正在加载视频...

视频加载失败

返回首页

Whether you support him or not, President Trump’s systematic retaliation against law firms like Susman Godfrey for representing clients or causes he opposes is more than an attack on those firms — it’s an attack on the rule of law itself. Lawyers make easy targets. But as John Adams...

TheFIREorg's profile picture

FIRE

224,347 subscribers

156,473 次观看 • 1 年前 •via X (Twitter)

新闻政治喜剧教育
LIVE

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

11 条评论

FIRE 的头像
FIRE1 年前

🔗:

Rarely Tolerable. 的头像
Rarely Tolerable.1 年前

Do you support Dem Senator Andy Kim's threat to shut down the govt in order to stop Trump?

palinoros 的头像
palinoros1 年前

I completely agree as a matter of principle. But as a matter of passion, I can't help recalling John Eastman, Michael Cohen, and Rudolph Giuliani who were or are being persecuted, in part, for rendering legal services to an unpopular person or cause. The attorney client privilege was abused. Major law firms that proudly represented jihadis in GTMO held their nose at representing Trump. I hope Trump backs off most of this lawfare and makes success his best revenge, as he promised. But maybe a few knocks on the head are what it takes to properly focus the attention here.

LevelToPower 的头像
LevelToPower1 年前

Agreed! And I’m old enough to remember 4 years ago when lawyers were threatened with disbarment or worse if they represented Trump in court.

Chris 的头像
Chris1 年前

Where was FIRE when Dems exercised lawfare against everything associated with Republicans? I guess then you were on the side of the angels supporting the use of those lawyers?

pamela s bacon 的头像
pamela s bacon1 年前

Where were you for the last 5 years? Did you notice what was going on?

Christopher Skelly 的头像
Christopher Skelly1 年前

Authoritarian governments transcend party affiliation. Democrats and Republicans have proven time and time again that they are willing to exert their power to punish those who dare to speak against them.

Cap'n CrisCo 的头像
Cap'n CrisCo1 年前

You mean "fighting back." Fixed it for you, you're welcome.

Ben Miller 的头像
Ben Miller1 年前

Why doesn't the Fire care when the State of Colorado invents narratives in secret to steal first amendment rights from innocent citizens? Is it because the Fire is dishonest and corrupt?

OutlawJoseyWales 的头像
OutlawJoseyWales1 年前

Lol. Someone hasn't been paying attention

Matt K 🐟 的头像
Matt K 🐟1 年前

@MattWelch No. I’m pretty sure you’re wrong.

相关视频

In just 100 days, Trump has launched an unprecedented attack on the rule of law, trampled due process, and violated the Constitution. He never wanted to represent you—he wants to rule you. The complicit GOP is paving the way for him to become a dictator.
2:28

In just 100 days, Trump has launched an unprecedented attack on the rule of law, trampled due process, and violated the Constitution. He never wanted to represent you—he wants to rule you. The complicit GOP is paving the way for him to become a dictator.

Rep. Dan Goldman

65,347 次观看 • 1 年前

Yellowstone creator Taylor Sheridan perfectly encapsulates how the left’s refusal to accept Donald Trump as president is actively eroding the rule of law. He warns that they are setting a very dangerous precedent for the future of America. SHERIDAN: “It’s so dangerous what we’re seeing.” “You can like Trump or not like Trump, it doesn’t...people are going to like presidents and dislike presidents.” “But now, defying the rule of law because he happens to be the head of the federal government and openly defying the government.” “The repercussions of that are going to be, okay, fine, you can’t stand this man, you think he’s a terrible president and you’re not going to follow his laws.” “But that’s the new normal now.” “So when a president gets in that you do support, then the other side — because we’ve established this precedent — they’re just not going to follow his laws either.” “And now we’ve eroded the rule of law.” “And then what happens?”
0:45

Yellowstone creator Taylor Sheridan perfectly encapsulates how the left’s refusal to accept Donald Trump as president is actively eroding the rule of law. He warns that they are setting a very dangerous precedent for the future of America. SHERIDAN: “It’s so dangerous what we’re seeing.” “You can like Trump or not like Trump, it doesn’t...people are going to like presidents and dislike presidents.” “But now, defying the rule of law because he happens to be the head of the federal government and openly defying the government.” “The repercussions of that are going to be, okay, fine, you can’t stand this man, you think he’s a terrible president and you’re not going to follow his laws.” “But that’s the new normal now.” “So when a president gets in that you do support, then the other side — because we’ve established this precedent — they’re just not going to follow his laws either.” “And now we’ve eroded the rule of law.” “And then what happens?”

