#constitutional changes

[aanews69]

All our links in one place:https://sleekbio.com/aanews69Visit our Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/DNPLServicesWe deliver stories. We also give you guides, tip...

[livewellnews]

One Nation, One Election: Parties Divided on Constitutional Changes

The debate over the “One Nation, One Election” proposal has sparked mixed reactions among political parties, with 15 parties opposing the idea, including four national parties, while 32 parties express their support. Here’s a breakdown of the diverse opinions presented to the panel led by Ram Nath Kovind:

Supporting Parties:

The BJP and its ally, the National People’s Party (NPP), constitute the only national parties backing simultaneous elections.

Other supporting parties include the AIADMK, JD(U), Biju Janata Dal, Shiv Sena, Akali Dal, and several regional parties.

Opposing Parties:

The Congress, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), and CPI(M) are among the national parties opposing simultaneous elections.

Additionally, parties like Trinamool Congress, AIMIM, CPI, DMK, and Samajwadi Party have expressed their opposition to the proposal.

Key Points Raised:

The Congress highlights concerns about the proposal’s impact on the Constitution’s basic structure and federalism.

The BSP emphasizes the need to strengthen existing electoral systems before implementing significant changes.

The CPI(M) criticizes the proposal as anti-democratic and detrimental to parliamentary democracy.

Trinamool Congress questions the constitutional implications and structural impact of One Nation, One Election.

AIMIM underscores the importance of respecting voters’ choices and preserving India’s electoral democracy.

All-Party Meeting:

An all-party meeting convened in Delhi saw 16 out of 19 parties favoring simultaneous elections, including ruling parties in several states.

The BJP’s allies, JD(U), Akali Dal, and Lok Janshakti Party, were among the supporters, while the CPI(M) and AIMIM opposed the proposal.

The debate on One Nation, One Election reflects the diversity of opinions among political parties, raising crucial questions about constitutional changes and electoral democracy in India.

[f-ai-n]

Been feeling frustrated recently

Feel free to read more about it: https://x.com/trendasia_org/status/1826241657169436841?s=46

[castielsprostate]

hey americans, please fucking vote this year! thanks!

signed,

the rest of the world

[mollysunder]

For once I actually went through the Arcane AMA and found those quotes about Silco's motivation. It's kind of wild to see it in full context.

First, I didn't even know the "dirty little thing" insecurity was an agreed upon perspective, I just thought it was one writer's opinion but no, Christian Linke (Praeco) let us know that was Silco's thing. Ok. I can see how that can tie in to how Silco and Jinx connected, personal insecurities from a hard life.

But then Amanda Overton (leeloo104) goes into detail.

I already know the creative team said they don't think political struggle is "relatable" (yikes), but I've never seen this extra tidbit before!

What do you mean this all so Vander will respect Silco again?!!??!? First of all I could really go in about how Arcane's team seem incapable of having any character fully articulate an actual in-depth explanation about on their grievances with the status quo and what changes should be applied that isn't somehow about familial validation. *looks at Jinx*

Instead, we need unpack how this motivation is at best, very weird, or flat out doesn't make sense. The quote makes it sound like Zaun was fully Silco's idea to win back Vander's love and respect, but Silco said a free Zaun was their shared dream. And regaining Vander's respect seems like a moot point when Silco killed Vander.

Unless Silco knows Vander isn't dead, and that Singed's been slowly turning Vander into Warwick. But then why does he talk to the Vander statue like Vander is dead? I don't doubt Silco wouldn't visit Warwick even in Warwick's confused state. Either way, the Vander that Silco wanted to receive validation from doesn't exist anymore.

I get that they probably wanted to connect Silco's motivation to Jinx's obsession with Vi, but that can be problematic too! It just ends up where Silco and Jinx are written in a way where their search for emotional validation takes precedence over any attempt for them to communicate a coherent and detailed observation on the surrounding politics of their environment.

It would be one thing if they were minor characters, or this was just related to Jinx because she's the youngest in the cast and her story is about understanding who she is. But it's both of them, Silco's at least in his forties, and they're a part of the main cast. On top of that, I'd say their the two most politically influential Zaunites in the cast, and we know NOTHING about what they stand for, what they think the future should look like. Nothing, just vibes.

