What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White
What To Do When You're Stopped By Police - The ACLU & Elon James White
Know Anyone Who Thinks Racial Profiling Is Exaggerated? Watch This, And Tell Me When Your Jaw Drops.
This video clearly demonstrates how racist America is as a country and how far we have to go to become a country that is civilized and actually values equal justice. We must not rest until this goal is achieved. I do not want my great grandchildren to live in a country like we have today. I wish for them to live in a country where differences of race and culture are not ignored but valued as a part of what makes America great.
(Harvard is calling anti-colonialism antisemitism. This is a violation of free speech)
“Harvard University will adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, including some criticisms of Israel, in discipline cases. This move, part of a settlement in lawsuits alleging inadequate antisemitism prevention, is unusual among universities and has been criticized for potentially stifling debate on Israel. Harvard will also establish partnerships, hire a consultant, and allow events on campus related to Israel and antisemitism.
Many universities have been reluctant to embrace a definition that, among other things, considers some criticisms of Israel as antisemitic. The university’s decision was part of a lawsuit settlement.
The Harvard University campus in Cambridge, Mass.Sophie Park for The New York Times
Harvard University will adopt a definition of antisemitism when investigating discipline cases as part of several moves meant to protect Jewish students after Gaza war protests, the university said in an agreement on Tuesday.
The definition includes some criticisms of Israel as examples of antisemitism, including calling Israel’s existence a “racist endeavor.”
It was part of a settlement in two lawsuits filed by Jewish groups that accused the school of not doing enough to prevent and punish antisemitism on campus. Last year, a federal judge in Boston allowed the casesto go forward.
The move by Harvard was unusual. Many universities have shied away from adopting any definition of antisemitism, even as pressure on them to do so has increased in response to campus conflicts related to the war in Gaza.
The definition Harvard is using has been criticized as blurring the line between antisemitism and arguments against Israel and Zionism.
Kenneth Marcus, chairman of the Louis D. BrandeisCenter for Human Rights Under Law, a Jewish civil rights group, said that he hoped other universities would adopt the definition.
“Zionist is often a code word for Jews,” he said, adding, “Harvard is making clear that rules against Zionists are as objectionable as rules against Jews.”
But Kenneth Stern, who helped draft the definition while he was at the American Jewish Committee, has since become a critic of the definition’s use in academic settings, saying it could stifle open debate on the Middle East, an issue that has divided campuses since the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas on Israel.
“I would much rather universities make clear that nobody is going to be harassed for any reason and avoid these types of issues on speech,” said Mr. Stern, now the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate.
Previously, Harvard’s policies prevented discrimination based on religion, national origin and ancestry, among other categories, which covered antisemitism. What is new is that the university will now consider a definition of antisemitism that was put forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance when investigating complaints.
The definition from the group is uncontroversial. It defines antisemitism as a “certain perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred” toward them. But it also lists examples that include holding Israel to a “double standard” or describing the creation of Israel as a “racist endeavor.”
Harvard, Mr. Stern said, was “opening a can of worms,” giving a tool for students to file complaints about professors, for example. “If you’re a faculty member, you know people are hunting for things,” he said.
Harvard has been under an intense public spotlight since the war broke out in Gaza. On the night of the Hamas attack, more than 30 student groups posted an open letter that held Israel “entirely responsible.” The university’s former president, Claudine Gay, eventually resigned, in part because of her testimony during a Congressional hearing in which she was accused of not doing enough to combat antisemitism.
Students Against Antisemitism, a group at Harvard, filed a lawsuit in January saying that Harvard had not addressed “severe and pervasive antisemitism on campus.” In May, the Brandeis Center also sued, saying the university ignored antisemitism.
The agreement released on Tuesday settles both cases. One former student in the earlier case declined to join the settlement, which also includes an unspecified amount of money, and will continue to pursue his claim against Harvard, according to the university.
The former student, Shabbos Kestenbaum, who graduated in June, said “the fight is only beginning.” He said he was working closely with the White House and that “Harvard can expect to be penalized in the weeks ahead.”
Harvard’s move comes a day after the inauguration of President Trump, who has said that colleges “must end the antisemitism propaganda” or lose federal support.
According to a 2019 executive order from Mr. Trump, the Education Department and other federal agencies must “consider” the I.H.R.A. definition in civil rights complaints that claim antisemitism. The executive order has caused confusion among university administrators about what is expected from them, however, and several dozen schools are currently under investigation.