Overton

375,044 次观看 • 2 个月前

🤔 BOBI WINE is blabbering to a straightforward question whether he supports or opposes the repressive anti-homosexuality law in uganda which he claims targets him! bobi wine describes the law as a “political weapon,” asserting that any statement he makes could be used against him. however, to me, this explanation falls short, considering his silence during the law's passage and the unanimous support for it from his/out nup party's mps. this situation begs two questions: 𝟏. is our entire nup party complicit, or there is a lack of leadership in addressing internal dissent? 𝟐. as the president of the party, what disciplinary actions has bobi wine take against the homophobic nup parliamentarians who voted for a law that is targeting him and themselves, besides firing the former leader of opposition, Mathias Mpuuga, who misled the entire opposition to vote for the anti-lgbtiq+ law? still when pressed on whether bobi wine would repeal the law if he came to power, his hesitation leaves my eyebrows fully deployed! asserting a commitment to respect all human rights without specifically recognizing lgbtiq+ rights as human rights is not enough. there cannot be true democracy without lgbtiq+rights. as bobi wine sang that “𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞,” why now cower or get excuses that whatever you say about the anti-gay law, it will be used against you? let’s walk our talk! the time has come for ugandan politicians and leaders to unequivocally oppose the egregious anti-homosexuality law. advocating for some rights while remaining ambiguous about lgbtiq+ rights is inconsistent, inexcusable, indefensible, unacceptable, and undermines the principles of democracy, justice and equality. the political exploitation of human rights issues by the opposition and the junta must end. you should either stand for lgbtiq+ rights or stand for hypocrisy, hate, and politics of appeasement. politicians, always be clear and firm on your position when it comes to the queer rights just like it is on other subjects like political and civil rights, good governance, rule of law, corruption, women’s rights, children’s rights… where you don’t blabber. otherwise the chess and checkers politicians are playing is exacerbating marginalization and plight of lgbtiq+ ugandans, which unacceptable!#standupforhumanrights #repealaha2023 #turnoffthehate
2:34

🤔 BOBI WINE is blabbering to a straightforward question whether he supports or opposes the repressive anti-homosexuality law in uganda which he claims targets him! bobi wine describes the law as a “political weapon,” asserting that any statement he makes could be used against him. however, to me, this explanation falls short, considering his silence during the law's passage and the unanimous support for it from his/out nup party's mps. this situation begs two questions: 𝟏. is our entire nup party complicit, or there is a lack of leadership in addressing internal dissent? 𝟐. as the president of the party, what disciplinary actions has bobi wine take against the homophobic nup parliamentarians who voted for a law that is targeting him and themselves, besides firing the former leader of opposition, Mathias Mpuuga, who misled the entire opposition to vote for the anti-lgbtiq+ law? still when pressed on whether bobi wine would repeal the law if he came to power, his hesitation leaves my eyebrows fully deployed! asserting a commitment to respect all human rights without specifically recognizing lgbtiq+ rights as human rights is not enough. there cannot be true democracy without lgbtiq+rights. as bobi wine sang that “𝐈𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐡, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐞,” why now cower or get excuses that whatever you say about the anti-gay law, it will be used against you? let’s walk our talk! the time has come for ugandan politicians and leaders to unequivocally oppose the egregious anti-homosexuality law. advocating for some rights while remaining ambiguous about lgbtiq+ rights is inconsistent, inexcusable, indefensible, unacceptable, and undermines the principles of democracy, justice and equality. the political exploitation of human rights issues by the opposition and the junta must end. you should either stand for lgbtiq+ rights or stand for hypocrisy, hate, and politics of appeasement. politicians, always be clear and firm on your position when it comes to the queer rights just like it is on other subjects like political and civil rights, good governance, rule of law, corruption, women’s rights, children’s rights… where you don’t blabber. otherwise the chess and checkers politicians are playing is exacerbating marginalization and plight of lgbtiq+ ugandans, which unacceptable!#standupforhumanrights #repealaha2023 #turnoffthehate

