Latest news with #BillOfRights
Jordan Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Jordan Times
US moral principles vs its interest-driven tactics
In 1776 a new nation was created. Its avant-garde principles then were embodied in the declaration of independence. They emanated from the intellectual universal concepts of the brewing Enlightenment in the old continent then. 'All men are created equal (..) with certain inalienable rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new Government.' These initial principles were further reinforced by a Bill of Rights in 1789; in which ten amendments set out basic rights for every US citizen; including freedom of speech, assembly and religion, freedom to bear arms, and freedom from unreasonable searches. These principles and ideals provided a unique compass for the US. In his farewell address, First President George Washington (1789-1997) warned against the peril of foreign entanglements: 'Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all (..) Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur (..). So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils (..) It leads to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others (..) And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption or infatuation.' The principles encapsulated in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the leader's beliefs buoyed the US for two centuries. They made America a beacon for others. In the Middle East, these principles were clearly demonstrated in 1956, when President Eisenhower, stopped British, French and Israeli aggression on Egypt, possibly indicating the last vestiges of the Euro-Colonial era. Eisenhower's Warning: The principles upon which the United States was established permeated past political elites. Before leaving office in 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave a clear warning in his farewell address, regarding the impending evolution of American politics: 'This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.' Poignant words, because Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander of the European Theater in World War II, oversaw the defeat of Fascist Nazi Germany. Fascism is defined as the convergence of political and economic power (integration of economic and political elites). Forced labour (Slaves) in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany provided an inhumane avenue for German companies to cut their cost. Having sensed the rise and political impact of corporate interests in the US, particularly of 'defense' companies, Eisenhower publicly warned of the inevitable rise and influence of the 'military industrial complex.' Eisenhower also called for safeguarding American principles; notably freedom, '…from the sanctity of our families and the wealth of our soil to the genius of our scientists.' Evolving Economic Hypocrisy: In 1776, the fledgling US was perhaps the wealthiest natural nation state. Based on Adam Smith's theory of economic comparative advantage (The Wealth of Nations – 1776). This theory stipulates that a nation's wealth is intimately and directly connected to the amount and quality of its natural resources. This concept was a primary driver for colonialism, where European nations bolstered their own economic prosperity by exploiting the natural resources of other countries and peoples in Africa, the Americas, Asia and the Middle East. In the 1980s, Harvard Professor Michael Porter coined a new economic theory; the Competitive Economic Advantage described how countries with limited natural resources could generate improving living standards. It is ultimately based on the innovation and creativity of a population; exactly what Eisenhower had highlighted two decades before the theory became in vogue. Asia Tigers Creativity and innovation are not a natural monopoly. Countries like China and India have recently struck creative and innovative prowess. In 2019, China surpassed the US in terms of international patent filings. In 2023, China rose as a global leader in 37 out of 44 key technologies, indicating a relative decline in the US dominance. Under Bill Clinton (1993-2001), America embarked on an economic transformative path favoring services over industry. As such, it lost its industrial competitiveness - with the exception of its robust military industry. The US greenback, however, remained the Globe's reserve currency. Since competitive economic dominance has been in decline, the US has been seeking to secure its interests and develop comparative economic dominance through the control of strategic resources. In 1999, Clinton passed an act equating between companies and citizens in contributing to political campaigns. This removed previous limitations on corporate political contributions and enabled wealthy corporations to direct financial contributions towards political representatives who best served their corporate interests. Ultimately this has led to the convergence of economic and political power (also called fascism). Flagrant Aggression The desire to control comparative global economic resources was stated by US presidential candidate Wesley Clark, a previous supreme commander of NATO. In September 2003, two years after 9-11 mayhem, Clark boasted that Washington was concocting coups in seven countries over five years; Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Iran, Lebanon and Sudan. Cherchez the black gold This oil rich zone tops US interests abroad. In hindsight, the US has been successful in Iraq, and Libya and somewhat successful in Sudan, and Syria where they control the oil/gas producing areas. Iran, Somalia and Lebanon are in process. Controlling energy can undermine the prosperity of competitive economies. The destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline between Russia and Germany in September 2022 harmed Germany's industrial base as well as potential economic cooperation and integration between Germany and Russia. In the last century, German-Russian economic integration has always been a threat to countries such as Britain as it integrates comparative (Russian) and competitive (German) economic advantages. This threat is now felt by an economically declining US, as it seeks means to maintain or prolong its global dominance. What does this mean? The US has fallen victim to its own success. At the end of the Cold War, it came out as the sole victor. Armed with its principles and its economic ability could have led the world to a peaceful, cooperative and competitive future. But the convergence of corporate economic interests and political power (fascism) turned the US from a long-term principle-driven superpower into a short-term interest-driven. This transformation has led to the decline of its global clout; as most allies can no longer trust the principles upon which decisions are made. It manipulates strategic resources (such as Nord Stream gas) to control the growth and prosperity of corporations in competing economies; allies and foes alike. This transformation puts at risk the collective economic prosperity of the citizens of nations 'allied' to the US such as Germany and most of western Europe. On the other front, its opponents/enemies witness an increasingly tactical set of political and economic interventions which secure short-term benefit for specific US based corporations and their shareholders while sacrificing the long-term interests of this country at a global level. The recent sequential financial support of Ukraine against Russia and Israel against the Palestinians indicate the influence of the military industrial complex on political decision making. The United States is increasingly going into debt to fund US based military foreign assistance to prevent economic integration between Russia and Europe and to maintain Israel as a hegemon and US proxy in the energy rich Middle East. This interest-based set of interventions does not economically or politically bode well, in the medium to long term, for a once principle-based US. Its interests are prone to being incrementally corroded as global players establish alternative means of economic and political cooperation and integration. This is the typical fate of all empires. Former Royal Court Chief and Former Head of the Jordanian Diplomacy
Globe and Mail
13-05-2025
- Business
- Globe and Mail
Ken Griffin will loan his copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights so the public can see them
Citadel CEO Ken Griffin believes American prosperity is a testament to the power of the Constitution. And as the country gets ready to celebrate its 250th anniversary next year, the hedge fund billionaire wants to expand public access to the 1787 document. Griffin announced Tuesday that he will lend his first-edition copy of the Constitution to the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia for a public exhibit dedicated to the founding document of the U.S. government. He will also loan the center his copy of the Bill of Rights, which he has not previously acknowledged owning publicly, and his nonprofit Griffin Catalyst will make a $15 million donation for the exhibit – the largest in the center's history. 'The authors of the Constitution had incredible foresight in designing a system of government that has withstood the test of time and now, more than ever, protects the American Dream,' Griffin said in a statement. Jeffrey Rosen, CEO of the National Constitution Center, called Griffin's loan of the documents and the donation a 'transformative opportunity.' 'Ken Griffin's generosity is going to allow us to create a new Founding Principles gallery that will tell the story of the American idea from the revolution through the Constitutional Convention through ratification and all the way up to the adoption of the Bill of Rights,' said Rosen, adding that the new exhibit will also mark the center's largest renovation since it opened in 2003. The support comes as the Constitution is increasingly cited, as all three branches of government navigate questions about who should be controlling what. 'The Constitution Center's mission has never been more relevant,' said Rosen, adding that the nonpartisan nonprofit center tries to reduce polarization by offering a platform for both conservative and liberal Constitutional scholars. 'It's an honor to convene people of different perspectives for these Constitutional debates and conversations. And we are very much looking forward to continuing these conversations.' A longtime Republican megadonor, Griffin has recently drawn attention for his criticisms of President Donald Trump. 'The United States was more than just a nation. It's a brand,' Griffin said at the Semafor World Economy Summit last month. 