Latest news with #21stAmendment
Express Tribune
2 days ago
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Refusal to form full court draws flak for CJP
Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi speaks at a conference at the Federal Judicial Academy in Islamabad on July 25, 2025. SCREENGRAB Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Yahya Afridi is facing criticism after the minutes of a three-member Supreme Court Committee revealed that he ignored a majority decision last year to form a full court to hear petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. The SC committee, operating under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act 2023 to form regular benches, was chaired by CJP Afridi in late October last year, with Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar as members. The majority — Justices Shah and Akhtar — had ordered the petitions be listed for hearing before a full court on November 4, 2024. According to the minutes, CJP Afridi argued that the committee lacked legal authority to direct the formation of a full court. He also consulted all judges individually and nine of the 13 supported the formation of a constitutional bench to hear the case. Now that the CJP's justification for the non-formation of a full court is in public domain, lawyers are questioning his conduct by asking who will determine how many judges had opposed and what question was placed before each judge. "How could judges have been consulted on a matter which, according to the statute, was not within their jurisdiction? Why every week all 23 judges are not consulted?" asked a senior lawyer, while speaking to The Express Tribune on the condition of anonymity. Advocate Abdul Moiz Jaferii said he failed to understand why an informal poll of other judges was taken by the CJP after the practice and procedure committeeas it then wasmade a majority decision. "I similarly fail to understand why such a determination, if it was needed after the committee decision, was not taken in a formal full court meeting. ''I also fail to understand why the CJP was willing to interpret the 26th Amendment in favour of the executive's influence, and reluctant to have the amendment's constitutionality first tested by a full sitting of his peers," Jaferii added. Advocate Asad Rahim Khan said the job of the chief justice, before everything else, is to preserve the independence of the judiciarynot to accept its subordination by the executive. "Should [former] chief justice Nasirul Mulk have put off a full court from hearing the challenge to the 21st Amendment, by arguing that Article 175(3) had already been amended, and there was nothing left for the court to do about it? For or against, the judges decide according to their consciences, and the law is settled. Again, that is their job," said the advocate. He said the greatest judicial regression in 30 years — where the amendment's very passage is under a cloud — can't be treated as a fait accompli. "Going by this logic, if the Constitution were subverted through a [provisional constitutional order] PCO or some other unlawful means tomorrow, that wouldn't be heard either, as it would be [illegally] protected in the text of the Constitution," he added. "The longer the amendment is undecided, the longer its automatic acceptance, and, as a result, the longer the judiciary's corrosion." Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana said it would have been just, fair and proper that 26th Amendment cases were listed for hearing prior to the meeting of the newly formed Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) which appointed a constitutional bench. The Amendment came on October 21, 2024 and former CJP Qazi Faez Isa retired on October 26, 2024. Rana said the CJP Afridi was appointed under the new constitutional dispensation. Thus any challenge to the 26 Amendment on any ground is now virtually impossible. "On the other hand when the 95th Amendment was challenged in India, the Indian Supreme Court did not hold the meeting of the country's judicial commission prior to the case fixation and the Indian SC, later, struck down that amendment," he added. Another senior lawyer opined that paragraph 3 of the CJP's response was bizarre. "It indicates that the SC does not believe in transparency and fears criticism. Public comment is the best form of accountability. Avoiding a full court meeting at that time shows the intent. "The matter should have been discussed in a full court meeting because the opinion of the majority of members of committee was binding. The law was violated by the CJP," he said. He asked how one member could violate the decision of a statutory committee empowered to decide how and which cases were to be fixed. "The statute did not give power to one member to overrule the majority decision. The other judges were not relevant and seeking their informal individual opinion was illegal and in outright violation of law," he added. Since November last year, the constitutional bench has been unable to decide the fate of the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In January, the constitutional bench took up the matter