Latest news with #DeclarationoftheRightsofMan
Newsweek
4 days ago
- Business
- Newsweek
Trump's Right. There Is a Judicial Coup—But It's a Counter-Coup
President Donald Trump and his minions continue to rage and blow as they lose one court case after another. In a case of Trumpian projection, the White House declared the recent decision at the U.S. Court of International Trade striking down most of his tariffs a "judicial coup." It was classic Trump. He always accuses his adversaries of committing whatever wrong he is trying to get away with—"lying," Hillary Clinton—"crooked" Joe Biden. But actually, Trump keeps losing in court because he is trying to overthrow law and order, and the courts are trying to stop him. With a steady and deadly stream of executive orders, Trump is mounting a coup against the checks and balances that have sustained democracy in America for over 200 years. The courts are the counter-coup—seeking to restore the established constitutional order. President Donald Trump answers reporters' questions after he posthumously awarded the new Medals of Sacrifice to fallen officers during a ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House on May 19, 2025, in Washington,... President Donald Trump answers reporters' questions after he posthumously awarded the new Medals of Sacrifice to fallen officers during a ceremony in the Oval Office of the White House on May 19, 2025, in Washington, D.C. MoreIn the case of the tariffs, the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to impose tariffs on goods entering the country. Yes, Congress passed a law allowing the president to impose tariffs targeted at emergencies, but Trump capriciously slapped them on the whole world without rhyme or reason. The tariff tsunami, like other Trump power grabs, was justified by a claim of an "emergency," but, wisely, the court would have none of it. The sham trade "emergency" wasn't as flashy as the "invasion" emergency Trump declared regarding the Tren de Aragua drug gang. But it was just as bogus. Courts correctly discerned that the United States wasn't being invaded. More importantly, they recognized that even enemy aliens in time of war have the right to challenge their arrests in court. Trump halting hearings and threatening habeas corpus is revolutionary stuff. It's the beginning of a road reminiscent of France's Reign of Terror where its glorious Declaration of the Rights of Man was pushed aside by men who confused their own impulses with righteousness. Trump can complain all he wants, but he is the insurgent, not the judges. The principal feature of the Trump coup is his attempt to use executive orders to seize Congress' law-making function. Trump and his people simply ignore that presidents don't announce laws, they carry them out as written by Congress. That's why presidents swear to "faithfully execute" the laws. In the case of the tariffs, the law limits Trump's power. It is no coup for courts to say Trump must obey these limits. In the case of his cuts to federal spending on everything from foreign aid to FEMA, the governing law is the budget passed by Congress. It says what the president must spend on, and the president doesn't have the option to rewrite the law so he can spend—or not spend—as he likes. Yet Trump has undone innumerable congressional spending decisions. Consider also Trump's attacks on major law firms and universities. His executive orders punishing people because he doesn't like who or what they stand for don't just seek to cancel acts of Congress, they seek to cancel the constitutional First Amendment guarantees of free speech and association. Was it judicial insurrection for the courts to say that Trump can't cancel the First Amendment? And is it mutiny for the courts to say that Trump can't use his office to punish his personal enemies like former FBI director Robert Mueller? The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the law requires official action to be aimed at legitimate government purposes—not personal ones. Likewise, is it a revolt for the courts to insist on the "due process" of law guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments? This promise means that before the government deports people or bans lawyers from federal buildings, it must give them a chance to defend themselves. No. The courts aren't in revolt. What's revolting is the hubris that has inspired Trump to ignore the law as declared by Congress and the courts and associate law instead with his own personal will. The courts have no physical force to deploy against Trump's coup. To sustain the judicial counter-coup, the courts have only the moral force of memory that our nation became mighty, that it became the envy of the world, because it was founded on a government of laws, not men. Let's hope it's enough. Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the new book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
![Islamophobia : French Ministers seek control over Muslim bodies [Opinion]](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.yabiladi.com%2Ffiles%2Farticles%2Fchatgpt-e40fff1e0e5023912ada5593796e8c9e20250320043153.jpeg&w=3840&q=100)
