Podcasts about amendments

Share on
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Reddit
Copy link to clipboard
  • 646PODCASTS
  • 961EPISODES
  • 37mAVG DURATION
  • 5WEEKLY NEW EPISODES
  • Jan 12, 2022LATEST

POPULARITY

20122013201420152016201720182019202020212022


Best podcasts about amendments

Show all podcasts related to amendments

Latest podcast episodes about amendments

The Brion McClanahan Show
Ep. 563: The 14th Amendment Continues to Screw Up America

The Brion McClanahan Show

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 12, 2022 28:02


The 14th Amendment is one of the most destructive legal mechanisms in American history, not how it was originally interpreted, but because the federal court system has used it as a "legislative" hammer to destroy the original Constitution. It is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster. But you still have people on both sides of the political spectrum arguing it is one of the best Amendments in the Constitution. Yes, if you like unchecked federal power. https://mcclanahanacademy.com https://brionmcclanahan.com/support http://learntruehistory.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/brion-mcclanahan/support

StridentConservative
Law professor says we need a 'redo' of First and Second Amendments - 010522

StridentConservative

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 5, 2022 1:59


A University of Miami School of Law professor has penned a proposal for a "redo" of the First and Second Amendments in order to eliminate free speech, the free press, and the right to bear arms.

Retirement Tax Services Podcast
Ep 67: Preventing Tax Return Amendments With Dominique Henderson

Retirement Tax Services Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 3, 2022 32:19


Steven's guest this week is Dominique Henderson, the founder of DJH Capital Management and  The Jumpstart Coaching Lab. A lot of his time spent mentoring other advisors leads him to encourage them to get involved with tax planning. Join in as Steven and Dominique share their insights and experiences on working with other tax professionals

Strict Scrutiny
The People's Constitution

Strict Scrutiny

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 27, 2021 43:00


Leah is joined by Wilfred Codrington III to discuss his co-authored book The People's Constitution: 200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union.

Supreme Court Opinions
Amendments to the United States Constitution

Supreme Court Opinions

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 27, 2021 9:11


Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states for ratification since the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. Twenty-seven of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution. The first 10 amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these amendments are still pending, 1 is closed and has failed by its own terms, and 1 is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it. All 33 amendments are listed and detailed in the tables below. Article Five of the United States Constitution details the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. Amendments must be properly proposed and ratified before becoming operative. This process was designed to strike a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility. An amendment may be proposed and sent to the states for ratification by either: The U.S. Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary; or, A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (34 since 1959). The convention option has never been used. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 since 1959) by either (as determined by Congress): The legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or, State ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. The only amendment to be ratified through the state convention method thus far is the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933. That amendment is also the only one that explicitly repeals an earlier one, the Eighteenth Amendment (ratified in 1919), establishing the prohibition of alcohol. When a constitutional amendment is sent to the states for ratification, the Archivist of the United States is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. § 106b. Then, upon being properly ratified, the archivist issues a certificate proclaiming that an amendment has become an operative part of the Constitution. Beginning in the early 20th century, Congress has usually, but not always, stipulated that an amendment must be ratified by the required number of states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states in order to become part of the Constitution. Congress's authority to set a ratification deadline was affirmed in 1939 by the United States Supreme Court in Coleman v Miller (307 U.S. 433). --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

NEW EVOLUTION RADIO NETWORK
The Bottom Line-the 5th and 6th amendments

NEW EVOLUTION RADIO NETWORK

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 27, 2021 133:00


today we discuss the 5th and 6th amendments

Regenerative Skills
Nigel Palmer’s guide to DIY garden amendments

Regenerative Skills

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 24, 2021 35:15


Let's start 2022 off as the YEAR OF REGENERATION! Join the community call with me, Koen from "Investing in Regenerative Agriculture," and Dimitri from "The Regenerative Agroforestry podcast" at 7pm CET on January 10th. Sign up through this link. Don't hesitate, places are limited to 100. The topic of fertilizers and inputs for farming is a contentious one. Most chemical options either use mined minerals or petroleum products through destructive industrial processes that may improve yields, but commonly pollute waterways, destroy soil life, and are extremely expensive. But what's the alternative? If you have degraded or poor soil where little will grow, you have to improve it somehow right? Wouldn't it be amazing if you could make your own fertilizers and soil amendments that didn't contaminate the ground but rather enhanced biological activity? Luckily Nigel Palmer, lifelong gardener and the author of The Regenerative Grower's Guide to Garden Amendments has been researching and developing just these types of solutions for decades. Not only has he been able to dramatically improve the health and composition of his soil over time, he's been able to make his amendments easily and cheaply at home by harnessing the power of weeds and household products to create extracts, ferments, and inoculants. The result has been delicious and nutrient dense food that you simply can't buy.  In this interview from an earlier skill exchange call with the farmers in the Climate Farmer network here in Europe, Nigel and I spoke about some of the most important steps and knowledge in creating your own amendments. Nigel first talks about how to assess the health of your plants to know which amendments to consider. From there we look at a few different homemade products, how they work, and when to use them. We explore how plants take up nutrients in different forms and how to intervene when they need it the most, as well as a lot of other useful advice and tactics that any gardener can use to care for their plants regardless of the context they're in or the challenges they face. If you want to hear the full unedited interview from the skill exchange call with the Q&A session at the end as well as access the resource packet which includes amendment recipes from the book, just check out the subscription options on our Patreon page. This is really empowering information because the recipes are very approachable and have the power to help break any addiction to chemical fertilizers as you build towards healthy resilient soil.  Get the resource packet for this episode! Join the discord discussion channel to answer the weekly questions and learn new skills with the whole community Links: https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-regenerative-growers-guide-to-garden-amendments/ https://www.nigel-palmer.com/ Nigel Palmer's YouTube channel

The Gazette Daily News Podcast
Gazette Daily News Briefing, December 22

The Gazette Daily News Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 22, 2021 3:18


This is Stephen Schmidt from the Gazette digital news desk and I'm here with your update for Wednesday, December 22. It'll be another sunny, always-somewhere-near freezing day on Wednesday. According to a forecast from the National Weather Service it will be sunny in the Cedar Rapids area with a high near 34 degrees. On Wednesday night it will be partly cloudy, with a low around 26. The Iowa City Community Police Review Board has concluded that the use of flash bangs and tear gas by police officers during a Black Lives Matter protest last year was justified and did not violate the police department's excessive force policy. The five-member board was divided “even after lengthy deliberations,” according to a https://www.iowa-city.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=2038100&dbid=0&repo=CityofIowaCity (Dec. 13 report from the board). By a 3-2 vote, members decided to “not sustain” the complaint but raised concerns over how police acted when the tear gas was deployed. The board received a formal complaint about the incident on June 4, 2020 — a day after Iowa City police and Iowa State Patrol officers used flash-bangs, tear gas and pepper sprays on protesters to keep the crowd off Interstate 80. Starting on Feb. 9, the board met 11 times to consider various reports on the incident. A suspect is in Iowa City police custody after officers responded just before 10 a.m. Tuesday to reports of shots fired in a home near downtown and found a male suffering from gunshot wounds. Investigators have shared few details about the 9:46 a.m. report of “multiple shots fired” at 402 Fairchild St. — which sits two blocks west of North Market Park in the historic North Side neighborhood and three blocks west of Mann Elementary. Officers responding to the two-story home found the suspected shooter on the second floor, in addition to a male with multiple gunshot wounds, according to an Iowa City police news release. He's been hospitalized and is being treated for his injuries — although police didn't disclose his condition. A handful of Senate Democrats on Tuesday held a news conference to announce they will introduce legislation that would propose an amendment to the Iowa Constitution that would make marijuana legal for recreational use and regulate it like alcohol. Amendments to the Iowa Constitution must be passed in two legislative sessions separated by an election, and then must be approved by a public vote. More than half of Iowans, 54 percent, support legalizing marijuana for recreational use, according to a Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll from March, an increase from 29 percent in 2013. Despite this increased support, it all will likely be a symbolic effort. Brad Zaun, a Republican State Senator from Urbandale who heads the committee that would have to sign off on constitutional effort even moving forward in the first place, told the Gazette that he doesn't intend to let it see the light of day. Looking to find something new to eat? Never miss a bite of the tastiest local food news by signing up for our free text alerts. Text CHEW to (319) 257-2674 for inside scoops from Gazette food writer Elijah Decious. Be sure to subscribe to The Gazette Daily news podcast, or just tell your Amazon Alexa enabled device to “enable The Gazette Daily News skill" so you can get your daily briefing by simply saying “Alexa, what's the news? If you prefer podcasts, you can also find us on iTunes or wherever else you find your Podcasts. Support this podcast

Supreme Court Opinions
Article Five of the United States Constitution: Procedures for amending the Constitution (Part 1 of 2)

Supreme Court Opinions

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 21, 2021 10:52


Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Under Article 5, the process to alter the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments, and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states, a process utilized only once thus far in American history with the 1933 ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment. The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a state's population or length of time in the Union. Article 5 is silent regarding deadlines for the ratification of proposed amendments, but most amendments proposed since 1917 have included a deadline for ratification. Legal scholars generally agree that the amending process of Article 5 can itself be amended by the procedures laid out in Article 5, but there is some disagreement over whether Article 5 is the exclusive means of amending the Constitution. In addition to defining the procedures for altering the Constitution, Article 5 also shields three clauses in Article I from ordinary amendment by attaching stipulations. Regarding two of the clauses—one concerning importation of slaves and the other apportionment of direct taxes—the prohibition on amendment was absolute but of limited duration, expiring in 1808; the third was without an expiration date but less absolute: "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Scholars disagree as to whether this shielded clause can itself be amended by the procedures laid out in Article 5. Text. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

NEW EVOLUTION RADIO NETWORK
The Bottom Line- The 3rd and 4th amendments Military and your Private Home

NEW EVOLUTION RADIO NETWORK

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 20, 2021 145:00


Today we discuss the 3rd and 4th amendments military restrictions and your home as your castle

BFM :: Morning Brief
MA63 Amendments Crucial For Mindset Shift On East Malaysia

BFM :: Morning Brief

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 15, 2021 9:07


The Dewan Rakyat unanimously passed the MA63 Bill this week, approving several amendments to the constitution in recognition of the special status of Sabah and Sarawak. We discuss the implications of these constitutional amendments with political commentator Dr James Chin, ahead of the Sarawak state elections this weekend. Image credit: Shutterstock.com

BFM :: General
MA63 Amendments Crucial For Mindset Shift On East Malaysia

BFM :: General

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 15, 2021 9:07


The Dewan Rakyat unanimously passed the MA63 Bill this week, approving several amendments to the constitution in recognition of the special status of Sabah and Sarawak. We discuss the implications of these constitutional amendments with political commentator Dr James Chin, ahead of the Sarawak state elections this weekend. Image credit: Shutterstock.com

