Latest news with #amendments
Yahoo
4 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Second Amendment groups file for summary judgment in bid to overturn Florida's open carry ban
Gun-rights groups are pursuing several strategies to win the right to openly carry firearms in Florida. (Photo by Matt Rourke/The Associated Press) A Palm Beach gun owner and two Second Amendment groups have filed a motion for summary judgement in their federal court challenge to Florida's law banning individuals from openly carrying firearms, claiming the law is unconstitutional. Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation, and gun owner Richard Hughes originally filed their lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida last August, alleging that the law banning open carry violates the Second and Fourteenth amendments of the U.S. Constitution and places them, their members, and their supporters at risk of being arrested and prosecuted should they openly carry firearms in public. St. Lucie County Sheriff Richard Del Toro is the lone defendant in the case. In their lawsuit, Hughes and the two gun rights organizations list him because the St. Lucie County Sheriff's Office warned the public after the state legalized what is known as 'permitless carry' in 2023 that '[t]he law is not open carry; open carry is still illegal under most circumstances.' In 2017, the Florida Supreme Court upheld state restrictions on openly carrying a firearm, ruling in Norman v. State that the law did not violate citizens' Second Amendment rights in a case brought by Dale Lee Norman, a St. Lucie County resident who faced a second-degree misdemeanor charge after he walked down a road with handgun holstered to his hip, according to the Courthouse News Service. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX The federal lawsuit says that state Supreme Court ruling failed on a couple of fronts: for 'not once consulting contemporaneous authorities to discern the meaning of the Second Amendment's text' and for failure to conduct an historical analysis of the 'nation's early tradition as to open carry — or any tradition, for that matter.' 'This case is personal for me and millions of gun owners across the state,' said Luis Valdes, Florida state director for Gun Owners of America. 'Florida likes to brand itself as pro-Second Amendment, but this ban proves otherwise. We are fighting to restore a right that never should've been taken away — and we won't stop until every Floridian can carry openly, freely, and constitutionally.' 'Florida's open carry ban is an outdated and unconstitutional relic,' Sam Parades said in a statement on behalf of the board of directors for Gun Owners Foundation. 'The right to bear arms means exactly that — to carry arms, not just to keep them locked away.' Florida remains one of only five states in the nation that bans the open carrying of a firearm, the others being Illinois, Connecticut, New York, and California — a list of blue states that Florida does not usually share an alliance with. Gov. Ron DeSantis has said on several occasions that he supports open carry, and First Lady Casey DeSantis weighed in as well earlier this year, writing on X that, 'It's time for the Free State of Florida to join other states in enacting open carry! Sounds like a great priority for our GOP supermajority. This is the year.' But it wasn't the year for open carry in Florida's GOP-dominated state Legislature. Senate President Ben Albritton stated his opposition to overturning the ban in his first day as leader while meeting with reporters last November. A trial date has been set for November 3, 2025. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Advocates explain rights regarding ICE agents
Advocates and educators gathered virtually Tuesday evening to share critical guidance with Hawaii families and public school staff on how to respond if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents show up at school. The event, organized by the ACLU of Hawaii, Hawaii State Teachers Association and Hawaii Coalition for Immigrant Rights, aimed to arm the community with practical knowledge in the wake of two recent immigration enforcement incidents that sparked fear and confusion. On Maui a group of international public school teachers from the Philippines, working under the U.S. Department of State's J-1 Visa Exchange Visitor Program, was traumatized when armed ICE agents executed a search warrant at a Kahului home earlier this month. Although no arrests were made, about a dozen agents arrived in the early morning with guns drawn, bringing teachers outside—some still partially dressed. The raid targeted a Mexican national who hadn't lived there for over a year, but the disruption deeply unsettled the teachers. A U.S. citizen teacher present during the raid, speaking anonymously through HSTA, described a chaotic scene with spouses and young children, including a crying 10-year-old. While the J-1 program allows these educators to legally work in the U.S. as part of a cultural exchange, the incident left many fearful and uncertain about their place in Hawaii's schools. Nathan Lee from the ACLU of Hawaii highlighted that in most cases ICE does not have jurisdiction in schools. He encouraged educators and families to stay calm and advised that if ICE does come to a school, people should be aware of their rights and avoid consenting to searches or answering questions without a lawyer present. Lee walked attendees through steps educators should take if they suspect immigration agents are present on or near campus. First, he said, do not engage directly with agents or try to assess the situation alone. School