'It was like an aspiration for most the world. And we're eroding that brand right now.' But Griffin's representatives said the donation and loan to the NCC have been planned for years. 'The National Constitution Center is a powerful platform for celebrating our country's founding principles,' said Julia Quinn, Citadel director of philanthropy. 'The work it has done to increase awareness and understanding of the Constitution, at both the center itself and through its widely available educational programming, is best in class and we're thrilled about this partnership.' Griffin purchased the rare first printing of the Constitution at auction at Sotheby's in New York for $43.2 million in 2021, with plans to make the document available for public viewing. He declined to say when he acquired the rare first printing of 17 proposed constitutional amendments passed in 1789 by the House of Representatives for consideration by the Senate — which, after further debate, became the Bill of Rights. Caroline Klibanoff, executive director of Made By Us, a nonprofit that helps museums and history institutions better connect with those under 30, said next year's 250th anniversary of the United States is an 'incredible opportunity' to help members of the largest youth generation link their futures to their histories. And at a time when younger generations show an increased distrust of institutions, the National Constitution Center can address that issue by showcasing such important documents, Kilbanoff said. 'They are the fact-checking generation. They want to see the original source material and not take your interpretation for it,' she said. 'Having the documents be at the forefront will be really desirable.' Griffin's team said he wanted to celebrate the essential American values of individual freedom, democracy, and opportunity with his philanthropy – including his support of the recently opened National Medal of Honor Museum and his donation to the National Constitution Center. 'Ken loves America and has shown an extraordinary commitment to our founding principles,' said Cason Carter, Citadel head of public affairs. 'He cares deeply about expanding access to the American Dream, which is underpinned by these historical documents, and he believes that America is well worth celebrating, particularly on its 250th anniversary.' ______
Washington Post
13-05-2025
- Business
- Washington Post
Ken Griffin will loan his copies of the Constitution and Bill of Rights so the public can see them
Citadel CEO Ken Griffin believes American prosperity is a testament to the power of the Constitution. And as the country gets ready to celebrate its 250th anniversary next year, the hedge fund billionaire wants to expand public access to the 1787 document. Griffin announced Tuesday that he will lend his first-edition copy of the Constitution to the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia for a public exhibit dedicated to the founding document of the U.S. government. He will also loan the center his copy of the Bill of Rights, which he has not previously acknowledged owning publicly, and his nonprofit Griffin Catalyst will make a $15 million donation for the exhibit – the largest in the center's history.
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judges have a warning about Trump's rapid deportations: Americans could be next
A fundamental promise by America's founders — that no one should be punished by the state without a fair hearing — is under threat, a growing chorus of federal judges say. That concept of 'due process under law,' borrowed from the Magna Carta and enshrined in the Bill of Rights, is most clearly imperiled for the immigrants President Donald Trump intends to summarily deport, they say, but U.S. citizens should be wary, too. Across the country, judges appointed by presidents of both parties — including Trump himself — are escalating warnings about what they see as an erosion of due process caused by the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign. What started with a focus on people Trump has deemed 'terrorists' and 'gang members' — despite their fierce denials — could easily expand to other groups, including Americans, these judges warn. 'When the courts say due process is important, we're not unhinged, we're not radicals,' U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Washington, D.C.-based appointee of President Joe Biden, said at a recent hearing. 'We are literally trying to enforce a process embodied in probably the most significant document with respect to peoples' rights against tyrannical government oppression. That's what we're doing here. Okay?' It's a fight that judges are increasingly casting as existential, rooted in the 5th Amendment's guarantee that 'no person shall … be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' The word 'person,' courts have noted, makes no distinction between citizens or noncitizens. The Supreme Court has long held that this fundamental promise extends to immigrants in deportation proceedings. In a 1993 opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia called that principle 'well-established.' The daily skirmishing between the White House and judges has obscured a slow-moving, nearly unanimous crescendo: If the courts don't protect the rights of the most vulnerable, everyone is at risk. 