Latest news with #ConstitutionalConvention
GMA Network
6 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
De Lima: VP Sara's impeachment trial can continue in 20th Congress
The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte can be passed down to the 20th Congress, incoming ML Party-list representative Leila de Lima said Sunday. 'Hindi ako nag-a-agree na hindi pwedeng tumawid sa 20th Congress ang impeachment trial,' De Lima told Super Radyo dzBB. LIVE sa DZBB: Atty. Leila de Lima (@manayleila), incoming ML Party-list Representative ????: 594 kHz AM band ????: ????: — DZBB Super Radyo (@dzbb) June 8, 2025 (I don't agree that the impeachment trial cannot be carried on to the 20th Congress.) 'Ang prevailing view ay pwede pang tumawid kasi nga pag na simulan na, pwede pang tumawid dahi ito nga ay hindi yung ordinaryong parte ng kanilang ordinary law-making status dahil ito ay special, independent,' she added. (The prevailing view is that it can be carried on once it has started, because this is not part of the Senate's ordinary law-making status since it is special and independent.) According to former Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna, the Articles of Impeachment received by the Senate in the 19th Congress will not lapse with that Congress but will be carried over to the 20th Congress. 'The Trial of Impeachment Cases is not a function of Legislative Power but it is a Constituent Power,' said Azcuna, who drafted Article XI of the 1987 Constitution as a member then of the 1986 Constitutional Convention. 'So it does not fall under the rule that unfinished business lapses with the outgoing Congress because the Constitution says the opposite— that the trial must 'proceed' meaning it must continue until it is finished. It cannot proceed if it is made to lapse. Since it must proceed, it follows that it does not lapse,' he explained. Duterte was impeached by the House of Representatives in February. However, the Senate postponed the reading of the impeachment charges from June 2 to June 11. The impeachment complaint includes issues surrounding the use of confidential funds, unexplained wealth, and alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City. The complaint also includes her 'assassination' remarks against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and Speaker Martin Romualdez. Should the impeachment trial not push through, De Lima said there would be an 'erosion of public trust' in the Senate 'Marami pong aalma dyan. Maraming mawawala ng respeto sa Senado bilang institusyon, which is very sad and unfortunate,' said De Lima, a former senator. (Many would be angered by that. Many will lose respect for the Senate as an institution, which is very sad and unfortunate.) She noted that the Senate could find ways to proceed with the impeachment trial. 'Pwede namang gawan ng paraan (They can find ways). They (Senado) decide kung longer periods of session,' De Lima said. Earlier today, Senators Sherwin Gatchalian and Francis Tolentino assured the public that the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte will proceed on June 11. —RF, GMA Integrated News
The National
2 days ago
- Politics
- The National
As a Western Isles councillor, I've seen the value of unity
Labour's narrow victory – 8559 votes to our 7957, with Reform UK's 7088 nipping at our heels – shows what happens when the independence movement is divided. As a councillor for Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, I see daily the struggles of our communities, from the cost of living crisis to the strain on our NHS and the erosion of our island economies. These are not just local woes; they are the direct result of a Union that fails us and worsens our challenges. I call on all pro-independence forces – SNP, Alba, Liberation Scotland, Salvo and every Yes activist across our land – to unite urgently. We must make the 2026 Holyrood election a clear mandate for independence, a moment to seize the powers we need to build a fairer, stronger Scotland. READ MORE: Patrick Harvie: Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely From the Western Isles to the central belt, Scots are crying out for change. Westminster's grip denies us the ability to protect our public services, revive our communities or harness our vast resources – our renewables, our fisheries, our land – for the benefit of all. Independence is not just a dream; it's the practical solution to these crises. A sovereign Scotland could invest in our ferries, bolster our schools and ensure no-one in our islands or beyond is left behind by poverty or neglect. But we cannot achieve this if we stand apart. Unity is our greatest asset. Our history, rooted in a shared commitment to community and collective effort, teaches us that when Scots come together, we can reshape our future. In the Western Isles, we know the power of working as one – whether it's saving our crofts or fighting for our Gaelic culture. The 2014 Yes campaign showed what's possible when we unite for a common cause, inspiring a million voices to demand self-determination. Yet, the Hamilton result proves that division hands victory to those who thrive on our disunity – Westminster's establishment and the divisive rhetoric of parties like Reform UK. If we let our votes splinter in 2026, we risk losing our chance to break free. I urge all pro-independence groups to come together now, in a spirit of shared purpose. Let's convene a summit, a Constitutional Convention like the one the SNP called for in 2023, to forge a united strategy for 2026. Together, we can rally the 44% who still back independence and win over those who've lost faith – voters who turned to Labour or stayed home, frustrated by politics as usual. We must show them that independence means real change: a Scotland where our wealth serves every community, where our resources lift