Latest news with #Constitutions
The Hindu
28-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Incremental authoritarianism at work in India, says N. Ram
A number of factors have combined to cast a shadow over India's democracy and its media landscape, N. Ram, former Editor-in-Chief, The Hindu, said on Wednesday (May 28, 2025), listing troubling trends such as communalism as a political mobilisation strategy, the re-jigging and manipulation of State institutions, the rise and enormous spread of the social media in society, and the weaponisation of hate speech, disinformation, misinformation, and toxic propaganda both on social media and in sections of the mainstream media. Delivering a lecture in memory of M.P. Veerendra Kumar, former Managing Director, Mathrubhumi, Mr. Ram pointed out that the country faces an intensely divisive and polarising communal climate, orchestrated hate campaigns and crimes, and fascistic violence directed at minorities and others. 'India had witnessed and experienced some of this from the 1990s. The situation turned qualitatively worse in 2014, when there was a regime change that proved to be much more than a change of government,' he said. Modi-Trump: shared authoritarianism Drawing a comparison between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump, Mr. Ram said that while the two leaders may have strikingly different backgrounds and styles, their administrations share an authoritarian disdain for their countries' Constitutions and the values, spirit, and even the letter of these foundational charters. Quoting scholars Christophe Jaffrelot and Pratinav Anil, Mr. Ram said that independent India's first dictatorship — the Emergency imposed in June 1975 by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi — was a complex phenomenon that was 'neither a parenthesis, nor so much as a turning point, but a concentrate of a style of rule, an élan alive today.' This involved, among other things, 'a dialectical relationship between populism and authoritarianism.' It is this relationship that has been at play over the past decade, Mr. Ram said, eating into the vitals of Indian democracy. The BJP regime, backed by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and its affiliates, has taken the path of incremental authoritarianism, softening up and, wherever possible, suborning constitutional and democratic institutions and undermining India's already stressed secular foundations, he added. 'Independent journalism still alive' 'The present is a period in which independent and fearless journalism is at a premium in India, or so it seems,' Mr. Ram said. 'Several Indian television news channels and mainstream newspapers, daily and periodical, are clearly and conspicuously engaged in propagandising and manufacturing consent for the ideology, policies, and actions of the ruling party and the dominant saffron political formation. However, there is evidence that independent, investigative journalism is alive, active, and productive,' he added. While investigating, exploring, and experimenting, journalists of the first rank should not be satisfied with bringing to light a mass of material facts that they manage to unearth through diligent work, or that fall into their laps by a stroke of luck. 'Their real pursuit is to invest these hitherto concealed or inaccessible facts with social, moral, and often, historical meaning, and weave them into a coherent and compelling story, so that the journalism contributes significantly to raising social awareness of the issues involved and stands the test of time,' Mr. Ram said. In his book on newspapers, journalism, and the business of news in the digital age, British journalist and educator George Brock had identified four core tasks as 'the irreducible core… the foundation on which journalism in the 21st century is going to be rebuilt' — verification, bearing witness, sense making, and investigation. 'The only way to protect media freedom is to exercise your right to free speech and independence, come what may,' Mr. Ram said. Also at the event, the first National Thought Leadership Award, instituted in memory of the late Mathrubhumi Managing Director Veerendra Kumar, was presented to Karnataka-based environmentalist Panduranga Hegde by water conservationist Rajendra Singh.