Verfassungsblog: Corona Constitutional
EU v. Polen,Teil 3 - Der große Crackdown

Verfassungsblog: Corona Constitutional

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 14, 2021 40:55


Der Konflikt zwischen der EU und Polen ist bereits viel weiter eskaliert, als man bis vor kurzem für vorstellbar gehalten hätte. Und immer noch ist kein Ende in Sicht. Aus dem innerpolnischen Verfassungskonflikt um Rechtsstaat und unabhängige Justiz ist ein europäischer Verfassungskonflikt um den Vorrang des EU-Rechts geworden. Wie konnte das passieren? Was für Kräfte sind da am Werk? Und wie kommen wir da wieder heraus? Diesen Fragen wollten wir in diesem Podcast-Projekt auf den Grund gehen. Wir haben Interviews mit Jurist_innen, Politikwissenschaftler_innen und Historiker_innen geführt, haben recherchiert, diskutiert und nachgedacht. In den Folgen 1 bis 3 geht es um Entstehung und Verlauf des Konflikts – zuerst auf der innerpolnischen Bühne (1), dann die Reaktion der EU (2) und die Gegenreaktion der polnischen Regierung (3). Dabei wird ein viel älterer Konflikt, der die ganze Integrationsgeschichte der EU durchzieht, in mächtige Resonanzschwingungen versetzt (4). Er präfiguriert die Möglichkeiten, den Konflikt zu lösen (5). Teil 1: Projekt Imposybilizm In Polen kommt 2015 eine neue rechtspopulistische Regierung an die Macht, die von Tag 1 an beginnt, ihren Plan zur Unterwerfung der unabhängigen Justiz in die Tat umzusetzen, und dabei auf die Institutionen und Verfahren der polnischen Verfassung keinerlei Rücksicht nimmt. Wir rekonstruieren, was es mit diesem Plan auf sich hat, wo er herkommt und wie es der PiS-Regierung gelang, ihn umzusetzen – und bis zu welchem Punkt. Teil 2: Hase und Igel Spätestens 2017/18, als die PiS-Regierung ihr Gesetzespaket zur Übernahme der Justiz vorlegt, wird der auf Dialog und Ausgleich bedachten EU-Kommission bewusst, dass sie ein Riesenproblem hat. Während die anderen Mitgliedstaaten keinerlei Interesse zeigen, das Problem auf politischem Weg zu lösen, bringt sich der Europäische Gerichtshof in Luxemburg mit einer Kette von revolutionären Urteilen in eine Position, die gegen die Zerstörung der unabhängigen Justiz in Polen wirksame Hilfe verspricht. Doch die PiS-Regierung reagiert anders als erhofft. 00:00 bis 13:05: Europa wacht auf 13:06 bis 18:24: Portugiesische Richter:innen 18:25 bis 26:00: Irische Richter:innen 26:01 bis 31:41: Polnische Richter:innen 31:42 bis 40:49: Ein europäisches Verfassungsgericht Teil 3: Der große Crackdown 2019 - 2021 lässt die PiS-Regierung ihr eigens zu diesem Zweck errichtetes Disziplinarregime auf die polnischen Richter_innen los, um ihren vom EuGH ermutigten Widerstand zu ersticken. Die wenden sich an den anderen Europäischen Gerichtshof, den für Menschenrechte in Straßburg, der erklärt, dass die von der PiS-Regierung mit ihren Gefolgsleuten infiltrierten Gerichte nicht "auf Gesetz beruhen" und also gar keine Gerichte sind. Die PiS-Regierung wiederum bestellt sich bei dem von ihr kontrollierten "Verfassungsgericht" Urteile, wonach Polen der Rechtsprechung beider Europäischer Gerichtshöfe und dem Recht, auf das sie sich stützen, aus angeblichen verfassungsrechtlichen Gründen keinen Gehorsam schuldet. 00:00 bis 15:00: Das Maulkorb-Gesetz 15:01 bis 31:10: Der EuGH erhöht den Einsatz 31:11 bis 40:43: Wie geht es weiter mit der polnischen Justiz? Teil 4: Der Kampf um den Vorrang Damit ist aus dem polnischen Verfassungskonflikt endgültig ein europäischer Verfassungskonflikt geworden: Es geht um den Vorrang des EU-Rechts und damit um den Grundpfeiler der Verfassung der Europäischen Union. Der ist allerdings weniger unumstritten als viele meinen. Der Kampf zwischen EuGH und nationalen Verfassungsgerichten, an die PiS-Regierung anzuknüpfen behauptet, durchzieht die ganze Geschichte der EU – und das deutsche Bundesverfassungsgericht hat dabei immer wieder eine Schlüsselrolle gespielt. Folgt demnächst! Teil 5: Den Kuchen haben und ihn essen Was also tun? Ist der Versuch, Polen mit rechtlichen Mitteln zum Gehorsam gegenüber dem EU-Recht zu zwingen, gescheitert? Oder war er nur noch nicht entschlossen genug? Wie kann die EU ihre Grundwerte verteidigen, wenn die Mitgliedstaaten das offenbar gar nicht so wichtig finden? Werden sie erst aktiv, wenn es um die Verteidigung ihrer Beiträge zum EU-Haushalt gegen Korruption und Misswirtschaft geht – oder gar um den Binnenmarkt? Und was verrät uns das über die Verfasstheit der Europäischen Union selbst? Folgt demnächst! Unterstützen Sie uns! Um dieses Projekt auch finanziell stemmen zu können, sind wir auf Ihre Unterstützung angewiesen. Für nur 5 Euro im Monat werden Sie Mitglied in unserer Steady-Fördercommunity (https://bit.ly/3lyrmOu). Dafür bekommen Sie auch eine unserer beliebten Kaffeetassen und können mitdiskutieren und mitgestalten, wenn wir unser nächstes Podcast-Projekt anpacken. Gesprächspartner:innen: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Stanisław Biernat, Jagiellonian University in Kraków Prof. Dr. Tanja A. Börzel, Freie Universität Berlin Prof. Dr. Ireneusz Paweł Karolewski, Universität Leipzig Prof. R. Daniel Kelemen, Rutgers University Prof. em. Dr. Ulrike Liebert, Universität Bremen Prof. Dr. Anna Katharina Mangold, Europa-Universität Flensburg Prof. Dr. Franz C. Mayer, Universität Bielefeld Dariusz Mazur, Richter am Regionalgericht Krakau Prof. Dr. Florian Meinel, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Prof. Dr. Jan-Werner Müller, Princeton University Prof. Dr. Martin Nettesheim, Universität Tübingen Dr. Thu Nguyen, Jacques Delors Centre Prof. Dr. Laurent Pech, Middlesex University London Prof. Dr. Morten Rasmussen, University of Copenhagen Dr. Roya Sangi, Kanzlei Redeker Sellner Dahs Dr. Malte Symann, Kanzlei Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Prof. Dr. Alexander Thiele, BSP Business & Law School Berlin Prof. Dr. Antoine Vauchez, Université Paris 1-Sorbonne Anna Wójcik, Polnische Akademie der Wissenschaften Quellen: Auf dem Verfassungsblog sind seit 2015 mehr als 300 Artikel zur Rechtsstaatskrise in Polen erschienen. Eine unschätzbare Informationsquelle ist außerdem die fortlaufende Berichterstattung auf der Website RuleofLaw.pl. Weitere Informationsquellen: Amelie Albrecht: Sanktionen gegenüber „democratic backsliding“ in Ungarn und Polen - Das Interventionsparadox der EU. Münchner Beiträge zur Politikwissenschaft 2020. DOI: 10.5282/ubm/epub.72109. Petra Bárd, Adam Bodnar: The End of an Era. The Polish Constitutional Court's judgment on the primacy of EU law and its effects on mutual trust, CEPS Policy Insights 2021 / 15. Stanisław Biernat, Paweł Filipek: The Assessment of Judicial Independence Following the CJEU Ruling in C-216/18 LM. In: Armin von Bogdandy et al. (Hrsg.): Defending Checks and Balances in EU Member States. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht 298, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62317-6_16 Anne Boerger, Morten Rasmussen: Transforming European Law: The Establishment of the Constitutional Discourse from 1950 to 1993. European Constitutional Law Review 2014, S. 199 ff. Rebecca Byberg: The History of the Integration Through Law Project: Creating the Academic Expression of a Constitutional Legal Vision for Europe, German Law Journal 2020, S. 1431 ff. Paweł Filipek: The New National Council of the Judiciary and its impact on the Supreme Court in the light of the principle of judicial independence. Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego 2018, S. 177ff. Lukas Hartmann: Fehlerfolgen: Ist die verfassungsgerichtliche Ultra-Vires- und Identitätskontrolle aus verfassungsrechtlichen Gründen rechtlich wirkungslos? Der Staat 2021, S. 387 ff. R. Daniel Kelemen: The European Union's Authoritarian Equilibrium. Forthcoming in Journal of European Public Policy, Rutgers Law School Research Paper, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3450716 Dimitry V. Kochenov, Petra Bárd: The Last Soldier Standing? Courts vs. Politicians and the Rule of Law Crisis in the New Member States of the EU (February 22, 2019). 1 Eur Ybk Cont'l L 2019, University of Groningen Faculty of Law Research Paper 5/2019, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3339631. Dimitry V. Kochenov, Barbara Grabowska-Moroz: Constitutional Populism versus EU Law: A Much More Complex Story than You Imagined. RECONNECT Working Paper 16, Juli 2021, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3880717 Helle Krunke, Sune Klinge: The Danish Ajos Case. The Missing Case from Maastricht and Lisbon. European Papers 2018, S. 157 ff. Katarzyna Krzyżanowska: Legal impossibilism versus the rule of law, Review of Democracy 29.6.2021, https://revdem.ceu.edu/2021/06/29/legal-impossibilism-versus-the-rule-of-law. Claus Leggewie, Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski: Die Visegrád-Connection. Eine Herausforderung für Europa, Berlin 2021. Wilfried Loth: Europas Einigung. Eine unvollendete Geschichte. 2. Aufl., Frankfurt 2020. Florian Meinel: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht in der Ära der Großen Koalition - zur Rechtsprechung seit dem Lissabon-Urteil. Der Staat 2021, S. 43 ff. Christoph Möllers, Linda Schneider: Demokratiesicherung in der Europäischen Union. Studie zu einer europäischen Aufgabe. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Schriften zu Europa Bd. 9, Berlin 2018. Christian Neumeier: Kompetenzen. Zur Entstehung des deutschen öffentlichen Rechts, Tübingen 2021 (i.E.). Laurent Pech, Dimitry Kochenov: ‪Respect for the Rule of Law in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice‬. ‪A Casebook Overview of Key Judgments since the Portuguese Judges Case‬, SIEPS 2021/3, https://www.sieps.se/globalassets/publikationer/2021/sieps-2021_3-eng-web.pdf?. Laurent Pech: The Rule of Law in the EU: The Evolution of the Treaty Framework and Rule of Law Toolbox, Pech,  RECONNECT Working Paper 7, März 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3608661 Laurent Pech, Sébastien Platon: Judicial Independence Under Threat: The Court of Justice to the Rescue. Common Market Law Review 2018, S. 1827 ff., https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607788 Laurent Pech, Kim Lane Scheppele: Illiberalism Within: Rule of Law Backsliding in the EU. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 2017, S. 3 ff., http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3009280 Morten Rasmussen: Towards a Legal History of the EU, European Papers 2021, S. 923 ff. Wojciech Sadurski: Poland's Constitutional Breakdown, Oxford 2019. Wojciech Sadurski: What makes Kaczyński tick? ICONnect 14.1.2016, http://www.iconnectblog.com/2016/01/what-makes-kaczynski-tick/. Marek Safjan: Transitional Justice: The Polish Example, the Case of Lustration. European Journal of Legal Studies 2007, S. 1, http://hdl.handle.net/1814/7711. Eric Stein: Lawyers, Judges, and the Making of a Transnational Constitution, American Journal of International Law 1981, S. 1 ff., https://doi.org/10.2307/2201413 Hanna Suchocka: Lustration: Experience of Poland. Venedig-Kommission des Europarats, ‪CDL-PI(2015)029‬. Venedig-Kommission des Europarats: Joint Urgent Opinion of the Venice Commission and the Directorate General of Human Rights and the Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of Europe on Amendments to the Law on the Common Courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and some Other Laws, 16.1.2020, ‪CDL-PI(2020)002. Urteile: Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte: 12.9.2019: Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland, 26374/18, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-191701 7.5.2021: Xero Flor w Polsce v. Polen, 4907/18, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-210065 29.6.2021: Broda und Bojara v. Polen, 26691/18, 27367/18, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-210693 22.7.2021: Reczkowicz v. Polen, 43447/19, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-211127 8.11.2021: Dolińska-Ficek und Ozimek v. Polen, 49868/19 57511/19, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-213200 Europäischer Gerichtshof: 27.2.2018: Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses gegen Tribunal de Contas, C-64-16 17.4.2018: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Wald von Białowieża), C-441/17 25.6.2018: LM (Celmer) , C-216/18 PPU 24.6.2019: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Unabhängigkeit des Obersten Gerichtshofs), C-619/18 24.6.2019: Daniel Adam Popławski, C-573/17 5.11.2019: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Zwangsverrentung), C‑192/18 19.11.2019: A. K. gegen Krajow a Rada Sądow nictwa und CP und DO gegen Sąd Najwyższy, C‑585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18 29.1.2020: DŚ gegen Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle, C‑522/18 (erledigt) 26.3.2020: Miasto Łowicz gegen Skarb Państwa – Wojewoda Łódzki und Prokurator Generalny gegen VX, WW, XV, C‑558/18, C‑563/18 2.3.2021: A.B. u.a., C-824/18 20.4.2021: Repubblika gegen Il-Prim Ministru, C-896/19 18.5.2021: Asociația „Forumul Judecătorilor din România“, C‑83/19, C‑127/19, C‑195/19, C‑291/19, C‑355/19 und C‑397/19 15.7.2021: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Disziplinarkammer), C-791/19 20.9.2021: Tschechische Republik/ Polen (Turów), C-121/19 (Beschluss) 6.10.2021: W.Z., C-487/19 27.10.2021: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen („Maulkorb“-Gesetz), einstweilige Anordnung, C-204/21 R 16.11.2021: W.B. u.a. C‑748/19 bis C‑754/19

iceland europe law university berlin interview lm er geschichte rescue poland human rights europa council ju regierung berichterstattung grund beitr folgen artikel gesetz reaktion zerst entstehung universit gro werk democracy legal zak jagiellonian university portuguese journal plan rom politicians stanis era sie weg widerstand ww courts xv gu position dialog interesse richter zweck tat mitteln oxford european union punkt euro kr korruption aufl macht dabei stra sicht schl verlauf union doi prof supreme court maastricht mayer frankfurt cp lisbon polsce bia projekt monat polen hrsg vx versuch judiciary judges verteidigung aufgabe international law european court european legal studies legal history tribunal verfahren christoph m recht menschenrechte europ universit paris identit hilfe studie gerichte der gro ausgleich heinrich b jurist vorrang amendments sindical rechts historiker schriften koalition justiz binnenmarkt mitgliedstaaten verfassung konflikt ungarn beschluss rechtsstaat american journal european journal luxemburg stiftung andri hase europa universit kette institutionen diesen fragen pech freie universit associa unterwerfung asocia legal studies balances folgt contas europarats eu kommission kaczy forthcoming crackdown kommission gehorsam der kampf rechtsprechung eugh anordnung eine herausforderung der staat ihre unterst grundpfeiler der konflikt eu member states urteilen informationsquelle gerichtshof kaffeetassen miasto broda riesenproblem najwy podcast projekt verfasstheit jan werner m georg august universit konflikts grundwerte petra b oddzia iconnect caselaw eu recht misswirtschaft der eugh directorate general gesetzespaket sieps
Montana Public Radio News
Montana's marijuana rules move forward after amendments from lawmakers

Montana Public Radio News

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 14, 2021 1:12


The state's rulemaking process for the sale of recreational marijuana is again moving ahead. It was delayed after Montana lawmakers intervened last week with last-minute concerns.