up the many, not the few, and where our decisions are made here, not in London. Picture a united campaign in 2026, where every pro-independence vote counts toward a majority that Westminster cannot dismiss. A Holyrood election won decisively by our movement could force a referendum or empower us to begin negotiations for independence. This is not about one party; it's about a nation standing together, as we have before, to demand a future where fairness and opportunity define us. The Union is failing us. It starves our services, ignores our voices, and deepens inequality. But together, we can change that. Our shared resolve, born of a history that values community and equity, can make 2026 the year we take back control. Let's unite, plan and fight for a Scotland that answers to its people. Cllr Gordon Murray Comhairle nan Eilean Siar LIKE most readers of this newspaper, I was very surprised to learn of Labour's win in Hamilton. Their UK-wide polling and comments from John Swinney had led me to expect them contesting second place with Reform. It's a crumb of comfort that Reform 'only' came third. The disconnect between the SNP and independence supporters has been exposed even more starkly which their leaders will only ignore at their peril. Numbers can be boring but also intuitive so please bear with me. The following facts have not been highlighted. The turnout for the election was only 44.2% so the actual percentages of the electorate votes cast which the first three parties received were: Labour (31.6%) 13.9%, SNP (29.4%) 13.0%, Reform (26.1%) 11.6%. When polling indicates roughly half of our population supporting independence (currently slightly more), the fact that only 13% of the Hamilton electorate bothered to go and vote for the principal party of independence, the SNP, is hugely significant. Our independence movement is in crisis without an obvious party for us to rally behind to take us forward. Alba's point about the Greens standing and thus robbing the SNP of victory assumes that those who voted Green would have actively voted SNP instead. This is quite some assumption given that only 13% actively voted SNP. For me, though, the major point is the unsatisfactory and again discredited first-past-the-post electoral system which elects the biggest minority with total power. Who can justify a party 'winning' a seat with only 13.9% support from the electorate? It is little wonder people are becoming disillusioned with our electoral system. Reform would have 'won' with only 2.3% more people voting for them! Who said that for evil to prevail all that was required was for good people to do nothing? Let's find a fairer system while we still can. Campbell Anderson Edinburgh AFTER defeat by Labour in Hamilton, as an SNP member I'm asking, will the leadership of the SNP now realise that Scottish independence will only be achieved by a united movement of all groups and begin to join with the other like-minded to put our differences behind us and work together? Other independence movements have had factions, but they resolved to put aside their differences, achieve independence and then resolve them. This is the ONLY way, as divided movements don't win at anything. Let's get together and form a pro-independence alliance. Graham Smith Arbroath Perhaps John Swinney will wake up now. The over 50% of folk who didn't vote in Hamilton are probably languishing in child poverty. Why aren't they voting for independence? Why aren't they voting for the only truly socialist party in Scotland? Perhaps they would prefer the collapse of democracy and a dictatorship. Perhaps they would like The National to be banned. Compulsory voting as practised in Australia might be the answer. Tony Kime Kelso KEIR Starmer's latest rhetoric about putting the UK on a 'war footing' and boosting the economy through fast-tracked weapons and submarine programmes is alarming. While families across the UK are struggling with the cost of living, underfunded public services and chronic housing insecurity, the political priority appears to be a renewed arms race. Are Trump's fingerprints all over this latest development? This is not about genuine defence or security – it is political theatre. With around 17 ageing submarines already languishing in storage at Rosyth and Devonport, awaiting decommissioning at great cost to the taxpayer, the suggestion of accelerating new production looks less like strategic planning and more like an attempt to curry favour with the defence lobby and right-wing voters ahead of a future election. What's more, this posturing comes at a time when the UK has conspicuously failed to speak or act forcefully against the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. If our government can mobilise billions for submarines, why can it not marshal the same urgency and resourcefulness to uphold international law and human rights? There is no 'money tree' for nurses, teachers or social care – but apparently, there is one for military expansion. We are told this is about 'economic growth', yet militarised growth rarely benefits ordinary people. It creates profit for arms manufacturers, not food for children. The public should not be asked to accept an ever more militarised national agenda, especially when it comes at the expense of both domestic welfare and our moral standing on the world stage. The UK must not drift, without scrutiny, toward a war economy while turning its back on justice abroad and fairness at home. It causes the utmost despair to be shackled to this distant Parliament which does not have the best interests of the Scottish People in mind. Starmer may not play the Churchill card to boost his tanking premiership. Peter Macari Aberdeen
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Heroic Pictures' The American Miracle-Our Nation Is No Accident Premieres at Kennedy Center, D.C.