justice hunter 🇺🇬🇺🇸

206,411 次观看 • 2 年前

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): “Now that you are on the job, can you commit to us that if a court judges something ICE is doing, something DHS is doing, is illegal, is unconstitutional, tells you to stop — that you will comply with the court order?” DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin: “We will never break the Constitution, and we’re not going to break the law, but we’re gonna enforce our nation’s laws, and we’re gonna enforce the laws that you guys passed, and that we implement. We will never go outside that, and if we do, we will hold each other accountable for that.” Chris Murphy: “But that doesn’t sound like the same thing as committing that you will obey a court order. Obviously, the entire structure of the federal government gives the power to the federal court to divine whether you are obeying or not. I mean, I think it’s an easy thing to say. Will you or will you not implement court orders?” Markwayne Mullin: “If we didn’t think courts were politicized, then I would probably be able to answer that. But we see courts over and over again that use their bench for their political opinion, not just the rule of law. And we can see that because we see how many times —” Chris Murphy: “You’re going to pick and choose what court orders you obey?” Markwayne Mullin: “We’re saying we’re going to enforce the law and we’re never gonna break the Constitution.”
2:08

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): “Now that you are on the job, can you commit to us that if a court judges something ICE is doing, something DHS is doing, is illegal, is unconstitutional, tells you to stop — that you will comply with the court order?” DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin: “We will never break the Constitution, and we’re not going to break the law, but we’re gonna enforce our nation’s laws, and we’re gonna enforce the laws that you guys passed, and that we implement. We will never go outside that, and if we do, we will hold each other accountable for that.” Chris Murphy: “But that doesn’t sound like the same thing as committing that you will obey a court order. Obviously, the entire structure of the federal government gives the power to the federal court to divine whether you are obeying or not. I mean, I think it’s an easy thing to say. Will you or will you not implement court orders?” Markwayne Mullin: “If we didn’t think courts were politicized, then I would probably be able to answer that. But we see courts over and over again that use their bench for their political opinion, not just the rule of law. And we can see that because we see how many times —” Chris Murphy: “You’re going to pick and choose what court orders you obey?” Markwayne Mullin: “We’re saying we’re going to enforce the law and we’re never gonna break the Constitution.”

RedWave Press

126,818 次观看 • 3 个月前

THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE AGAINST HONOURABLE TUNDU A. LISSU IS THE LAW BEING DISREGARDED? The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) raises its voice regarding the troubling conduct in the criminal case against Honourable Tundu Antipas Lissu — a lawyer, former Member of Parliament, and one of the nation’s prominent advocates for human rights, good governance, and constitutionalism. Since his arrest, there has been a disturbing pattern undermining the principles of justice, violating legal procedures, and casting a heavy shadow over our criminal justice system. This is evident in the following: His arrest was conducted without adherence to lawful procedures, signaling an abuse of power; The charges appear to be politically motivated, raising serious concerns about the use of judicial processes as tools for political ends; Denial of even the basic right to greet and meet with fellow citizens before the official hearing of the case; Repeated adjournments of the case on legally unsubstantial grounds, indicating a deviation from legal focus; Interference with or denial of the accused’s right to private consultations with his lawyers, which violates the right to equal legal representation; Indications of breaches of the attorney-client privilege, which is protected under the Constitution and legal framework, and is a cornerstone of the right to an effective legal defense. The right of a client to consult privately with their lawyer is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Evidence Act, and the Code of Ethics for Advocates. To restrict or interfere with this right is to undermine the foundation of the justice process and impair the accused’s ability to defend themselves adequately before the court. TLS emphasizes the following: The law must not be used as a weapon against justice; State authorities must not place themselves above the Constitution or the laws enacted by Parliament; The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must reflect deeply on the significant constitutional powers he holds in criminal justice and whether there is sufficient accountability to protect citizens' rights and ensure adherence to the law at all times; The right to legal assistance is not a privilege — it is a right of every citizen. Any criminal case, especially those involving individuals with political or social stature, must be conducted with transparency, fairness, and with respect for human dignity. The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) continues to closely monitor the progress of this case. We reiterate that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. We call upon the Judiciary and all state organs to uphold and protect the rights of the accused in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Furthermore, we urge all lawyers in the country, the media, and human rights stakeholders to continue championing the protection of justice, freedom of expression, and the rule of law — without fear or favour. BAK MWABUKUSI President, Tanganyika Law Society (TLS)
1:29