Verfassungsblog: Corona Constitutional
EU v. Polen,Teil 2 - Hase und Igel

Verfassungsblog: Corona Constitutional

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 6, 2021 40:49


Der Konflikt zwischen der EU und Polen ist bereits viel weiter eskaliert, als man bis vor kurzem für vorstellbar gehalten hätte. Und immer noch ist kein Ende in Sicht. Aus dem innerpolnischen Verfassungskonflikt um Rechtsstaat und unabhängige Justiz ist ein europäischer Verfassungskonflikt um den Vorrang des EU-Rechts geworden. Wie konnte das passieren? Was für Kräfte sind da am Werk? Und wie kommen wir da wieder heraus? Diesen Fragen wollten wir in diesem Podcast-Projekt auf den Grund gehen. Wir haben Interviews mit Jurist_innen, Politikwissenschaftler_innen und Historiker_innen geführt, haben recherchiert, diskutiert und nachgedacht. In den Folgen 1 bis 3 geht es um Entstehung und Verlauf des Konflikts – zuerst auf der innerpolnischen Bühne (1), dann die Reaktion der EU (2) und die Gegenreaktion der polnischen Regierung (3). Dabei wird ein viel älterer Konflikt, der die ganze Integrationsgeschichte der EU durchzieht, in mächtige Resonanzschwingungen versetzt (4). Er präfiguriert die Möglichkeiten, den Konflikt zu lösen (5). Teil 1: Projekt Imposybilizm In Polen kommt 2015 eine neue rechtspopulistische Regierung an die Macht, die von Tag 1 an beginnt, ihren Plan zur Unterwerfung der unabhängigen Justiz in die Tat umzusetzen, und dabei auf die Institutionen und Verfahren der polnischen Verfassung keinerlei Rücksicht nimmt. Wir rekonstruieren, was es mit diesem Plan auf sich hat, wo er herkommt und wie es der PiS-Regierung gelang, ihn umzusetzen – und bis zu welchem Punkt. Teil 2: Hase und Igel Spätestens 2017/18, als die PiS-Regierung ihr Gesetzespaket zur Übernahme der Justiz vorlegt, wird der auf Dialog und Ausgleich bedachten EU-Kommission bewusst, dass sie ein Riesenproblem hat. Während die anderen Mitgliedstaaten keinerlei Interesse zeigen, das Problem auf politischem Weg zu lösen, bringt sich der Europäische Gerichtshof in Luxemburg mit einer Kette von revolutionären Urteilen in eine Position, die gegen die Zerstörung der unabhängigen Justiz in Polen wirksame Hilfe verspricht. Doch die PiS-Regierung reagiert anders als erhofft. 00:00 bis 13:05: Europa wacht auf 13:06 bis 18:24: Portugiesische Richter:innen 18:25 bis 26:00: Irische Richter:innen 26:01 bis 31:41: Polnische Richter:innen 31:42 bis 40:49: Ein europäisches Verfassungsgericht Teil 3: Der große Crackdown 2019 - 2021 lässt die PiS-Regierung ihr eigens zu diesem Zweck errichtetes Disziplinarregime auf die polnischen Richter_innen los, um ihren vom EuGH ermutigten Widerstand zu ersticken. Die wenden sich an den anderen Europäischen Gerichtshof, den für Menschenrechte in Straßburg, der erklärt, dass die von der PiS-Regierung mit ihren Gefolgsleuten infiltrierten Gerichte nicht "auf Gesetz beruhen" und also gar keine Gerichte sind. Die PiS-Regierung wiederum bestellt sich bei dem von ihr kontrollierten "Verfassungsgericht" Urteile, wonach Polen der Rechtsprechung beider Europäischer Gerichtshöfe und dem Recht, auf das sie sich stützen, aus angeblichen verfassungsrechtlichen Gründen keinen Gehorsam schuldet. Folgt demnächst! Teil 4: Der Kampf um den Vorrang Damit ist aus dem polnischen Verfassungskonflikt endgültig ein europäischer Verfassungskonflikt geworden: Es geht um den Vorrang des EU-Rechts und damit um den Grundpfeiler der Verfassung der Europäischen Union. Der ist allerdings weniger unumstritten als viele meinen. Der Kampf zwischen EuGH und nationalen Verfassungsgerichten, an die PiS-Regierung anzuknüpfen behauptet, durchzieht die ganze Geschichte der EU – und das deutsche Bundesverfassungsgericht hat dabei immer wieder eine Schlüsselrolle gespielt. Folgt demnächst! Teil 5: Den Kuchen haben und ihn essen Was also tun? Ist der Versuch, Polen mit rechtlichen Mitteln zum Gehorsam gegenüber dem EU-Recht zu zwingen, gescheitert? Oder war er nur noch nicht entschlossen genug? Wie kann die EU ihre Grundwerte verteidigen, wenn die Mitgliedstaaten das offenbar gar nicht so wichtig finden? Werden sie erst aktiv, wenn es um die Verteidigung ihrer Beiträge zum EU-Haushalt gegen Korruption und Misswirtschaft geht – oder gar um den Binnenmarkt? Und was verrät uns das über die Verfasstheit der Europäischen Union selbst? Folgt demnächst! Unterstützen Sie uns! Um dieses Projekt auch finanziell stemmen zu können, sind wir auf Ihre Unterstützung angewiesen. Für nur 5 Euro im Monat werden Sie Mitglied in unserer Steady-Fördercommunity (https://bit.ly/3lyrmOu). Dafür bekommen Sie auch eine unserer beliebten Kaffeetassen und können mitdiskutieren und mitgestalten, wenn wir unser nächstes Podcast-Projekt anpacken. Gesprächspartner:innen: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Stanisław Biernat, Jagiellonian University in Kraków Prof. Dr. Tanja A. Börzel, Freie Universität Berlin Prof. Dr. Ireneusz Paweł Karolewski, Universität Leipzig Prof. R. Daniel Kelemen, Rutgers University Prof. em. Dr. Ulrike Liebert, Universität Bremen Prof. Dr. Anna Katharina Mangold, Europa-Universität Flensburg Prof. Dr. Franz C. Mayer, Universität Bielefeld Dariusz Mazur, Richter am Regionalgericht Krakau Prof. Dr. Florian Meinel, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Prof. Dr. Jan-Werner Müller, Princeton University Prof. Dr. Martin Nettesheim, Universität Tübingen Dr. Thu Nguyen, Jacques Delors Centre Prof. Dr. Laurent Pech, Middlesex University London Prof. Dr. Morten Rasmussen, University of Copenhagen Dr. Roya Sangi, Kanzlei Redeker Sellner Dahs Dr. Malte Symann, Kanzlei Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Prof. Dr. Alexander Thiele, BSP Business & Law School Berlin Prof. Dr. Antoine Vauchez, Université Paris 1-Sorbonne Anna Wójcik, Polnische Akademie der Wissenschaften Quellen: Auf dem Verfassungsblog sind seit 2015 mehr als 300 Artikel zur Rechtsstaatskrise in Polen erschienen. Eine unschätzbare Informationsquelle ist außerdem die fortlaufende Berichterstattung auf der Website RuleofLaw.pl. Weitere Informationsquellen: Amelie Albrecht: Sanktionen gegenüber „democratic backsliding“ in Ungarn und Polen - Das Interventionsparadox der EU. Münchner Beiträge zur Politikwissenschaft 2020. DOI: 10.5282/ubm/epub.72109. Petra Bárd, Adam Bodnar: The End of an Era. The Polish Constitutional Court's judgment on the primacy of EU law and its effects on mutual trust, CEPS Policy Insights 2021 / 15. Stanisław Biernat, Paweł Filipek: The Assessment of Judicial Independence Following the CJEU Ruling in C-216/18 LM. In: Armin von Bogdandy et al. (Hrsg.): Defending Checks and Balances in EU Member States. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht 298, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62317-6_16 Anne Boerger, Morten Rasmussen: Transforming European Law: The Establishment of the Constitutional Discourse from 1950 to 1993. European Constitutional Law Review 2014, S. 199 ff. Rebecca Byberg: The History of the Integration Through Law Project: Creating the Academic Expression of a Constitutional Legal Vision for Europe, German Law Journal 2020, S. 1431 ff. Paweł Filipek: The New National Council of the Judiciary and its impact on the Supreme Court in the light of the principle of judicial independence. Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego 2018, S. 177ff. Lukas Hartmann: Fehlerfolgen: Ist die verfassungsgerichtliche Ultra-Vires- und Identitätskontrolle aus verfassungsrechtlichen Gründen rechtlich wirkungslos? Der Staat 2021, S. 387 ff. R. Daniel Kelemen: The European Union's Authoritarian Equilibrium. Forthcoming in Journal of European Public Policy, Rutgers Law School Research Paper, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3450716 Dimitry V. Kochenov, Petra Bárd: The Last Soldier Standing? Courts vs. Politicians and the Rule of Law Crisis in the New Member States of the EU (February 22, 2019). 1 Eur Ybk Cont'l L 2019, University of Groningen Faculty of Law Research Paper 5/2019, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3339631. Dimitry V. Kochenov, Barbara Grabowska-Moroz: Constitutional Populism versus EU Law: A Much More Complex Story than You Imagined. RECONNECT Working Paper 16, Juli 2021, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3880717 Helle Krunke, Sune Klinge: The Danish Ajos Case. The Missing Case from Maastricht and Lisbon. European Papers 2018, S. 157 ff. Katarzyna Krzyżanowska: Legal impossibilism versus the rule of law, Review of Democracy 29.6.2021, https://revdem.ceu.edu/2021/06/29/legal-impossibilism-versus-the-rule-of-law. Claus Leggewie, Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski: Die Visegrád-Connection. Eine Herausforderung für Europa, Berlin 2021. Wilfried Loth: Europas Einigung. Eine unvollendete Geschichte. 2. Aufl., Frankfurt 2020. Florian Meinel: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht in der Ära der Großen Koalition - zur Rechtsprechung seit dem Lissabon-Urteil. Der Staat 2021, S. 43 ff. Christoph Möllers, Linda Schneider: Demokratiesicherung in der Europäischen Union. Studie zu einer europäischen Aufgabe. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Schriften zu Europa Bd. 9, Berlin 2018. Christian Neumeier: Kompetenzen. Zur Entstehung des deutschen öffentlichen Rechts, Tübingen 2021 (i.E.). Laurent Pech, Dimitry Kochenov: ‪Respect for the Rule of Law in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice‬. ‪A Casebook Overview of Key Judgments since the Portuguese Judges Case‬, SIEPS 2021/3, https://www.sieps.se/globalassets/publikationer/2021/sieps-2021_3-eng-web.pdf?. Laurent Pech: The Rule of Law in the EU: The Evolution of the Treaty Framework and Rule of Law Toolbox, Pech,  RECONNECT Working Paper 7, März 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3608661 Laurent Pech, Sébastien Platon: Judicial Independence Under Threat: The Court of Justice to the Rescue. Common Market Law Review 2018, S. 1827 ff., https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607788 Laurent Pech, Kim Lane Scheppele: Illiberalism Within: Rule of Law Backsliding in the EU. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 2017, S. 3 ff., http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3009280 Morten Rasmussen: Towards a Legal History of the EU, European Papers 2021, S. 923 ff. Wojciech Sadurski: Poland's Constitutional Breakdown, Oxford 2019. Wojciech Sadurski: What makes Kaczyński tick? ICONnect 14.1.2016, http://www.iconnectblog.com/2016/01/what-makes-kaczynski-tick/. Marek Safjan: Transitional Justice: The Polish Example, the Case of Lustration. European Journal of Legal Studies 2007, S. 1, http://hdl.handle.net/1814/7711. Eric Stein: Lawyers, Judges, and the Making of a Transnational Constitution, American Journal of International Law 1981, S. 1 ff., https://doi.org/10.2307/2201413 Hanna Suchocka: Lustration: Experience of Poland. Venedig-Kommission des Europarats, ‪CDL-PI(2015)029‬. Venedig-Kommission des Europarats: Joint Urgent Opinion of the Venice Commission and the Directorate General of Human Rights and the Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of Europe on Amendments to the Law on the Common Courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and some Other Laws, 16.1.2020, ‪CDL-PI(2020)002. Urteile: Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte: 12.9.2019: Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland, 26374/18, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-191701 7.5.2021: Xero Flor w Polsce v. Polen, 4907/18, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-210065 29.6.2021: Broda und Bojara v. Polen, 26691/18, 27367/18, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-210693 22.7.2021: Reczkowicz v. Polen, 43447/19, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-211127 8.11.2021: Dolińska-Ficek und Ozimek v. Polen, 49868/19 57511/19, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-213200 Europäischer Gerichtshof: 27.2.2018: Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses gegen Tribunal de Contas, C-64-16 17.4.2018: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Wald von Białowieża), C-441/17 25.6.2018: LM (Celmer) , C-216/18 PPU 24.6.2019: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Unabhängigkeit des Obersten Gerichtshofs), C-619/18 24.6.2019: Daniel Adam Popławski, C-573/17 5.11.2019: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Zwangsverrentung), C‑192/18 19.11.2019: A. K. gegen Krajow a Rada Sądow nictwa und CP und DO gegen Sąd Najwyższy, C‑585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18 29.1.2020: DŚ gegen Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle, C‑522/18 (erledigt) 26.3.2020: Miasto Łowicz gegen Skarb Państwa – Wojewoda Łódzki und Prokurator Generalny gegen VX, WW, XV, C‑558/18, C‑563/18 2.3.2021: A.B. u.a., C-824/18 20.4.2021: Repubblika gegen Il-Prim Ministru, C-896/19 18.5.2021: Asociația „Forumul Judecătorilor din România“, C‑83/19, C‑127/19, C‑195/19, C‑291/19, C‑355/19 und C‑397/19 15.7.2021: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Disziplinarkammer), C-791/19 20.9.2021: Tschechische Republik/ Polen (Turów), C-121/19 (Beschluss) 6.10.2021: W.Z., C-487/19 27.10.2021: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen („Maulkorb“-Gesetz), einstweilige Anordnung, C-204/21 R 16.11.2021: W.B. u.a. C‑748/19 bis C‑754/19

iceland europe law university berlin interview lm er geschichte rescue poland human rights europa council ju regierung berichterstattung grund beitr folgen artikel gesetz reaktion zerst entstehung universit gro werk democracy legal zak jagiellonian university portuguese journal plan rom politicians stanis era sie weg widerstand ww courts xv gu position dialog interesse richter zweck tat mitteln oxford european union punkt euro kr korruption aufl macht dabei stra sicht schl verlauf union doi prof supreme court maastricht mayer frankfurt cp lisbon polsce bia projekt monat polen hrsg vx versuch judiciary judges verteidigung aufgabe international law european court european legal studies legal history tribunal verfahren christoph m recht menschenrechte europ universit paris identit hilfe studie gerichte ausgleich heinrich b jurist vorrang amendments sindical rechts historiker schriften koalition justiz binnenmarkt mitgliedstaaten verfassung konflikt ungarn beschluss rechtsstaat american journal european journal luxemburg stiftung andri hase europa universit kette institutionen diesen fragen pech freie universit associa unterwerfung asocia legal studies balances folgt contas europarats eu kommission kaczy forthcoming kommission gehorsam der kampf igel rechtsprechung eugh anordnung eine herausforderung der staat ihre unterst grundpfeiler der konflikt eu member states urteilen informationsquelle gerichtshof kaffeetassen miasto broda riesenproblem najwy podcast projekt verfasstheit jan werner m georg august universit konflikts grundwerte petra b oddzia iconnect caselaw eu recht misswirtschaft directorate general gesetzespaket sieps
Verfassungsblog: Corona Constitutional
EU v. Polen,Teil 1 - Projekt Imposybilizm