and adjourned the hearing for three weeks. Later, the bench did not hear the case. Interestingly, the creation of the constitutional bench itself is under challenge. Questions are being raised as to how the beneficiaries of 26th Constitutional Amendment can decide about their future. Now the situation has changed in the apex court. Eight new judges have been elevated to the apex court since February. Even most of them are included in the constitutional benches. Last November, Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Justice Munib Akhtar urged the CJP to immediately fix hearings for the pleas challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment. In their letter, the two judges, who are part of the committee responsible for fixing cases and forming benches under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act (2023), stated that the committee has decided to hear these constitutional petitions in a full court, with the initial hearing date set for Nov 4. The dispute began on October 31, when Justices Shah and Akhtar formally addressed a letter to CJP Afridi, urging him to hold a meeting under the Supreme Court Practice and Procedure Act, 2023. With no response from the CJP, Justices Shah and Akhtar held an independent meeting in the latter's chambers to determine the next steps. Following this private session, the two justices decided by majority vote to bring the amendment petitions before a full court on November 4. They then sent a second letter to CJP Afridi, expressing their concerns over the postponement. According to the letter, the judges had previously informed the registrar of their decision on October 31 and instructed the registrar to publish the decision on the Supreme Court's official website. They argued that the petitions challenging the amendment demand a comprehensive review by the full court, as this matter involves constitutional implications that go beyond standard judicial concerns. By refraining from convening a full court, the chief justice had, according to some experts, signaled a cautious approach to the handling of such cases, potentially seeking to avoid judicial overreach or political entanglements.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Mass. Senate passes dramatic liquor license overhaul. Will the House pass it?
The Massachusetts Senate has approved a proposal that could dramatically overhaul the way the state awards liquor licenses — a coveted and pricey document that's make-or-break for restaurants and bars. But it still has to clear the state's House of Representatives, where its fate is far from assured. The majority-Democrat chamber tucked the language, sponsored by Sen. Jacob Oliveira, D-Hampden/Hampshire/Worcester, into the $61.4 billion budget plan for the new fiscal year that starts July 1. The Senate has spent this week racing through hundreds of amendments to the fiscal blueprint. By the time the dust settled on Thursday night, upper chamber lawmakers had added $81.1 million to the spending plan, according to State House News Service. Later that same day, the chamber voted 38-2 to approve the entire document and send it to the House, setting the stage for the inevitable negotiations to reconcile the differences between the two chambers' spending proposals. Read More: Mass. Senate eyes dramatic liquor license overhaul, but long road remains As it's currently written, Oliveira's amendment would give more power to the state's Alcohol Beverage Control Commission to approve petitions for licenses, an authority that now rests with the Legislature and the governor, the Pioneer Valley lawmaker told reporters on Wednesday morning. 'Our current process was born out of the process of the repeal of prohibition with the 21st Amendment nearly 100 years ago,' he said. 'Certainly, our economy has changed since then. We have vibrant suburban communities and urban communities that have developed over time,' he continued. 'And the process for granting additional liquor licenses can be cumbersome to our cities and towns, requiring them to come to the Legislature, file the legislation, and then bring it to the governor.' If the language survives joint House and Senate negotiations — and that's a big if — the change would 'empower our 351 cities and towns, as well as provide some flexibility to our businesses,' Oliveira told reporters Wednesday. House Ways and Means Committee Chairperson Aaron Michlewitz, D-3rd Suffolk, who could have a big say on whether the language survives budget negotiations, told MassLive earlier this week that he had not seen Oliveira's proposal and could not comment on its specifics. 'We did a piece in our budget that included allowing cities to [do] upgrades for beer and wine to full alcohol, without having to come back to the legislative process, as long as ... those would no longer be transferable. It seems like this sounds different than that. So ... I'd have to see,' he said. One key lawmaker, however, was set to throw up a roadblock. 