RSS leader wants a review of ‘socialist', ‘secular' in Preamble. All Emergency-era changes must go
RSS leader Dattatreya Hosabale has raised an interesting point by seeking the removal of 'socialist' and 'secular' from the Constitution's Preamble. Ideological debates apart, Constitutional amendments from an illegitimate Emergency-era Parliament in its sixth year have no sanctity. All of these should go, including the remnants of the 42nd Amendment.
Trump is preparing the grounds for a shift. A reformed Iran is good for everyone
From fury to praise, Trump is softening toward Iran ahead of next week's talks —allowing China to buy oil, saying Tehran fought bravely. He's preparing the grounds for a shift. A reformed Iran, with reasonable nuclear guarantees in the system, is good for everybody. Some sanctions may even be lifted.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Supreme Court Key Rulings: All details about birthright citizenship, Obamacare task force, LGBTQ school books
On Friday, the US Supreme Court issued four major decisions. These rulings involved the Trump administration's birthright citizenship proposal, preventive health care coverage, rural internet funding and religious objections to LGBTQ-themed books in schools. Each ruling came through a 6-3 vote, mostly along ideological lines. Birthright Citizenship The Court allowed the Trump administration to take steps toward ending automatic birthright citizenship. In a 6-3 ruling, it limited the use of nationwide injunctions. Judges may now issue injunctions only for parties involved in the lawsuit. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that courts should not exceed their authority, even if they find executive actions unlawful. She added that lower courts must quickly decide how wide any injunction should be. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Play War Thunder now for free War Thunder Play Now Undo This ruling does not decide the legality of the policy itself. The Trump order redefines birthright citizenship, making it available only to children of US citizens or legal residents. The 14th Amendment currently guarantees citizenship to almost anyone born in the country, except children of diplomats. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, called the ruling a threat to the rule of law. She urged plaintiffs to file class action suits, which the ruling still permits. Live Events The executive order remains blocked in New Hampshire due to a separate case. Still, the decision allows the proposal to move ahead in other states. Also Read: NYC Mayor Race: Will US deport Zohran Mamdani? See who wants to revoke his US citizenship and does law permit it Obamacare Task Force In another 6-3 ruling, the Court upheld the authority of a government task force under the Affordable Care Act. The task force recommends preventive services that insurers must cover at no cost. The challenge came from Christian-owned businesses. They argued that the task force held unchecked power because its members were not Senate-confirmed. The Court disagreed. About 150 million Americans currently receive free preventive services under this arrangement. These include screenings and medications related to cancer, HIV, and cholesterol. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch dissented. They questioned the structure and influence of the task force. Internet Subsidy Program The Court upheld the Universal Service Fund (USF), which supports phone and internet access in rural areas, schools and hospitals. The decision rejected a challenge from Consumers' Research, which claimed Congress gave too much authority to the FCC and a private company. The fund, started in 1996, distributes about $8 billion a year. It supports low-income users and underserved communities. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority. She said the funding structure does not violate the Constitution. Justices Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito dissented. The decision keeps the USF intact. Both the Biden and Trump administrations defended the program. Also Read: Reacher Season 4 Casting Update: Christopher Rodriguez-Marquette joins cast. See which role will he play LGBTQ Books in Schools The Court sided with parents who objected to their children reading LGBTQ-themed books in Maryland elementary schools. The 6-3 ruling found that the school board's refusal to offer opt-outs violated religious rights. Justice Samuel Alito wrote that denying opt-outs placed a burden on parents' right to exercise their religion. The books include stories involving same-sex marriage and transgender identity. The case arose after a school board revised its English curriculum in 2022 to reflect diverse families. Initially, opt-outs were offered but later withdrawn. The plaintiffs included Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox Christian families. A federal judge and appeals court had sided with the school board, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision. FAQs What did the Supreme Court decide about birthright citizenship? The Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed by limiting court injunctions, without ruling on whether the plan itself is constitutional. How did the Court rule on preventive health coverage? The Court upheld a task force's authority under the ACA to mandate no-cost preventive services, benefiting over 150 million Americans.
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Congress cut off? White House limits intel sharing after Iran strikes report leak
The White House is restricting congressional access to classified information after a leak revealed details of US military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. This leak, exposing a Defense Intelligence Agency assessment, has sparked outrage and prompted immediate action. The Trump administration will limit intelligence shared on CAPNET, raising concerns about transparency. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Congressional Access to Classified Info Curtailed Classified Channels to Congress Now More Restricted Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Speaker Johnson Blames Congress Without Proof The Leak's Origin Still Unclear FBI Launches Investigation FAQs The White House is tightening its grip on classified information shared with Congress after a leaked report revealed the early damage assessments of recent US military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, as per NBC News leak, which exposed a Defense Intelligence Agency finding that Iran's nuclear capabilities may have only been set back by three to six months, has drawn sharp rebuke from both the administration and lawmakers, and now prompted swift action to restrict access to such kind of information, according to the READ: Supreme Court rules in favor of Donald Trump's birthright citizenship proposal The Trump administration will now limit what intelligence appears on CAPNET, the classified communications network used to share sensitive materials with Congress, as reported by NBC News. It's a move that immediately raised concerns about transparency and oversight, especially from Democratic members of Congress, according to the Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that, 'The administration should immediately undo this decision," adding, 'They seem not to want to see the facts to get out. Just Trump's version of the facts, which we know is often false," as quoted by NBC News READ: Pete Hegseth sparks buzz by renaming USNS Harvey Milk after World War II hero Oscar V. Peterson Meanwhile, House Speaker Mike Johnson, expressed anger over the leaked reporting of the Defense Intelligence Agency's early assessment of the US strikes on Iran, saying, 'There was a leak, and we're trying to get down to the bottom of that. It's dangerous and ridiculous that happened. We're going to solve that problem, and we'll keep the coordination,' as quoted in the NBC News report. When he was asked if he thought the leak came from Congress, the speaker responded, saying, 'That's my suspicion,' as quoted in the though the Trump administration's crackdown and Johnson's suspicions are on Congress, it's not actually known if the leak came from a member of Congress, as reported by NBC to the report, lawmakers had access to the early assessment about the strikes from the Defense Intelligence Agency and were able to view it in a secure location in the Capitol, known as a SCIF, and then the assessment was sent to leadership through these official the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told Fox News, 'I am told by the FBI the leak already is being investigated, and it absolutely should be because this was a top secret intelligence analysis that very few people in the United States government had access to see,' as quoted by The Hill a secure network the executive branch uses to send classified information to no proof yet. Speaker Johnson suspects it, but investigations are still underway.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
42 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US SC limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "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 joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "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 weclomed the ruling in a social media post. "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court," Trump wrote on Truth Social. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along." Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause 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 administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24per cent of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52per cent opposed it. Among Democrats, 5per cent supported ending it, with 84per cent opposed. Among Republicans, 43per cent supported ending it, with 24per cent opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. US Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." An 1898 US Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties.