Verfassungsblog: Corona Constitutional

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 2, 2021 65:59


Der Konflikt zwischen der EU und Polen ist bereits viel weiter eskaliert, als man bis vor kurzem für vorstellbar gehalten hätte. Und immer noch ist kein Ende in Sicht. Aus dem innerpolnischen Verfassungskonflikt um Rechtsstaat und unabhängige Justiz ist ein europäischer Verfassungskonflikt um den Vorrang des EU-Rechts geworden. Wie konnte das passieren? Was für Kräfte sind da am Werk? Und wie kommen wir da wieder heraus? Diesen Fragen wollten wir in diesem Podcast-Projekt auf den Grund gehen. Wir haben Interviews mit Jurist_innen, Politikwissenschaftler_innen und Historiker_innen geführt, haben recherchiert, diskutiert und nachgedacht. In den Folgen 1 bis 3 geht es um Entstehung und Verlauf des Konflikts – zuerst auf der innerpolnischen Bühne (1), dann die Reaktion der EU (2) und die Gegenreaktion der polnischen Regierung (3). Dabei wird ein viel älterer Konflikt, der die ganze Integrationsgeschichte der EU durchzieht, in mächtige Resonanzschwingungen versetzt (4). Er präfiguriert die Möglichkeiten, den Konflikt zu lösen (5). Teil 1: Projekt Imposybilizm In Polen kommt 2015 eine neue rechtspopulistische Regierung an die Macht, die von Tag 1 an beginnt, ihren Plan zur Unterwerfung der unabhängigen Justiz in die Tat umzusetzen, und dabei auf die Institutionen und Verfahren der polnischen Verfassung keinerlei Rücksicht nimmt. Wir rekonstruieren, was es mit diesem Plan auf sich hat, wo er herkommt und wie es der PiS-Regierung gelang, ihn umzusetzen – und bis zu welchem Punkt. 00:00 bis 05:50: Einleitung 05:55 bis 18:45: Die PiS-Regierung und ihre Vorgeschichte 18:45 bis 37:00:  Die Zerstörung des Verfassungsgerichts 37:15 bis 42:30: Die Zerstörung des Nationalen Justizrats 53:20 bis 66:00: Der Kampf um den Obersten Gerichtshof Teil 2: Hase und Igel Spätestens 2017/18, als die PiS-Regierung ihr Gesetzespaket zur Übernahme der Justiz vorlegt, wird der auf Dialog und Ausgleich bedachten EU-Kommission bewusst, dass sie ein Riesenproblem hat. Während die anderen Mitgliedstaaten keinerlei Interesse zeigen, das Problem auf politischem Weg zu lösen, bringt sich der Europäische Gerichtshof in Luxemburg mit einer Kette von revolutionären Urteilen in eine Position, die gegen die Zerstörung der unabhängigen Justiz in Polen wirksame Hilfe verspricht. Doch die PiS-Regierung reagiert anders als erhofft. Folgt demnächst! Teil 3: Der große Crackdown 2019 - 2021 lässt die PiS-Regierung ihr eigens zu diesem Zweck errichtetes Disziplinarregime auf die polnischen Richter_innen los, um ihren vom EuGH ermutigten Widerstand zu ersticken. Die wenden sich an den anderen Europäischen Gerichtshof, den für Menschenrechte in Straßburg, der erklärt, dass die von der PiS-Regierung mit ihren Gefolgsleuten infiltrierten Gerichte nicht "auf Gesetz beruhen" und also gar keine Gerichte sind. Die PiS-Regierung wiederum bestellt sich bei dem von ihr kontrollierten "Verfassungsgericht" Urteile, wonach Polen der Rechtsprechung beider Europäischer Gerichtshöfe und dem Recht, auf das sie sich stützen, aus angeblichen verfassungsrechtlichen Gründen keinen Gehorsam schuldet. Folgt demnächst! Teil 4: Der Kampf um den Vorrang Damit ist aus dem polnischen Verfassungskonflikt endgültig ein europäischer Verfassungskonflikt geworden: Es geht um den Vorrang des EU-Rechts und damit um den Grundpfeiler der Verfassung der Europäischen Union. Der ist allerdings weniger unumstritten als viele meinen. Der Kampf zwischen EuGH und nationalen Verfassungsgerichten, an die PiS-Regierung anzuknüpfen behauptet, durchzieht die ganze Geschichte der EU – und das deutsche Bundesverfassungsgericht hat dabei immer wieder eine Schlüsselrolle gespielt. Folgt demnächst! Teil 5: Den Kuchen haben und ihn essen Was also tun? Ist der Versuch, Polen mit rechtlichen Mitteln zum Gehorsam gegenüber dem EU-Recht zu zwingen, gescheitert? Oder war er nur noch nicht entschlossen genug? Wie kann die EU ihre Grundwerte verteidigen, wenn die Mitgliedstaaten das offenbar gar nicht so wichtig finden? Werden sie erst aktiv, wenn es um die Verteidigung ihrer Beiträge zum EU-Haushalt gegen Korruption und Misswirtschaft geht – oder gar um den Binnenmarkt? Und was verrät uns das über die Verfasstheit der Europäischen Union selbst? Folgt demnächst! Unterstützen Sie uns! Um dieses Projekt auch finanziell stemmen zu können, sind wir auf Ihre Unterstützung angewiesen. Für nur 5 Euro im Monat werden Sie Mitglied in unserer Steady-Fördercommunity (https://bit.ly/3lyrmOu). Dafür bekommen Sie auch eine unserer beliebten Kaffeetassen und können mitdiskutieren und mitgestalten, wenn wir unser nächstes Podcast-Projekt anpacken. Gesprächspartner:innen: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Stanisław Biernat, Jagiellonian University in Kraków Prof. Dr. Tanja A. Börzel, Freie Universität Berlin Prof. Dr. Ireneusz Paweł Karolewski, Universität Leipzig Prof. R. Daniel Kelemen, Rutgers University Prof. em. Dr. Ulrike Liebert, Universität Bremen Prof. Dr. Anna Katharina Mangold, Europa-Universität Flensburg Prof. Dr. Franz C. Mayer, Universität Bielefeld Dariusz Mazur, Richter am Regionalgericht Krakau Prof. Dr. Florian Meinel, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Prof. Dr. Jan-Werner Müller, Princeton University Prof. Dr. Martin Nettesheim, Universität Tübingen Dr. Thu Nguyen, Jacques Delors Centre Prof. Dr. Laurent Pech, Middlesex University London Prof. Dr. Morten Rasmussen, University of Copenhagen Dr. Roya Sangi, Kanzlei Redeker Sellner Dahs Dr. Malte Symann, Kanzlei Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Prof. Dr. Alexander Thiele, BSP Business & Law School Berlin Prof. Dr. Antoine Vauchez, Université Paris 1-Sorbonne Anna Wójcik, Polnische Akademie der Wissenschaften Quellen: Auf dem Verfassungsblog sind seit 2015 mehr als 300 Artikel zur Rechtsstaatskrise in Polen erschienen. Eine unschätzbare Informationsquelle ist außerdem die fortlaufende Berichterstattung auf der Website RuleofLaw.pl. Weitere Informationsquellen: Amelie Albrecht: Sanktionen gegenüber „democratic backsliding“ in Ungarn und Polen - Das Interventionsparadox der EU. Münchner Beiträge zur Politikwissenschaft 2020. DOI: 10.5282/ubm/epub.72109. Petra Bárd, Adam Bodnar: The End of an Era. The Polish Constitutional Court's judgment on the primacy of EU law and its effects on mutual trust, CEPS Policy Insights 2021 / 15. Stanisław Biernat, Paweł Filipek: The Assessment of Judicial Independence Following the CJEU Ruling in C-216/18 LM. In: Armin von Bogdandy et al. (Hrsg.): Defending Checks and Balances in EU Member States. Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht 298, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-62317-6_16 Anne Boerger, Morten Rasmussen: Transforming European Law: The Establishment of the Constitutional Discourse from 1950 to 1993. European Constitutional Law Review 2014, S. 199 ff. Rebecca Byberg: The History of the Integration Through Law Project: Creating the Academic Expression of a Constitutional Legal Vision for Europe, German Law Journal 2020, S. 1431 ff. Paweł Filipek: The New National Council of the Judiciary and its impact on the Supreme Court in the light of the principle of judicial independence. Problemy Współczesnego Prawa Międzynarodowego, Europejskiego i Porównawczego 2018, S. 177ff. Lukas Hartmann: Fehlerfolgen: Ist die verfassungsgerichtliche Ultra-Vires- und Identitätskontrolle aus verfassungsrechtlichen Gründen rechtlich wirkungslos? Der Staat 2021, S. 387 ff. R. Daniel Kelemen: The European Union's Authoritarian Equilibrium. Forthcoming in Journal of European Public Policy, Rutgers Law School Research Paper, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3450716 Dimitry V. Kochenov, Petra Bárd: The Last Soldier Standing? Courts vs. Politicians and the Rule of Law Crisis in the New Member States of the EU (February 22, 2019). 1 Eur Ybk Cont'l L 2019, University of Groningen Faculty of Law Research Paper 5/2019, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3339631. Dimitry V. Kochenov, Barbara Grabowska-Moroz: Constitutional Populism versus EU Law: A Much More Complex Story than You Imagined. RECONNECT Working Paper 16, Juli 2021, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3880717 Helle Krunke, Sune Klinge: The Danish Ajos Case. The Missing Case from Maastricht and Lisbon. European Papers 2018, S. 157 ff. Katarzyna Krzyżanowska: Legal impossibilism versus the rule of law, Review of Democracy 29.6.2021, https://revdem.ceu.edu/2021/06/29/legal-impossibilism-versus-the-rule-of-law. Claus Leggewie, Ireneusz Pawel Karolewski: Die Visegrád-Connection. Eine Herausforderung für Europa, Berlin 2021. Wilfried Loth: Europas Einigung. Eine unvollendete Geschichte. 2. Aufl., Frankfurt 2020. Florian Meinel: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht in der Ära der Großen Koalition - zur Rechtsprechung seit dem Lissabon-Urteil. Der Staat 2021, S. 43 ff. Christoph Möllers, Linda Schneider: Demokratiesicherung in der Europäischen Union. Studie zu einer europäischen Aufgabe. Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung, Schriften zu Europa Bd. 9, Berlin 2018. Christian Neumeier: Kompetenzen. Zur Entstehung des deutschen öffentlichen Rechts, Tübingen 2021 (i.E.). Laurent Pech, Dimitry Kochenov: ‪Respect for the Rule of Law in the Case Law of the European Court of Justice‬. ‪A Casebook Overview of Key Judgments since the Portuguese Judges Case‬, SIEPS 2021/3, https://www.sieps.se/globalassets/publikationer/2021/sieps-2021_3-eng-web.pdf?. Laurent Pech: The Rule of Law in the EU: The Evolution of the Treaty Framework and Rule of Law Toolbox, Pech,  RECONNECT Working Paper 7, März 2020, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3608661 Laurent Pech, Sébastien Platon: Judicial Independence Under Threat: The Court of Justice to the Rescue. Common Market Law Review 2018, S. 1827 ff., https://ssrn.com/abstract=3607788 Laurent Pech, Kim Lane Scheppele: Illiberalism Within: Rule of Law Backsliding in the EU. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 2017, S. 3 ff., http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3009280 Morten Rasmussen: Towards a Legal History of the EU, European Papers 2021, S. 923 ff. Wojciech Sadurski: Poland's Constitutional Breakdown, Oxford 2019. Wojciech Sadurski: What makes Kaczyński tick? ICONnect 14.1.2016, http://www.iconnectblog.com/2016/01/what-makes-kaczynski-tick/. Marek Safjan: Transitional Justice: The Polish Example, the Case of Lustration. European Journal of Legal Studies 2007, S. 1, http://hdl.handle.net/1814/7711. Eric Stein: Lawyers, Judges, and the Making of a Transnational Constitution, American Journal of International Law 1981, S. 1 ff., https://doi.org/10.2307/2201413 Hanna Suchocka: Lustration: Experience of Poland. Venedig-Kommission des Europarats, ‪CDL-PI(2015)029‬. Venedig-Kommission des Europarats: Joint Urgent Opinion of the Venice Commission and the Directorate General of Human Rights and the Rule of Law (DGI) of the Council of Europe on Amendments to the Law on the Common Courts, the Law on the Supreme Court and some Other Laws, 16.1.2020, ‪CDL-PI(2020)002. Urteile: Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte: 12.9.2019: Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland, 26374/18, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-191701 7.5.2021: Xero Flor w Polsce v. Polen, 4907/18, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-210065 29.6.2021: Broda und Bojara v. Polen, 26691/18, 27367/18, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-210693 22.7.2021: Reczkowicz v. Polen, 43447/19, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-211127 8.11.2021: Dolińska-Ficek und Ozimek v. Polen, 49868/19 57511/19, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-213200 Europäischer Gerichtshof: 27.2.2018: Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses gegen Tribunal de Contas, C-64-16 17.4.2018: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Wald von Białowieża), C-441/17 25.6.2018: LM (Celmer) , C-216/18 PPU 24.6.2019: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Unabhängigkeit des Obersten Gerichtshofs), C-619/18 24.6.2019: Daniel Adam Popławski, C-573/17 5.11.2019: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Zwangsverrentung), C‑192/18 19.11.2019: A. K. gegen Krajow a Rada Sądow nictwa und CP und DO gegen Sąd Najwyższy, C‑585/18, C-624/18, C-625/18 29.1.2020: DŚ gegen Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Jaśle, C‑522/18 (erledigt) 26.3.2020: Miasto Łowicz gegen Skarb Państwa – Wojewoda Łódzki und Prokurator Generalny gegen VX, WW, XV, C‑558/18, C‑563/18 2.3.2021: A.B. u.a., C-824/18 20.4.2021: Repubblika gegen Il-Prim Ministru, C-896/19 18.5.2021: Asociația „Forumul Judecătorilor din România“, C‑83/19, C‑127/19, C‑195/19, C‑291/19, C‑355/19 und C‑397/19 15.7.2021: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen (Disziplinarkammer), C-791/19 20.9.2021: Tschechische Republik/ Polen (Turów), C-121/19 (Beschluss) 6.10.2021: W.Z., C-487/19 27.10.2021: Europäische Kommission gegen Polen („Maulkorb“-Gesetz), einstweilige Anordnung, C-204/21 R 16.11.2021: W.B. u.a. C‑748/19 bis C‑754/19

iceland europe law university berlin interview lm er geschichte rescue poland human rights europa council ju regierung berichterstattung grund beitr folgen artikel gesetz reaktion zerst entstehung universit gro werk democracy legal zak jagiellonian university portuguese journal plan rom politicians stanis era sie weg widerstand ww courts xv gu position dialog interesse richter zweck tat mitteln oxford european union punkt euro kr korruption aufl macht dabei stra sicht schl verlauf union doi prof supreme court maastricht mayer frankfurt cp lisbon polsce bia projekt monat polen hrsg vx versuch judiciary judges verteidigung aufgabe international law european court european legal studies legal history tribunal verfahren christoph m recht menschenrechte europ universit paris identit hilfe studie gerichte ausgleich heinrich b jurist vorrang amendments sindical rechts historiker schriften koalition justiz binnenmarkt mitgliedstaaten verfassung konflikt ungarn beschluss rechtsstaat american journal european journal luxemburg stiftung andri hase europa universit kette institutionen diesen fragen pech freie universit associa unterwerfung asocia legal studies balances folgt contas europarats eu kommission kaczy forthcoming kommission gehorsam der kampf rechtsprechung eugh anordnung eine herausforderung der staat ihre unterst grundpfeiler der konflikt eu member states urteilen informationsquelle gerichtshof kaffeetassen miasto broda riesenproblem najwy podcast projekt verfasstheit jan werner m georg august universit konflikts grundwerte petra b oddzia iconnect die zerst caselaw eu recht misswirtschaft directorate general gesetzespaket sieps
Shift (NB)
Right to Information Changes

Shift (NB)

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 24, 2021 7:17


Amendments are being made to the province's Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The government says the changes will make the process more efficient. But some critics are calling for more transparency. We speak with Ombud Charles Murray about his concerns.

Just Grow It: The Podcast
Fertilizer vs Amendments

Just Grow It: The Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2021 6:57


Soil amendments and fertilizers are two different things. One is meant to improve soil characteristics while one delivers specific macro and micronutrients. Unfortunately, people often confuse fertilizers and amendments. Check out this episode of JUST GROW IT, where we discuss the difference between fertilizer and amendments.

William & Mary Law Podcast
Exhibit 8: Smart Cities and the Fourth & Fourteenth Amendments

William & Mary Law Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2021 44:40


In this second substantive episode in our Smart Cities series, host Taylor Lain leads the continued discussion of the interaction between the technology powering smart cities and constitutional law. Joined by Research Fellows Ott Lindstrom and Reed McLeod, this episode zooms in on the Fourth Amendment—exploring the concepts of the “reasonable expectation of privacy,” and the third-party doctrine in the context of the ubiquitous use of Internet of Things (IoT) devices. They will also explore Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, examining how a party may have recourse, if any, when injured by unequal representation under the Equal Protection Clause. For resources and additional information found in this episode, click here for a PDF: https://law.wm.edu/academics/intellectuallife/researchcenters/clct/exhibit-ai/additional-resources/exhibit-ai---exhibit-8---additional-resources.pdf Special thanks go to Professor Jeffrey Bellin, University Professor for Teaching Excellence and Robert and Elizabeth Scott Research Professor of Law, for his assistance with Fourth Amendment doctrine. The views and opinions expressed in this interview are the personal views of

During the Break
Our 3rd and 4th Amendment with Eric Buchanan!

During the Break

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 18, 2021 79:06


Our 3rd and 4th Amendments with Eric Buchanan! We will break down the different parts of our Constitution and each Bill of Rights one at a time. PLUS - we will always make sure we talk about why and how they are relevant today by pointing to headlines or court decisions. THANKS TO OUR SPONSOR: Eric Buchanan and Associates - www.buchanandisability.com === THANK YOU TO OUR SPONSORS: Granite Garage Floors of Chattanooga: https://granitegaragefloors.com/location/chattanooga Vascular Institute of Chattanooga: https://www.vascularinstituteofchattanooga.com/ MedicareMisty: https://medicaremisty.com/ The Barn Nursery: https://www.barnnursery.com/ Guardian Investment Advisors: https://giaplantoday.com/ Please consider supporting the podast by becoming a Patron: https://www.patreon.com/duringthebreakpodcast This podcast is powered by ZenCast.fm

SBS Sinhala - SBS සිංහල වැඩසටහන
Australian news in Sinhala on 18 Nov: Victoria and Western Australian premiers receive death threats over Covid law amendments - නොවැ 18දා SBS සිංහල පුවත්: කොවිඩ් තීන්දු නිසා වික්ට

SBS Sinhala - SBS සිංහල වැඩසටහන

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 18, 2021 14:07


Click on the speaker mark on the photo above to listen to the SBS Sinhala Radio news bulletin on Thursday 18 November 2021 - 2021 නොවැම්බර් මස 18 වන බ්‍රහස්පතින්දා SBS සිංහල ගුවන්විදුලි වැඩසටහනේ ප්‍රවෘත්ති ප්‍රකාශයට සවන්දෙන්න ඉහත චායාරූපය මත ඇති speaker සලකුණ මත click කරන්න

Good Morning, RVA!
Good morning, RVA: Walk-up vaccinations, Richmond 300 amendments, and a new place

Good Morning, RVA!

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 17, 2021


Take a walk or a roll through the intersection of W. Marshall and Brook to check out the new plaza, mural, and parklet!