THE CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE AGAINST HONOURABLE TUNDU A. LISSU IS THE LAW BEING DISREGARDED? The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) raises its voice regarding the troubling conduct in the criminal case against Honourable Tundu Antipas Lissu — a lawyer, former Member of Parliament, and one of the nation’s prominent advocates for human rights, good governance, and constitutionalism. Since his arrest, there has been a disturbing pattern undermining the principles of justice, violating legal procedures, and casting a heavy shadow over our criminal justice system. This is evident in the following: His arrest was conducted without adherence to lawful procedures, signaling an abuse of power; The charges appear to be politically motivated, raising serious concerns about the use of judicial processes as tools for political ends; Denial of even the basic right to greet and meet with fellow citizens before the official hearing of the case; Repeated adjournments of the case on legally unsubstantial grounds, indicating a deviation from legal focus; Interference with or denial of the accused’s right to private consultations with his lawyers, which violates the right to equal legal representation; Indications of breaches of the attorney-client privilege, which is protected under the Constitution and legal framework, and is a cornerstone of the right to an effective legal defense. The right of a client to consult privately with their lawyer is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, the Evidence Act, and the Code of Ethics for Advocates. To restrict or interfere with this right is to undermine the foundation of the justice process and impair the accused’s ability to defend themselves adequately before the court. TLS emphasizes the following: The law must not be used as a weapon against justice; State authorities must not place themselves above the Constitution or the laws enacted by Parliament; The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) must reflect deeply on the significant constitutional powers he holds in criminal justice and whether there is sufficient accountability to protect citizens' rights and ensure adherence to the law at all times; The right to legal assistance is not a privilege — it is a right of every citizen. Any criminal case, especially those involving individuals with political or social stature, must be conducted with transparency, fairness, and with respect for human dignity. The Tanganyika Law Society (TLS) continues to closely monitor the progress of this case. We reiterate that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. We call upon the Judiciary and all state organs to uphold and protect the rights of the accused in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Furthermore, we urge all lawyers in the country, the media, and human rights stakeholders to continue championing the protection of justice, freedom of expression, and the rule of law — without fear or favour. BAK MWABUKUSI President, Tanganyika Law Society (TLS)

Boniface Mwabukusi

15,205 次观看 • 1 年前

60 Minutes on Trump attacking law firms. Scott Pelley: "You're not suggesting the President is running a protection racket." John Keker: "I am. I'm suggesting that he is violating the rule that says you can't offer a thing of value in return for an official act. That happens to be the definition of bribery."
0:39

60 Minutes on Trump attacking law firms. Scott Pelley: "You're not suggesting the President is running a protection racket." John Keker: "I am. I'm suggesting that he is violating the rule that says you can't offer a thing of value in return for an official act. That happens to be the definition of bribery."

Blue Georgia

2,201,505 次观看 • 1 年前

Tulis: Our clients were consummate public servants—professional law enforcement officers among the best and brightest at the FBI—and they were fired for no reason other than their assignment to this case. What that represents is a disregard not only for our clients’ constitutional rights, but also for the norms, procedures, and principles that have defined the DOJ and the FBI for essentially their entire existence. If people don’t bring these kinds of suits to challenge such actions, it’s unclear whether there will be any opportunity not only to vindicate their rights, but also to have courts tell the government: you can’t do this. It’s unconstitutional. It’s wrong—and it must be corrected.
1:15

Tulis: Our clients were consummate public servants—professional law enforcement officers among the best and brightest at the FBI—and they were fired for no reason other than their assignment to this case. What that represents is a disregard not only for our clients’ constitutional rights, but also for the norms, procedures, and principles that have defined the DOJ and the FBI for essentially their entire existence. If people don’t bring these kinds of suits to challenge such actions, it’s unclear whether there will be any opportunity not only to vindicate their rights, but also to have courts tell the government: you can’t do this. It’s unconstitutional. It’s wrong—and it must be corrected.