Critics of using the definition in academia say policies already exist that bar harassment of Jewish students, and that the I.H.R.A. definition is more about cracking down on speech related to Israel.
Jeffrey S. Flier, the former dean of the Harvard Medical School, said on social media that the I.H.R.A. definition does not “by itself prohibit or punish speech.”
“Once adopted by Harvard,” he wrote, “the definition must be used in a manner consistent with other applicable legal principles, and principles of academic freedom and free speech.”
Under the lawsuit agreement, Harvard also must establish a partnership with an Israeli university, hire someone who will be consulted on all antisemitism complaints, and allow the Brandeis Center “to host a variety of events on campus,” Harvard said in a statement. The Kennedy School, Harvard’s public policy school, must allow three alumni to host an event “on the substantive issues of Israeli Jewish democracy.”
The university also must post on its website the following statement: “For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity. Conduct that would violate the Non-Discrimination Policy if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the policy if directed toward Zionists.”
A Harvard spokesman said in a statement that the university “will continue to implement robust steps to maintain a welcoming, open and safe campus environment where every student feels a sense of belonging.”
“President Trump’s recent executive orders demonstrate a broad interpretation of presidential power, reviving disputed claims from his first term and introducing new ones. While some actions, like pardons, are within his constitutional authority, others, such as suspending the TikTok ban and declaring national emergencies for border security and energy, are likely to face legal challenges. Critics argue these actions overstep legal boundaries and undermine democratic norms, highlighting the need for congressional oversight and potential reforms to curb presidential power.
In a flurry of unilateral executive actions, Mr. Trump revived disputed claims of broad presidential authority from his first term — and made some new ones. Court battles seem likely.
President Trump signing executive orders in the Oval Office on Monday night.Doug Mills/The New York Times
Charlie Savage writes about presidential power and legal policy.
After President Trump left the White House in 2021, critics of his norm-breaking use of executive power implored Congress to tighten legal limits on when presidents can unilaterally reshape American government with the stroke of a pen. But lawmakers largely did not act.
On Monday, as Mr. Trump took the oath of office to begin his second term, he asserted a muscular vision of presidential power. He not only revived some of the same expansive understandings of executive authority that were left unaddressed, but went even further with new claims of sweeping and inherent constitutional clout.
Among a blizzard of executive orders, Mr. Trump instructed prosecutors not to enforce a law that bans the popular social media app TikTok until its Chinese owner sells it. President Joseph R. Biden Jr. had signed the measure into law after it passed with broad bipartisan support, and the Supreme Court unanimously upheld it.
Whatever the law’s merits, the Constitution says presidents “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Mr. Trump offered no clear explanation for how he has any legitimate power to instead suspend the law, making only a vague gesture toward his “constitutional responsibility” for national security, foreign policy “and other vital executive functions.”
Unilateral actions like emergency declarations and executive orders cannot create new legal powers for a president. Instead, they are a vehicle by which presidents exercise legal authority they already have, either because the Constitution has bestowed it upon their office or because Congress passed a law creating it.
People lined up outside the Supreme Court earlier this month to hear arguments in the TikTok case. Mr. Trump has instructed prosecutors not to enforce a law that bans the app even though the justices unanimously upheld it.Caroline Gutman for The New York Times
That said, there are often disputes about the proper interpretation of the scope and limits of executive power. It is not uncommon for a president to use an executive order to take some action whose legal legitimacy is contested, leading to court fights that ultimately come before the Supreme Court.
It is not clear that anyone opposed to suspending the TikTok law would have standing to sue. But many of Mr. Trump’s moves concerned immigration law, making it very likely that legal challenges will follow and the legitimacy of his executive power claims will land before judges.
In several orders, Mr. Trump invoked his constitutional role as the military’s commander in chief, portraying migrants as invaders while blurring the line between immigration law enforcement and war powers.
“As commander in chief, I have no higher responsibility than to defend our country from threats and invasions, and that is exactly what I am going to do,” he said in his inaugural speech.
Among those orders, Mr. Trump declared that newly arriving migrants may not invoke a law allowing them to request asylum. As a basis, he said the Constitution gave him “inherent powers” to “prevent the physical entry of aliens involved in an invasion into the United States,” in addition to citing a few vague provisions of immigration laws.
Customs and Border Protection agents checking documents of migrants arriving from Mexico in El Paso on Monday.Paul Ratje for The New York Times
Another such order directed the U.S. Northern Command, which oversees military operations in continental North America, to swiftly draw up a plan for a “campaign” to seal the border “by repelling forms of invasion including unlawful mass migration, narcotics trafficking, human smuggling and trafficking, and other criminal activities.”