'If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?' wondered J. Harvie Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee to the Richmond-based 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Wilkinson described an 'incipient crisis' but also an opportunity to rally around the rule of law. The Trump administration has resisted these odes to process as overwrought and unrealistic. Trump and his aides say voters elected him to cast out immigrants in the country illegally. That electoral mandate deserves virtually unlimited weight, they say. 'Over 77 million Americans gave President Trump a resounding Election Day mandate to enforce our immigration laws and mass deport criminal illegal aliens,' said White House spokesperson Kush Desai. 'The Trump administration is using every power endowed to the Executive Branch by the Constitution and Congress, such as Expedited Removal, to deliver on this mandate.' Trump's close adviser Stephen Miller has railed daily against what he's called a 'judicial coup' that has largely centered around rulings upholding due process rights of immigrants. Miller has scoffed at the notion that people Trump claims are terrorists — even if they deny it — must be allowed to contest their deportations, saying they only have the right to be deported. Miller suggested Friday that the White House was 'actively looking at' suspending habeas corpus, the right of due process to challenge a person's detention by the government. FBI Director Kash Patel told senators Thursday he didn't know whether hundreds of Venezuelans Trump deported to El Salvador in March required due process. 'What you're saying is that every single one of the illegals that was sent down to El Salvador is supposed to be given due process,' Patel said in an exchange with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). 'That's what the Constitution says,' Merkley replied. 'It doesn't say that,' Patel responded. (Patel later said he did not dispute Scalia's view in the 1993 opinion.) Trump last week told an interviewer he wasn't sure whether the Constitution required him to uphold due process rights of noncitizens, repeating 'I don't know' when asked by NBC's Kristen Welker. And he lamented the extraordinary burden of providing individual hearings for millions of immigrants marked for deportation. Trump reiterated that view Wednesday morning: 'Our Court System is not letting me do the job I was Elected to do,' the president blared on Truth Social. 'Activist judges must let the Trump Administration deport murderers, and other criminals who have come into our Country illegally, WITHOUT DELAY!!!' Administration officials say despite these frustrations, they are providing a constitutional level of due process to the people being deported and following court orders they disagree with. 'Neither Congress nor the Founders intended for invading aliens to sit in court for years while their attorneys file frivolous motions,' said Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security. 'This is not what the Constitution requires, and the far left knows it. Given this, any reasonable person might wonder why foreign citizens who have broken our laws are entitled to constitutional protection at all.' Judges at every level have resisted that view. The Supreme Court has three times emphasized the right of due process for people queued up for deportation by the Trump administration, brushing back Trump's efforts to hastily expel immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely invoked 1798 law meant to speed deportations during wartime. The high court took the unusual step of issuing a 1 a.m. ruling last month halting a new round of Alien Enemies Act deportations until further notice. And appeals court judges have bristled at the Trump administration's view of due process, most notably in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran native whom the administration expelled to his home country in March. The Supreme Court noted that Abrego Garcia's deportation was 'illegal' because it violated a 2019 court order that forbade the government from sending him there because he faced violent persecution by a local gang. Despite acknowledging the error, the administration claims in court it has no power to bring Abrego Garcia back, and in recent days Trump and his aides have portrayed Abrego Garcia as a dangerous gang member, suggesting his deportation, while erroneous, was justified. 'The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order,' Wilkinson wrote last month. 'This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.' Judges appointed by Trump have raised similar concerns. In Maryland, a Trump-appointed judge scolded the administration for arguing against an effort to bring back another man who was sent to El Salvador in violation of a court-ordered settlement. The Justice Department argued that, if he were returned to the U.S., he'd surely be re-deported. 'Process is important. We don't skip to the end and say, 'We all know how this is going to end up,'' U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher said. And U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee based in Louisiana, described a 'strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process' in the case of a two-year-old sent to Honduras. Despite the heightened alarm of the courts, tension over due process is not novel to the Trump administration. The executive branch has long chafed over due process rights, which by design slow down initiatives that might move at lightning speed in a country without similar protections. 