Acyn

62,532 次观看 • 5 个月前

Elon Musk: “You’d think that if you’re going to be appointed as a judge, you have to have proven that you have an excellent knowledge of the law and that you will make your decisions according to the law. That’s what we assume should be a requirement. You’ve got to know what the law is, and then you need to make decisions in accordance with the law. Not vibes. You can’t be just vibing as a judge.”
0:58

Elon Musk: “You’d think that if you’re going to be appointed as a judge, you have to have proven that you have an excellent knowledge of the law and that you will make your decisions according to the law. That’s what we assume should be a requirement. You’ve got to know what the law is, and then you need to make decisions in accordance with the law. Not vibes. You can’t be just vibing as a judge.”

Mars University

13,099,590 次观看 • 5 个月前

WOW! Listen to what Kate Shaw (Kate Shaw), Law Professor at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, constitutional-law scholar and former Supreme Court clerk just said about President Trump's attacks on judges in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing: “If law firms can’t take on unpopular causes because they are scared to run afoul of the President, and judges are scared to rule against the President, then we really have lost any meaningful check on the President and like I said; if the Constitution is committed to a single principle, it is limits on power. No absolute power. And I worry that we are on a path toward few if any meaningful limits on a president.”
0:53

WOW! Listen to what Kate Shaw (Kate Shaw), Law Professor at University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, constitutional-law scholar and former Supreme Court clerk just said about President Trump's attacks on judges in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing: “If law firms can’t take on unpopular causes because they are scared to run afoul of the President, and judges are scared to rule against the President, then we really have lost any meaningful check on the President and like I said; if the Constitution is committed to a single principle, it is limits on power. No absolute power. And I worry that we are on a path toward few if any meaningful limits on a president.”

Ed Krassenstein

114,864 次观看 • 1 年前

Maria Steen eloquently destroys Micheál Martin and the government's false assertion that Constitutional change will not bring about changes to legislation in areas such as succession law, immigration law, social welfare law and so forth. Legislation can be amended and overhauled by the government. The government are under a duty to ensure that existing and new legislation does not conflict with our Constitution. Legislation is open to challenge in the courts if Constitutional changes are implemented that conflict with current laws. Indeed, by removing Article 41.2 mothers are left at the mercy of successive governments who can reduce or erode protections and benefits so that she can care for her children at home, as enshrined in our Constitution. We should be fighting for MORE rights for mothers to care for their children at home, NOT cancel those rights as enshrined in our Constitution. Extending the definition of a family to a 'durable relationship' will have a significant impact on existing and new legislation. Do NOT trust the government. #VoteNoNo
2:16

Maria Steen eloquently destroys Micheál Martin and the government's false assertion that Constitutional change will not bring about changes to legislation in areas such as succession law, immigration law, social welfare law and so forth. Legislation can be amended and overhauled by the government. The government are under a duty to ensure that existing and new legislation does not conflict with our Constitution. Legislation is open to challenge in the courts if Constitutional changes are implemented that conflict with current laws. Indeed, by removing Article 41.2 mothers are left at the mercy of successive governments who can reduce or erode protections and benefits so that she can care for her children at home, as enshrined in our Constitution. We should be fighting for MORE rights for mothers to care for their children at home, NOT cancel those rights as enshrined in our Constitution. Extending the definition of a family to a 'durable relationship' will have a significant impact on existing and new legislation. Do NOT trust the government. #VoteNoNo

Lawyers For Justice Ireland

607,433 次观看 • 2 年前

Former President Barack Obama criticized President Donald Trump's actions targeting law firms and universities Thursday, encouraging them to fight back. "It is up to all of us to fix this," Obama said during a speech at Hamilton College. "It’s not going to be because somebody comes and saves you. The most important office in this democracy is the citizen, the ordinary person who says, no, that’s not right." The comments come after Trump issued a series of executive orders targeting law firms that represented people who he says worked against him or what he said were American interests. The administration has also threatened to withhold federal funding from institutions that continue DEI efforts, which the administration has spoken out against.
3:34

Former President Barack Obama criticized President Donald Trump's actions targeting law firms and universities Thursday, encouraging them to fight back. "It is up to all of us to fix this," Obama said during a speech at Hamilton College. "It’s not going to be because somebody comes and saves you. The most important office in this democracy is the citizen, the ordinary person who says, no, that’s not right." The comments come after Trump issued a series of executive orders targeting law firms that represented people who he says worked against him or what he said were American interests. The administration has also threatened to withhold federal funding from institutions that continue DEI efforts, which the administration has spoken out against.