Live at America's Town Hall
Black Women, Representation, and the Constitution

Live at America's Town Hall

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 17, 2021 54:58


Although the 15th and 19th Amendments to the Constitution enshrined the right to vote regardless of race and guaranteed women the right to vote more than 100 years ago, the struggle for Black women's suffrage and representation is ongoing, and the history of the struggle still relatively unknown today. We discuss that history on this week's episode, and highlight the key Black women figures throughout time who served as suffrage advocates, voters, and representatives—from Sojourner Truth to Shirley Chisholm. This panel features Nadia Brown, professor of government and chair of the Women's and Gender Studies Program at Georgetown University and Idol Family Fellow at the Anne Welsh McNulty Institute at Villanova University; Bettye Collier-Thomas, professor of history at Temple University and co-editor of African American Women and the Vote, 1837–1965; and Martha Jones, Society of Black Alumni Presidential Professor and professor of history at Johns Hopkins University and author of Vanguard. Lana Ulrich, senior director of content at the National Constitution Center, moderates the discussion. This program was made possible through the generous support of the McNulty Foundation in partnership with the Anne Welsh McNulty Institute for Women's Leadership at Villanova University. It's part of the National Constitution Center's Women and the Constitution, initiative. This conversation was streamed live on November 9, 2021. Additional resources and transcript available in our Media Library at constitutioncenter.org/constitution. Questions or comments about the show? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Path to Liberty
Subject to no Control: Antifederalist Brutus No. 13 and 14

Path to Liberty

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 15, 2021 35:01


Continuing his warnings about the power of the federal judiciary, Brutus not only opposes appellate jurisdiction as one of the “most objectionable parts” of the Constitution, but raises additional concerns that are extremely similar to what ended up in the 5th and 6th Amendments. The post Subject to no Control: Antifederalist Brutus No. 13 and 14 first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Dave Lukas, The Misfit Entrepreneur_Breakthrough Entrepreneurship
275: Lessons for Hannah - Knowing Your Rights

Dave Lukas, The Misfit Entrepreneur_Breakthrough Entrepreneurship

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 10, 2021 19:26


Hello Misfit Nation! Welcome to another edition of "Lessons for Hannah!" Many years ago, I introduced a new format that alongside our regular episodes called “Lessons for Hannah.” Hannah is my daughter and one of the main inspirations for the Misfit Entrepreneur. I wanted to have a place where she could go and learn from her daddy and his Misfit friends throughout her life….even after I am gone. If you haven't listened to the first episode of "Lessons for Hannah," I urge you to as it gives some more background and tells the amazing story of how Hannah came to be in our lives. Lessons for Hannah are short, very useful, and sometimes comical lessons, that I want to share with you and give to Hannah to help in your lives. Because I want Hannah to have these for her life, I'm going to speak as though I am talking directly to her. These episodes are a lot of fun and if you think there is a lesson that we should include in these episodes, please don't hesitate to send it over to us at support@misfitentrepreneur.com. We'd love to share it. This Weeks' Lesson for Hannah Hannah, Hannah, this lesson is a little more academic, but very important. I want to talk to you about your rights as a citizen of the United States. Most people will never read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution Including the Bill of Rights during their life – or at least only read some of it. I believe that everyone should study these documents throughout their lives. I know, I know. They were written by people 200+ years ago, so how could they make sense today, right? Well, if you study history, especially that of the human species, you'd find that there are some things that don't really change about us over time. Things like craving power and control or dominating over others never really change. And neither do things like wanting the best for yourself and your family or striving to better your life. And don't forget the urge to be free. These tendencies and many more have been around since beginning of man. And through time they have suppressed or taken away by kings, tyrants, dictators, and warlords to name a few. The last century alone saw this in Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, Polpot, and countless others and it goes on around the world today. The genius of the founders is that they knew the tendencies of mankind and they knew that needed to create a way to put a “check” on them so that future generations could truly have a chance to prosper and reach their full potential. That is what they did with the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights. First and foremost, the Declaration of Independence may be the best “break up letter” of all time. It starts out by stating When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. Basically, this says that it is necessary for them to break up with England and to provide for themselves in the way God intended with the rights that are God given. But, out of respect they should state the reasons why they are breaking up. It then goes on to say what the founders believe should be evident to everyone and that is that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly, all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. The founders were saying that we have the right from God to life, liberty (freedom), and to pursue our happiness and that governments should secure these rights for the citizens to do so. But, when the government doesn't secure these rights and the becomes destructive or outright hostile to them, then the people have the ability to change or get rid of the government so as to put one in that does. But, they go on to say that this should not be done lightly and if possible, it is better to suffer through things than to go this route. And they end with stating that there comes a point where suffering can no longer be tolerated, and it is time to end the King's rule. They then go in the rest of the document to list all of the things the King has done to them to cause this happen. Now fast forward a decade or so and the colonies have won the war of Independence and have tried one way of governing that didn't work, so they have come together to create the United States and form a constitution for governing. The Constitution is an amazing document in that in just a short few pages, it lays out everything needed to govern our country. Contrast that with congress nowadays who passes most bills that are in the thousands of pages. The Constitution is the “check” on the tendencies of mankind that I mentioned before and may be the greatest one ever. But, even when they were done with it, the founders felt it didn't have everything it needed, so they came up with the first set of amendments to the constitution just to make sure. Remember, they had just fought for independence and were very wary of giving government any major power at all. They were smart. They created the first 10 Amendments which are as follows: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This one, most have heard and allows for freedom of religion and the press as well as the t people peaceable assemble and petition the govern for changes based on the grievances they have with it. It does not mean burning down cities, looting and beating other people in the streets, or cancelling someone because you don't like what they say or stand for or aren't getting your way. Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This gives the right for people to own guns and be armed and states that it shall not infringed which means it shall not be tampered with any way. You'll notice this amendment is the only place that word is used. Another thing that is important to note that in all the instances where dictators took over and/or took control of society in the past century, they did everything they could to abolish the ability for the citizens to own guns in their countries. All of those dictators and tyrants I mentioned earlier did this on their way to slaughtering their citizens by the millions. It is another check on the tendency of mankind. Amendment III No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. This is an interesting one today because we don't put soldiers in homes, but there is debate on what is considered a soldier in today's world. If the government is watching you in your home through your internet searches or phones calls and is using the military to do so, aren't they essentially camped in your home? I think this debate will rage on. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This goes with the last one in that the government is not allowed to “Search” without probably cause with a warrant that defines what they are searching for and why. Again, there is major debate about the government's ability to search what you are doing through your devices and a host of other mediums without a warrant – especially under the Patriot Act. There are cases in court all the time around this. Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. This states that someone cannot be tried again for the same crime if found not guilty of it. Additionally, it states that you cannot be compelled to incriminate yourself. This what is happening when you hear someone say they won't answer and “plead the 5th.” It also states that any property taken by the government or law enforcement can only be done with giving just compensation. There are a lot of lawsuits that happen around that every year. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. This amendment states that you have a right to trial when accused of a crime and that shall be with an impartial court and jury as well as give you the right to confront those accusing you. This is critical to having a solid justice system. Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. This just sets the value for going to court in common law cases and having a jury. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. This makes sure that the courts can't hold you by imposing a bail sum so high no one could pay it. It also doesn't allow excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishment. A lot of lawsuits are files around this on each year as well. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This is a big one as it states that the just because they aren't in the constitution, there are other rights that people have, and they are retained by them. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The 10th amendment is very important in that it basically says that the powers not stated in the constitution to the Federal Government or prohibited from the states, are given to the states, effectively the people because they make up the states. In other words, the Federal Government can only have the powers in these documents and the states have the all the rest. That was the point of the US. To keep the Federal Government small and let the states govern themselves the way their people wanted to govern. The states were little laboratories of Democracy and Republicanism and if a state did something their citizens didn't like, they could change or move to another state doing the things they liked. It was never intended to have an overarching Federal Government in control of the states and in some ways instituted in some aspect or another of people's every day lives. Along the way, the US drifted from it and that is conversation for another day. But knowing your Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights will help you clearly see where they are being violated and where you can help to get thing back on track as a citizen. The United States became the greatest country ever created because of these simple documents and principles and the more we understand them, even in our world today so many years later, the better our country will be and continue to be the greatest place for everyone on earth to come and pursue their happiness. Hannah, I hope you read these documents and reflect on them often as you go through life to uphold them and teach them to others. I love you, Daddy   Best Quote: The genius of the founders is that they knew the tendencies of mankind and they knew that needed to create a way to put a “check” on them so that future generations could truly have a chance to prosper and reach their full potential.   Misfit 3: Most people will never read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution Including the Bill of Rights during their life – or at least only read some of it. I believe that everyone should study these documents throughout their lives. The Declaration of Independence may be the best “break up letter” of all time. Basically, this says that it is necessary for them to break up with England and to provide for themselves in the way God intended with the rights that are God given. But, out of respect they should state the reasons why they are breaking up. The United States became the greatest country ever created because of these simple documents and principles and the more we understand them, even in our world today so many years later, the better our country will be and continue to be the greatest place for everyone on earth to come and pursue their happiness.   HeyLaika Go to www.HeyLaika.com/misfit (lower case) to get 20% off! Five Minute Journal www.MisfitEntrepreneur.com/Journal

Radio Cayman News
EVENING NEWS

Radio Cayman News

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 9, 2021 8:52


The United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention website releases a travel notice on covid 19 in the Cayman Islands. Amendments to the Summary Jurisdiction bill if passed could give new powers to the Chief Justice and Governor. 44 thousand reusable masks issued for all students and staff in government schools. #rcnews #radiocayman #caymanislands --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/rcnews/message

The State of Us
7 Changes to the Constitution

The State of Us

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 9, 2021 38:51


The Constitution has not had a significant change in over 50 years. Justin and Lance discuss some amendments that are in the conversation of being added to the constitution. From abortion, labor unions, global policy, and digital privacy - Justin and Lance weigh in on each proposed amendment's utility. tags: justin weller, lance jackson, tsou, constitution, amendments, government, politics, america, congress, supreme court, abortion, privacy

Live at America's Town Hall
The Founders' and the People's Constitutions

Live at America's Town Hall

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 4, 2021 61:53


Last week, we hosted a discussion of how the U.S. Constitution was written and how it has changed over time, featuring two authors with different takes: professors Wilfred Codrington III of Brooklyn Law School and Charles R. Kesler of Claremont McKenna College. Professor Codrington unveiled his new book 'The People's Constitution: 200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union.' Codrington tells the story of constitutional change through his focus on the amendments that he says have reshaped our founding document in order to create a more perfect union. At the same time, Professor Kesler presented his book, 'Crisis of the Two Constitutions: The Rise, Decline, and Recovery of American Greatness.' Kesler's focus is on the Constitution as written in 1787, as opposed to a narrative of the progressive or “living” constitution, and argues that the two are at odds with each other. National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderates. This conversation was streamed live on October 26, 2021.

SAfm Market Update with Moneyweb
Treasury proposes amendments to pension fund infrastructure investments

SAfm Market Update with Moneyweb

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 3, 2021 8:43


Vuyo Ntoi – Co-Managing Director,  AIIM Old Mutual Alternatives

Live at America's Town Hall
The Founders' and the People's Constitutions

Live at America's Town Hall

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 2, 2021 62:49


Last week, we hosted a discussion of how the U.S. Constitution was written and how it has changed over time, featuring two authors with different takes: professors Wilfred Codrington III of Brooklyn Law School and Charles R. Kesler of Claremont McKenna College. Professor Codrington unveiled his new book The People's Constitution: 200 Years, 27 Amendments, and the Promise of a More Perfect Union. Codrington tells the story of constitutional change through his focus on the amendments that he says have reshaped our founding document in order to create a more perfect union. At the same time, Professor Kesler presented his book, Crisis of the Two Constitutions: The Rise, Decline, and Recovery of American Greatness. Kesler's focus is on the Constitution as written in 1787, as opposed to a narrative of the progressive or “living” constitution, and argues that the two are at odds with each other. National Constitution Center president and CEO Jeffrey Rosen moderates. This conversation was streamed live on October 26, 2021.

Peachtree Corners Life LIVE
Prime Lunchtime discusses Hotel conversions, public safety and multi-use developments

Peachtree Corners Life LIVE

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 2, 2021 43:52


On today's episode of Prime Lunchtime with the City Manager, Brian Johnson and Rico sit down to discuss apartments and new developments going on in the city of Peachtree Corners. Topics include the conversion of an extended stay hotel to apartments, Special Service Districts, and new Amendments to Business District Uses.

Read It On Reddit
266 - Unapproved American Amendments

Read It On Reddit

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 1, 2021 82:00


VOTE FOR CANCELLED MOVIE REPORT for the Australian Podcast Awards: https://bit.ly/3EAnYd1   UPCOMING STREAMS WITH ESCAPE THIS PODCAST/PLAY THIS GAME: Cambo is on 7th of Nov 12PM AEDT with @Bee_Zelda @TSQI_Toby @travismcelroy Nelson is on 21st of Nov 12PM AEDT with @janetvarney @PEIHGEE @PaulWilliams_12 Go here: https://t.co/BabDAMYVOL   RED BUBBLE STORE: https://rdbl.co/2BXMEkq DISCORD: https://discord.com/invite/uWZkb2a   Read It On Reddit: - Unapproved American Amendments   Ask Reddit: - What's A Crazy Statistic? - Alien Racial Slur   Today I Advice: - Fidel Castro Assassination Attempt  - Alien Invasion Team Up   Shower Thoughts: - Beer vs Ice Cream Pint - Human Version of Lowering Graphics   Podnapping - Cambo's Best One Yet!   AMA - readitpodcast@gmail.com - Ask Us Anything!   LET YOUR GUARD DOWN!

Read It On Reddit's Podcast
266 - Unapproved American Amendments

Read It On Reddit's Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 1, 2021 82:00


VOTE FOR CANCELLED MOVIE REPORT for the Australian Podcast Awards: https://bit.ly/3EAnYd1   UPCOMING STREAMS WITH ESCAPE THIS PODCAST/PLAY THIS GAME: Cambo is on 7th of Nov 12PM AEDT with @Bee_Zelda @TSQI_Toby @travismcelroy Nelson is on 21st of Nov 12PM AEDT with @janetvarney @PEIHGEE @PaulWilliams_12 Go here: https://t.co/BabDAMYVOL   RED BUBBLE STORE: https://rdbl.co/2BXMEkq DISCORD: https://discord.com/invite/uWZkb2a   Read It On Reddit: - Unapproved American Amendments   Ask Reddit: - What's A Crazy Statistic? - Alien Racial Slur   Today I Advice: - Fidel Castro Assassination Attempt  - Alien Invasion Team Up   Shower Thoughts: - Beer vs Ice Cream Pint - Human Version of Lowering Graphics   Podnapping - Cambo's Best One Yet!   AMA - readitpodcast@gmail.com - Ask Us Anything!   LET YOUR GUARD DOWN!

Chad Hartman
Peter Hutchinson on Minneapolis charter amendments

Chad Hartman

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 29, 2021 20:35


Peter Hutchinson has served the city of Minneapolis in many capacities. Why does he think Question 1 on the ballot is more important than Question 2? Take a listen... See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

While You Were Talking
64 - Failed Amendments, McDonalds Quiz, Pornhub Calculus

While You Were Talking

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 27, 2021 50:46


What were you thinking about while we were talking? Send us a voice message and let us know! Follow us on Instagram and Twitter. Send us an email: whileyouweretalkingpod@gmail.com Thank you to Rob Henson for our theme music, and thank YOU for listening! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/whileyouweretalkingpod/message

KOTO Community Radio News
Off the Record 10-26-21: Tourism, Charter Amendments & Meeting Moderator on the Ballot

KOTO Community Radio News

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 27, 2021 66:43


Everyone knows about questions 300 and 2D on the 2021 Telluride ballot. But what about the tourism funding potentially at stake in question 2A? Or the town charter amendments in questions 2B and 2C? Or the (unopposed) race for Town Meeting Moderator? We cover it all in this roundup of the remaining local issues up for a vote this year in Telluride.

Tore Says Show
Thu 21 Oct: Hard Awake - Down Pants - The Point - Conversations - Protocol Hole - Overreach - Empire History

Tore Says Show

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 22, 2021 136:33


Waking up is so very hard to do. Obvious fake, fraud and abuse makes it easier. There's a point where even the sheeple get activated to stand up. That's why the psyops are thick. What the hell is Congress even doing? The Nads uses protocols to interrupt real debate. It's the erosion of discussion. But, some real questions are getting thru. Justice joke on the stand. The $600 excuse. An obvious goal is to kill off all small business. 10 most powerful angels. A Reagan history lesson. Statewide groups are catching on fire. We need our own think tanks. The 9th and 10th Amendments are genius. Now is when we mix our pride with activism, because we can only rely on ourselves. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Texas Tribune Brief
Texans will decide eight proposed amendments to the state Constitution on Nov. 2.

Texas Tribune Brief

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 18, 2021 2:42


Two proposed amendments — one regarding religious services and another related to nursing home visitors — stem from restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Early voting begins Oct. 18.