![Islamophobia : French Ministers seek control over Muslim bodies [Opinion]](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic-mobile-files.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com%2Fyabiladi.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Ya Biladi
20-03-2025
- Politics
- Ya Biladi
Islamophobia : French Ministers seek control over Muslim bodies [Opinion]
France, the birthplace of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, claims to be a model of universality, yet it excludes a portion of its female citizens. Its strict stance against the veil in sports highlights how selectively its humanistic principles are applied. Under the guise of neutrality and equality, the state is actually upholding a narrow vision of secularism, which leads to intentional discrimination. For years, this policy has drawn significant international criticism. In October 2024, UN experts called the ban on the veil in sports «discriminatory» and a violation of fundamental freedoms, accusing France of failing to justify these restrictions with clear legal imperatives. Despite these warnings, the government persists, gradually institutionalizing this exclusion. Sports federations are following suit. The French Football Federation (FFF) and the French Rugby Federation have already banned the veil in their competitions. In January, the French Rugby Federation (FRR) prohibited conspicuous religious symbols, effectively barring veiled players from Saint-Denis Rugby 93 from pursuing their passion. This decision extends the 2021 law that allows federations to impose strict religious neutrality. But the push doesn't stop there. In February 2025, the Senate examined a bill aimed at explicitly banning all religious symbols in sports. Officially, it seeks to resolve a «legal gray area». Unofficially, the goal is clear: to permanently exclude veiled athletes from high-level competitions, making them invisible. A Governmental Cacophony This ideological escalation has caused division within the government. Marie Barsacq, the Minister Delegate for Sports, publicly opposed the blanket ban. «We must not exclude women from sports», she declared, emphasizing that sports should be a space for freedom and empowerment. She was supported by Minister of National Education Élisabeth Borne. However, both women faced opposition from Gérald Darmanin, Minister of Justice, and Bruno Retailleau, Minister of the Interior, who are strong advocates for a total ban in the name of a rigid interpretation of secularism. Yes, I want all religious symbols, including the wearing of the veil, to be permanently banned in sports competitions. — Bruno Retailleau (@BrunoRetailleau) March 19, 2025 This governmental discord highlights the ideological deadlock in France. Should the country defend an inclusive version of secularism that allows all women to participate in sports, or a coercive secularism that excludes them based on a dogmatic vision? At present, the latter approach prevails, disregarding the very principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity that France claims to uphold. The State on the Sidelines After the veil, the issue of breaks for fasting footballers has become a new point of contention. Every year, the question resurfaces: should Muslim players be allowed to pause briefly to hydrate after sunset during Ramadan? In France, the choice has been made to avoid tolerance. The French Football Federation (FFF) decided in 2023 to reject these game breaks, unlike other European leagues such as the Premier League in England or the Bundesliga in Germany, which have taken a more pragmatic approach. What could have remained a purely sporting decision has instead turned into a political issue, revealing a distinctly French obsession: regulating every detail of sports, even at the cost of creating problems where none existed. This regulatory zeal becomes even more absurd when it specifically targets certain religious practices. Professional footballers, assisted by medical teams, manage their diet and hydration based on their physiological needs. So why ban a brief pause that doesn't disrupt the game and is accepted elsewhere in Europe? This artificial debate distracts from a more worrying reality: a desire to control bodies, with the state seeking to dictate even how an athlete should eat or dress. French Contradictions By legislating every detail, France finds itself trapped in its own contradictions. Should all accommodations be banned in the name of neutrality, or should we recognize that sports can adjust to cultural and religious practices without betraying their core values? Some voices, though still too rare in the French political landscape, advocate for a more pragmatic approach: returning to the true essence of secularism, which guarantees everyone freedom of conscience, without discrimination. In other words, it's time for France to stop stigmatizing part of its population under the guise of neutrality and reconcile with its own principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.