Mr. Trump and his advisers have talked about invoking the Insurrection Act to use troops as additional immigration agents at the border. But the order referred only to his constitutional power as commander in chief, raising the possibility that he is envisioning using troops for a military operation rather than to act as law enforcement.
Some of the orders were a return to fights over executive power that surfaced during Mr. Trump’s first term.
On Monday, Mr. Trump reprised a move from 2019 by declaring a national emergency at the border. He also invoked a statute that allows presidents, during an emergency, to redirect military funds for construction projects related to the exigency. His purpose, in 2019 and again now, was to spend more taxpayer money on a border wall project than lawmakers authorized.
Is there really an emergency that an extended border wall would address, and that would justify circumventing Congress’s role in deciding where to direct taxpayer money?
A wall does not address the main border problem in recent years: the overwhelming number of migrants requesting asylum, flooding the system and leading to lengthy backlogs for hearings. And over the past seven months, illegal crossings have plunged to the lowest levels since the summer of 2020, during the early phase of the coronavirus pandemic.
In his first term, critics challenged the legal legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s border wall spending, but the Supreme Court never resolved the dispute before President Joseph R. Biden Jr. took office and canceled the projects. Paul Ratje for The New York Times
But facts matter little to whether or when it is legal for presidents to invoke emergency power, declarations that are governed by the National Emergencies Act of 1976.
That law does not tightly define the circumstances under which presidents may determine that an emergency exists, leaving them with essentially unfettered discretion to unlock exigent powers for themselves. But previous presidents adhered to norms of self-restraint.
In his first term, critics challenged the legal legitimacy of Mr. Trump’s border wall spending, but the Supreme Court never resolved the dispute before Mr. Biden took office and canceled the projects. So any new legal challenge would have to start from scratch.
Mr. Trump’s absence from the presidency, however, turned out to be temporary.
In the show of force upon his return to office, he also declared a national energy emergency so that, as he said in his inaugural speech, “we will drill, baby, drill.” No president has declared that type of emergency before, and it empowers him to suspend legal protections for the environment and to speed up permits for new oil and gas projects.
But the order said Mr. Trump had determined that Biden administration policies had “driven our nation into a national emergency, where a precariously inadequate and intermittent energy supply, and an increasingly unreliable grid, require swift and decisive action.” He also cited a growing need for electricity to run computer servers for artificial intelligence projects.
Elizabeth Goitein, a director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s Liberty and National Security Program who has written extensively on presidential emergency power, predicted that many of Mr. Trump’s planned actions would be challenged in court.
“Emergency powers should never be used to address longstanding problems like unlawful migration that can and should be addressed through legislation,” said Ms. Goitein, who was among those calling on Congress to curb presidential power. “The bad news is that Congress failed to enact reforms to the National Emergencies Act that would have helped prevent such abuses.”
There is no dispute that Mr. Trump had legitimate authority to take other unilateral actions. The Constitution clearly gives presidents unfettered authority to grant pardons to people for federal criminal offenses or to commute their sentences, for example, so there is little doubt Mr. Trump had the power to grant clemency to all of the nearly 1,600 people charged or convicted of crimes in connection with the Capitol riot.
But Mr. Trump appeared to put forward novel or expansive interpretations of legal authorities in other ways.
He ordered his administration to make recommendations about whether to designate certain transnational gangs and drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations,” stretching a law that is intended for groups that use violence for geopolitical and ideological purposes to criminal groups that, while also violent, are motivated by profit.
He also set in motion the possibility of invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798to summarily expel immigrants suspected of being members of drug cartels and transnational criminal gangs without full due process hearings. That law’s text seems to require a link to the actions of a foreign government, so it is not clear whether the courts will allow Mr. Trump to invoke it to deny deportation hearings to people.
Mr. Trump is also seeking to change the basic understanding of a provision of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment that grants citizenship to most babies born on American soil and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. government. That provision has long been understood to include infants born to undocumented parents.
In an order, Mr. Trump invoked a theory developed by conservatives who want to curtail so-called birthright citizenship because they see it as a magnet for illegal immigration. By that rationale, the provision could be interpreted to not apply to babies whose parents are not American citizens or lawful permanent residents, even though visitors or undocumented people are subject to the jurisdiction of government prosecutors if they break the law.