Epoch Times
26-05-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
Lawsuit Aims to Stop Religious Exemptions From Vaccines in West Virginia
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing West Virginia over its enabling students to receive religious exemptions from vaccines required for school attendance. West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey in January Morrisey, a Republican, wrote at the time that forcing West Virginians to vaccinate their children despite religious objections 'substantially burdens the free exercise of religion in violation of the inherent religious liberties guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and West Virginia.' The governor cited how legislators in 2023 approved the Equal Protection for Religion Act, which says in part that no action from the state may 'substantially burden a person's exercise of religion' unless it is essential to 'further a compelling government interest.' The ACLU The Equal Protection for Religion Act does not permit the governor to 'unilaterally suspend acts of the Legislature,' the organization stated. Related Stories 5/1/2025 5/26/2025 'Respondents are continuing to wantonly violate clear state law at the request of the Governor,' it added later. The suit names health officials and agencies as defendants, including the West Virginia Department of Health. It was brought on behalf of two parents in the state who oppose the governor's order. The ACLU is asking the court to order the officials to fully comply with state law and not award any exemptions that conflict with the statute. 'Governors do not rule by decree,' Aubrey Sparks, legal director of the ACLU's West Virginia chapter, The West Virginia Department of Health and Morrisey's office did not respond to requests for comment by publication time. In response to pending lawsuits, the governor earlier in May West Virginia before January was one of just five states that did not give any exemptions for non-medical reasons. West Virginia law requires school students to be vaccinated against chickenpox, Hepatitis B, measles, meningitis, mumps, diphtheria, polio, rubella, tetanus, and whooping cough.
Axios
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Deadlocked Supreme Court means Oklahoma can't establish religious school
Oklahoma can't establish the nation's first publicly-funded religious school after the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked 4-4 Thursday. Why it matters: The tie means the Oklahoma Supreme Court's finding that establishing the school would violate both the state and U.S. Constitutions will stand. Justice Amy Coney-Barrett recused herself from the case. The Supreme Court's two-line opinion did not detail how the remaining eight justices voted. Catch up quick: Oklahoma's Statewide Virtual Charter School Board narrowly voted to approve the St. Isidore of Seville Virtual Charter School in 2023. The Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma had submitted an application for the online K-12 public charter school, which would teach the Catholic faith. The Oklahoma attorney general had sued to block the school, arguing it violated both state and federal law. The state Supreme Court agreed, ruling, "This State's establishment of a religious charter school violates Oklahoma statutes, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the Establishment Clause." The intrigue: When the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court in April, the conservative majority appeared open to allowing the school — except Chief Justice John Roberts, who expressed hesitancy.
Newsweek
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Over 14K Sign Christian Petition Issuing Warning on Supreme Court Case
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More than 14,000 people have signed a petition from Christian advocacy group Faithful America in efforts to stress the importance of church-state separation while warning that leaders in Oklahoma aim to "dismantle" that boundary. The push comes amid the Supreme Court weighing whether the nation's first publicly funded religious charter school can legally operate in the Sooner State. "The Supreme Court seems to be open to demolishing the wall between church and state. When public dollars fund religious schools that can discriminate and exclude, we all lose. Our children lose. Our churches lose," the Reverend Shannon Fleck, executive director of Faithful America, told Newsweek via email on Friday. Why It Matters The Supreme Court heard arguments this week in a case centered on St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, a proposed K-12 charter that openly states its mission to evangelize students in the Catholic faith. Charter schools are considered public institutions in Oklahoma and nearly every other state, meaning they must abide by state funding and oversight rules. Republican attorney general of Oklahoma, Gentner Drummond, sued Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board to halt creation of the school, arguing it violated Oklahoma law and both the state and U.S. Constitutions. The Supreme Court's ruling could have significant implications for religious liberty and education, potentially opening the door for taxpayer funds to support religious schools. Some conservative Christians back the charter school's case, while others, like Faithful America, which is a progressive Christian organization, are opposing the move. Supporters of charter schools rally outside the Supreme Court on April 30 in Washington, D.C. Supporters of charter schools rally outside the Supreme Court on April 30 in