'In our community, liquor licenses can be great or they can be problematic, and for me to give my community's voice away would be political recklessness on my behalf,' said House Majority Leader Michael Moran, a Democrat from Brighton, told The Boston Globe. Last year, Moran negotiated a bill that gave Boston hundreds of additional liquor licenses, the newspaper reported. 'My residents, the people that I represent, deserve a voice in that process,' Moran, D-18th Suffolk, told the Globe. 'and I have no intention of giving up their voice.' Trump Commerce boss gets put on blast with 'no pain' tariff claim 'Unlawful and unwarranted': Harvard opens 2nd lawsuit against the Trump admin MASS.-ive Impact: What Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill' means to you | John L. Micek 'Deeply scary': Legal experts reel over Trump's 'brazen act' against Harvard Travel alert: State Dept. issues terrorism warning at European destination Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Mass. Senate eyes dramatic liquor license overhaul, but long road remains
The Massachusetts Senate was set to vote Wednesday on a proposal that could dramatically overhaul the way the state awards liquor licenses — a coveted and pricey document that's make-or-break for restaurants and bars. But even if it passes, it still has to survive negotiations with the state's House of Representatives. The chamber was set to tuck the language, sponsored by Sen. Jacob Oliveira, D-Hampden/Hampshire/Worcester, into the $61.3 billion budget plan for the new fiscal year that starts July 1. The majority-Democrat chamber has been racing through hundreds of amendments to the new spending blueprint, with a vote on the entire document expected soon. As it's currently written, the amendment would give more power to the state's Alcohol Beverage Control Commission to approve petitions for licenses, an authority that now rests with the Legislature and the governor, the Pioneer Valley lawmaker told reporters on Wednesday morning. 'Our current process was born out of the process of the repeal of prohibition with the 21st Amendment nearly 100 years ago,' he said. 'Certainly, our economy has changed since then. We have vibrant suburban communities and urban communities that have developed over time,' he continued. 'And the process for granting additional liquor licenses can be cumbersome to our cities and towns, requiring them to come to the Legislature, file the legislation, and then bring it to the governor.' If the language survives joint House and Senate negotiations — and that's a big if — the change would 'empower our 351 cities and towns, as well as provide some flexibility to our businesses,' Oliveira said Wednesday. 'With this uncertainty at the federal level, we need to provide that flexibility to our cities, our towns, and to our small businesses. And that's what this amendment is designed to do,' he said. And because this is Massachusetts, the vote came with some of the traditional rivalry between the state House and Senate, both controlled by Democrats. Last week, because of a dust-up over inter-chamber rules, Oliveira was barred from testifying remotely on behalf of his bill. The Western Massachusetts lawmaker just laughed when he was asked Wednesday whether the amendment he was offering was the same as the proposal that hit a parliamentary wall. 'Boy, you have a good memory,' he said with a laugh. 'Yes, it is the same bill I tried to testify on last week, and I'm glad to see that my voice is being heard now.' Oliveira declined to speculate on whether the proposal would make it all the way across the goal line and be part of the budget that eventually lands on Gov. Maura Healey's desk. 'I'm confident that the Senate will act on it today and that we will move it forward. And if we're successful through conference, that's wonderful,' he said. House Ways and Means Committee Chairperson Aaron Michlewitz, D-3rd Suffolk, who could have a big say on whether the language survives budget negotiations, told MassLive that he had not seen Oliveira's proposal and could not comment on its specifics. 'We did a piece in our budget that included allowing cities to [do] upgrades for beer and wine to full alcohol, without having to come back to the legislative process, as long as ... those would no longer be transferable. It seems like this sounds different than that. So ... I'd have to see,' he said. Critics have long complained that the state's current process shuts out minority-owned restaurants and the state's poorer communities. Earlier this year, Boston's licensing board awarded new liquor licenses to 37 bars, restaurants and other establishments. They were among the first to win one of 225 new liquor licenses approved for the city by the Legislature and signed by Healey last year. It represented the largest increase in Boston's liquor license stock since the end of Prohibition over 90 years ago, according to the city. Worcester councilor deposits large donation haul after confronting police at ICE raid Trump ally Elon Musk stepping back from political spending: 'I think I've done enough' Trump's meeting with South African president spirals into false claims Defense Department accepts Boeing 747 from Qatar for Trump's use 'Now is the time': Harvard calls for donations amid wave of federal cuts Read the original article on MassLive.