Docudrama Inspired by Michael Medved's Bestselling Book Debuts in Our Nation's Capital, Stirring Patriotic Sentiment Across America WASHINGTON, D.C. / / June 5, 2025 / Last night, Heroic Pictures and Patterns of Evidence Foundation hosted an exclusive VIP red carpet premiere at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., with best-selling New York Times author Michael Medved and award-winning producer and film director Timothy Mahoney. They showcased a stirring new motion picture, The American Miracle: Our Nation Is No Accident. With media coverage from Movieguide, Real America's Voice and NTD, among others, the premiere kicked off the film's national launch in theatres across America June 9-11. "America needs this film at this time in our history as we approach the nation's 250th anniversary. We want this film to bring the country together by inspiring them with the miraculous and forgotten story of God's providential hand that brought about this great nation," said Mahoney. "We invite all Americans to rediscover and honor our nation's founding by going to your theater to see this epic motion picture." The American Miracle - Our Nation Is No Accident is introducing a new film style called Drama Doc," said Executive Producer Ralf Augstroze. "There is far more drama than doc, but the doc gives the important historical support of these miraculous events." During the screening, spontaneous applause broke out after a powerful scene in which Benjamin Franklin calls for prayer during the Constitutional Convention. The evening concluded with a standing ovation and was a spectacular event that featured costumed historical reenactors portraying George and Martha Washington, Billy Lee, James Madison and a host of Continental soldiers. This film brings to life the extraordinary stories of providence that shaped the founding of the United States. "[Washington used] a phrase in his first inaugural address... thanking the invisible hand for protecting him," shared Medved last night following the premiere. "I'm sure that this kind of story, about this prodigious gift of America, is something that everybody here could testify to and be thankful for." The cast includes Pat Boone, Kevin Sorbo, Nicole C. Mullen, Cameron Arnett, James Arnold Taylor and Libby Smallbone, along with authors, scholars and commentators such as Joseph Ellis, Richard Dreyfuss, Paul Kengor, Robert P. George, Akhil Reed Amar, Lord Andrew Roberts and Jana Novak, among many others. The film offers a powerful and timely reminder that America's freedom and purpose are no accident-they are the result of God's providence. "We didn't just happen," Pat Boone shared in the opening prayer. "We were created, and we were led by human beings who were led by You and Your Bible. Your Word was the basis for all that makes America-who America has been and who we want to still be." Mahoney wrapped the post-premiere commentary with a closing prayer: "Lord, this film is a special film because I think it does remind us that You have been a part of our past, and we want You to be a part of our present... We ask, dear Lord, that this film would be an encouragement-and also a healing film...[for] the divides that have been out there... that You would use this film to bring healing to our nation." Following the exclusive premiere, The American Miracle will debut in theaters nationwide for a limited time this weekend, June 9-11, 2025. For more information about the film, visit Created and funded under the auspices of Patterns of Evidence Foundation. Produced and distributed by Heroic Pictures. About Heroic PicturesHeroic Pictures is a motion picture studio telling true stories of God acting in history, shedding light on the lives of heroic people and events that have shaped our past and inspire our future. -30- For photos, media inquiries, interview requests or additional information, please contact: Heidi McDow, A. Larry Ross Communicationsheidi@ SOURCE: Heroic Pictures View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Former NY Congressman releases new book on America's past and future
(WIVT/WBGH) – A former representative of New York's 19th District is out with a new book that looks back on how difficult decisions made during the founding of our country might offer guidance on how to deal with the deep divisions that exist today. Chris Gibson has published 'The Spirit of Philadelphia: A Call To Recover The Founding Principles.' The book is based on research Gibson did about the Constitutional Convention held in 1787 in Philadelphia to address some of the weaknesses in the Articles of Confederation. Gibson says the years between the Revolutionary War and the adoption of the Constitution was marked by a lot of dissent, dysfunction and open rebellion. Gibson says the framers of the Constitution purposely created checks and balances that decentralized power and gave control over lawmaking, funding, and the ability to go to war to the people's representatives in Congress. He says that over the past century, and even more so in recent times, power has steadily been consolidated in the president at the expense of Congress. 'Basically, you vote for a president, that president comes in, whether it's Barack Obama on the left or Donald Trump on the right, and the expectation for those voters is that they're going to get everything they're looking for and it's going to come by way of executive action. This is in part what changed how we interact with each other. By moving away from founding principles, we have really torn our social fabric and we're living with the consequences of those changing ideas,' said Gibson. Gibson, who spent three years as president of his alma mater, Siena College, says the convention in Philadelphia not only created a framework for the government but also a spirit of collaboration and optimism. He says, despite the divisions of today, most Americans still agree about the value of liberty and equality. You can find out more information and purchase the book at Gibson includes some of his recommendations for addressing our country's polarization and says he'd be happy to Zoom in with any book clubs interested in reading his book. Watch the full interview with Gibson below. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Are you ready to vote on the most important measure in Michigan's 2026 midterms?
