Uddhav, Raj Thackeray to protest against 'Hindi imposition' in Maharashtra schools
3:47
Union Minister Jitendra Singh endorsed RSS General Secretary Dattatreya Hosabale suggestion of removing 'socialist' and 'secular' words from the Constitution's preamble. He said these words were added during the Emergency and were not part of Dr. Ambedkar's original vision.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court nationwide injunction ruling: What are Justices Barrett and Jackson's arguements
The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a major victory by ruling to curb the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding his policies. However, the issue of whether the administration can limit birthright citizenship still remains unresolved. Trump welcomed the court's 6-3 ruling, declaring that his administration can now proceed with numerous policies such as his executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship. US Supreme Court ruled on nationwide injunction by federal judges on Friday(AFP) "We have so many of them. I have a whole list," Trump told reporters at the White House. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the ruling, directed lower courts that blocked Trump's order on birthright citizenship to reconsider. She and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had completely different arguments in their opinions. Jackson and other liberal justices wrote a joint dissent. The Biden-nominee, in her solo dissent, said 'disaster was looming'. 'It gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate,' she wrote. Barrett quickly rebuked her colleague. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary. No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent, added: "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump called the ruling a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law'. "It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump said of nationwide injunctions. (With inputs from Reuters)
Indian Express
24 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Hosabale remarks on Preamble: Rahul says RSS ‘mask has come off'
A day after RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale sought a discussion on whether the words 'socialist' and 'secular' should remain in the Preamble, Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi said 'RSS mask' has come off once again, and that the Constitution troubles them 'because it speaks of equality, secularism and justice'. Opposition parties, including the CP(I)M and the RJD, too, condemned Hosabale's remarks '…they want Manusmriti. They aim to strip the marginalised and the poor of their rights and enslave them again. Snatching a powerful weapon like the Constitution from them is their real agenda,' said Gandhi in a post on X. 'RSS should stop dreaming this dream – we will never let them succeed. Every patriotic Indian will defend the Constitution until their last breath.' Congress MP and communications in-charge Jairam Ramesh, meanwhile, referred to the November 25 Supreme Court order which dismissed petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of the 42nd amendment — through which the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were added to the Constitution's Preamble the Emergency period in 1976, Ramesh said these terms have achieved 'widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood by 'We, the people of India' without any semblance of doubt'. 'The Chief Justice of India himself delivered a judgment on November 25, 2024 on the issue now being raised by a leading RSS functionary. Would it be asking too much to request him to take the trouble to read it?' he said. Ramesh said that the RSS and the BJP 'have repeatedly given the call for a new Constitution'. 'This was Mr. Modi's campaign cry during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The people of India decisively rejected this cry. Yet the demands for changing the basic structure of the Constitution continue to be made by the RSS ecosystem,' he said. On Thursday, Hosabale had said, 'The words socialist and secular were added to the Preamble. No attempt was made to remove them later. So, there should be a discussion on whether they should remain. I say this in a building (Ambedkar International Centre) named after Babasaheb Ambedkar, whose Constitution did not have these words in the Preamble.' RJD chief and former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad said: 'The country's most casteist and hateful organisation RSS has called for changing the Constitution… They do not have the guts to cast an evil eye on the Constitution and reservations provided therein…' Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said: 'Invoking the emergency to discredit these principles is a deceitful move, especially when the RSS colluded with the Indira Gandhi Government during that time for its own survival… To use that period now to undermine the Constitution reflects sheer hypocrisy and political opportunism.' On November 25, a bench of former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said Parliament's power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution also extends to the Preamble and rejected the argument that the words could not have been added retrospectively in 1976 to the original Preamble which has a cut-off date of November 26, 1949. In a statement, Congress MP and whip in Lok Sabha, Manickam Tagore, said: 'The RSS always wanted the Constitution to be attacked, and to be removed… We all know RSS stands for Manuvad and they want to spread hate. They call themselves a cultural organisation, not a political one. We all know the attack on words like secularism and socialism is an attack on the Constitution and parliamentary democracy. We will fight for the Constitution.'