Boston Globe
22-03-2025
- General
- Boston Globe
Today in History: March 22, The Beatles release their first album
Advertisement In 1894, ice hockey's first Stanley Cup championship game was played, in which the Montreal Hockey Club defeated the Ottawa Hockey Club, 3-1. In 1933, during the Prohibition Era, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Cullen-Harrison Act, which allowed the sale of beer and wine with an alcohol content of 3.2 percent. (Prohibition would be fully repealed nine months later with the ratification of the 21st Amendment.) In 1941, the Grand Coulee hydroelectric dam in Washington state officially went into operation. It remains the largest capacity power station in the United States. In 1945, the Arab League was formed with the adoption of a charter in Cairo, Egypt. In 1963, The Beatles' debut album, 'Please Please Me,' was released in the United Kingdom on the Parlophone record label. In 1972, in the Eisenstadt vs. Baird decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that unmarried people had the same right to possess and use contraception as did married people. In 1978, Karl Wallenda, the 73-year-old patriarch of 'The Flying Wallendas' high-wire act, fell to his death while attempting to walk a cable strung between two hotel towers in San Juan, Puerto Rico. In 1993, Intel Corp. unveiled the original Pentium computer chip. In 2019, former President Jimmy Carter became the longest-living chief executive in American history. At 94 years and 172 days, he exceeded the lifespan of the late former President George H.W. Bush. (Carter would die at age 100 in December 2024.) Advertisement In 2021, 10 people were killed in a mass shooting at a King Soopers supermarket in Boulder, Colo. (The shooter, Ahmad Alissa, was sentenced to life in prison without parole in September 2024.)
Yahoo
22-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Beer Week kicks off in Bay Area
SAN FRANCISCO - Beer Week kicks off Friday night around the Bay Area, and breweries all around are ready. Local breweries are ready to serve up a pint, but are also keeping an eye on global politics. Beer Week is an opportunity for beer lovers to get a taste of some of the best brews the Bay Area has to offer. 21st Amendment Brewery is hosting a brews and bites night, bringing together two things people seem to love: beer and food. "Go to the San Francisco Beer Week website, and it's the entire Bay Area," said Shaun O'Sullivan from 21st Amendment. "All the way from Santa Rosa, I think down to Santa Cruz and out towards Sacramento and East Bay…At our production brewery in San Leandro we have the kick-off event for the East Bay." While beer may be fun for consumers, it's also big business. O'Sullivan said when 21st Amendment started nearly 25 years ago, there was room to grow. "Craft beer has gotten huge. Back when we first started in 2000, there were seven or eight breweries in San Francisco and I think at the peak in the last few years it was up to 45 or 50," said O'Sullivan. Eddie Gobbo from Harmonic Brewing said the San Francisco Bay Area Beer Week is an opportunity for people to try the product local brewers have been perfecting. "The high care that we put into the making of our beer and running tap rooms in a community-focused way, it is different than big beer and we're proud of it," said Gobbo. While brewers are asking people to think locally, brewers are thinking globally. Geopolitics threatens to increase canning costs with the Trump administration placing tariffs on aluminum. "You know this is a passion industry, we're donating a lot of time for something we love," said Gobbo. "So, when we get hit with additional costs it really hurts us and makes the business much harder to sustain." Brewers may also face increased costs associated with raw ingredients. At 21st Amendment Brewery, they sometimes rely on ingredients from Canada. The difficulty for many smaller breweries will be finding that balance point where they can purchase what they need, and not have to raise prices to the point where customers balk. "Customers will only pay so much for a glass of beer," said Gobbo. "So, you find yourself kind of in a conundrum where you can't charge too much more, but your costs are going up. So, that puts a strain on the breweries." Organizers say the winter months can be a little lean for breweries, so they're encouraging those of legal drinking age to take part, find a local brewery and hoist a pint. While it is called Beer Week, this week actually has 10 days of activities at breweries around the Bay Area starting Friday through next Sunday.