Washington, D.C. AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein What To Know Faithful America, a Christian advocacy group that often shares petitions supporting religious freedom and opposing President Donald Trump, launched one in late April emphasizing that "the separation of church and state is an important legal construct that protects both our democracy and our churches from outside influence." As of Friday, the petition had more than 14,000 signatures and argues that the state's effort to allow a religious charter school represents "an intentional attempt to dismantle this critical separation." "As a Christian and an Oklahoman, I am disgusted that our public education system is being used as a tool for religious indoctrination, especially while schools across Oklahoma are already struggling," Fleck told Newsweek. The state of Oklahoma approved formation of the school in 2023, but the following year, the state Supreme Court ruled it violated the Constitution and blocked the decision. The nation's highest court heard arguments on Wednesday, and Fleck said the justices' commentary serves as an "indication the Supreme Court may be on the verge of abandoning one of the bedrock principles of our democracy." The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a national religion and protects individuals' rights to freely practice their faith. Justice Amy Coney Barrett has recused herself due to her friendship with a St. Isidore adviser, and it appears that the court could be divided, with Chief Justice John Roberts potentially casting the deciding vote. "This is a wake-up call for every American who believes that the government should never weaponize faith," Fleck told Newsweek. Supporters of charter schools and Christian education rallied outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday. What People Are Saying The Freedom From Religion Foundation on Friday posted to X, formerly Twitter: "Let's be clear: No one is 'banning Catholic schools.' Religious institutions like St. Isidore are free to exist and educate as they wish — just not on the public's dime." In another post, it wrote that the plaintiffs' demands are "unprecedented: direct government funding of a church-run school that openly admits it will discriminate based on religion, sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation." Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said during oral arguments: "Using history in this case is crazy because during early history, no one thought there was an obligation of the government to provide funding [for schools] at all. We don't use the history of segregation to interpret the equal protection clause now. I doubt very much we would use that history of the federal government funding the churches to teach Indian children and convert them as proving anything about the free exercise or establishment clause now." Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said on Wednesday: "All the religious school is saying is, 'Don't exclude us on account of our religion.' ... Our cases have made very clear—and I think those are some of the most important cases we've had—of saying you can't treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second class in the United States." Drummond said in an October statement: "This unconstitutional scheme to create the nation's first state-sponsored religious charter school will open the floodgates and force taxpayers to fund all manner of religious indoctrination, including radical Islam or even the Church of Satan. My fellow Oklahomans can rest assured that I will always fight to protect their God-given rights and uphold the law." Kevin Stitt, Oklahoma's Republican governor, wrote on X last week: "No one should have the authority to tell a parent how to educate their child. St. Isidore has every right to offer families a faith-based education. I'll keep fighting back against big-government politicians who think they know better than parents." What Happens Next The nation's High Court concluded final arguments in the case on Wednesday. It then enters deliberations and typically releases opinions by the end of June. If a split vote occurs, the lower court ruling will stand, effectively blocking St. Isidore from operation as a publicly funded religious charter school.
New York Times
01-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
In Suits and Ties, Lawyers Protest Trump's Attacks on the Legal System
The crowd of protesters that packed Foley Square in downtown Manhattan on Thursday was as raucous as any demonstration in a politically vociferous city. It was, however, decidedly more wonky and dapper. About 1,500 demonstrators, many of them lawyers sporting business attire, jammed the plaza outside Manhattan's federal courthouse as part of the National Law Day of Action, chanting in favor of the rule of law and hoisting pocket Constitutions to the sky. It was one of around 50 similar actions around the nation on Thursday, led by lawyers who say President Trump is threatening the foundation of America's legal system. 'The rule of law protects us all. Without it we will surely fall,' the crowd chanted. In his second term, Mr. Trump has aimed to hobble elite law firms, threatened to impeach judges and ignored their orders. For many inside the legal profession, his actions have presented an unpalatable choice between compromising their values by staying silent and facing professional risk by speaking out. Now, a growing number of lawyers see a moral imperative in choosing the latter option. They believe Mr. Trump's crusade is threatening not just their livelihoods, but a system to which they have devoted their lives. On Thursday, thousands of lawyers were expected to protest at federal courthouses in New York, Chicago and San Francisco — roughly 50 cities in all. In interviews, attendees of the event in New York pointed to a range of actions, including Mr. Trump's targeting of law firms he viewed as hostile, wrongful deportations and the arrest of a Wisconsin judge on charges of obstructing immigration enforcement. 