Time of India
35 minutes ago
- Time of India
What is Birthright Citizenship? 10 key points to know about the US Supreme Court's decision today
US Supreme Court birthright citizenship ruling : What it means and how it changes presidential powers- In a landmark decision on June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made a major ruling affecting the future of birthright citizenship and how much power presidents have when issuing executive orders. The Court didn't outright end the constitutional right to citizenship for children born on U.S. soil—but it did clear the way for President Donald Trump's controversial executive order to begin taking effect. More importantly, it drastically limits how federal courts can block presidential actions nationwide. Here's everything you need to know about what happened, why it matters, and what comes next. What is birthright citizenship and why is it at the center of the legal fight? Birthright citizenship is based on the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees that anyone born in the United States and 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is a U.S. citizen. This rule has long applied even to children born to undocumented immigrants or temporary visitors. In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aimed at denying citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or only temporarily. This sparked immediate backlash from immigrant rights groups, who argue that the executive order goes against the Constitution. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Victoria Principal Is Almost 75, See Her Now Reportingly Undo Why did the Supreme Court limit nationwide injunctions? After Trump's executive order was issued, federal courts quickly stepped in and blocked its enforcement with nationwide injunctions. But on June 27, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that federal district courts had overstepped their authority. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the conservative majority, said that lower courts may only issue injunctions that protect the people who actually filed the lawsuit, not block the law across the entire country. This means that while Trump's order remains on hold for now, it's only blocked for a limited number of plaintiffs, not for everyone. Live Events Is birthright citizenship still legal in the US? Yes—for now. The Court's ruling did not decide whether Trump's order is constitutional. Instead, it focused only on the procedure—specifically how courts can pause government actions while cases are pending. So birthright citizenship still stands, but the fight over it will continue in the courts for months, if not years. Justice Barrett made it clear that lower courts have 30 days to narrow their injunctions. In practical terms, this opens the door for the Trump administration to start enforcing the executive order soon—at least for people not directly involved in the lawsuit. Here are 10 key takeaways from today's Supreme Court decision: Birthright citizenship explained Birthright citizenship refers to the legal principle that anyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, regardless of their parents' immigration status. This right is granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which states that all persons 'born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' are citizens. The Trump Executive Order In January 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, aiming to deny birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if their parents are in the country illegally or temporarily. This move reignited national debate on the scope of the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit and injunction Several immigrant advocacy groups and civil liberties organizations sued the administration, and federal courts quickly issued nationwide injunctions , temporarily halting enforcement of the order across the country. Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions In today's ruling, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts had overreached their authority by issuing nationwide injunctions. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the majority, said courts can only block executive actions for named plaintiffs and within their jurisdiction—not for the entire nation. A procedural, not constitutional, decision Importantly, the Court did not rule on whether Trump's executive order violates the 14th Amendment. It focused only on the legal question of how far courts can go in stopping federal actions during ongoing litigation. The 30-day window The Court gave lower courts 30 days to revise or narrow their injunctions. This means the current block on Trump's order remains for now—but likely only for those directly involved in the case. Liberal dissent Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. They warned that limiting injunctions would allow potentially unconstitutional actions to impact millions of people before a full legal review can be completed. Impact on future litigation This decision redefines how legal challenges to federal policies proceed. Moving forward, district courts will find it harder to issue sweeping nationwide bans—even in urgent civil rights cases. Trump hails the ruling President Trump celebrated the decision, calling it a victory over 'radical left judges' who he claims have tried to overrule executive power. His campaign has emphasized ending birthright citizenship as part of his broader immigration agenda. What's next? While the nationwide injunctions are likely to be scaled back, the underlying case about whether the executive order violates the Constitution will continue through the courts. A final ruling on the substance of birthright citizenship may still be months—or years—away. What do dissenting justices say about this change? The Court's three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. They warned that limiting courts' ability to block federal actions could allow potentially unconstitutional policies to harm millions before being properly reviewed. They argued that in cases affecting civil rights, immigration, healthcare, and more, courts need the power to issue broader protections. Without that, executive actions could go unchecked until higher courts finally weigh in—potentially too late for those already impacted. How does this ruling expand presidential power? President Trump called the ruling a 'giant win', saying it strikes back at 'radical left judges' who he believes have blocked his policies unfairly. His administration says the decision restores a proper balance between the executive branch and the courts. Since his return to office, Trump has pushed dozens of executive actions—many of which have been held up by federal judges. These include cuts to foreign aid, changes to diversity programs, rollbacks on immigration protections, and adjustments to election laws. This ruling doesn't just apply to birthright citizenship—it makes it much harder for lower courts to freeze other executive orders nationwide, allowing Trump and future presidents to act more freely while legal battles play out. What happens next in the legal battle over birthright citizenship? While the Supreme Court ruling doesn't end the legal challenge, it shifts the strategy. The main lawsuit will continue, and eventually, the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether ending birthright citizenship is constitutional—possibly as soon as October 2025, according to Attorney General Pam Bondi. In the meantime, enforcement will vary depending on which state you're in. Because states issue birth certificates, and many Democratic-led states don't collect data on parents' immigration status, they may resist implementing Trump's policy. Justice Barrett also acknowledged that states may suffer financial and administrative burdens from the new rule—hinting that lower courts might still justify broader injunctions if specific harms are proven. What's the broader impact of the ruling? This ruling marks a shift in American legal and political power. For decades, both Democratic and Republican presidents have clashed with district courts that blocked their actions. The Supreme Court's decision now narrows that power, giving the White House more room to operate. The Congressional Research Service noted that from Trump's inauguration to April 29, 2025, there were 25 instances where federal courts halted executive actions. This decision could affect not only immigration, but also climate policies, student loan programs, and workplace rules, giving presidents more control while the courts catch up. Birthright citizenship is still alive, but the rules are changing The Supreme Court's ruling on June 27, 2025, doesn't eliminate birthright citizenship—but it paves the way for President Trump to start enforcing his order, and it reshapes how the legal system checks executive power. The next few months will be crucial as lower courts revise their rulings, and states decide how to respond. Meanwhile, the broader debate over constitutional rights, immigration, and presidential power is far from over. FAQs: Q1: What did the Supreme Court decide about birthright citizenship? The Court allowed Trump's executive order to move forward by limiting court blocks. Q2: Is birthright citizenship still legal in the U.S. after the ruling? Yes, but Trump's policy could change how it's applied during ongoing court battles.
