 | Prof Ghai urges coalition government to embrace political goodwil. Former constitution of Kenya review commission Chairman Prof Yash Pal Ghai has expressed optimism that parliament will pass the two crucial bills to jumpstart the constitution review process. |
 | Fiji National Anthem Fiji (Fijian: Matanitu ko Viti; Fijian Hindustani: फ़िजी), officially the Republic of the Fiji Islands (Fijian: Matanitu Tu-Vaka-i-koya ko Viti; Fijian Hindustani: फ़िजी द्वीप समूह गणराज्य), is an island nation in the South Pacific Ocean east of Vanuatu, west of Tonga and south of Tuvalu. The country occupies an archipelago of about 322 islands, of which 106 are permanently inhabited, and 522 islets. The two major islands, Viti Levu and Vanua Levu, account for 87% of the population. Fiji's main island is known as Viti Levu and it is from this that the name "Fiji" is derived, through the pronunciation of their island neighbours in Tonga. Its emergence was best described as follows: Fijians first impressed themselves on European consciousness through the writings of the members of the expeditions of Cook who met them in Tonga. They were described as formidable warriors and ferocious cannibals, builders of the finest vessels in the Pacific, but not great sailors. They inspired awe amongst the Tongans, and all their Manufactures, especially bark cloth and clubs, were highly esteemed and much in demand. They called their home Viti, but the Tongans called it Fisi, and it was by this foreign pronunciation, Fiji, first promulgated by Captain James Cook, that these islands are now known. The first inhabitants of Fiji arrived long before contact with European explorers in the seventeenth century. Pottery excavated from Fijian towns shows that Fiji was settled before or around 1000 BC, although the question of Pacific migration still lingers.[2] The Dutch explorer Abel Tasman visited Fiji in 1643 while looking for the Great Southern Continent.[3] It was not until the nineteenth century, however, that Europeans settled the islands permanently.[4] The islands came under British control as a colony in 1874, and the British brought over Indian contract labourers. It was granted independence in 1970. Democratic rule was interrupted by two military coups in 1987 because the government was perceived as dominated by the Indo-Fijian (Indian) community. The second 1987 coup saw the British monarchy and the Governor General replaced by a non-executive President, and the country changed the long form of its name from Dominion of Fiji to Republic of Fiji (and to Republic of the Fiji Islands in 1997). The coups and accompanying civil unrest contributed to heavy Indian emigration; the population loss resulted in economic difficulties but ensured that Melanesians became the majority. In 1990, the new Constitution institutionalised the ethnic Fijian domination of the political system. The Group Against Racial Discrimination (GARD) was formed to oppose the unilaterally imposed constitution and restore the 1970 constitution. Sitiveni Rabuka, the Lieutenant Colonel who carried out the 1987 coup became Prime Minister in 1992, following elections held under the new constitution. Three years later, Rabuka established the Constitutional Review Commission, which in 1997 led to a new Constitution, which was supported by most leaders of the indigenous Fijian and Indo-Fijian communities. Fiji is re-admitted to the Commonwealth of Nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji |
 | Countdown: Bush Removes Habeas Corpus From U.S. Constitution Keith reviews Bush and the Republicans removel of Habeas Corpus from The USA Constitution. This can not be tolerated. Bush swore to uphold the Constitution not destroy it. Don't Vote Republican for our own good. |
 | Marbury v. Madison Equal Justice Under Law Marbury v. Madison (1st in a 4 part series). Dramatizations of historic decisions from the courtroom of America's great Chief Justice, John Marshall. Who determines what the Constitution means—what is and is not constitutional? In this 1803 case the Supreme Court established its responsibility to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress. President John Adams appointed Federalist William Marbury as justice of the peace, but failed to deliver Marbury's official commission before President Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans took over the administration. Marbury asked the Supreme Court to order Jefferson's Secretary of State, James Madison, to deliver the commission. Marbury's demand precipitated a confrontation between Chief Justice Marshall and President Thomas Jefferson. The Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction and declared that the law permitting the Court to hear the case was unconstitutional. Purchase of the tape of this video was made possible through a contribution by Joseph Kulhavy. |
 | John Bartee Responds to OLM Review Chairman John Bartee of the OLM Constitution Drafting Committee responds to a recent OLM Board approved review process. |
 | Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales-7/24/07 Pt1 Part 1 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy opens the hearing (Leahy's statement is continued in Part 2). 7/24/07 KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!" Transcript of this portion of the hearing: LEAHY: Good morning. I'd ask those who are standing in the back to show courtesy to the people who are -- who stood in line to be here to sit down. Everybody is welcome here who's here. But I would expect all those who are in here for the hearing to respect the rights of everybody who's here and to not stand and block those who are trying to watch the proceedings and have a right to be here. Three months ago, when Attorney General Gonzales last appeared before this committee, I said that the Department of Justice was experiencing a crisis of leadership perhaps unrivaled during its history. Unfortunately, the crisis has not abated. Until there is independence and transparency and accountability, the crises will continue. The attorney general's lost the confidence of the Congress and the American people. But through oversight we hope to restore balance and accountability to the executive branch. The Department of Justice must be restored to being worthy of its name. It should not be reduced to another political arm of the White House; it was never intended to be that. Trust and confidence of the American people in federal law enforcement must be restored. With the department shrouded in scandal, the deputy attorney general's announced his resignation. The nominee to become associate attorney general requested that his nomination be withdrawn, rather than testify under oath at a confirmation hearing. The attorney general's chief of staff, the deputy attorney general's chief of staff, the department's White House liaison and the White House political director have all resigned, as have others. I would joke that the last one out the door should turn out the lights, but the Department of Justice is too important for that. We need to shine more light there, not less. LEAHY: Investigation into the firing for partisan purposes of United States attorneys who had been appointed by this president, along with an ever-growing series of controversies and scandals, have revealed an administration driven by a vision of an all-powerful executive over our constitutional system of checks and balances, one that values loyalty over judgment, secrecy over openness and ideology over competence. The accumulated and essentially uncontroverted evidence is that political considerations factored into the unprecedented firing of at least nine United States attorneys last year. Testimony and documents show that the list was compiled based on input from the highest political ranks in the White House, that senior officials were apparently focused on the political impact of federal prosecutions and whether federal prosecutors were doing enough to bring partisan voter fraud and corruption cases, and that the reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover-up. What the White House stonewalling is preventing is conclusive evidence for who made the decision to fire these federal prosecutors. We know from the testimony that it was not the president. Everyone who's testified has said that he was not involved. None of the senior officials at the Department of Justice could testify how people were added to the list or the real reasons that people were included among the federal prosecutors to be replaced. Indeed, the evidence we've been able to collect points to Karl Rove and the political operatives at the White House. The stonewalling by the White House raises the question, what is it that the White House is so desperate to hide? The White House has asserted blanket claims of executive privilege despite officials' contention that the president was not involved. They refuse to provide any factual basis for their blanket claims, have instructed former White House officials not to testify about what they know and then instructed Harriet Miers to refuse even to appear as required by a House Judiciary Committee subpoena. Now, anonymous officials are claiming that the statutory mechanism to test White House assertions of executive privilege no longer govern. In essence, the White House asserts its claim of privilege is the final word, the Congress may not review it and, of course, there's no court dare review it. Here again, this White House claims to be above the law. My oath, unlike those who have apparently sworn their allegiance to the president, is to the United States Constitution. I believe in checks and balances and in the rule of law. Despite the stonewalling and obstruction, we've learned that Todd Graves, U.S. attorney in the Western District of Missouri, was fired after he expressed reservations about a lawsuit that would have stripped many African-American voters from the rolls in Missouri. |