Constitutional Chats hosted by Janine Turner and Cathy Gillespie
The Gabby Petito Tragedy. Obtaining the Laundrie Warrant Sooner? The Role of the 4th & 5th Amendments Straight

Constitutional Chats hosted by Janine Turner and Cathy Gillespie

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 16, 2021 58:27


It's the case that has grasped a nation.  A young social media personality goes missing, is eventually found deceased and her fiancé is a suspect.  With so many unanswered questions, we have reexamined interactions with law enforcement in the days preceding her disappearance.  Could they have done more?  Could the fiancé have been detained?  The Bill of Rights sets the framework for law enforcement through the 4th and 5th amendments.  Join our panel and former federal prosector Charles Stimson as we examine the legal circumstances in this case and criminal procedure.

Gardening Coast2Coast's Podcast
EP-4: How to Care for Your Garden Beds in the Fall/Winter Using Different Amendments & Save Money : Gardening Coast2Coast

Gardening Coast2Coast's Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 15, 2021 46:34


Gary and CaliKim discuss putting your beds to rest for the fall and winter or refreshing your beds if you can grow through the winter. Fall is a great time for adding organic matter. They discuss ways to save money and use leaves, compost, cover crops and more. 

NJCPA IssuesWatch Podcast
85: A&A Update with Brad Muniz – 10/5/21

NJCPA IssuesWatch Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 5, 2021 10:11


Our latest 10-minute accounting and auditing update provides a speed round on various FASB, AICPA, CAQ and PCAOB updates:FASB ASU 2021-06 - https://www.fasb.org/cs/Satellite?c=Document_C&cid=1176177037677&pagename=FASB%2FDocument_C%2FDocumentPageFASB Disclosure of Supplier Finance Program Obligations - https://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/FASBContent_C/ProjectUpdateExpandPage&cid=1176175475663FASB Exposure Draft: Fair Value Measurement of Equity Securities Subject to Contractual Sale - https://www.fasb.org/jsp/FASB/Document_C/DocumentPage?cid=1176177297732&acceptedDisclaimer=trueAICPA SAS 134 – Auditor Reporting and Amendments - https://www.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/research/standards/auditattest/downloadabledocuments/sas-134.pdfCAQ – How Climate-Related Risk Considerations Intersect with the Audited Financial Statements - https://www.thecaq.org/news/center-for-audit-quality-resource-highlights-how-climate-related-risk-considerations-intersect-with-the-audited-financial-statements/AICPA Exposure Draft: Unpaid Fees - https://www.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/interestareas/professionalethics/community/exposuredrafts/downloadabledocuments/2021/2021-September-unpaid-fees.pdfAICPA Exposure Draft: Accounting Standards Implementation Services - https://www.aicpa.org/content/dam/aicpa/interestareas/professionalethics/community/exposuredrafts/downloadabledocuments/2021/2021-september-accounting-standards-implementation.pdfPCAOB Solicits Additional Public Comment on Proposed New Requirements for Lead Auditor's Use of Other Auditors - https://pcaobus.org/news-events/news-releases/news-release-detail/pcaob-solicits-additional-public-comment-on-proposed-new-requirements-for-lead-auditor-s-use-of-other-auditorsPCAOB Adopts Rule to Create Framework for HFCAA Determinations - https://pcaobus.org/news-events/news-releases/news-release-detail/pcaob-adopts-rule-to-create-framework-for-hfcaa-determinationsU.S. Department of Labor to assess employee benefit plan audits - https://www.njcpa.org/article/2021/09/14/dol-to-conduct-audit-quality-assessment-of-2020-plan-year-filings Additional resources:AICPA Ethically Speaking Podcast - https://www.aicpa.org/interestareas/professionalethics/ethically-speaking.htmlOct. 6 Webinar: What CPAs Need to Know About ESG – https://njcpa.org/plusESG Knowledge Hub – https://njcpa.org/hub/esgJoin the NJCPA Accounting & Auditing Interest Group – https://njcpa.org/groups

The Bob Harden Show
The "Real" Afghanistan Tragedy

The Bob Harden Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 30, 2021 58:32


Thank you so much for listening to the Bob Harden Show, celebrating over ten years broadcasting weekdays on the internet – providing you news and commentary rooted in the principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government and the rule of law. On Thursday's show, we visit with Pastor Rick Stevens, Co-Founder of the Florida Citizens Alliance, about improved civics education in Florida public schools and the Governor's application of the 9th and 10th Amendments. We visit Lawrence Mead, Professor of Politics at New York University and author of “Burdens of Freedom,” about the "real" Afghan tragedy. Seton Motley, the Founder and President of Less Government, and I discuss the irony of China's use of slave labor, carbon-based fuel, and subsidies to supply the planet with energy-inefficient solar panels. We also visit with the former Mayor of Naples, Bill Barnett. Please join us for tomorrow's show. We have terrific guests including William Yeatman, the Director of Health Studies at the Cato Institute, Michael Cannon, the Founder and President of the Naples Jewish Historical Society, Marina Berkovich, and Dave Bego, the author of “The Devil at Our Doorstep.” Please join us live at 7 a.m. on this website, or you can access the show anytime on podcast platforms (iTunes, TuneIn, Spotify, and Stitcher, Vuerbl,and ChoiceSocial).

The Thriving Farmer Podcast
147. Nigel Palmer on Creating Nutrient Dense Foods Without the Damage and Expense of Commercial Chemicals

The Thriving Farmer Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 28, 2021 65:50


How well do you understand the fundamentals of keeping your farm regenerative and healthy? Today we're joined by Nigel Palmer, life long gardener and Author of The Regenerative Grower's Guide to Garden Amendments. Nigel's book provides practical, detailed instructions that are accessible to every grower who wants to achieve a truly sustainable garden ecosystem - all while enjoying better results at a fraction of the cost of commercial fertilizer products. These recipes go beyond fertilizer replacement, resulting in greater soil biological activity and mineral availability. They also increase pest and disease resistance, yields, and nutrient density. Using ferments, tinctures, and extracts, Nigel teaches all about how to create foliar sprays, fertilizers, and soil drenches to grow disease and pest-resistant plants, and nutrient-dense food, without the need for commercial chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or fungicides. Join us today to hear how you can regenerate and greatly enhance your own farm!   You'll hear:  What Nigel's career as an aerospace engineer was like 1:05 When Nigel started with gardening 2:15 What caused Nigel's decision to get into nutrient dense growing 3:23 What specific recipes are better for specific crops 9:45 How Nigel sources materials and finds the right extractions for optimal plant growth 12:24 Nigel's method for optimal foliar spraying 14:59 What are the advantages of using organic vinegar in lieu of regular ACV? 18:33 What a refractometer is and how it's best utilized 23:10 Some things a new gardener should always be looking for 27:51 The layout of The Regenerative Grower's Guide to Garden Amendments 39:31 How The Institute of Sustainable Nutrition operates 45:05 Nigel's favorite tools for his work 53:02 Nigel's favorite crop to grow 55:12 About the Guest:Nigel Palmer is the author of the book The Regenerative Grower's Guide to Garden Amendments and an experimental gardener relying on the amazing complexity of nature to inspire his food growing philosophies. He develops curriculum for, and instructs, the Gardening Program at The Institute of Sustainable Nutrition (TIOSN.com).   Resources:Websites - https://www.nigel-palmer.com/, TIOSN.comLinktree - ​​https://linktr.ee/nigelpalmer   Harvest Hosts Resources:If interested in being a host, please be sure to mention ​​Thriving Farmer Podcast on your application! We are Harvest Hosts, a platform that connects over 180,000 RVers to local businesses and attractions. Based on our recent survey, Harvest Hosts members spend an average of $50 per night at each Host Location they visit; well-established Hosts are reporting an average of $13,000 in additional annual revenue. Our model is a cost-free opportunity for hosts to share their offerings with our members by opening up space for an overnight stay. We simply tell our members about you and they schedule their visit in advance. In exchange for the overnight stay, Harvest Host members are encouraged to make a purchase of at least $20 at each host location they visit. We hope to see you as a new host location of ours soon. ​If you have additional questions, please contact our Account Executive, JD at jd@harvesthosts.comHarvest Hosts Facebook  Harvest Hosts Instagram  Become a Host Information ​Don't believe us? Hear more from a host!

Epic Gardening: Daily Growing Tips and Advice
Common Fertilizer Amendments

Epic Gardening: Daily Growing Tips and Advice

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 26, 2021 10:18


Connect With Mike Chang: Mike Chang is the in-house agronomist for Grower's House, with history in the tomato, cucumber, and cannabis industry. https://growershouse.com/ https://ventanaplant.science/ https://cannacribs.org/ Buy Birdies Garden Beds Use code EPICPODCAST for 5% off your first order of Birdies metal raised garden beds, the best metal raised beds in the world. They last 5-10x longer than wooden beds, come in multiple heights and dimensions, and look absolutely amazing. Click here to shop Birdies Garden Beds Buy My Book My book, Field Guide to Urban Gardening, is a beginners guide to growing food in small spaces, covering 6 different methods and offering rock-solid fundamental gardening knowledge: Order on Amazon Order a signed copy Follow Epic Gardening YouTube Instagram Pinterest Facebook Facebook Group

SBS Albanian - SBS Albanian
Longer waiting periods for Centrelink payments - Me shume pritje per pagesa sociale

SBS Albanian - SBS Albanian

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 25, 2021 7:11


New permanent residents will have a four-year wait before they can access most government payments. Amendments to Australia's social security laws are set to take effect in 2022. This edition of Settlement Guide explains the new waiting periods, the eligibility for payments and the exemptions that exist for those in need. - Benoret e rinj ne Australi do te duhet te presin per kater vjet perpara se te kene te drejte qe te marrin pagesa te sigurimeve shoqerore. Degjoni per detajet.

The Steve Gruber Show
Congressman Tim Walberg, Walberg Amendments on Afghanistan Accountability and America's Wireless Leadership Pass the House

The Steve Gruber Show

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 24, 2021 8:30


Congressman Tim Walberg Michigan's 7th congressional district. Walberg Amendments on Afghanistan Accountability and America's Wireless Leadership Pass the House

Sunrise
Redistricting

Sunrise

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 20, 2021 16:00


Lawmakers are kicking off the once-a-decade redistricting process, but they continue to block the public from seeing draft maps. Also, on today's Sunrise: — This first committee week, lawmakers will try to produce a plan for what's next after Florida drops high-stakes standardized testing. Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran says something better is possible. — A newly filed bill aims to make school board elections partisan. Christian Ziegler with the Republican Party of Florida says nonpartisan races are a sham. — After an intensive search, authorities say they discovered a body Sunday in Wyoming believed to be Florida resident Gabby Petito. — The Sunrise interview jumps right into a hot topic for committee week — redistricting. The guest is Ellen Freidin, campaign chair of the drive to amend the Florida Constitution to require more compact legislative and congressional districts — through Amendments 5 and 6, passed in 2010.

The Secret Teachings Archives
The Secret Teachings 9/16/21 - A Less Perfect Union: The Candyman Can

The Secret Teachings Archives

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 17, 2021 116:48


If you want to create a less perfect union, conjure that which splintered any attempt to create a more perfect union with true liberty and equality, or natural law. Conjure the candyman if you want bloodshed and delusion, and a less perfect union. Recognizing Constitution Day, there is no doubt that the history of the U.S. is filled with slavery, bigotry, racism, lynching (involving whites too), Klan activity, etc., though the reduction of complex and incomparable history to modern times is ignorant and misleading. Slavery and plantations have been replaced with welfare and the projects, while bigotry and racism have been redefined by some who act as protectors of ethnic or racial groups. Klan activity has been replaced with many social justice movements that like the Klan attack all who disagree. Despite the horrors of history, found all around the world from ancient to modern day, the foundation of a more perfect union was an attempt to compromise with ideas opposed to confirming all men are equal upon birth. This is why some were opposed not only to the Constitution, but engaged in a Civil War, and why many poor Confederates fled the military. It's why the Republican party placed the south under Martial Law after the war, forced Confederates out of power, and why they enacted the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, one of which was founded on the original Civil Rights Act of the 1860s. But war and legislation, along with emancipation proclamations, are not enough to stop the tide of economic and biased belief. Attempting to conjure the past for power in the present is the equivalent of summoning the dead for political purposes - an act of black magic and modern historical atrocity. Support this podcast

All Things Chemical
EPA and PBTs: A New Normal? — A Conversation with Richard E. Engler, Ph.D.

All Things Chemical

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2021 47:15


This week I sat down with Dr. Richard E. Engler, B&C's and The Acta Group's (our consulting affiliate) Director of Chemistry, to discuss the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) continuing struggle to regulate certain persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals, especially those found in finished products, what EPA refers to as “articles.” The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has always applied to the products, or articles, that contain chemical substances of interest to EPA under TSCA. While EPA previously used that authority somewhat sparingly, the 2016 Amendments to TSCA have jump-started a new wave of regulations that expressly apply to articles. EPA is required under TSCA to regulate certain PBTs, and EPA issued a final rule earlier this year that inspired chaos in the business community, especially in the electronics sector and its complicated supply chain. Rich and I discuss these PBT rules and help explain what may well be the new normal with regard to the regulation of finished products under TSCA. ALL MATERIALS IN THIS PODCAST ARE PROVIDED SOLELY FOR INFORMATIONAL  AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT INTENDED TO CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVICE OR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES. ALL LEGAL QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED DIRECTLY BY A LICENSED ATTORNEY PRACTICING IN THE APPLICABLE AREA OF LAW. ©2021 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.  All Rights Reserved