Mr. Trump instructed agencies to refrain from issuing citizenship-affirming documents — like passports and Social Security cards — to infants born to undocumented immigrants or to parents lawfully but temporarily visiting the United States, starting with births 30 days from now.
Hours later, critics, including a coalition of Democratic-controlled states, brought multiple court challenges against it. Mr. Trump, the coalition asserted, sought to breach “this well-established and longstanding constitutional principle by executive fiat.”
It was yet another legal claim that seemed destined to come before the Supreme Court.“
“The article describes the controversy surrounding former President Donald Trump's launch of a cryptocurrency meme coin. Experts criticize the move as a significant conflict of interest, with Trump potentially profiting from his own policies. The article also highlights the volatility of the cryptocurrency market and the potential for legal battles surrounding the Trump coin.
President and first lady’s business ventures show ‘shameful conflicts of interest’, says ex-government ethics official
A cartoon image of Donald Trump with cryptocurrency tokens adorns a crypto store in Hong Kong on Monday. Photograph: Paul Yeung/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Donald Trump was accused of corruption as he returned to the White House days after launching a multibillion-dollar cryptocurrency meme coin. Former government ethics officials and presidential experts said the venture amounted to a “shameful” conflict of interest.
“There are shameful and major conflicts of interest with respect to his family business benefiting from his cryptocurrency policies,” said James Thurber, the founder and former director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies.
Trump “does not seem to worry about the public interest with respect to cryptocurrency”, added Thurber. “He seems to be driven by profit and wanting to be a major part of the billionaire class in the US.”
“America voted for corruption, and Trump is wasting no time delivering it,” said Walter Shaub, the former director of the US Office of Government Ethics, who served under former presidents Barack Obama and Trump. “What was once a government ethics program, made partly of laws and partly of norms, is a smoldering crater.” The White House was approached for comment.
Trump has pledged to transform the US into the crypto capital of the world, ending a crackdown pursued by officials under Joe Biden and taking an altogether looser approach to regulation of digital currencies. Leading cryptocurrencies including bitcoin have surged in value since his election victory last November.
The president launched $TRUMP on Friday evening, pitching the meme coin to his followers as a way “to celebrate everything we stand for: WINNING!”, before the first lady followed with $MELANIA on Sunday.
Some 80% of the Trump coin’s tokens are owned by CIC Digital, an affiliate of Trump’s business, and another entity called Fight, Fight, Fight, according to its website. The Melania coin is offered by MKT World LLC, a firm incorporated by the first lady in 2021.
The president’s coin has the potential to raise significant funds for his business empire, and inflate his personal fortune, which Forbes pegged at $6.7bn as of Monday.
Meme coins – which combine two prominent features, memes and cryptocurrencies, of the digital economy – are in effect digital playing cards. They have no intrinsic value, according to experts. Even the website marketing Trump’s coin states that it is “not intended to be, or to be the subject of, an investment opportunity”.
Across the board, the crypto market is also notoriously volatile. $TRUMP, having surged over the weekend, faded on Monday during his inaugural ceremonies; $MELANIA, meanwhile, dropped by a quarter. But together, their market values remained above $9bn.
The sight of an incoming president inflating his personal fortune on his way back to the Oval Office, in an industry he has pledged to support while in power, caused particular alarm among former government officials.
“This may represent the single worst conflict of interest in the modern history of the presidency,” Norman Eisen, a former ethics adviser in the Obama administration, told the Washington Post. Trump has “the most profound conflict of interest” in the crypto space, he added, citing the fact the president is both “seeking to gain” and regulate the industry.
Preston Byrne, a lawyer specializing in cryptocurrencies, put the chances of a civil lawsuit over Trump’s new coin at 90% within the next 14 days, or 100% within the next 60. “I am absolutely certain this will happen,” he wrote on his blog. “Someone will lose money, some lawyer will come up with a theory and file.”
The billionaire businessman Mark Cuban, who campaigned for Kamala Harris ahead of last year’s presidential election, described Trump’s coin as a “gift to all of us who are not fans of his”.
“It’s just a matter of time until a lot of people lose money from this,” Cuban wrote on Bluesky, the social network. “I’m a crypto fan. This is not crypto any more than [infamous fraudster Bernie] Madoff was just buying and selling shares of stock.”
Even figures on the outskirts of Trumpworld are dabbling in the meme coin frenzy. “I need you to do me a favor right now,” the Rev Lorenzo Sewell, a senior pastor at 180 church who delivered the benediction after Trump’s swearing-in, said in a video posted on X hours after yesterday’s inauguration. “I need you to go buy the official Lorenzo Sewell coin.”