staff should immediately alert the principal or a designated administrator trained to handle the situation. Agents must be directed to that person—never handled informally. Lee emphasized that ICE must present a judicial warrant, not just an administrative warrant, in order to access school grounds or student records. Teachers and administrators are not required to release any information about a student, including immigration status, address or anything from their file, unless legally compelled by a judicial order. Lee also emphasized that fundamental constitutional protections apply to everyone regardless of immigration status. He noted that people in the United States have rights guaranteed by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth amendments. Key rights discussed include the Fifth Amendment, which grants the right to remain silent—people can clearly state that they choose not to answer questions when approached by ICE agents. The Fourth Amendment protects against unlawful searches and arrests, generally requiring enforcement agents to have either consent or a judicial warrant signed by a judge specifying a particular name or address to enter private property. Additionally, due process rights ensure people are entitled to a hearing before deportation, except in certain limited expedited-removal cases. 'If you do not consent, the only way ICE can legally access a private location is through a judicial warrant, and a judicial warrant is very specific, ' Lee said. 'It requires the signature of a judge, a specific name of a person or a specific address where the search is to be conducted, and it needs the word 'warrant.' What we're seeing is, sometimes ICE enforcement officers will try to use an administrative warrant or a deportation order, which is not a judicial warrant and which does not allow access to private locations legally.' Liza Ryan Gill of HCIR stressed the importance of documentation during any enforcement activity. She urged witnesses and educators to record 'the exact date and time, the child and the location, whether it happened in a classroom or administrative (office ) or outside in the parking lot.' Gill also reminded educators to be aware of privacy laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and to avoid disclosing student information to strangers or unknown agents on campus. Parents facing potential enforcement action were advised to have clear contingency plans in place, including updated emergency contacts and possibly signing a power of attorney for trusted adults to care for their children in case of detention or deportation. HSTA has been advocating for clearer protocols to protect school staff and students. HSTA President Osa Tui Jr. shared key requests made to the state Department of Education : mandatory training for school administrators on immigration enforcement policies, explicit nonretaliation protections for staff who refuse to cooperate with ICE, and standardized communication guidance to safeguard student privacy. U.S. Rep. Jill Tokuda, who attended the event, said she has been contacted by frightened parents, students and community members about their futures in Hawaii. 'We're all one degree of separation from knowing somebody who is right now living in fear, worried that they could be picked up off the streets or they could be deported, even if they have no grounds to, ' Tokuda said. '(There are ) too many looking over their shoulder and fearing for their lives right now.' Tuesday's gathering is the first in a series of public education events planned for the summer. The ACLU and its partners will offer 'Know Your Rights ' workshops across the state. Training materials are available in multiple languages, and teachers are encouraged to request resources through their union or directly through the ACLU.
Gulf Today
16-04-2025
- Gulf Today
Dubai court jails two for possessing and abusing drugs
Dubai Appellate Court upheld the court of First Instance's verdict sentencing an Asian national to life jail and another to six months, followed by deportation for both after serving their sentences. The suspects were charged with possession and trafficking in narcotics and were caught in the act inside a vehicle in Jebel Ali. The case dates back to 2024 when credible information was received about the second suspect possessing and abusing narcotics in Jebel Ali Industrial Area. A police man testified that investigations affirmed the second suspect was a drug abuser and in possession of narcotics. A warrant was allegedly issued by Dubai Public Prosecution for his arrest. A Criminal Investigation team located the second suspect, who was apprehended inside a vehicle driven by the first. Upon searching them, narcotics were found, and a plastic bag containing the same substance was found with the first suspect so, they were taken to the General Directorate of Anti-Narcotics, where samples were collected and the seized substances were sent to the Criminal Laboratory for analysis. The General Directorate of Forensic Evidence and Criminology report affirmed that the seized substances contained heroin, listed in Schedule 1 of the Federal Decree-Law on Combating Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and its amendments. The second suspect's sample tested positive for heroin use, which he admitted to, confessing that he had purchased the drugs from the first suspect for Dhs100. The first suspect denied drug trafficking charges, but evidence proved he was a drug trafficker who sold narcotics to the second.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
A third term for the presidency? It's more complex than one might think.
