ivermectin-Dosis für Läuse €19.0

Posts tagged with "the constitution"

SCOTUS Limits Universal Injunctions, Shaking Up Birthright Citizenship and Beyond

Leave a reply

A recent Supreme Court ruling has sent ripples through the American legal landscape, significantly limiting the ability of lower courts to issue “universal injunctions” that block executive orders nationwide. While the immediate focus is on its impact on President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order, the implications of this decision stretch far wider, touching on the very fabric of our Constitution, American culture, and fundamental rights.

The Need-to-Know

  • What happened? The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, partially blocked nationwide injunctions on President Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order.
  • The Ruling: Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion, which argued that injunctive relief should be limited to the specific plaintiffs in a case, rather than extending universally.
  • The Dissent: Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan dissented fiercely, warning of a “zone of lawlessness” and disproportionate impact on the less resourced.
  • What wasn’t ruled on: The ruling did not address the merits of Trump’s birthright citizenship order or the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship. That question was not presented to the court.
  • Immediate effect: Birthright citizenship remains the law of the land for at least another 30 days, as the executive order was stayed. Lower courts will now reconsider the breadth of their orders.

Key Takeaways

  • Judicial Restraint: The ruling reflects a move towards judicial restraint, limiting the power of individual district courts to broadly impact federal policy.
  • Individualized Relief: The Court emphasized that relief should be tailored to the individual plaintiffs before the court, rather than providing universal remedies.
  • Access to Justice Concerns: Dissenting justices raised concerns that this decision will disproportionately affect individuals who lack the resources to bring their own individual lawsuits, potentially creating a two-tiered system of justice.
  • Political Motivation? The dissent also accused the Court of “gamesmanship” with the Constitution, playing along with an administration that “makes no attempt to hide it.”

Implications

To the Constitution: This ruling fundamentally redefines the scope of judicial power, particularly in relation to the executive branch. While the majority frames it as a correction to an overuse of universal injunctions, the dissent argues it creates a dangerous precedent that undermines checks and balances and could lead to executive overreach. The decision, though not directly on the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, sets a procedural hurdle for challenges to executive actions that could impact constitutional rights.

To Birthright Citizenship: Although the ruling did not directly address the merits of birthright citizenship, it makes it procedurally more difficult to challenge executive actions that might undermine it. Instead of a single nationwide injunction protecting all those affected, individuals would theoretically need to bring their own cases. This shifts the burden significantly, potentially leaving many vulnerable and creating a patchwork of legal protections across states. The fact that the court did not uphold over 100 years of precedent, including U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, directly, but rather through procedural means, is a significant concern for advocates of birthright citizenship.

To American Culture: The debate around universal injunctions highlights a deep divide in how Americans view the role of the judiciary and the balance of power. Some see this as a necessary curb on judicial activism, while others view it as an erosion of protections for ordinary citizens against potentially unlawful government actions. It also underscores the ongoing tension between individual rights and broader societal protections.

This Supreme Court decision is a major development with far-reaching consequences. It signals a shift in the judiciary’s approach to executive power and judicial remedies, prompting further legal battles and raising critical questions about access to justice and the future of constitutional rights in America.

OTD: The Declaration of the 14th Amendment

Leave a reply

 

“On July 28, 1868, the 14th amendment was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State, ratified by the necessary 28 of the 37 States, and became part of the supreme law of the land.” – National Archives

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on 1868-07-09. It was one of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted after the Civil War. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to protect a wide range of individual rights, including the right to due process of law, the right to equal protection under the law, and the right to vote.

Background

The 14th Amendment was drafted in response to the Black Codes, a series of laws passed by Southern states after the Civil War that restricted the rights of African Americans. The amendment was designed to protect the civil rights of African Americans and to ensure that they were treated equally under the law.

Key Provisions

The 14th Amendment contains several key provisions, including:

  • The Citizenship Clause, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
  • The Due Process Clause, which states that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
  • The Equal Protection Clause, which states that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Interpretation

The 14th Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a number of landmark cases. These cases have established that the 14th Amendment protects a wide range of individual rights, including:

  • The right to due process of law, which means that the government must follow certain procedures before it can deprive a person of life, liberty, or property.
  • The right to equal protection under the law, which means that the government must treat all people equally.
  • The right to vote, which is guaranteed by the 15th Amendment but is also protected by the 14th Amendment.

Legacy

The 14th Amendment has had a profound impact on American law and society. It has been used to protect the rights of African Americans, women, and other marginalized groups. It has also been used to strike down laws that discriminate against these groups. The 14th Amendment is a key part of the foundation of American democracy.