CFR On the Record
Academic Webinar: Race in America and International Relations

CFR On the Record

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 15, 2021


Travis L. Adkins, deputy assistant administrator for Africa at USAID and lecturer of African and security studies at the Walsh School of Foreign Service and in the Prisons and Justice Initiative at Georgetown University, and Brenda Gayle Plummer, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, led a conversation on race in America and international relations. FASKIANOS: Welcome to the first session of the CFR Fall 2021 Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach at CFR. Today's meeting is on the record, and the video and transcript will be available on our website CFR.org/academic if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Travis Adkins and Brenda Gayle Plummer with us to discuss race in America and international relations. Travis Adkins is deputy assistant administrator in the Bureau of Africa at USAID, and lecturer of African and security studies at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, and in the Prisons and Justice Initiative at Georgetown University. As an international development leader, he has two decades of experience working in governance, civil society, and refugee and migration affairs in over fifty nations throughout Africa and the Middle East. Mr. Adkins was a CFR international affairs fellow and is a CFR member. Dr. Brenda Gayle Plummer is a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research includes race and gender, international relations, and civil rights. Dr. Plummer has taught Afro-American history throughout her twenty years of experience in higher education. Previously she taught at Fisk University, the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the University of Minnesota. And from 2001 to 2005, Dr. Plummer served on the Historical Advisory Committee of the U.S. Department of State. So, thank you both for being with us today. We appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with us. Travis, I thought we could begin with you to talk about the ways in which you've seen race relations in America influence U.S. foreign policy. ADKINS: Sure. Thank you so much, Irina. And welcome to everyone. Thank you for joining. The first thing I would say is that America's long history of violence, exclusion, and barbarism towards Black people and indigenous people and Asian communities and immigrant communities in the United States have worked to give the lie to the notion of who we say we are in terms of freedom, in terms of democracy, in terms of the respect for human rights. And these are the core messages that we seek to project in our foreign policy. And we've not been able to resolve those contradictions because we have refused to face this history, right? And we can't countenance a historical narrative in which we are not the heroes, not the good guys, not on the right side of history. And the challenge that we've had is that we've seen that play out in so many ugly ways domestically. But it also has resonance and relevance in our foreign policy, because what it ends up doing is essentially producing a foreign policy of platitudes and contradictory posturing on the issues of human rights, on the issues of racial justice, on the issues of democratic governance when the world can see not only this history but this present reality of racial discrimination, of police brutality, of efforts to suppress the political participation of specific groups of people inside of America. They can see children in cages at the Southern border. They can see anti-Asian hate taking place in our nation, and they can hear those messages resounding, sometimes from our White House, sometimes from our Senate, sometimes from our Congress and other halls of power throughout the United States. And that works against the message of who we say we are, which is really who we want to be. But the thing that we, I think, lose out on is pretending that where we want to be is actually where we are. And I think back a couple weeks ago Secretary Blinken came out saying to diplomats in the State Department that it was okay for them to admit America's flaws and failings in their diplomatic engagements with other countries. But I would—I do applaud that. But I also think that saying that we would admit it to the rest of the world—the rest of the world already knows. And who we would have to need to focus on admitting it to is ourselves, because we have not faced this national shame of ours as it relates to the historical and the present reality of White supremacy, of racialized violence and hatred and exclusion in our immigration policy, in our education policy, in our law and customs and cultural mores that have helped to produce ongoing violence and hatred of this nature in which our history is steeped. I think the other part of that is that we lose the opportunity to then share that message with the rest of the world. And so, what I like to say is that our real history is better than the story that we tell. So instead of us framing ourselves and our foreign policy as a nation who fell from the heavens to the top of a mountain, it's a more powerful story to say that we climbed up out of a valley and are still climbing up out of a valley of trying to create and produce and cultivate a multiracial, multiethnic democracy with respect for all, and that that is and has been a struggle. And I think that that message is much more powerful. And what it does is it creates healing for us at home, but it also begins to take away this kind of Achilles' heel that many of our adversaries have used historically—the Soviet Union, now Russia, China, Iran—this notion that democracy and freedom and the moral posturing of America is all for naught if you just look at what they do at home. Who are they to preach to you about these things when they themselves have the same challenges? And so I think that we would strengthen ourselves if we could look at this in that way. And I would just close by saying that we often speak of the civil rights movement and the movement for decolonization in the world, and specifically in Africa where I mostly work, speak of them in the past tense. But I would argue that both of them are movements and histories that are continuously unfolding, that are not resolved, and that haven't brought themselves to peaceful kinds of conclusions. And this is why when George Floyd is killed on camera, choked for nine minutes and loses his life, that you see reverberations all over the world, people pushing back because they are suffering from the same in their countries, and they are following after anti-Asian hate protestors and advocates, Black Lives Matter advocates and protestors, people who are saying to the world this is unacceptable. And so even in that way, you see the linked fates that people share. And so I think that the more we begin to face who we are at home, the more we begin to heal these wounds and relate better in the foreign policy arena, because I think that it is a long held fallacy that these things are separate, right? A nation's foreign policy is only an extension of its beliefs, its policies and its aspirations and its desires from home going out into the world. So I will stop there. And thank you for the question. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much. Dr. Plummer, over to you. PLUMMER: Well, your question is a very good one. It is also a very book-length question. I'll try to address that. First of all, I would like to say that I find Mr. Adkins' statement quite eloquent and can't think of anything I disagree with in what he has said. There are a couple of things that we might consider as well. I think there are several issues embedded in this question of the relationship between race relations in the United States and it's policies toward other countries. One of them is, I think there's a difference between what policymakers intend and how American policy is perceived. There is also the question of precisely who is making and carrying out U.S. foreign policy. Now there was a time when that question I think could be very readily answered. But we're now in an age where we have enhanced roles for the military and the intelligence community. We have private contractors executing American objectives overseas. And this really places a different spin on things, somewhat different from what we observe when we look at this only through a strictly historical lens. I think we also need to spend some time thinking about the precise relationship between race and racism and what we might call colonial, more of imperialist practices. You might look, for example, at what is the relationship between the essentially colonial status of places like Puerto Rico and the Marianas and the—how those particular people from those places are perceived and treated within both the insular context and the domestic context. Clearly, everybody on the planet is shaped to a large degree by the culture and the society that they live in, that they grew up in, right? And so it is probably no mystery from the standpoint of attitudes that certain kinds of people domestically may translate into similar views of people overseas. But I think one of the things we might want to think about is how our institutions, as well as prejudices, influence what takes place. People like to talk, for example, about the similarities between the evacuation of Saigon and the evacuation of Kabul and wonder what is it called when you do the same thing over and over again and expect different results? We might want to think about what is it, institutionally, which creates these kinds of repetitions, creates situations in which diplomats are forced to apologize and explain continually about race and other conflictual issues in American society. We might also think about what you perhaps could call a racialization process. Do we create categories of pariahs in response to national emergencies? Do we create immigrants from countries south of the United States as enemies because we don't have a comprehensive and logical way of dealing with immigration? Do we create enemies out of Muslims because of our roles in the Middle East and, you know, the activities and actions of other states? There's some historical presence for this—the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, for example. So it seems to me that in addressing I think, you know, some of this very rich question, there are a number of ways and facets that we might want to look at and discuss more fully. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you very much. And now we're going to go to all of you for questions and comments. So you can either ask your question by raising your hand, click on the raised hand icon and I will call on you, or else you can write your question in the Q&A box. And if you choose to write your question—although we'd prefer to hear your voice—please include your affiliation. And when I call on you, please let us know who you are and your institution. So the first question, the first raised hand I see is from Stanley Gacek. Q: Yes, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Professor Plummer and Mr. Adkins, for a very, very compelling presentation. My name is Stanley Gacek. I'm the senior advisor for global strategies at the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, representing 1.3 million working women and men in the United States and Canada in the retail, wholesale, food production, healthcare, and services industries. Practically all of our members are on the frontlines of the pandemic. I also served as deputy director and interim director of the ILO mission in Brazil in 2011 to 2016. And my question is this. I wonder if the speakers would also acknowledge that an issue for the United States in terms of its credibility with regard to racial justice, human rights, and of course labor rights, is a rather paltry record of the United States in terms of ratifying international instruments and adhering to international fora with regard to all of these issues. One example which comes to mind in my area is ILO Convention 111 against discrimination in employment and profession, which could—actually has gone through a certain due diligence process in former administrations and was agreed to by business and labor in the United States but still the United States has failed to ratify. I just wondered if you might comment more generally about how that affects our credibility in terms of advocating for racial justice, human rights, and labor rights throughout the world. Thank you very much. FASKIANOS: Who can address that, would like to address that? PLUMMER: Well, I have very little immediate knowledge of this, and I have to say that labor issues and labor rights have been kind of a missing element in terms of being heavily publicized and addressed. I think it has something to do with the fact that over the course of the decades the United States has been less responsive to the United Nations, to international organizations in general. But in terms of the specifics, you know, precisely what has fallen by the wayside, I, you know, personally don't have, you know, knowledge about that. ADKINS: And I would just say more generally, not to speak specifically in terms of labor, where I'm also not an expert, but there is, of course, a long history of the U.S. seeking to avoid these kinds of issues in the international arena writ large as Dr. Plummer was just referring to. I just finished a book by Carol Anderson called Eyes Off the Prize, which is a whole study of this and the ways in which the U.S. government worked through the United Nations to prevent the internationalization of the civil rights movement which many—Malcom X and Martin Luther King, Fannie Lou Hamer, and others—sought to frame it in the context of human rights and raise it into an international specter, and that was something that the U.S. government did not want to happen. And of course, we know that part of the genius of the civil rights movement writ large was this tactic of civil disobedience, not just to push against a law that we didn't like to see in effect but actually to create a scene that would create international media attention which would show to the world what these various communities were suffering inside of America, to try to create pressure outside of our borders for the cause of freedom and justice and democracy. And so there is that long history there which you've touched on with your question. Thank you for that. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Mojubaolu Olufunke Okome. Q: Good afternoon and thank you for your presentation. I just wonder about U.S. foreign policy, how it lines up with the domestic politics, you know, in terms of race relations, because if one was to believe U.S. propaganda, you know, this country is doing good in the world, it's the country to emulate. But you know, the events of—well, I guess the George Floyd case brought into graphic relief what most astute observers of the U.S. know, that race relations of the U.S. do not line up very well with the constitutional aspirations of the U.S. So what's going to change now, you know? And then there's also this pandemic and the way which race and class is showing us about the real serious inequalities in the U.S. So what's going to change in terms of lessons learned? And then moving forward, is also multilateralism going to come back into U.S. foreign policy in some way? That's it. PLUMMER: I think—I'm getting kind of an echo here. I don't know if other people are. I don't think anyone is—you know, who is thinking about this seriously doubts that the United States is in a crisis at the moment—a crisis of legitimacy not only abroad but also domestically. We have a situation in which an ostensibly developed country has large pockets, geographic pockets where there are, you know, 30, 40, 50 percent poverty rates. We have people who are essentially mired in superstition, you know, with regard to, you know, matters of health and science. And you know, I don't think anyone is, you know—is, you know—who is, you know, thinking about this with any degree of gravity is not concerned about the situation. Once again, I think we're talking here about institutions, about how we can avoid this sort of repetitive and cyclical behavior. But one thing I want to say about George Floyd is that this is a phenomenon that is not only unique to the United States. One of the reasons why George Floyd became an international cause célèbre is because people in other countries also were experiencing racism. There—other countries had issues with regard to immigration. And so really looking at a situation in which I think is—you know, transcends the domestic, but it also transcends, you know, simply looking at the United States as, you know, the sort of target of criticism. FASKIANOS: Do you want to add anything, Travis, or do you want to—should we go to the next question? ADKINS: Go on to the next question. Thank you. FASKIANOS: OK, thank you. Let's go to Shaarik Zafar with Georgetown, and our prior questioner was with Brooklyn—teachers at Brooklyn College. Q: Hey, there. This is Shaarik Zafar. I was formerly the special counsel for post-9/11 national origin discrimination in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division—sorry, that's a mouthful—and then most recently during the Obama years I was a special representative to Muslim communities. So this—I first applaud the presentation. These issues are very near and dear to me. I think it's clear, you know, we have to own up and acknowledge our shortcomings. And I think, you know, I was really sad to hear that we actually worked against highlighting what I think is really an example of American exceptionalism, which is our civil rights movement and our civil rights community. When I was at State during the Obama years, we had a very modest program where we brought together U.S. civil rights leaders and connected them with European civil rights leaders. And the idea wasn't that we had it all figured out but rather that, you know, in some respects the United States has made some advances when it comes to civil rights organizing and civil society development in that respect—and perhaps more so than other countries. I was just thinking, I would love to get the panelists' thoughts on ways that we can continue to collaborate and—you know, on a civil society level between civil rights organizations in the United States and abroad and the way the U.S. government should actually support that—even if it means highlighting our shortcomings—but as a way to, you know, invest in these types of linkages and partnerships to not only highlight our shortcomings but look for ways that we could, you know, actually come to solutions that need to be, I think, fostered globally. Thanks so much. ADKINS: You know, the first thing I would say, Shaarik—thanks for your question—I thought it was interesting, this idea of framing the civil rights movement as a kind of example of American exceptionalism. And I think there's a way in which I would relate to that in the sense that folks did, at least nominally or notionally, have certain kinds of freedom of speech, certain kinds of rights to assembly. But even those were challenged, of course, when we see the violence and the assassinations and all of the machinations of the government against those who were leaders or participants in that movement. And so in that sense, perhaps I would agree. I might push back, though, in terms of American exceptionalism as it relates to civil rights, because these people were actually advocating against the U.S. government, who actually did not want them to have the rights that they were promised under the Constitution. Of course, many of us would not be free or able to speak up without the 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments. And so there's a sense in which we celebrate them, but there's also a sense in which they are actually indictments of the original Constitution which did not consider any of those things to be necessary elements of our society. In terms of civil society and where the U.S. government is engaged, I think that, you know, sometimes when we deal with these problems that are foreign policy related, you know, sometimes the answer is at home. Sometimes the answer is not, you know, a white paper from some high-level think tank. It's not something that starts ten thousand miles away from where we are, because I don't think that we would have the kind of standing and credibility that we would need to say that we believe in and support and give voice and our backing to civil society movements abroad if we don't do the same thing at home. And so everything that we want to do somewhere else, we ought to ask ourselves the question of whether or not we've thought about doing it at home. And I don't mean to suggest—because certainly no nation is perfect, and every nation has its flaws. But certainly, we would be called to the mat for the ways in which we are either acknowledging or refusing to acknowledge that we have, you know, these same—these same challenges. And so I think there still remains a lot of work to be done there in terms of how we engage on this. And you have seen the State Department come out and be more outspoken. You've seen the Biden administration putting these issues more out front. You have now seen the Black Lives Matter flag flying over U.S. embassies in different parts of the world. And some people might view that as co-optation of a movement that is actually advocating against the government for those rights and those respects and that safety and security that people believe that they are not receiving. And others might see it as a way to say, look, our nation is embracing civil society and civic protests in our nation as an example that the countries in which those embassies are in should be more open to doing the same kinds of things. And so it's a great question. I think it remains to be seen how we move forward on that—on that score. