Latest news with #TheConstitution
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Courting controversy: a look at some of Alan Dershowitz's public spats over the years
Write to us at . To subscribe, . TODAY'S STARTING POINT Alan Dershowitz The public spat and litigation threat, which Dershowitz appeared to walk back in a text message, telling the Globe he'll be 'satisfied' if the market hosting the stand requires vendors to sell to everyone, is nothing new for the May it please the court, here's a look back at some of the various imbroglios. Advertisement Losing Larry Who among the Vineyard's starry roster of summer residents, a list that's long included Dershowitz, could forget Here's how the dispute played out, according to the New York Post's Page Six: 'We can still talk, Larry,' Dershowitz reportedly said to David on the porch after trying to greet the 'Curb Your Enthusiasm' creator and getting an unenthusiastic response. Advertisement Dershowitz and David used to be friends, Dershowitz later told Page Six. 'No. No. We really can't. I saw you. I saw you with your arm around [former Trump Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo! It's disgusting!' David reportedly responded. Dershowitz told David that Pompeo was a former student of his at Harvard: 'I greet all of my former students that way. I can't greet my former students?' 'It's disgusting,' David repeated, according to the paper. 'Your whole enclave — it's disgusting. You're disgusting!' Dershowitz then, according to a Page Six witness, took off his T-shirt to reveal another one underneath it. The front read: 'It's The Constitution, Stupid!' David walked away, and Dershowitz reportedly drove off 'in an old dirty Volvo,' said Page Six. Suing CNN In 2020, Dershowitz Dershowitz was among several lawyers representing Trump, who was acquitted. 'It was a coordinated smear, done deliberately and with malice aforethought,' Dershowitz said when the suit was filed. On Jan. 29, 2020, in response to a question from Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Dershowitz discussed possible motives for a quid pro quo arrangement, such as the one Trump was accused of making with Ukraine, according to legal filings. Dershowitz said a deal made to help get a politician elected would not be grounds for impeachment if the politician believed their election to be in the public interest, as most do. But, he also noted as he began his response to Cruz, 'The only thing that would make a quid pro quo unlawful is if the quo were somehow illegal,' meaning a president could be impeached and removed from office if they broke the law, regardless of motive, according to court documents. Advertisement CNN repeatedly aired a clip of Dershowitz's statement that omitted the opening remark, according to the filing, and several hosts and guests on the network said 'that Professor Dershowitz believes and argued that as long as the President believes his reelection is in the public interest, that he could do anything at all — including illegal acts — and be immune from impeachment,' according to court documents. A Florida judge tossed the suit in 2023, records show, and Dershowitz appealed. The appeal remains pending, according to legal filings. Tension with Toobin Speaking of CNN, Not mincing his words, Toobin accused Dershowitz of 'carrying water' for the president, real estate 'I don't know what's going on with you,' said an exasperated Toobin, who later faced troubles of his own In response, Dershowitz said he's always opposed special counsel investigations. 'I have been utterly and completely consistent and nonpartisan,' he said. A knock on Netflix In 2021, Dershowitz convicted sex offender who hobnobbed with the rich and powerful before his 2019 death in custody while awaiting federal trial for allegedly trafficking underage girls. Epstein's death was ruled a suicide. Advertisement The defamation suit, filed in Miami, said Netflix intentionally misled Dershowitz regarding his appearance in the series and defamed him by falsely asserting he had sex with one of Epstein's many victims. Netflix countersued, and all claims were dismissed 'with prejudice' in March 2022, meaning neither side can refile, records show. Going after the Garden In 2015, Dershowitz 'The bathroom at this time — and plaintiff believes for at least 60 minutes before his entry into the restroom — had no paper towels to allow male patrons to dry their hands post washing of them,' said his civil complaint, filed in Suffolk Superior Court. 'This dangerous condition allowed water from the recently washed hands of each of the myriad bathroom users to drip or be 'shaken' onto the floor, negligently creating a hazardous situation for all users.' Dershowitz told the Globe at the time that he didn't want to sue the Garden, but with no agreement in place and a three-year statute of limitations looming, he felt he had no choice. The suit said he 'violently slipped, causing him to fall upward and then hard upon the tile floor and severely twisting his right knee and leg, landing on his back.' The parties filed a joint dismissal notice in 2017, shortly after indicating in court papers that they were 'in the process of finalizing settlement and exchanging proceeds,' records show. Advertisement Material from the Associated Press and from prior Globe stories was used in this report. Read more: Dumpling makers are delighting over 🧩 7 Across: 94° POINTS OF INTEREST Union do's: Coming off a string of electoral and bargaining victories, the state's largest teachers union could get involved in Academic ties: Harvard President Alan Garber's former student is head of the NIH and now Deep cuts: The Trump administration's Medicaid cuts have dealt a damaging blow to federally qualified health centers, including Solar eclipse: A $7 billion program to get solar to low- and moderate-income people has been canceled by the Trump administration. Life sciences bust: The amount of lab space in Greater Boston has doubled in the past five years, and now vacancy rates are at record highs. Beef is the new eggs: Beef prices are soaring in the US, with the average price of a pound of ground beef hitting $6.12 in June, a nearly 12 percent increase over last year. ( Chikungunya virus: Outbreaks have prompted the CDC to issue travel alerts warning US travelers of an 'elevated risk' of exposure to the mosquito-borne illness in China and several other countries. ( Advertisement Possible motive: The man suspected of opening fire on CDC buildings in Atlanta had blamed the COVID-19 vaccine for making him sick and depressed, authorities said. ( Newsom responds: California Governor Gavin Newsom said President Trump's demand that UCLA pay a $1 billion fee to get its federal funding restored amounted to 'political extortion.' ( Land 'swap': The deal that may result from the meeting between President Trump and Russian President Vladymir Putin in Alaska could eviscerate Ukraine. ( BESIDE THE POINT By Teresa Hanafin 🗓️ Free summer events: Jamaica Plain PorchFest, jazz and free dinner in South Boston, an African Festival on the Common, and more 📺 This week's TV: John Slattery in 'The Rainmaker,' a Kansas City Chiefs docuseries, 'Alien: Earth,' and 🐚 Sand fleas: Last week, Beth Teitel lamented ✏️ No bell: The last one-room schoolhouse in Massachusetts is on Cuttyhunk Island. Even though it sits empty most of the year, 🎵 Sound of summer: There's no particular song of summer this year. But there is a sound, if you use TikTok: ' Thanks for reading Starting Point. This newsletter was edited by ❓ Have a question for the team? Email us at ✍🏼 If someone sent you this newsletter, you can 📬 Delivered Monday through Friday. Travis Andersen can be reached at