PBS News

273,741 次观看 • 1 年前

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.
6:58

I have listened to the debate on Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 between legal scholar Dr Justice Mavedzenge and political scientist Prof Jonathan Moyo today on Twitter. Without any doubt, Dr Justice Mavedzenge explained, clarified, and made ordinary people understand the issues, and more importantly, in my humble view, he won the debate on whether there is need for Constitutional Amendment Bill No. 3 to be subjected to a referendum or not. Anything done for the people, as Prof Jonathan Moyo says these monumental amendments are, should be subjected to the people. The Constitution is not ambiguous on this. It is clear that term limits should be subjected to a referendum for any change to be done legally. Under Section 328 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, any amendment that seeks to extend the length of time a President may hold office, or to remove or alter term limits in a way that benefits an incumbent, cannot apply to the sitting President and must be subjected to constitutional safeguards. You cannot claim to be doing something for the people and yet deny those same people the right to have a say. Prof Jonathan Moyo has a right to his views, but those views must be subjected to the law for the amendments to be implemented legally, and based on what I have read in our Constitution, his views are not aligned with the law. And I am not making this up. It is in the Constitution. Even veteran Zimbabwean lawyer and former ZANUPF legal secretary, Patrick Chinamasa, has said so. In this video, he explains in front of President Mnangagwa that what they are attempting to do today, which Prof Jonathan Moyo argues does not require a referendum, would in fact require two referendums. One to remove or alter presidential term limits from five to seven years, and another to extend the sitting president’s tenure to 2030. This position was declared, and not contradicted, at a ZANUPF conference in Bulawayo. What the broader legal fraternity in Zimbabwe is saying, save for a few lawyers who have since revised their positions and now echo the same view, is that the Constitution is explicit on these prescripts. Anything else is political propaganda to win hearts and minds. The problem with propaganda is that it cannot be anchored in constitutional provisions. It rests on opinion. In this instance, however, we are not expressing opinions. We are stating what is contained in the Constitution and what ZANUPF itself has previously acknowledged. You can decide today that you want a 20-year presidential term. That is your right to hold that view, but you must subject that proposition to the law. If you believe in it, take it to the citizens in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. You cannot decide, through opinion or political argument, whether a referendum is required or not. That question is not settled by what anyone thinks. It is settled by what the law says. If the Constitution requires a referendum, then you must subject yourself to it. That is how constitutional democracy works. We know that the judiciary in Zimbabwe is captured. We know how they are going to rule, but the whole world knows the truth, that if they rule in favour of these amendments going ahead without a referendum, they are simply a captured judiciary without the respect that is required for anyone holding such an important office, and history will remember them as such.

Hopewell Chin’ono

62,431 次观看 • 6 个月前

The Constitution of Ireland begins not with government, but with the Nation—with the People themselves. That is not symbolism. That is authority. It is from the People that all power flows, and it is by our collective will that we established the Constitution as the supreme law of this State. Within it, we gave ourselves courts—not as instruments of control, but as guardians of liberty. Under Article 34, we vested those courts with a solemn duty: to protect and vindicate our personal rights. Those personal rights are not abstract ideas. They are expressly recognised and protected across the Constitution—beginning in Article 40, and extending through Articles 41, 42, 42A, 43, and 44. Together, they safeguard what it means to live freely and with dignity in Ireland: our personal liberty, our families, our children, our right to educate according to conscience, our private property, and our freedom of religion. These rights do not exist at the pleasure of the State. They do not depend on policy, preference, or administrative convenience. They are fundamental, and they are inalienable. What we are witnessing at this moment is something profoundly serious. A member of the Government—holding office as a Minister of State, an office that exists only by statute—has purported, through a statutory instrument, to prevent the People of Ireland from exercising their constitutional rights in their own courts. That cannot stand. No statutory instrument can override the Constitution. No minister, junior or otherwise, can suspend fundamental rights. No act of secondary legislation can lawfully obstruct access to the courts where those rights are vindicated. To suggest otherwise is not merely mistaken—it is constitutionally impossible. The courts do not belong to the executive. They do not belong to departments. They belong to the People, because the Constitution says so. And so, this is where the line is drawn. The Constitution is not optional. Fundamental rights are not negotiable. Access to justice is not a privilege to be rationed. Tomorrow, the law will be laid plainly before the Minister for Justice—not in defiance, but in fidelity to the Constitution; not in anger, but in duty to the People; not for personal grievance, but for the protection of all. Because if fundamental rights can be restrained today, they can be extinguished tomorrow. And if we do not stand now, we leave our children standing alone later. This is not about power. It is about principle. It is about ensuring that the Constitution lives—not on paper, but in practice. And it is about the furtherance of our fundamental rights, so that we may protect ourselves, our families, our children, the way we educate our children, our private property, and our religion—today, and for generations to come. #NoFeeOnGuarantee
1:14