 | the Red Mass - Vatican Control of the Supreme Court http://www.spirituallysmart.com/redmass.html http://www.spirituallysmart.com/redmasspics.html Gonzales Questions Habeas Corpus By Robert Parry 19 Jan 2007 In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American. Military tribunals In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Chief Justice John Roberts was part of a unanimous panel overturning the district court ruling and upholding military tribunals set up by the Bush administration for trying terrorism suspects known as enemy combatants. Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, writing for the court, ruled that Hamdan, a driver for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, [12] could be tried by a military court because: 1. the military commission had the approval of Congress; 2. the Third Geneva Convention is a treaty between nations and as such it does not confer individual rights and remedies enforceable in U.S. courts; 3. even if the Convention could be enforced in U.S. courts, it would not be of assistance to Hamdan at the time because, for a conflict such as the war against al-Qaeda (considered by the court as a separate war from that against Afghanistan itself) that is not between two countries, it guarantees only a certain standard of judicial procedure without speaking to the jurisdiction in which the prisoner must be tried. The court held open the possibility of judicial review of the results of the military commission after the current proceedings have ended. [13] This decision was overturned on June 29, 2006 by the Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision, with Roberts not participating due to his prior ruling as a circuit judge. (R) Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at "Red Mass" brunch. Undergrad: College of the Holy Cross Law School: Yale Law School in 1974. Antonin Scalia at "Red Mass" brunch. Schools: Xavier High School, Undergrad Georgetown University, 1st in his class, and Summa cum laude at Harvard Law School. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (CAS '57) speaks about the importance of protecting Jesuit and Catholic identity at Georgetown on Monday. (Peter Pace) is a 1992 graduate of the Georgetown Leadership Seminar of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. The Jesuits coincidently end up teaching The United States military leaders. 1.) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Peter Pace. Trained at Georgetown University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pace 2.) Commander of Multinational Force Iraq, David Howell Petraeus Trained at Georgetown University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_H._Petraeus 3.) United States Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates Trained at Georgetown University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gates 4.) former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe (SACEUR),General James Jones Trained at Georgtown University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Jones 5.) former United States Secretary of Defense, Donald Henry Rumsfeld Trained at Georgtown University. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld 6.) Current Chief of Staff of the United States Army and former Commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq, George Casey Trained at Georgetown University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_George_Casey |
 | challengestodemo00unit #163 CHALLENGES TO DEMOCRACY IN ALBANIA Challenges to democracy in Albania : hearing before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, One Hundred Fourth Congress, second session, March 14, 1996 removal earlier in 1995, was attacked again, this time successfully: that is, he was removed from office. I will not go into the details of his case, which are spelled out in an account he has written for the East European Constitutional Review and which I am submitting with my written testimony. Although no criminal proceeding was brought against the judge before he was removed from office, I think it likely that one would have ensued, as in the case of the former Attorney General, had he and his wife not left the country shortly |
 | Anonymous Message to American Taxpayers: Scientology - IRS Full transcript, references and higher quality wmv video file available at: http://www.vimeo.com/1078519 (download link is near the bottom of the vimeo page) Feel free to re-upload. You may be surprised to learn that in America, one group enjoys a tax-exemption and special privileges from the IRS, privileges that go beyond those afforded to any other taxpayer. Also surprising is the fact that for over 25 years, the IRS fought against this group in the courts, arguing that it did not qualify for any tax-exemption due to "the commercial character" of much of the groups operations, and its "virtually incomprehensible financial procedures". In 1991, an unusual meeting was held between the leader of the group (David Miscavige) and the IRS Commissioner (Fred T. Goldberg Jr.). A complete reversal of the IRS' position came into effect in October 1993. A secret deal now provides this group with rights that exceed those of the average citizen. This group and its associated corporations are known by various names, including: Church of Scientology International Church of Spiritual Technology Religious Technology Center Front Groups include: Applied Scholastics Narconon Criminon Citizen's Commission on Human Rights A New York Times investigation revealed that Scientology's tax exemption "followed a series of unusual internal IRS actions that came after an extraordinary campaign orchestrated by Scientology against the agency and people who work there." Scientologists are able to claim tax-deductions of a nature that is prohibited for members of any other group... The U.S. Constitution upholds the principle of the separation of Church and State. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ensures Government policy remains neutral towards religious groups. According to the Constitution, one religious group should not receive special treatment by the U.S. Government. On February 4, 2008, Judge Kim Wardlaw summarized the situation: "The view of the IRS is that it can unconstitutionally violate the Constitution by establishing religion, by treating one religion more favorably than other religions in terms of what it allows as deductions, and there can never be any judicial review of that?" "This does intrude into the Establishment Clause. The whole point is Government neutrality towards religion, and that's exactly what the IRS is not doing here" The affidavit of Lawrence H. Brennan, filed on May 6, 2008 reveals that Scientology corporations deliberately worked to create the appearance of a religious group in order to gain a tax-exemption and hide its assets from outsiders. If you feel that Scientology's secret deal with the IRS is an injustice to American taxpayers, please write to your Congressman, and inform others about this unacceptable situation. |
 | Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales-7/24/07 Pt3 Part 3 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Ranking member Senator Arlen Specter's opening statement. 7/24/07 KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!" Transcript of this portion of the hearing: SPECTER: Let me move quickly through a series of questions -- there's a lot to cover -- starting with the issue that Mr. Comey raises. You said, quote, "There has not been any serious disagreement about the program." Mr. Comey's testimony was that Mr. Gonzales began to discuss why they were there, to seek approval, and he then says, quote, "I was very upset. I was angry. I thought I had just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man." SPECTER: First of all, Mr. Attorney General, what credibility is left for you when you say there's no disagreement and you're party to going to the hospital to see Attorney General Ashcroft under sedation to try to get him to approve the program? GONZALES: The disagreement that occurred, and the reason for the visit to the hospital, Senator, was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people. Now, I would like the opportunity... SPECTER: Mr. Attorney General, do you expect us to believe that? GONZALES: Well, may I have the opportunity to talk about another very important meeting in connection with the hospital visit that puts it into context? It was an emergency meeting in the White House Situation Room that afternoon. It involved senior members of the administration and the bipartisan leadership of the Congress, both House and Senate, as well as the bipartisan leadership of the House and Senate Intel Committees, the gang of eight. The purpose of that meeting was for the White House to advise the Congress that Mr. Comey had advised us that he could not approve the continuation of vitally important intelligence activities despite the repeated approvals during the past two years of the same activities. SPECTER: OK. Assuming you're leveling with us on this occasion... (CROSSTALK) SPECTER: No, I want to move to the point about how can you get approval from Ashcroft for anything when he's under sedation and incapacitated -- for anything. GONZALES: May I continue the story, Senator? SPECTER: No, I want you to answer my question. GONZALES: Senator, obviously there was concern about General Ashcroft's condition. GONZALES: And we would not have sought nor did we intend to get any approval from General Ashcroft if in fact he wasn't fully competent to make that decision. But General -- there are no rules governing whether or not General Ashcroft can decide, "I'm feeling well enough to make this decision." SPECTER: But, Attorney General Gonzales, he had already given up his authority as attorney general. (CROSSTALK) SPECTER: ... was no longer attorney general. GONZALES: And he could always reclaim that. There are no rules... SPECTER: While he's in the hospital under sedation? (LAUGHTER) GONZALES: Again, we didn't know -- we knew, of course, that he was ill, that he'd had surgery... SPECTER: Not making any progress here. Let me go to another topic. (LAUGHTER) Attorney General, I wouldn't -- and I'd like to have a lot of time, but I've got three minutes and 43 seconds left, and seven topics to cover with you. Mr. Attorney General, do you think constitutional government in the United States can survive if the president has the unilateral authority to reject congressional inquiries on grounds of executive privilege and the president then acts to bar the Congress from getting a judicial determination as to whether that executive privilege is properly invoked? GONZALES: Senator, you're asking me a question that is related to an ongoing controversy which I am recused -- I will say the president's tried very hard... SPECTER: Oh, no, no. I'm not asking you a question about something you're recused. I'm asking you a question about constitutional law. GONZALES: You're asking me a question that's related to an ongoing controversy. SPECTER: I'm asking you whether you can have a constitutional government with the Congress exercising its constitutional authority for oversight if when the president claims executive privilege, the president then