Every federal, state or local elected or appointed official swears an oath to the constitutions of the United States, their state and their local government. Given the abuse federal and state politicos are currently shoveling onto constitutions, it's a wonder the constitutions don't swear back at them. Which leads to the most boring but ultimately critical question you will face in Michigan's 2026 election: How will you vote on the ballot proposal to call a new state Constitutional Convention? There will no shortage of headlines about the 2026 election. It's the first time there has been both an open gubernatorial and U.S. Senate seat in the same election. Whatever major disasters or stunning (and surprising) miracles President Donald Trump concocts will guide how voters decide the makeups of the U.S. Congress and our Legislature. There will be specific ballot issues. All these candidates and issues will be hyped with massive buckets-'o-bucks, ads, flyers, calls, door knocking, social media harangues … leaving us overwhelmed. But in this upcoming election, one ballot issue is already designated as Proposal 1 ― so ordered under Article XII, Section 3 of the Michigan Constitution ― and whether Michiganders vote "yes" or "no" could completely change our governmental and legal structure, affecting every aspect of life in this state: How your business runs, your kids are educated, how prisoners are punished, our natural resources managed, what taxes we pay and what the taxes pay for, who will govern us; everything we know now about Michigan rules and regulation could be turned inside out, depending on how we vote on holding a Constitutional Convention. The Michigan Constitution (last revised in 1963) requires voters be asked every 16 years if a new Con-Con (short for 'Constitutional Convention,' natch) should be called. In 1978, 1994 and 2010, voters overwhelmingly said no. Next year, voters will be asked this question again. So, start thinking about it. Time also to acquaint yourself with Michigan's Constitution, if you know nothing about it. Pay attention to this very boring subject, which, like most boring subjects, is really damn important. More Trump's crypto, the Qatar jet ― will supporters finally admit something's wrong? Constitutions are our supreme laws, guiding everything that governs and affects our lives. In some respects, the U.S. Constitution, Michigan's Constitution and your local city charter dictate how you act daily more than more than whatever scripture you follow (or ignore). Officials from the president to members of local municipal commissions (ask my wife, Cindy, who spent years on Huntington Woods' beautification commission) swear to follow and defend those supreme laws. Or they are supposed to. We have expected, experienced and enjoyed such compliance with the rules for most of this nation's nearly 250 years. What is happening now? Trump swore to 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution (didn't have his hand on the Bible, but still …) yet he questions if he has to 'uphold' the Constitution. How can you 'preserve, protect and defend' the Constitution if you do not 'uphold' it? His administration has ignored, thus violating, judicial rulings. He has tried to alter whole sections of the Constitution through Executive Orders, which is not permitted. He has accepted foreign gifts in violation of the Constitution. In open defiance of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, the administration is shredding the rule of law. Now there is talk the administration may suspend habeas corpus, an essential right guaranteed in the Magna Carta. (That's a governing document agreed to in 1215 by King John of England, under pressure from rebel barons.) Suspending habeas corpus is allowable only under extreme circumstances defined by the Constitution. Those circumstances do not exist. When asked to define habeas corpus, Homeland Security Security Kristi Noem gave the baffling response that it guaranteed Trump's right to remove people from the country. Nope, not even close. More Democrats better hope Michigan Gov. Whitmer changes her mind about presidential run In Michigan, our constitutional worries are less extreme, but still concerning. State House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland, has refused to submit bills passed in the previous session to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, though Michigan's Constitution specifically says that must be done (the argument wasn't helped by a goofy Court of Claims ruling that the bills should be presented, but the court didn't want to interfere in the spat.) Hall has also recently suggested passing a budget isn't required by the state constitution (granted, the constitution doesn't set requirements on enacting a budget, but refers to a budget. A little thing called state law requires when a budget