“Trump defended pardoning January 6th defendants, calling their sentences excessive. The Senate is advancing Trump’s Cabinet picks toward confirmation.
At an event to announce a new AI infrastructure project, President Donald Trump said members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who were among the more than 1,000 people involved in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol whom the president granted clemency to on Monday, were serving sentences that were “ridiculous and excessive.” He went on to complain about former president Joe Biden’s preemptive pardons, including ones for the members and staff of the House select committee that investigated the insurrection. Meanwhile, the Senate is advancing several of Trump’s Cabinet picks toward confirmation.“
Democratic states sue Trump over effort to end birthright citizenship; border czar says immigration raids to begin today – live
Trump is an insurrectionist, Felon and Traitor who opposes the US Constitution.
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"18 Democrat-led states and two cities file lawsuit to block executive order; former Ice official says raids likely to target some undocumented immigrants
Donald and Melania Trump, next to JD and Usha Vance.Photograph: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters
In the hours since Donald Trump gave blanket pardons to January 6 rioters, supporters of the detained insurrections gathered outside Washington DC’s jail, and the leaders of two far-right groups implicated in the attack walked free from facilities elsewhere. Here’s the latest on this story, from the Guardian’sMarina Dunbar:
Extremist supporters ofDonald Trumpwhoattacked the US Capitolon 6 January 2021 or were involved in planning the insurrection began leaving prison on Tuesday, after the newly installed president issuedsweeping pardonsshortly after being sworn in on Monday.
The Republicanpresident’s pardonof 1,500 defendants on Monday drew outrage from lawmakers who were endangered in the attack, when thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent Congress from certifying his 2020 loss to Joe Biden.
Two of the biggest names of the far right and the most serious offenders tied to the plot,Enrique Tarrioof the Proud Boys and the former Oath Keeper Steward Rhodes, were both set free on Tuesday.
Rhodes, the former leader of the Oath Keepers militia who had his 18-yearprison sentencefor seditious conspiracy commuted, was released just after midnight on Tuesday in Cumberland, Maryland. He did not enter the US Capitol during the mob’s breach but was found guilty of plotting to use force against Congress to try to prevent theelection certificationof Biden’s victoryover Trump. He was also accused of helping to stockpile firearms at a hotel in nearby Virginia that could be ferried across the river to Washington DC.
Tarriowas servinga 22-year sentence. He also did not take part in the breach of the Capitol but was convicted of orchestrating the plots to stop the peaceful transfer of power. The two men’s attorneys on Tuesday confirmed their release.
Trump repeals ban on immigration raids at schools, hospitals and churches – report
Donald Trump’s administration has rescinded a memo issued underJoe Bidenthat curbed immigration enforcement in and around schools, healthcare facilities, churches and facilities providing disaster relief, among other locations,Fox News reports.
The decision comes asTrump administrationofficials vow to today begin rounding up people in the United States illegally, as part of the new president’s promise to carry out “mass deportations”. Under his administration’s new policies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are now encouraged to use “a healthy dose of common sense” when picking locations to find undocumented people.
Here’s more on the new regulations, from Fox:
The first memo, a draft of which was reviewed by Fox News, rescinds a 2021 memo by Mayorkas, which provided an expanded list of areas that are “protected areas” where ICE could not engage in immigration enforcement. It said the policy was designed to make sure enforcement did not limit “people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities.”
Those areas include schools, universities, healthcare facilities, places of worship, “places where children gather,” social service establishments, food banks, religious or civil ceremonies and disaster or emergency response and relief centers.
“In our pursuit of justice, including in the execution of our enforcement responsibilities, we impact people’s lives and advance our country’s well-being in the most fundamental ways. As a result, when conducting an enforcement action, ICE and CBP agents and officers must first examine and consider the impact of where actions might possibly take place, their effect on people, and broader societal interests,” Mayorkas said in a statement at the time.
The memo issued Monday rescinded that guidance and said that common sense should be used instead.
“Going forward, law enforcement officers should continue to use that discretion along with a healthy dose of common sense,” the new memo said. “It is not necessary, however, for the head of the agency to create bright line rules regarding where our immigration laws are permitted to be enforced.”
ICE agents who spoke to Fox News said they believe that rescinding the Mayorkas order is going to free them up to go after more illegal immigrants, because illegal immigrants have until now been able to hide near schools and churches and avoid arrest."
