Latest news with #constitutional
National Post
2 days ago
- General
- National Post
Raymond J. de Souza: King Charles' throne speech was a constitutional triumph
The speech from the throne was a spectacular constitutional triumph, which approaches the oxymoronic, in that constitutional matters in the Westminster tradition are designed not to be spectacular. The sovereign imposes upon himself the custom of reading the speech impassively, the flat tone indicating neither approval nor disapproval of the government's program. There is the prohibition, indicated in the instructions to all present in the chamber, to 'refrain from expressions of support or dissent.' Article content Article content Article content King Charles III began by noting that 'every time I come to Canada … a little more of Canada seeps into my bloodstream — and from there straight to my heart.' The desire to applaud was palpable in all present. But restraint was the order of the day, and order is part of our non-revolutionary constitutional history, along with peace and good government. Article content Article content Standing ovations, which plague question period with Americanesque barking and barracking, cheapen the coin of the realm. To be applauded in the Commons matters not at all. It is the norm of restraint which renders exceptional moments momentous. Article content Thus when restraint could restrain no longer, and sustained applause broke out, that singularity signalled that a great wave of patriotic passion had surged through all present — and across the vast dominion. It was a moment of high historic import, and of deep emotion. The King, properly, was unmoved, but permitted himself a pleased pause. Even the Queen joined in the applause. Not a few had tears in their eyes as they heard the King of Canada declare: 'The True North is indeed strong and free!' Article content Article content It was a moment both sober and stunning at the same time. Should King Charles III reign many years, it will remain the supreme discharge of his Canadian constitutional duty, that in a moment of distress, he came and, without melodrama, but dramatically enough, said simply that. Article content Article content That is constitutional spectacle. It has many parts. Article content The Senate's Usher of the Black Rod — in whose name invitations to the speech from the throne were issued — is not part of the constitution, but he is. Without his charge from the King to summon the Commons, and without him driving up Wellington Street to do so, Parliament does not begin. It took some time to attend to all that, and thus the King and Queen did an unusual walkabout in the Senate chamber to pass the time; Westminster conventions are meant to be adaptable things.
Fox News
5 days ago
- General
- Fox News
Conservative legal experts slam latest Mahmoud Khalil ruling
A federal district judge on Wednesday said that the Trump administration's effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil may be unconstitutional, but some conservative legal experts are not buying it. Khalil is a pro-Palestine, anti-Israel activist who led protests at Columbia University. An immigration judge recently said he could be deported, but U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz for the District of New Jersey said that the order is likely to be dismissed as "unconstitutionally vague." Still, Khalil will remain in custody. "The district court held what we already knew: Secretary [of State Marco] Rubio's weaponization of immigration law to punish Mahmoud and others like him is likely unconstitutional," lawyers for Khalil said after the judge's ruling. However, various conservative legal experts disagree with the judge. "A judge just handed Hamas a win on American soil. Mahmoud Khalil lied his way into our country, concealed ties to a foreign regime, and then led a pro-Hamas takeover at Columbia University. Now, a judicial activist wants to block his deportation? That's not justice — it's national suicide. President Trump has both the constitutional authority and the moral obligation to remove threats like Khalil," Republican attorney Mehek Cooke told Fox News Digital in a statement. "The Supreme Court has made this power crystal clear. In Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), the Court upheld the executive's broad discretion in immigration matters. That authority was reaffirmed in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), where the Court ruled that the President has sweeping power to exclude noncitizens deemed detrimental to U.S. interests," she continued. "By declaring the Immigration and Nationality Act 'unconstitutionally vague,' Judge Farbiarz isn't interpreting the law — he's rewriting it. That violates the separation of powers and dangerously ties the hands of our Commander in Chief. Citizenship is a privilege — not a sanctuary for liars and Hamas sympathizers. I am confident this will be overturned on appeal," Cooke added. Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said it is a "ridiculous, meritless claim by a rogue federal judge," and said that even though Kahlil is a legal resident of the U.S., he can still face consequences. "Aliens have no constitutional right to be in the U.S. Moreover, under federal immigration law, 8 U.S.C. 1227, aliens like Khalil, including permanent resident aliens, can be removed if the alien 'endorses or espouses terrorist activity' or support 'a terrorist organization.' Khalil's blatant support for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, makes him immediately deportable. This is another biased, partisan judge refusing to abide by federal immigration law and interfering in the president's constitutional and statutory authority," he told Fox News Digital in a statement. The White House also condemned the ruling, continuing its frequent clashes with federal judges over immigration policy. "Mahmoud Khalil was given the privilege of coming to America to study, but he squandered that opportunity by siding with Hamas terrorists and organizing protests that disrupted college classes and harassed Jewish-American students. Secretary of State Rubio has the right to revoke green cards or visas for any individuals who are adversarial to United States foreign policy and national security interests," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said in a statement.
CBC
5 days ago
- Business
- CBC
Carney welcomes U.S. court decision blocking some Trump tariffs
Prime Minister Mark Carney says a U.S. court decision that struck down some of Donald Trump's tariffs shows that they were 'unlawful as well as unjustified.' A three-judge panel ruled the president overstepped his constitutional authority by using emergency powers to impose sweeping levies on global goods.
The Independent
5 days ago
- General
- The Independent
Trump officials' move to deport Columbia activist Mahmoud Khalil likely unconstitutional: judge
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration's efforts to deport Columbia University pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, in part to protect U.S. foreign policy, is likely unconstitutional. New Jersey U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz said that Khalil, who had a legally obtained green card to permanently reside in the U.S., was "likely to succeed" in his claim that the administration's determination that he is a threat to U.S. foreign policy is " unconstitutionally vague." But Farbiarz stopped short of releasing Kalil from detention in Louisiana,. The judge said the Trump administration's use of the little-known provision in immigration law to deport Kalil would be 'unprecedented.' The Department of Homeland Security cited the provision in its action against Khalil that grants the secretary of state the authority to deport someone if it's determined that the person 'would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.' The foreign policy law was 'unconstitutional as applied' to Khalil, who 'acted solely within the United States,' Farbiarz wrote in his 101-page ruling. The judge also noted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio failed to 'affirmatively determine' that Khalil's actions had in any way affected U.S. relations with another country. Farbiarz, however, also noted that Khalil must provide proof regarding other issues raised by the Trump administration, including that he failed to provide information about memberships in certain organizations when he applied for his green card. Farbiarz said he would soon issue another order detailing the next steps in the case.. Khalil's legal team praised the ruling. 'The district court held what we already knew: Secretary Rubio's weaponization of immigration law to punish Mahmoud and others like him is likely unconstitutional,' they said in a statement. They called Khalil's continued detention an 'affront to justice' and vowed to continue fighting for his freedom.
Wall Street Journal
6 days ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Big Law Firms 3, Trump 0
President Trump dismisses court rulings against him as judicial overreach, and sometimes he's right. But what does it say when multiple judges across the political spectrum rule against him on similar sweeping grounds? That's happening to his punitive executive orders against liberal law firms, and he's batting zero for three. The latest forceful rebuke came Tuesday from federal Judge Richard Leon, a conservative nominated by George W. Bush. His 73-page opinion is a scorcher concluding that Mr. Trump's EO against the WilmerHale law firm 'must be struck down in its entirety as unconstitutional. Indeed, to rule otherwise would be unfaithful to the judgment and vision of the Founding Fathers!'