'Of course, due process makes it harder for the government to do what it wants,' said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the Berkeley School of Law. 'That's the whole point — to make sure that the government is acting in accord with the law.' Several cases have been playing out for months and some, like Abrego Garcia's, have received national attention, while others have remained in relative obscurity. But the tenor from the courts is consistent. U.S. District Judge Lawrence Vilardo, based in Buffalo, New York, has been presiding over the emergency petition of a Gambian national named Sering Ceesay, 63, who has lived in the Bronx for 30 years and has avoided deportation, despite the scrutiny of immigration authorities for nearly as long. Ceesay is subject to a deportation order approved by an immigration court that has been in place for more than a decade. But Ceesay, who has severe medical conditions, has also been on release while his deportation was pending. On Feb. 19, after a regular check-in, ICE officials detained Ceesay without warning. Vilardo ruled that Ceesay's detention violated laws and regulations in multiple ways: It was initiated by an official without authorization; Ceesay was given no notice; and he was deprived of an 'informal interview' required by ICE regulations. Those defects, he said, required Ceesay's immediate release from custody — even if he were immediately re-detained under proper procedures. 'When someone's most basic right of freedom is taken away, that person is entitled to at least some minimal process; otherwise, we all are at risk to be detained — and perhaps deported — because someone in the government thinks we are not supposed to be here,' Vilardo wrote. The Trump administration had argued that the court had no role in weighing in on its purported procedural violations, in part because the outcome was likely to be Ceesay's deportation anyway. 'The government's suggestion … is downright frightening,' Vilardo added. 'Procedure is not mere puffery, a gesture that is irrelevant so long as the result is correct.' In Maryland, Gallagher faced a similar quandary. The Trump administration acknowledged that it had sent a 20-year-old Venezuelan man, whom POLITICO has identified as Daniel Lozano-Camargo, to El Salvador, despite the fact that a 2024 legal settlement barred his deportation while he was awaiting asylum. The Trump administration, however, resisted Gallagher's order to ask El Salvador to return Lozano-Camargo so he could receive due process. Justice Department attorneys instead this week produced an unusual 'indicative ruling' from immigration officials saying that Lozano-Camargo would be ineligible for asylum even if he returned to the United States. Because of that determination, they argued, there was no need to go through the complex and burdensome process of seeking his return. But Gallagher, referring to Lozano-Camargo as 'Cristian,' a pseudonym used in court, rejected this argument out of hand. "It may be that the result here for Cristian is no asylum. I think people following the news here for the last four months would not be surprised if that's the end result here,' Gallagher said at a recent hearing. 'We don't just get to skip to the end. He gets to have a particular process and the claim for the process is not futile.' And in Massachusetts, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy expressed shock at the administration's claim that it can send deportable immigrants to any country — without advance notice or the explicit approval of an immigration judge — so long as they receive blanket assurances that they will not be tortured. 'All nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Assistant Solicitor General of the United States, Congress, common sense, basic decency, and this Court all disagree,' Murphy wrote. Murphy doubled down Wednesday on his order barring the administration from deporting immigrants to so-called third party countries without due process after alarming reports suggested the Trump administration was prepared to fly a new round of deportees to Libya imminently. Across the country, judges grappling with due process concerns returned repeatedly to one central premise. If immigrants can be summarily labeled gang members or terrorists and deported, delivered to any country without warning, detained without a hearing or stripped of their ability to attend college in the United States, it could happen to U.S. citizens, too. 'If the government contends that it has the ability to take someone it thinks is a noncitizen off the street without any process whatsoever — without any guarantee even that the person is who the government claims he is — then what is to stop the government from detaining someone who really is a citizen, even perhaps a sitting judge?' Vilardo wrote in the Ceesay case. Wilkinson's colleague on the 4th Circuit, Obama appointee Stephanie Thacker, agreed. 'If due process is of no moment,' she wrote, 'what is stopping the Government from removing and refusing to return a lawful permanent resident or even a natural born citizen?'