be passed). And earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal brought by 11 Republican legislators challenging the citizens' right to amend the state constitution on certain election issues. Lower federal courts already told the legislators to stuff it, though in nicer legal terms. Approaching the 2026 Con-Con vote, we face a populace and political establishment arguably more badly divided than in any period since maybe the Civil War. Many are driven by fear, anger and even hatred towards their fellow citizens, and unsympathetic to our constitutional principles. Michigan is under its fourth constitution (tidbit: Michigan's Archives will soon transport the first 1835 Constitution ― drafted two years before we became a state ― to Boston specialists for a bit of fixup before it enters a new display in Lansing). After the 1835 Constitution ― which specified only white men could vote ― we had constitutions written in 1850 and 1908. Our current constitution was drafted at the 1961-62 Con-Con, which launched a number of major political careers. Primary among them: George Romney, one of Michigan's greater governors, and longtime Detroit Mayor Coleman Young. Including Michigan, 11 states are on their fourth constitution. Another 20 states use their original constitutions, with Massachusetts' Constitution adopted in 1780. Louisiana is on its 11th constitution, and Georgia's 10th constitution is the most recent, adopted in 1983. Because state constitutions deal with more minutia involving state and local operations, they are longer than the 4,500 or so words in the U.S. Constitution. Michigan's comes in around 31,200 words; a breezy read compared to Alabama's 7th constitution, at nearly 403,000 words. State constitutions are also amended more frequently. In 237 years, the U.S. Constitution has been amended 27 times. Michigan's voters have amended our constitution 39 times, with 85 proposed amendments since it took effect in 1963. The state constitution, and its amendments, state essential Michigan principles. The constitution bans capital punishment, and establishes our court system, principles of education and which schools get state funding ― through our tax dollars ― and guarantees our state colleges and universities are free from political and legislative interference. It prohibits a graduated income tax. It guarantees ― through a recently adopted amendment ― reproductive rights for women. It also sets rules on overall state finance, on how old you must be to go boozing, it determines that we elect 148 total legislators and not hundreds more, and that we have a Senate and House and not a unicameral legislature. The current constitution was written to simplify and modernize Michigan government to face more current realities. The state endured serious recessions in the 1950s, and simply ran out of money. Neither the 1908 Constitution nor lawmakers were able to resolve the problems. Lots more officials were elected ― including the state treasurer and highway commissioner ― and every official served for two-year terms, exhausting voters. That 1960s Con-Con reflected new social and economic realities. It was the first to include women and Black delegates. Labor with business and agricultural interests played a major role. And in those post World War II years, the state and nation had a more positive outlook. There were tensions, of course, with the Cold War, changing roles of women, the Civil Rights movement; but most Americans were optimistic to the future. The chief issue dividing support for the 1963 constitution was that it did not did not recognize the principle of one man-one vote (that issue was resolved eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court). The last three times they were asked, voters declined to call a new Con-Con. But, in each election opposition has declined. In 1978 nearly 77% said no; by 2010, it was nearly 67%. Still a landslide, but what drives the increased support for a new Con-Con? An actual call for change ― either for more progressive government or more conservative ― or just a 'yeah, whatever' mood too many people seem to currently embrace? Or, given our current discontent with one another, do some voters see a new constitution as a way of imposing greater control over those they dislike? The question cannot be ignored. You, the voters, will answer these questions soon enough. Make sure you know why you are answering them the way you do. Free Press contributing columnist John Lindstrom has covered Michigan politics for 50 years. He retired as publisher of Gongwer, a Lansing news service, in 2019. Submit a letter to the editor at and we may publish it online and in print. Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access with a Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Will Michigan say yes to Constitutional Convention in 2026? | Opinion