Indian Express
27-06-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
RSS leader Dattatreya Hosabale questions ‘socialist', ‘secular' in Preamble: Why the words were inserted in 1976
Commemorating 50 years of the imposition of the Emergency at an event, RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale on Thursday (June 26) said a discussion was merited on the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Constitution. Hosabale said, 'The words socialist and secular were added to the Preamble [during the Emergency]. No attempt was made to remove them later. So, there should be a discussion on whether they should remain. I say this in a building (Ambedkar International Centre) named after Babasaheb Ambedkar, whose Constitution did not have these words in the Preamble.' Multiple legal challenges have been filed over the years against the inclusion of the words. Just last year, the Supreme Court upheld them in a verdict. Here is why. Essentially, the preamble includes the core philosophy of the Constitution and serves as an introduction to it. The Preamble of the Constitution that commenced in 1950 read: 'WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.' The description of India as a 'secular' country in particular, has been debated intensely over the past four decades; with critics, mostly on the Right, claiming that these 'imposed' terms sanction 'pseudo-secularism', 'vote-bank politics' and 'minority appeasement'. The words were added by The Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, during the Emergency imposed by then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Imposing the Emergency under Article 352 allowed her government to curb civil liberties and centralise power. Let's look at the word 'socialist' first. Over her years in government, Gandhi had attempted to cement her approval among the masses on the basis of a socialist and pro-poor image with slogans such as 'garibi hatao' (Eradicate poverty). Her Emergency government inserted the word in the Preamble to underline that socialism was a goal and philosophy of the Indian state. It needs to be stressed, however, that the socialism envisaged by the Indian state was not the socialism of the USSR or China of the time — it did not envisage the nationalisation of all of India's means of production. Gandhi herself clarified that 'we have our own brand of socialism', under which 'we will nationalise [only] the sectors where we feel the necessity'. She underlined that 'just nationalisation is not our type of socialism'. The people of India profess numerous faiths, and their unity and fraternity, notwithstanding the differences in religious beliefs, were sought to be achieved by enshrining the ideal of 'secularism' in the Preamble. In essence, this means that the state protects all religions equally, maintains neutrality and impartiality towards all religions, and does not uphold any one religion as a 'state religion'. A secular Indian state was founded on the idea that it is concerned with the relationship between humans, and not between human beings and God, which is a matter of individual choice and individual conscience. Secularism in the Indian Constitution, therefore, is not a question of religious sentiment, but a question of law. The secular nature of the Indian state is secured by Articles 25-28, part of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Yes, in essence, it was always a part of the philosophy of the Constitution. The founders of the Indian Republic adopted Articles 25, 26, and 27 with the explicit intention of furthering and promoting the philosophy of secularism in the Constitution. The 42nd Amendment only formally inserted the word into the Constitution and made explicit what was already implicit. In fact, the Constituent Assembly specifically discussed the inclusion of these words in the Preamble, and decided not to do so. After members such as K T Shah and Brajeshwar Prasad raised the demand to add these words to the preamble, Dr B R Ambedkar put forward the following argument: 'What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself because that is destroying democracy altogether.' What was the Supreme Court case? In July 2020, a Supreme Court advocate by the name of Dr. Balram Singh filed a petition challenging the inclusion of the words 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Constitution. Later, former Law Minister Subramaniam Swamy and advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay also filed petitions with similar challenges. The court rejected these arguments in a short, seven-page order in November 2024, with Justices Sanjiv Khanna and P V Sanjay Kumar noting that 'the flaws and weaknesses in the arguments are obvious and manifest.' When the Constitution was being drafted, the court noted that the meaning of the word secular was 'considered imprecise' as some scholars (particularly in the West) had interpreted secularism as being opposed to religion. With time though, the court held that 'India has developed its own interpretation of secularism, wherein the State neither supports any religion nor penalises the profession and practice of any faith'. The ideals espoused in the Preamble — fraternity, equality, individual dignity and liberty among others — 'reflect this secular ethos', the court held. Similarly, the court held that the word socialism has also evolved to have a unique meaning in India. It held that socialism refers to '(the) principle of economic and social justice, wherein the State ensures that no citizen is disadvantaged due to economic or social circumstances' and does not necessitate restrictions on the private sector which has 'flourished, expanded, and grown over the years, contributing significantly to the upliftment of marginalized and underprivileged sections in different ways'. Finally, it held that there was no justification for challenging the 42nd amendment nearly 44 years after its enactment. This explainer draws upon previous explainers published in 2024 and 2022.