[guardianlioness]

Watching Kafka and Reno’s interactions at the beginning of the Kaiju No.8 anime hits differently after catching up with the manga.

Reno protesting Kafka’s carelessness with his Kaiju form is a fun gag early on in the story, and his decision to stick with Kafka during the exam is endearing—but it’s amplified and almost sad in retrospect.

Manga spoilers from chapter 101 onward below the cut.

We learn in Ch. 101 that Reno has suffered a huge amount of loss in his life.

He lost his parents and brother. He lost the familiarity and daily routine of attending his existing school. He lost emotional security, witnessing his grandmother’s struggle with their mutual grief. He lost faith in the idea that someone might help.

Only for Kafka to trip headlong into correcting that belief.

Despite Reno’s disrespect, Kafka fully embodies his senpai title by teaching him the tricks of the trade. He looks out for and helps him without hesitation, and he brushes off any jabs or insults with a quick, internal wince.

And then Kafka absolutely shatters his core beliefs by shoving him out of a Kaiju’s path.

This guy—a guy Reno barely knows, a guy that he insulted seconds into their first meeting—is willing to die for him without hesitation.

Is it any surprise that Reno really would rather not lose him?

All of those reminders and all of that fussing is to keep Reno’s only hero from being scrapped for literal parts.

For the first time since the death of his family, someone steps between Reno and tragedy. Of course he’s going to do everything in his power to keep that savior alive.

[bittsandpieces]

US americans.... you'd better be fucking voting

[theside-b]

They make me sick 🥰

[andrewknightley]

Im not usamerican so idk but how is that the president is just removing laws and changing things in so little time with no process but if someone wants to improve medical healthcare a lil tinsy bit it takes year and then it can get removed inmediatly?

[whaliiwatching]

get remixed, bitches

[reasonsforhope]

Article Date: 7 June 2023

Climate litigation in the US could be entering a “game changing” new phase, experts believe, with a spate of lawsuits around the country set to advance after a recent supreme court decision, and with legal teams preparing for a trailblazing trial in a youth-led court case beginning next week.

The first constitutional climate lawsuit in the US goes to trial on Monday next week (12 June) in Helena, Montana, based on a legal challenge by 16 young plaintiffs, ranging in age from five to 22, against the state’s pro-fossil fuel policies.

A federal judge ruled last week that a federal constitutional climate lawsuit, also brought by youth, can go to trial.

More than two dozen US cities and states are suing big oil alleging the fossil fuel industry knew for decades about the dangers of burning coal, oil and gas, and actively hid that information from consumers and investors.

The supreme court cleared the way for these cases to advance with rulings in April and May that denied oil companies’ bids to move the venue of such lawsuits from state courts to federal courts.

Hoboken, New Jersey, last month added racketeering charges against oil majors to its 2020 climate lawsuit, becoming the first case to employ the approach in a state court and following a federal lawsuit filed by Puerto Rico last November.

the new forms of climate litigation are different, as they grapple not with particular projects’ emissions, but on responsibility for the climate crisis itself. Sokol, who dubbed these new suits “climate accountability litigation”, says though they will not alone lower emissions, they could help reshape climate plans.

In the US, this litigation has taken a variety of forms; perhaps the best known cases are based on constitutional rights and brought by youth.

One of those cases, Held v Montana, is based on the state’s constitutional guarantees to a clean and healthy environment, which were enshrined in the 1970s and which the plaintiffs say the state has violated by supporting fossil fuels. It will next week become the first-ever constitutional climate lawsuit to go to trial in the US.

Held v Montana followed the highly publicized 2015 Juliana v United States in which 21 young people from Oregon sued the US government for violating their constitutional rights to life, liberty and property by enacting policies that drove and exacerbated the climate crisis. The case, which like the Montana suit was filed by the non-profit law firm Our Children’s Trust, calls on federal officials to phase out fossil fuels.

Last week, a US district court ruled in favor of the youth plaintiffs, allowing that their claims can be decided at trial in open court.

Litigation based on state constitutional rights, also filed by Our Children’s Trust, is currently pending in four other states. One of those cases brought by Hawaii youth is set to go to trial, possibly as soon as this fall.

Another set of lawsuits in the US allege that the fossil fuel industry has for decades known about the dangers of burning coal, oil and gas, and actively hid that information from consumers and investors. Since 2017, seven states, 35 municipalities, the District of Columbia, and one industry trade association have sued major fossil fuel corporations and lobbying groups on these grounds.

In late April, lawyers for the city of Hoboken amended a 2020 complaint to allege that the defendants violated New Jersey’s racketeering laws by conspiring to sow doubt about climate change.

It marked the first-ever state-level lawsuit of its kind, following one last year in which 16 Puerto Rico cities brought federal racketeering charges, originally used to bring down criminal enterprises like the mafia, against big oil.

Unlike some previous cases, Hoboken’s amended lawsuit focuses not only on past misinformation, but also on contemporary greenwashing – something that could feature prominently in future cases.

A study last month examined litigation against fossil fuel majors and found that the filing of a new case or a court decision against a corporation took a slight toll on their finances. Novel developments – including a groundbreaking 2021 Netherlands court ruling ordering Shell to substantially slash its carbon emissions, and an unprecedented transnational claim filed in 2012 by a Peruvian farmer against a German energy company – yielded bigger blows.

Sankar, of Earthjustice, said he expects to see new forms of climate litigation in future years. “As the impact on states and localities increases, they are increasingly going to be looking for ways in which their state and local laws protect them,” he said.

(shinigami red links in this post go to The Guardian)

Article Date: 7 June 2023

Article Source: Dharna Noor for The Guardian

--

Thanks so much to @queerce for submitting!

[eugenedebs1920]

Donald Trump has conned nearly half America into thinking that with over a dozen failed business, 6 bankruptcies, and defaulted loans, that he’s a successful businessman. He’s conned nearly half America into thinking that despite having multiple wives, with multiple children, that he cheated on all of, while settling rape cases out of court, being adjudicated for rape, bragging about sexually assaulting women, that he’s a moral Christian man. He’s conned nearly half America into thinking that despite his only accomplishments while in office being a massive tax break that only benefited the upper 11% of earners, lowering Americans standing around the globe, dividing this country like no president ever has, that he was a great president. He’s conned nearly has conned nearly half the country into thinking that despite losing the last election by huge numbers, then refusing to concede, makes a scheme to create fake electors to defraud the American electorate, when that doesn’t work then he tries to intimidate local officials to “find” votes for him, all the while he’s been removing nuclear secrets, war plans, state secrets and classified documents, when he knew he lost the election, to hide at his various properties, he baselessly claims the election is stolen, even though he filed 64 lawsuits, recounts and audits in every state contested, riling up his base in false accusations, incites a coup to stop the certification of the election he lost, betraying his oath to the Constitution, that he should be president again!

He hasn’t conned us! We see through his con and call bullsh*t! Donald Trump is a failure, a rapist and a traitor. He certainly doesn’t belong in the White House.

Vote Kamala Harris and Tim Walz at the top of the ticket, and blue all the way down, if you want to see the change in this country we deserve!

[free-luigi]

Donald Trump incited an insurrection and despite that is about to become President (again)… As an aside, this is currently illegal per the Constitution.

Luigi Mangione *allegedly* shot and killed a singular CEO, who was a billionaire. One who was responsible for the systemic murder of thousands and the suffering of many more. One who has garnered no sympathy from the working class, because Luigi exposed health insurance as the scam that it truly is. Which has started to show capitalism for the scam that it truly is…

Where is Donald Trump’s terrorism charge? Why is a felon rapist who incited a domestic terrorist attack on January 6, 2021 about to be awarded the Presidency for a second time?

Where is the FUCKING JUSTICE?!

Additionally, why hasn’t every single mass shooter gotten a terrorism charge? Why don’t we treat EVERY school shooter this way?