forecloses the Congress from getting a judicial determination of it. That's a constitutional law question. GONZALES: Senator, both the Congress and the president have constitutional authorities. Sometimes they clash. In most cases, accommodations are reached. In very rare instances, they sometimes litigate it in the courts. SPECTER: Would you focus on my question for just a minute, please? GONZALES: Senator, I'm not going to answer this question, because it does relate to an ongoing controversy in which I am recused. (BOOING) LEAHY: I would note, please, we'll have decorum in here. Senator Specter has a right to ask all the questions he has. The attorney general has a right to be heard. I have indicated to Senator Specter especially that I'm taking some of his time in saying this, so he has extra time. But, please, let us continue without comments. SPECTER: I'm not going to pursue that question, Mr. Attorney General, because I see it's hopeless. It's got nothing to do with your recusal. You're the attorney general, and you're also a lawyer. And we're dealing with a very fundamental controversy, where the president is exerting executive authority under executive privilege and the Congress is exerting constitutional authority for oversight. And we're trying to take it to court. The court decides when that conflict exists. It's got nothing to do with, necessarily, the U.S. attorneys who were asked to resign. Let me move ahead to another subject, see if I get an answer here. You have a conflict of interest on the matter involving the resignations of the U.S. attorneys. GONZALES: Yes. I'm recused for that. SPECTER: Does the president have a conflict of interest in deciding whether or not to allow a contempt citation to go forward to a former White House counsel, Harriet Miers? GONZALES: Senator, I am not going to answer that question. Again, you're talking about -- asking me questions about a matter in which I am recused. I'm not going to answer that question. SPECTER: Well, let's see if somehow, somewhere, we can find a question you'll answer. (LAUGHTER) How about the death penalty case? I wrote you about this. Had a man who was convicted of murder. The victim's body was never recovered. There was no forensic evidence directly linking the defendant to the victim's death. The U.S. attorney, a man named Paul Charlton, contacted your office and said, "I don't think this is a proper case for the death penalty." SPECTER: Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty had a conversation with Mr. Charlton and had a conversation with you. And then McNulty's chief of staff, Mike Ellston, called Charlton. And this is Charlton's testimony: "Ellston indicated that McNulty had spoken to the attorney general and that McNulty wanted me to be aware of two things; first, that McNulty had spent a significant amount of time on this issue with the attorney general, perhaps as much as five or 10 minutes." Is that accurate, factually? Will you answer a question as to a fact, as to whether you talked to McNulty about this case for as much as five or 10 minutes? GONZALES: I have no specific recollection as to this particular case. But I can tell you, we have a very detailed process, where hours are spent by lawyers, including the U.S. attorney, our capital case review unit, who then make recommendations to the deputy attorney general... SPECTER: I'm not interested in that. I'm interested in an answer to my question. If you don't know, if you don't remember... GONZALES: I don't -- I don't... SPECTER: Wait a minute. I'm not finished asking you a question. If you don't know or you don't remember what happened when you stood on a decision to have a man executed -- that's what you're saying. GONZALES: I have no specific recollection about the amount of time that I talked with Paul McNulty on this particular issue. SPECTER: Well, would you disagree with McNulty that it was five to 10 minutes? GONZALES: I can't agree with that if I don't recall, Senator. SPECTER: OK, you can't agree with it. I didn't ask you that. I asked you if you disagreed with it. GONZALES: I can't agree or disagree with it. SPECTER: Would you say that five to 10 minutes would be a, quote, "significant amount of time" for you to spend on a case involving the death penalty? GONZALES: It would depend on the circumstances of the case and the recommendations coming up and the facts. Those would all dictate how much time I would spend, personally, on a particular case. Because we have a very extensive review process within the department, where hours are spent analyzing what is the appropriate course of action for the department... SPECTER: Well, Mr. Attorney General, I'm not totally unfamiliar with this sort of thing. When I was district attorney of Philadelphia, I had 500 homicides a year. I didn't allow any assistant to ask for the death penalty that I hadn't personally approved. And when I asked for the death penalty, I remembered the case. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. |
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
![Royal treatment at Hotel Fouquet\](images/articles/thumbs/fouquetthumb.jpg "Royal treatment at Hotel Fouquet\")
![Daily flights from NYC to Mont Tremblant\](images/articles/thumbs/nytremblantthumb.jpg "Daily flights from NYC to Mont Tremblant\")