'I'm horrified by what's going on,' said James Kainen, 71, a law professor at Fordham University and a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. 'We had ethics. We prosecuted people because they violated the law, not because they angered somebody for some ridiculous reason.' Mr. Kainen held up a sign that said 'I want Perkins Coie as my law firm,' referring to a firm that Mr. Trump has targeted with an executive order. Organizers of the Foley Square rally instructed attendees to dress 'as if they were appearing in court,' and encouraged them to carry pocket Constitutions. 'We want people to see that we treat this issue with utmost respect,' said Ron Minkoff, a criminal defense lawyer and an organizer. 'This is like the courtroom to us.' It was not exactly a mass street protest. The jurists voiced their disapproval by ceremonially reaffirming their oath to upholding the rule of law. But the fact that lawyers are not famous for participating in demonstrations, organizers said, underscored the seriousness of the moment. 'If lawyers are taking to the streets, it means something very serious and bad is happening,' said Traci Feit Love, the executive director of Lawyers for Good Government, a nonprofit that helped coordinate the events. The administration's wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Mr. Trump's threats against judges were motivations for the day of action, but the president's targeting of elite law firms was a particular focus for some. Mr. Trump has unleashed a flurry of executive orders aimed at crippling firms he says have used the justice system against him. The orders have limited the firms' access to federal buildings and canceled their government contracts. In March, some of those firms started cutting deals, pledging pro bono legal support for Mr. Trump's causes in exchange for relief from his executive actions. Angered by the capitulations, organizations such as the New York County Lawyers Association and the New York Civil Liberties Union started discussing ways to stand up for what they saw as an assault on their profession. 'We're deeply concerned about the response of some of the major law firms,' said Dawn Cardi, a defense lawyer who also helped organize the event in New York. 'It feels a little bit like I imagine it felt in the McCarthy era.' Since the event was first envisioned, a growing number of firms have fought back, calling Mr. Trump's actions unconstitutional. Even the firms that have capitulated have seen internal dissent. Last week, lawyers for Perkins Coie and WilmerHale, both targeted by Mr. Trump, asked the courts to permanently block the orders. Hundreds of firms have signed briefs backing Perkins Coie. Last week, a federal judge stopped Mr. Trump from targeting the firm Susman Godfrey, calling it 'a shocking abuse of power.' J.B. Howard, a counsel in global litigation at Cadwalader, resigned after his firm made a deal with Mr. Trump. In an interview, Mr. Howard, 61, stressed that he was not angry at his firm for its decision. But he said he feared the consequences for his profession, and worried about the example he would set for his son, a law student, if he continued to work for a firm that had capitulated to Mr. Trump. 'I just can't be a practicing lawyer feeling as though I have abandoned a sacred obligation,' Mr. Howard said. On Thursday, he attended a Law Day event in Denver, where he, along with more than 100 lawyers, entered the federal courthouse and retook their oaths. More junior lawyers and law students have been outspoken about their outrage, even as they acknowledge the professional risks. Hope Elizabeth Guzzle, a first-year law student at Fordham who attended the rally in New York, said the Trump administration's attack on legal norms had helped convince her to pursue a career in public interest law, rather than corporate law. 'The one place where there is still concern for norms and fighting back is in the law,' said Ms. Guzzle, 24, who wore courtroom attire and held a sign that said 'Why am I even studying for my Con Law exam?' A group of Georgetown University law students has created a spreadsheet of firms that color-codes them by whether they've capitulated to Mr. Trump, an effort first reported by the site All Rise News. In April, three anonymous law students filed suit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, asking a federal court to bar firms from handing over sensitive information about employees to the administration. On Tuesday, more than 1,000 law students filed an amicus brief supporting Susman Godfrey in its fight against Mr. Trump. Sam Haddad, a second-year law student at Yale Law School who signed the brief, said the Trump administration's attack on the rule of law — and how many big firms had cut deals — had given him pause about his career path. 'I now understand that legal professionals can hesitate, or worse, capitulate when the crisis is clear and the need to respond is unambiguous,' Mr. Haddad, who worked at Susman as a fellow last summer, said in an interview. Mr. Howard said that the firms' decisions would cost them in the fullness of time. 'These firms that are capitulating are kind of toxic to young lawyers and the next generation of lawyers,' he said.