AGAIN, WHERE IS THE FUCKING JUSTICE?!!!!!

Donald Trump being inaugurated into office on January 20, 2025 is unconstitutional, under Amendment 14, Section 3 of the United States Constitution:

The vote mentioned at the end, underlined in red, has NOT happened. The disability to hold office has NOT been removed. He remains ineligible for office.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 of the United States Constitution:

Donald Trump was impeached. TWICE!

The Declaration of Independence is clear on what action the people should take against the government in times like this:

Donald Trump is a convicted felon who is currently ineligible from taking office, yet he is about to be inaugurated despite of this. His upcoming presidency is illegal. He is also at the beck and call of the richest man in the world. And hellbent on setting fire to the Constitution.

Luigi Mangione is an independent citizen, who was following the guidance outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Since the powers that be are treating the US Constitution like toilet paper, it is the only recourse.

Will we be brave enough to follow?

January 6, 2025

The 14th Now protests failed. Trump was certified today and democracy officially died on our watch.

We still have the upcoming People’s March. But it will be 2 days before the inauguration.

[onceuponadreamgirl]

asking everyone reblogging scary things Tr*mp's done to remember that he has no authority to do like 50% of the shit he did yesterday and most of it will be tied up in courts for years.

[tanadrin]

The latest 5-4 episode, on Hans v Louisiana, highlights a big problem with the history of the Supreme Court in the U.S., which is that a lot of Supreme Court decisions are the product of really specific political pressures--in this case, the lack of political will by the federal government in 1890 to enforce federal power against the Southern states thirteen years after the Compromise of 1877--for which the Court often acts as a release valve. But, because of the nature of the court and the structure of American law, these high-context political decisions have to be framed as eternal and general principles of law, which exert a heavy influence on later decisions of the Court. Sometimes, as with Hans (which made enforcement of civil rights more difficult) this might be consonant with the political outlook of the original decision, but sometimes it's just complete chaos. Cases like Bush v Gore that have no systematic principle behind them, but nevertheless have to be framed that way, to the detriment of future case law.

I don't know that this is a fully solvable problem! Certainly the small size of the Supreme Court introduces more variability into its decisions; that plus its highly politicized system of appointments makes it a really obvious place to fight for power; and the lack of a clean separation between its role as an appellate court and its role as a constitutional court muddles things further. But even if you could go back in time to expand the court massively, have cases heard by randomly-selected panels, split off the constitutional function into a separate court, and try to implement some kind of non-partisan appointment commission (all of which would require significant constitutional changes), I don't think you would necessarily get a different outcome in Hans, just because of how fundamentally apathetic the federal government was at the time to political dysfunction in the South, and how clearly they had demonstrated an unwillingness to actually follow through with the premise of Reconstruction.

I'd say that the thing that might help most in preventing decisions like Hans becoming millstones around the neck of future generations would be a willingness to call out obviously political bullshit masquerading as timeless legal principles, but I think nowadays people are pretty willing to do that. Bush v Gore, DC v Heller, Merrick Garland, Clarence Thomas's corruption scandals, and various other cases and stories have been a sharp reminder in recent years to anyone who was laboring under the illusion that SCOTUS really was an impartial machine of law, and even people who think it could or should be that are not very likely to claim it is right now.

But if the Supreme Court is going to be an ordinary political organ, I sort of think we should treat it like one, and just directly elect justices for fixed terms. Would that introduce grubby, messy electoral politics into the august body? Of course. But grubby, messy electoral politics is already there, the augustness is a sham, and presently the way that the court functions makes it a weird, tiny, by-appointment-only, members-serve-for-life third chamber of Congress, an American version of the Guardian Council, which is really bad for the coherent functioning of the political system.

[stephen-barry]

Trump’s Energy pick rejects link between climate change and wildfires:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/01/15/wildfires-chris-wright-trump-energy/

Donald Trump's Policies Could Exacerbate Future Wildfires, Professors Warn:

www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/donald-trump-s-policies-could-exacerbate-future-wildfires-professors-warn/ar-BB1rkxtg