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Molly Cole. Q: Hi. My name is Molly Cole. I am a grad student of global affairs at New York University. I was just curious sort of what y'all thought about what the consequences of foreign policy on punishment systems and institutions as it pertains to race relations in the United States would be, also in tandem with sort of this strive for global inclusivity and equity and just sort of, I guess, hitting those two ideas against each other. ADKINS: Can you clarify the ideals for us, Molly? So one sounded like it was about maybe mass incarceration or the death penalty or things of that nature? You're talking about punitive systems of justice? And then the other seemed to be more about diversity, equity, and inclusion in the foreign policy space? But I don't want to put words in your mouth. I just want to make sure I understand the question. Q: You hit the nail on the head. ADKINS: OK. Do you want to go ahead, Dr. Plummer? PLUMMER: Oh. Well, again, a great question but, you know, one of, you know, it's—could write a book to answer. (Laughs.) Well, if you're talking about the sort of international regime of incarceration—is that what you were referring to? Q: Yes, essentially. So when we're—when we're considering, you know, these punitive systems, I'm thinking in terms of, you know, the death penalty, mass incarceration, private prisons, sort of this culmination of us trying to come up with these ideals, but doing it sort of on our own, while also combatting, you know, what the nation is calling for, what the globe is calling for. PLUMMER: Yeah. I think this sort of pertains to what I had mentioned earlier about just, you know, who is making and carrying out U.S. foreign policy, or domestic policy for that matter. There's a whole question of the state and, you know, what parts of the state are involved in this whole question of incarceration and are involved in the whole question of the death penalty. One of the things that we are aware of is that prisons have—some of the prisons are actually not being operated by civil authorities. They're operated by private entities. We saw this again in—you know, particularly in Afghanistan, where a lot of functions which normally, you know, are carried out by civil authorities are carried out by private authorities. And so this really puts a whole different perspective on the question or the relationship of citizens to the state and, you know, to any other particular group of citizens to the state. So I think that, you know, one of the problem areas then is to tease out what in fact are the obligations and privileges of government, and how do they differ from and how are they distinguished from the private sector. Q: Thank you. ADKINS: And I would just add quickly on this notion of hypocrisy and saying one thing and doing another, there was an interesting anecdote around this when President Obama visited Senegal. And he was delivering a fairly tough message about the treatment of members of the LGBT+ community in Senegal. And President Macky Sall got up essentially after President Obama and was essentially saying that, you know, we kind of appreciate this tough love lecture, but I would remind you, you know, that Senegal doesn't have the death penalty, right? And so on one hand we're actually saying something that has a grounding. Of course, people of all human stripes can have dignity, and have respect and be protected. But he is then hitting back and saying, hey, wait a minute, you kill people who break laws in your own country. And we don't have the death penalty. So who should actually be the arbiter of how is the correct way – or, what is the correct way to be? On the second part of your question, quickly, Molly, especially as it relates to the kind of diversity, equity, and inclusion piece, this is why also there has been a big push to look in our State Department, to look at USAID, to look at the face that America presents to the world. And all too often that face has been male, that face has been White. And that gives a certain perception of America, but it also means that we lose the tremendous treasure and talent of people who have language skills, who come from communities in which their own perspective on the world actually is a talent that they have. Specifically, because many of those communities—whether they've immigrated or come to America by different means—are also from groups who've been marginalized, who've been oppressed, who have a certain frame and a lens with which to engage with other nations in the world, either in terms of partnership, either in terms of deterrence. And so we lose out in many ways because we haven't done a great job in that—in that matter. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take a written question from Morton Holbrook, who's at Kentucky Wesleyan College. His question is: How should the United States respond to international criticism to the U.S.'s racial discrimination? And how will that affect the relationship between the U.S. and the international community? PLUMMER: Well, the United States, I think, has—(laughs)—no choice but to acknowledge this. Historically this has been a problem that when pressed on this issue in the past the response was always, well, you know, we know this is a problem and we're working on it. And the most egregious examples of racism are the responsibility of people who are either at the margins of society or who represent some sort of relic past that is rapidly disappearing, right? That was the message about the South, right? OK, the South is, you know, rapidly developing and so soon these vestiges of violent racism will be over. Well, again, the reason why that doesn't work anymore—(laughs)—is because we're always projecting this future, right, that—you know, it's always being projected further and further into the future. And we're never there yet. And it seems to me, again, that this is a problem of institutions. This is a problem of the embeddedness of racism in American life, and a refusal on the part of so many Americans to acknowledge that racism is real, and that it exists. And you know, I think we see many examples of this. I'm thinking of one instance where a George Floyd commemorative mural was painted on a sidewalk and some folks came along with some paint and painted over it, because they said it wasn't a racism corner, you know, while engaged in a racist act. So, you know, there really needs to be, I think, on a very fundamental level, some education—(laughs)—you know, in this country on the issue of race and racism. The question is, you know, who is—who will be leaders, right? Who will undertake this kind of mission? ADKINS: One thing I would say, quickly, on that, Irina, just an anecdote as well that also relates to really in some ways the last question about who our representatives are and what perspective they bring. Several years ago, I was on a trip—a congressional delegation to Egypt. And I was with several members of the CBC. And we met with President Sisi. And they were giving him a fairly rough go of it over his treatment of protesters who were protesting at that time in Tahrir Square, many of whom had been killed, maimed, abused, jailed. And he listened to them kind of haranguing him. And at the end of that speech that they were giving to him he said basically: I understand your points. And I hear your perspective. But he said, can I ask you a question? They said, sure, Mr. President. We welcome you to ask questions. And he said, what about Ferguson? And the day that he said that Ferguson was on fire with surplus military equipment in the streets of America, with, you know, tear gas and armed military-appearing soldiers in the streets of America who were seen, at least optically, to be doing the same thing, right? Not as many people were killed, certainly, but the point is you have this same problem. However, if that had been a different delegation, he might have scored a point in their verbal jousting. But President Sisi had the misfortune of saying this to two-dozen 70-plus-year-old Black people. And no one in America would know better than they what that is like. And so what they ended up replying to him by saying, exactly. No one knows this better than we do. And this is exactly why we're telling you that you shouldn't do it. Not because our country doesn't have that history, but because we do have that history and it has damaged us, and it will damage you. Which takes on a completely different tone in our foreign relations than if it was simply a lecture, and that we were placing ourselves above the nations of the world rather than among them. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go to Ashantee Smith. Q: Hello. Can you guys hear me? ADKINS: We can. FASKIANOS: Yes. Q: OK, perfect. Hi. My name is Ashantee Smith. I am a grad student at Winston-Salem State University. In regards to some of the responses that you guys gave earlier, it gave me a question. And I wanted to know how you guys were putting the correlation between racism and immigration. PLUMMER: Well, yeah. The United States has a history of racialized responses to immigrants, including historically to White immigrants. Back in the day the Irish, for example, were considered to be, you know, something less than White. We know, however, that society—American society has since, you know, incorporated Europeans into the category of Whiteness, and not done so for immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and Africa, who remain racialized, who are perceived as being, in some respects by some people, unassimilable. We also have a phenomenon of the racialization of Muslims, the creation of outcast groups that are subjected to, you know, extremes of surveillance or exclusion or discrimination. So immigration is very much embedded in this, is a question of an original vision of the United States, you know, and you can see this in the writings of many of the founding fathers, as essentially a White country in which others, you know, are in varying degrees of second-class citizens or not citizens at all. So this is, I think, an example of something that we have inherited historically that continues to, you know, be an issue for us in the present. Yeah. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Pearl Robinson. Q: Hello. I am just so thrilled to see the two panelists here. I want—I actually raised my hand when you were talking about the labor rights issue. And I'm at Tufts University. And I'm currently working on an intellectual biography about Ralph Bunche. And I actually ran over here from the U.N. archives where I was actually reading about these issues. (Laughs.) And I wanted to just say that the discussion we're having now, it's sort of disjointed because we're dealing with lots of erasures, things that are overlooked, and they are not enough Carol Andersons and Brenda Gayle Plummer professors out there putting these things in press. But even more importantly, they are not sufficiently in our curriculum. So people who study international relations and people who do international relations don't know most of these things. So my quick point I just wanted to say was during World War II when Ralph Bunche was working for the OSS military intelligence, his archives are full of it, he went and he was interviewing our allies at their missions and embassies in the U.S.—the French, the British—asking them: What are your labor relations policies in your colonial territories? And this was considered important military information for the United States, as we were going to be—as Africa was an important field of operation. When you get to actually setting up the U.N., I was struck in a way I hadn't, because I hadn't read archives this way. (Laughs.) But I'm looking at conversations between Bunche and Hammarskjöld, and they're restructuring the organization of the United States—of the United Nations. And there are two big issues that are determining their response to the restructuring—the Cold War as well as decolonization. And I actually think that those two issues remain—they're structuring that conversation we're having right now. And they—we say the Cold War is over, but I love this phrase, of the racialization of the current enemies or people we think of as enemies. So I actually do think that this is a really good program we're having where we're trying to have the conversation. But the dis-junctures, and the silences, and the difficulties of responding I think speak volumes. The last thing I will say, very quickly, that incident about the discussion with President Sisi that Mr. Adkins—that needs to be canned. That needs to be somehow made available as an example that can be replicated and expanded and broadened for people to use in teaching. ADKINS: Well, I always listen when my teacher is talking to me, Dr. Robinson. Thank you for sharing that. And I'm working on it, I promise you. (Laughter.) FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to—we have lots of questions and raised hands, and we're not going to get to all of you. So I apologize right now. (Laughs.) We'll do the best we can. Jill Humphries. Q: Hello. My name is Jill Humphries. And I'm an adjunct assistant professor in the Africa Studies Program at the University of Toledo, and have been doing Africa-based work, I'm proud to say, for about thirty-three years, starting at the age twenty-two, and have used Dr. Plummer's work in my dissertation. And hello, fellow ICAPer (sp). So my question is this: There's an assumption that I believe we're operating in. And that is race and racism is somehow aberrant to the founding of this country, right? So we know that Saidiya Hartman and Frank Wilderson, the Afropessimist, make the argument that it is clearly key that it is fundamental to the development of our institutions. And so my question is this: You know, the—in the domestic scene the sort of abolitions clearly state that unless we fundamentally transform our norms and values, which impact, of course, our institutions, then we will continue to have the exact outcomes that are expected. The killing of George Floyd and the continuing, I think, need to kill Black bodies is essential to this country. And so my question is, in the context of foreign relations, international relations, are we also looking at the way in which, number one, it is not aberrant that racism is a constituent element in the development of our foreign policy and our institutions? And that unless we fundamentally first state it, acknowledge it, and then perhaps explore the way in which we dismantle, right—dismantle those norms and values that then impact these institutions, that we're going to continue to have the same outcomes, right? So for example, when Samantha Powers visited Ethiopia, if you've been following that whole narrative, there was a major backlash by the Ethiopian diaspora—major. My colleagues and friends, like, I've had intense conversations, right, around that. Same thing about the belief about Susan, former—Susan Rice's role, right, in continuing to influence our foreign policy, particularly towards the Horn of Africa. So my question is: What does that look like, both theoretically, conceptually? But more importantly for me, because I'm a practitioner on the ground, what does that look like in practice? And that's where I think Professor Adkins, working for USAID, could really kind of talk about. Thank you. ADKINS: Thank you. Yeah, you know, I think it goes back to Dr. Robinson's question a moment ago. And that is the first the acknowledgement and the calling out and the putting into relief and contrast the context in which we're operating, especially when we think about not even USAID specifically, but the industry of development—aid and development assistance kind of writ large. Because essentially what we have is a historical continuum that starts with the colonial masters and the colonial subjects. And then that because what is called, or framed, as the first world and the third world, right? And then that becomes the developing world and the developed world. Then that becomes the global north and the global south. All of which suggests that one is above, and one is below. That one is a kind of earthly heaven, the other kind of earthly hell. That one possessed the knowledge and enlightenment to lead people into civilization, and the other needs redemption, needs to be saved, needs to be taught the way to govern themselves, right? That this kind of Western notion of remaking yourself in the world, that your language, that your system of government, that your way of thinking and religious and belief and economics should be the predominant one in the world. And so I think, to me, what you're saying suggests the ways in which we should question that. And this is where you start to hear conversations about decolonizing aid, about questioning how we presume to be leaders in the world in various aspects, of which we may not actually be producing sound results ourselves. And thinking again about this notion of placing ourselves among nations rather than above nations in the ways in which we relate and engage. And I think that it's one of the reasons that we continue to have challenges in the realm of development assistance, in the realm of our diplomacy and foreign policy. Because, again, there is a pushback against that kind of thinking, which is rooted in a deep history that contains much violence and many types of economic and diplomatic pressures to create and sustain the set of power relations which keeps one group of people in one condition and one in another. And so it's a huge question. And how to bring that kind of lofty thinking down to the granular level I think is something that we will have to continue to work on every day. I certainly don't have the answer, but I'm certainly answering—asking, I should say—the questions. PLUMMER: I think I might also think about how is in charge. And this is—you know, it goes back to something we talked about before, when U.S. foreign policy is no longer exclusively rooted in the State Department? So in terms of, you know, who represents the United States abroad and in what ways, and how is that representation perceived, we're really looking at, you know, a lot of different actors. And we're also looking at, you know, changes in the way that the U.S. government itself is perceiving its role, both at home and abroad. And one of the questions was previously asked about the system of incarceration speaks to that, because we have to ask ourselves what are—what are—what are the proper roles and responsibilities and burdens of the state, the government and, you know, what is leased out—(laughs)—in some ways, for profit to private concerns? So I think that, you know, some of this is about, you know, a sense of mission that I don't see out there, that I think will in some respects have to be restored and reinvented. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Erez Manela. Q: Thank you very much for this really terrific and important panel. My name is Erez Manela. I teach the history of U.S. foreign relations at Harvard. And my question actually—I don't know if Irina planned this—but it follows on directly from the previous question. Because I kept on wondering during this panel what—I mean, the focus that we've had here, the topic that's been defined, is the way in which domestic race relations, domestic racism, have shaped U.S. foreign policy. But of course, U.S. foreign policy has been shaped—as the previous questioner noted—has been shaped directly by racism and perceptions of racial hierarchy for—well, since the very beginning. And Professor Adkins spoke very eloquently about it. And of course, Professor Plummer has written eloquently about that, including in her books on Haiti and international relations. But I guess I'm wondering if you could speak more about the specifics about the history that needs to be recognized in that realm, and then—and this is maybe self-interested—whether you have any recommendations, in the way that you recommended Carol Anderson's really terrific book—for reading that we can read ourselves or give our students to read, that would really drive that point home, the influence of racism, race perceptions, race hierarchies themselves on—directly on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations historically. PLUMMER: Well, Professor Manela, I appreciate your own work on Wilson. And you know, that in some respects—that would be a book that I'd recommend. (Laughs.) Might also think about Mary Dudziak's work on Cold War civil rights, and her law review article, Desegregation as a Cold War Imperative, which, you know, directly addresses these questions. Again, what I would like to see is some work that will—perhaps not necessarily a historical perspective—but will address this whole question of the sort of growing, I don't know what you'd call it, multiplicity or multivariant character of American policymaking, you know, as we—as we go forward, you know, past the Cold War era. There's an interesting item by a man named Andrew Friedman, who wrote a book called Covert Capital. I think the subtitle is something like Landscapes of Power, in which we discussed the rise of Northern Virginia as what he sees as the true capital of, you know, parts of the U.S. government, in being a center for the military and for intelligence community. And their shaping of that environment at home, as well as their influence in shaping U.S. policy abroad. So, you know, there's a lot of room for work on these—on these issues. ADKINS: And I would also just follow up—and thank you for the question—and add another book that I just finished. Daniel Immerwahr, from Northwestern University, How to Hide an Empire, which deals in many ways with U.S. foreign policy and the way in which it is explicitly racialized and ways in which that goes understudied in our—in our policy circles, and certainly in the world of education. FASKIANOS: I'm going to try to squeeze in one last question. And I apologize again for not getting to everybody's question. We'll go to Garvey Goulbourne as our final question. Q: Yes. Hi. Can you hear me? FASKIANOS: We can. Q: Yeah. My name's Garvey Goulbourne. I'm a student at the University of Virginia, actually studying abroad this semester in Rabat, Morocco. And my question to you both is: What mechanisms do we have to orient the narratives that our foreign policy leaders are brought up with? Thinking particularly of American exceptionalism and how we kind of place ourselves on a pedestal, whether they be foreign affairs schools or various institutions at different levels of American education, what tools do we have to address the foundations of American perspectives of themselves and our nation in relation to the rest of the world, particularly the global south? FASKIANOS: Who wants to go first? An easy question, of course, to close with. PLUMMER: Go ahead, Mr. Adkins. ADKINS: Sure, sure. Thank you for your question, Garvey. And congratulations on the move out to Morocco. Great to see you there. I think the first thing I would say, of course, is our tools, as far as I am concerned, relate certainly to education. And it's one of the reasons that I am in the classroom. But I know what that fight is like, because even education is taken over by these notions of White supremacy, by these notions of singular historical narratives. And this is why there's been such a push against the 1619 Project of the New York Times, why there is this kind of silly season around the misunderstood origins and contexts of critical race theory. There is this battle over who gets to tell the story of what America is, because it is more than—but it is more than one thing, obviously, to a multiplicity of people. And so I am kind of remiss—or, not remiss. There's no way for me to elucidate for you now a series of tools that will resolve these problems, because these are challenges that people have been wrestling with before our mothers' mothers were born. And so we only are continuing that fight from where we sit. And certainly, in the classrooms that I am in, whether they are in prisons or on campuses, we are always digging into the origin of these themes. And the main frame through which I teach is not just for students to understand this history for their health, but for them to understand this history as a lens through which to view the current world and all of the events and challenges that we find ourselves facing, to see if we can come up with new ways to address them. PLUMMER: Well, one of the things that Mr. Goulbourne could do, since he is in Morocco, is to make use of his own insights in his conversations with Moroccans. So, you know, there is still a role, you know, for individual actors to play some part in attempting to make some changes. FASKIANOS: Well, with that we unfortunately have to close this conversation. It was very rich. Thank you, Travis Adkins and Brenda Gayle Plummer or sharing your insights and analysis with us. We really appreciate it. To all of you, for your questions and comments. Again, I'm sorry we couldn't get to all of you. You can follow Travis Adkins @travisladkins, and that's on Twitter. And our next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday September 29, at 1:00 p.m. (ET) with Thomas Graham, who is a fellow at CFR. And we'll talk about Putin's Russia. So in the meantime, I encourage you to follow us at @CFR_Academic, visit CFR.org, Thinkglobalhealth.org, and ForeignAffairs.com for new research and analysis on global issues. So thank you all again and we look forward to continuing the conversation. ADKINS: Take care, everyone. Thank you. (END)