The Lineage And Mechanism Of The U.S. Constitution

Leave a reply

BY JEANETTE LENOIR

The Olympics have been a much-needed distraction from America’s political battle ground, ongoing culture wars and countless social struggles. However, in the midst of all this family drama, are we missing something crucial? Australian attorney and author, James D. R. Philips thinks we are. He points to the global power and impact of the U.S. Constitution and shares his historical, and outside perspective in his book: Two Revolutions And The American Constitution: How the English and American Revolutions Produced the American Constitution.

Philips says to fully understand how America works, you need to understand its system of government and laws, and for that you must understand the Constitution. In his book, Philips highlights the lineage and mechanics of this living document that continues to shape and guide America and the rest of the world.

To purchase Philips’ book, click here 👉 https://amzn.to/37dISQv

Philips: U.S. Constitution Key Pivot To The Formation Of The Modern World

Leave a reply
Editor’s Note: The views expressed are solely those of the author. James D.R. Philips is an Australian attorney and the author of the new book, “Two Revolutions and the Constitution: How the English and American Revolutions Produced the American Constitution.”
 
 

Australia probably isn’t the first place Americans think of on Independence Day, but it’s important to consider the many ways America’s example has reverberated around the world for centuries. Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, had three great consequences for Australia. First, it prompted the founding of a British colony there. Second, it facilitated Australian independence. Third, it led to the structure of the Australian Constitution. American independence meant that the British could no longer send convicts to its former American colonies. Long-stay prisons in Britain were in short supply. The British needed a new colony to which they could transport convicts. They risked the moonshot of trying to establish a colony on the other side of the world, at Botany Bay (now in Sydney).

The success of the revolutionary war and Declaration of independence taught the British not to resist a settler colony whose people wanted independence. When Australians demanded independence, just over a century after the founding of the first Australian colony, the British did not stand in their way. The independence led to the Constitution. The Constitution (drafted while the First Fleet was hazarding its epic journey from Portsmouth in England to establish the new colony in Australia) had a profound influence on the structure and terms of the Australian Constitution, and therefore on Australia’s system of government.

Of course, a future Australia was not on his mind when Jefferson was drafting the declaration. He and other Founders were focused on protecting their legal and political rights from British predation. The Founders charged King George III with tyranny. They rebelled, left his kingdom and established a republic. Charles I suffered a similar fate, charged with tyranny by the Rump Parliament. He was tried and beheaded in 1649, and a British republic established. The American republic has endured.

The English republic was short-lived. But some 30 years after the end of the English republic, the English had a second revolution, called either the “English Revolution” or the “Glorious Revolution.” The English (with substantial Dutch help) forced James II to flee his kingdom, rather than putting him on trial and executing him. The English Revolution established finally that the monarch was subject to Parliament and to law. During the English Revolution, there were rebellions against English rule in Massachusetts, New York, and Maryland.

The English Revolution was a foundation of the development of pluralistic societies, which enjoyed freedom and representative government subject to law in England and America. The American Revolution further developed and cemented these principles and had a profound effect on the development of the modern world. The Founders believed that they were protecting their existing legal and political rights. Their conception of those rights developed in the British-American colonial period. There was plenty of scope for different perceptions in America and in England as to the extent of British control of aspects of colonial government, and to what extent American rights were subject to the King’s prerogative power or subject to Parliamentary legislation.

When, some 80 years after the English Revolution, George III and his Parliament began imposing taxes on Americans and seeking to increase British control over the colonies, Americans rebelled against Parliament as well as against the king. They believed that Parliament had abandoned its role as the protector of liberties against royal overreach. Most famously, colonial Americans believed that Parliament could not impose direct taxes on them because there could be no taxation without representation, and Americans were not represented in Parliament.

The American Bill of Rights was essential in the minds of many Americans because of the risk that Congress might betray the people, as Parliament had betrayed them. To Americans, the developing British concept of parliamentary supremacy had become a latent source of tyranny. Australia’s Constitution is largely a hybrid of the American and British models, using the American federal and national structure, but establishing Parliamentary supremacy (subject to that structure).

The most famous statement in the U.S. Declaration of Independence is universal in its aspiration: “That all [people] are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Making these rights real and operable for all Americans is a work in progress. Still, it is momentous that the declaration stated in such compelling language that these rights were inherent and that when the British impeded them, Americans had a right to rebel. The declaration is a foundation of America. And it has a profound significance for Australians: It is one of Australia’s founding documents, too.

Categories:

ePluribusAmerica
Humanity Starts With Culture
Copyright © 2025 ePluribusAmerica. All Rights Reserved. Web Design and Domain names by Network Solutions®