The Constitution of Ireland begins not with government, but with the Nation—with the People themselves. That is not symbolism. That is authority. It is from the People that all power flows, and it is by our collective will that we established the Constitution as the supreme law of this State. Within it, we gave ourselves courts—not as instruments of control, but as guardians of liberty. Under Article 34, we vested those courts with a solemn duty: to protect and vindicate our personal rights. Those personal rights are not abstract ideas. They are expressly recognised and protected across the Constitution—beginning in Article 40, and extending through Articles 41, 42, 42A, 43, and 44. Together, they safeguard what it means to live freely and with dignity in Ireland: our personal liberty, our families, our children, our right to educate according to conscience, our private property, and our freedom of religion. These rights do not exist at the pleasure of the State. They do not depend on policy, preference, or administrative convenience. They are fundamental, and they are inalienable. What we are witnessing at this moment is something profoundly serious. A member of the Government—holding office as a Minister of State, an office that exists only by statute—has purported, through a statutory instrument, to prevent the People of Ireland from exercising their constitutional rights in their own courts. That cannot stand. No statutory instrument can override the Constitution. No minister, junior or otherwise, can suspend fundamental rights. No act of secondary legislation can lawfully obstruct access to the courts where those rights are vindicated. To suggest otherwise is not merely mistaken—it is constitutionally impossible. The courts do not belong to the executive. They do not belong to departments. They belong to the People, because the Constitution says so. And so, this is where the line is drawn. The Constitution is not optional. Fundamental rights are not negotiable. Access to justice is not a privilege to be rationed. Tomorrow, the law will be laid plainly before the Minister for Justice—not in defiance, but in fidelity to the Constitution; not in anger, but in duty to the People; not for personal grievance, but for the protection of all. Because if fundamental rights can be restrained today, they can be extinguished tomorrow. And if we do not stand now, we leave our children standing alone later. This is not about power. It is about principle. It is about ensuring that the Constitution lives—not on paper, but in practice. And it is about the furtherance of our fundamental rights, so that we may protect ourselves, our families, our children, the way we educate our children, our private property, and our religion—today, and for generations to come. #NoFeeOnGuarantee

Patrick McGreal

11,057 次观看 • 8 个月前

.James Talarico: It should be troubling to all of us that the most powerful politicians and corporate executives are working together to sell out the First Amendment. They are selling out our freedom of speech in order to protect their own power and their own wealth. An attack on any one of our First Amendment rights is an attack on all of our First Amendment rights — whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, a progressive or a conservative, this should be concerning to all of us.
0:35

.James Talarico: It should be troubling to all of us that the most powerful politicians and corporate executives are working together to sell out the First Amendment. They are selling out our freedom of speech in order to protect their own power and their own wealth. An attack on any one of our First Amendment rights is an attack on all of our First Amendment rights — whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican, a progressive or a conservative, this should be concerning to all of us.

Team Talarico

199,701 次观看 • 6 个月前

No person forfeits their right to life, dignity or their status as a human being because they are alleged to have violated a law. This is a defining feature of our Constitution that sets us apart as a nation of due process and the rule of law. We will not tolerate anyone using allegations related to any person’s nationality or immigration status to violate their inherent human dignity and our Constitution, or to inflict damage on our society. It simply cannot and will not stand.
2:12

No person forfeits their right to life, dignity or their status as a human being because they are alleged to have violated a law. This is a defining feature of our Constitution that sets us apart as a nation of due process and the rule of law. We will not tolerate anyone using allegations related to any person’s nationality or immigration status to violate their inherent human dignity and our Constitution, or to inflict damage on our society. It simply cannot and will not stand.

Leon Schreiber

270,013 次观看 • 2 个月前