Hindustan Times
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
‘When country faces crises, Constitution keeps us united,' says CJI Gavai, cites BR Ambedkar's reply
Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai said on Saturday during an event that The Constitution had ensured that whenever India faced a crisis, the country remained united and strong. CJI Gavai was addressing a function after the inauguration of advocate chambers and multi-level parking at the Allahabad high court. Also Read: Govt notifies appointment of 3 SC judges day after president Murmu's approval 'When the Constitution was being made and its final draft was presented before the Constituent Assembly, at that time some people used to say that the Constitution is too federal while some used to say that it is too unitary,' PTI news agency quoted CJI Gavai as saying. "Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar had replied that the Constitution is neither wholly federal nor wholly unitary. But one thing I can tell you is that we have given a Constitution which will keep India united and strong both in times of peace and war," CJI Gavai added. Also Read: 'Aamchi' vs 'Tyanchi' Mumbai: CJI Gavai explains gap between the two in Supreme Court He stated that India has been on the path of development after independence due to the Constitution, and compared India to neighbouring countries and their experience of development. Also Read: CJI Gavai displeased over protocol lapse "Today we see what is the condition of our neighbouring countries. And India is making a journey towards development after independence. Whenever there has been a crisis in the country, it has remained united and strong. The credit for this should be given to the Constitution," he said. CJI Gavai, during the gathering, also emphasised that it was the fundamental duty of the government to reached out every last citizen in the country. "It is our fundamental duty to reach out to the last citizen of this country who needs justice. Be it the legislature, the executive or the judiciary everyone has to reach out to that citizen," the CJI said. He also stated, 'I have always been saying that the bar and the bench are two sides of the same coin. Unless the bar and the bench work together, the chariot of justice cannot move forward.' The Chief Justice of India praised the Allahabad high court for being a role model for the country, citing the incident where the judges vacated 12 bungalows for the construction of a complex for lawyers.
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Broome County Democrats' rally against Trump
BINGHAMTON, NY (WIVT/WBGH) – Local Democrats held a rally, calling out the Trump administration and reaffirming their commitment to the Constitution. The Democratic Caucus of the Broome County Legislature rallied outside of the domed courthouse in Binghamton this afternoon. The Democrats says what they're seeing on the federal level isn't about political party or beliefs, but about empathy and morals. Minority Leader Kim Myers says they want to call attention to four sectors of society, specifically, the judiciary branch, education, workforce, and faith communities. 'As elected representatives, we have sworn an oath to defend The Constitution as all elected officials have. Not just in words, but in actions. We will not stand silently as we witness the threats to the very foundation and principals of liberty, justice and human dignity,' says Myers. Progressives have called for a National Day of Action today, and there were other protests around the area, one by 50501 Binghamton at 4 p.m. leading into an Indivisible Binghamton Rally at the Martin Luther King Junior Promenade at 5 p.m. The Broome County GOP released a statement in response to the protests saying quote, 'Local Democrats and their out-of-touch allies should put down the sloppy handmade signs and work honestly with local Republicans to make life better for the people who live here.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
29-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Not your money: 'Powerless' Trump watches as his attempted 'spending freeze' gets frozen!
Like all U.S. Presidents, Donald Trump does not have independent spending power, which The Constitution vests in Congress. President Trump may be reminded of that precedent as he attempts to freeze on all federal grants, with a judge already pausing that for further review next week. MSNBC's Ari Melber reports. (The Beat's YouTube playlist: Ari: / arimelber Beat merch:
