suggesting a higher rank in line with his two rank pips.
1992: Appears in " Realm of Fear " where O'Brien is given direct orders by Reginald Barclay (who is a lieutenant junior grade) thus firming up the idea that O'Brien is a noncom as opposed to an commissioned officer. This episode marks the first time that O'Brien wears the single hollow pip with his regular uniform (3). (The Star Trek Encyclopedia (2nd ed., p. 211) defines this as the insignia of a "chief warrant officer", although the term is never used on-screen.)
1993: Appears in " Emissary ", where he transfers to Deep Space 9 to take a new position as its "chief of operations". In " A Man Alone ", this transfer is described as a "promotion". For the next three years, O'Brien wears a single hollow pip insignia with his rank again very much in question. Script notes from several Deep Space Nine episodes indicate he is a "warrant officer", while the pilot's novelization states O'Brien is an "ensign junior grade" (3).
1994: Appears in " Paradise " where he briefly describes the history of how he became tactical officer and "got [his] gold suit" on the USS Rutledge. In the next episode, " Shadowplay ", his title is stated to be senior chief specialist. He appears also in the past segment of " All Good Things. " wearing the single pip of a Starfleet ensign, which is consistent with what was worn during "Encounter at Farpoint" (1). The Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion (2nd ed., p. 301) incorrectly reports that O'Brien wears a single hollow pip during the episode.
1995: In " Past Tense, Part I ", when the other officers are lamenting having to attend a formal Starfleet function, O'Brien is asked if he would like to attend. He half-jokes, "Full dress uniform, fine table linens, a different fork for every course? No thanks, that's why I stayed an enlisted man. They don't expect me to show up for these formal dinners."
1995: By the time of " Hippocratic Oath ", O'Brien has begun to wear a new insignia reminiscent of the chevron rank used by modern-day master chief petty officers in the US Navy (4). In this episode, a Jem'Hadar familiar with Starfleet insignia identifies it as a chief petty officer insignia. Presumably it was actually senior chief petty officer, as the word senior was used in "Shadowplay", so the Jem'Hadar presumably simply left out the distinction. His dress uniform in " Crossfire " displays no rank insignia, but in " Rules of Engagement " it has the single hollow pip.
|Corresponding rank pins|
Possible explanations for O'Brien's various titles and insignia include:
Some problems with assuming that O'Brien is a Starfleet chief petty officer include:
In the end, it may be nothing more complicated than that in the early days of TNG when he was little more than a regular extra, scripts just assumed he was an officer because there were never any actual enlisted personnel shown on screen. His later specification at the rank of "chief" would, then, be nothing more than the fact that his in-character position in TNG as transporter chief made it easy to call him an actual chief later on and to flesh him out in the role of an enlisted person. Trying to attribute in-character canon reasons to the out-of-character decisions (to flesh out the cast of DS9 with people familiar to TNG-viewers) may, therefore, not be possible and it may be one of those things where it is better to just accept that there are imperfections in the canon accounts.
In post-finale novels, O'Brien relocates from Earth to Cardassia in the year after DS9 ended. (Unity, Worlds of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Volume One)
In the Star Trek: Typhon Pact novel Raise the Dawn, O'Brien is reassigned as chief engineer following the destruction of Deep Space 9 in 2383 of both the ground-based facility that substituted for it and supervising the Starfleet Corps of Engineers in the construction of the new, replacement station.
In the Star Trek: The Fall novel Revelation and Dust, O'Brien takes over as chief engineer of the new Deep Space 9 after its construction was completed.
Miles O'Brien of the alternate reality
The alternate reality version of Miles O'Brien appears in the Star Trek: Ongoing story arc The Q Gambit in which he is a member of the Free Federation Resistance with the rank of lieutenant and is first officer of the USS Defiant, with his wife Keiko as captain of the Defiant. He rescues Sisko, Odo, James T. Kirk, Montgomery Scott, and Nyota Uhura from Changelings after they had murdered Chancellor Worf using a shuttle and when they get back to the Defiant, O'Brien is assisted by Scott in fixing the ship's warp drive during which the two of them discuss and bond over their mutual love of engineering.