Donald Trump speaks to voters during a visit to a caucus site at the Horizon Event Center on Jan. 15, 2024, in Clive, Iowa. (Photo by) President Donald Trump is 'not joking' about a third term. Since this shocking and constitutionally tenuous admission, pundits and journalists from both sides of the political aisle have been abuzz with commentary. The short answer as to whether Trump can be elected for a third term is no. The 22nd Amendment expressly forbids a two-term president from being elected to a third term. So there. Discussion over. Challenge to long-held constitutional beliefs averted. No need to discuss this issue further. However, this issue is not that simple. In fact, it is rather complex. Language matters when it comes to the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment's use of the term 'elected' precludes Trump from being elected for a third term, but it does not create ineligibility for unelected paths to the presidency. Looking at you Gerald Ford. As Trump provocatively stated 'there are methods' to achieve such an outcome. In the classroom, New Hampshire civics teachers should take this opportunity to discuss the interactions and limitations of the 12th, 22nd, and 25th amendments. While currently untested, these constitutional ramifications should be explored by the young minds about to take hold of the reins of America's republic. Constitutional theories about how a two-term president could return for a third term have been postulated before. This was evident in 2008 when Bill Clinton was a potential addition to a Clinton-Clinton Democratic Party ticket. Such a return to the Oval Office for any two-term president is predicated on an issue found within the interplay of the 12th and 22nd amendments. Following the four elected terms of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Congress moved to ratify the 22nd Amendment, setting the current constitutional limit at two presidential terms. The amendment states '[n]o person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice…' This language clearly forbids a president being elected to a third term via the Electoral College system. What is not clear in this language is any limit placed on the election of a vice president. The omission of election-based language for the vice president creates a constitutional scenario where a twice-elected president is eligible to seek out a term as vice president. Once in office, all that would need to happen is a presidential resignation and the vice president would assume the higher office, unelected for a third term. All along not running afoul of the 22nd Amendment. If Trump pursues this theory and it prevails in the federal court system, it could set a precedent allowing Democrats to do the same in the future with their preferred candidate or potentially enable Barack Obama, George Bush, or Bill Clinton to seek a third term. After Congress tied 35 times while trying to elect the winner of the election of 1800, it surmised a solution to avoid confusion surrounding separate electoral ballots for president and vice president. The result of which was the 12th Amendment. Putting aside a nuanced discussion about the changes made to the presidential ballot system, the most germane part of the 12th Amendment is its last sentence, '… no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.' Clear as day, if an individual is ineligible for the presidency, he or she cannot become the vice president. However, it is not that clear for a few reasons. The first reason being that the 12th Amendment was written 150 years prior to the 22nd Amendment and term limits did not exist for the president. Although they were discussed at the Constitutional Convention and within Federalist 72 by none other than Alexander Hamilton, a man who was chastised as a monarchist in his day. The ineligibilities mentioned in the 12th Amendment pertain to the original qualifications of the presidency; age, citizenship, and residency. The original intent and text of the 12th Amendment does not include any prohibition against a president seeking a third term. Even if the word election appeared in this amendment, the omission of election-specific language in the 22nd Amendment for the vice president would create substantial vagueness and constitutional uncertainty. There are other theorized paths and constitutional loopholes Trump could exploit to sit behind the Resolute desk for a third term. Using the language of the 25th Amendment, The Presidential Succession Act, and a few strategically placed political allies, a member of the executive Cabinet could ascend to the presidency. A feat of adept and complex political maneuvering, but given the way Trump has D.C. on its heels, not an impossible outcome. Trump could also strong-arm a partisan Congress and state governments into passing a 28th Amendment to overturn the 22nd, allowing him to be elected to a third term. This process is highly unlikely to yield beneficial results, as it requires significant supermajorities from Congress and state governments. Trump could also just run again, without any changes to the Constitution and make the claim that he is running to represent the mandate of the people. A term he and his allies have grown fond of using during his second term. Understanding the nuances of the Constitution's amendments is vital for an informed electorate. The potential loopholes in the 12th, 22nd, and 25th amendments highlight the complexities that challenge long-held political and democratic beliefs. By discussing these issues in New Hampshire civics classes, students will gain the critical thinking skills necessary to navigate, amend, and safeguard America's constitutional republic. Educating young minds about these intricacies ensures they are prepared to engage in meaningful civic discourse and approach constitutional issues head on.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pennsylvania mail-in ballots don't need accurate envelope dates, federal judge rules
Election boards in Pennsylvania's 67 counties may not invalidate mail-in ballots simply because they lack accurate, handwritten dates on their exterior return envelopes, a federal judge ruled Monday. The decision by U.S. District Judge Susan Paradise Baxter, the latest in a long-running legal dispute over what is a small percentage of votes cast in the state, was issued more than two months after the state Supreme Court announced it also would consider the issue. Baxter wrote that most counties did not try to argue that the exterior dates, which are not used to show whether a ballot was received in time, serve an important state interest in regulating elections. The Republican National Committee and one county, Berks, did argue the dates help combat voting fraud, Baxter wrote. 'Absent from the record, however, is any evidence demonstrating how this requirement furthers that purported interest,' the judge wrote. The exterior envelope dating mandate violates the U.S. Constitution, she ruled, by impairing the right to vote under the First and Fourteenth amendments. Jeff Bukowski, Berks County's lawyer, said he will discuss a potential appeal with the county commissioners. Phone messages were left Monday with lawyers for the state and national Republican Party groups that intervened in the case and lost the ruling. The voter and groups that sued, including Democratic campaign organizations and a teachers' union, called the exterior envelope dates 'nothing more than a 'compliance test'' to show how state voters ''can follow written instructions,'' Baxter said. She ruled there is no state interest in requiring the signatures and noted that more than 10,000 votes statewide were invalidated as a result of the dating mandate in the 2022 election. 'Such disenfranchisement burdens the right to vote and there is no valid state interest to weigh this against,' Baxter wrote. A decision by Baxter throwing out the envelope date mandate in a separate case was eventually reversed by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but it was decided on a different issue. Lower courts have repeatedly deemed it unconstitutional or illegal to throw out such ballots. But higher courts — including the state Supreme Court most recently on Nov. 1 — have blocked those decisions from taking effect. New envelope designs have helped reduce the number of invalidated votes. Download the FREE WPXI News app for breaking news alerts. Follow Channel 11 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch WPXI NOW
