A particularly nice because they essentially better war with israel for. A long time i dont know if it was fighting i dont know that but probably theres been a little the trumpet ministration says its a deal years in the making its involved secretary of state might from people flying to sudan and israels Prime Minister making an official visit. To dan has agreed to pay 335000000. 00 in compensation to victims of the 1908 east africa u. S. Embassy bombings the attack on the u. S. Call in yemen in 2000 and the family of a murdered u. S. Diplomat thats cleared the way for sudan to be removed from the list of nations the u. S. Considers state sponsors of terrorism and that puts israel in place to establish formal relations and there was no relationship whatsoever todays Peace Agreement will enhance security and. Nation congress now has 45. 00 days to consider Donald Trumps decision it could block it but that seems unlikely if it goes through sanctions on sudan will be removed and that clea
Jimmy welcome back, musica everybody. Performing his new song i [ playing drums on glass jar ] called mama, here is tim mcgraw you did it, babe. Hey, jimmy, thank you for having me, man i wanna just say thank you from myself and my family to all the frontline workers, all the public facing workers out there who are doing so much to keep the heartbeat of this country going. We appreciate you. We love you. [ playing drums on glass jar ] and thank you, again so much heres a song i want to play for you and i hope you guys enjoy it announcer tonight, join jimmy and his guests ben stiller. Hannah gadsby. Musical guest tim mcgraw. And the legendary roots crew its the tonight show at home edition. Got a call from a friend about a frien and now, heres jimmy. Jimmy hi, everybody. And welcome to the tonight show at home edition. With some news no on ever wants to hear my names jimmy fallon thank you so much for watching our show tonight lets get to some jokes. Well guys, everybody is talking it h
Respondent acknowledges the context of criminal law, the terms encouraged and reduced can have solely asked that solicit unlawful activity. Thats the meaning they have in the context of this criminal law. There is no reason to reach out and give them a vastly more interpretation simply to strike the statute down. Unlawful activity have existed since before the founding, and are perfectly constitutional. Interpreting this lot to be unconstitutionally overbroad, would deviate from that tradition and directly contradict the canon of constitutional avoidance. Historical understanding and practice confirm that congress did not use these familiar predecessors to the statute have been on the books since the late 19th century and this provision has existed in its current form for decades. Have identified no actual instances where the statute has been applied to first amended activity or country documented instances of chilling speech. Happenstance, and it because the statute is not aimed at sp
Context of criminal law that can induce solely to acts that solicit or facilitate unlawful activity. Thats the meaning they have in the context of this criminal law. Theres no reason to reach out and give them a vastly more expansive interpretation simply to strike the statutes down. Soliciting unlawful activity have been elicited since the founding and are perfectly constitutional. It would be overbroad and directly contradict the cannon of constitutional avoidance. Historical standing and practice confirm congress didnt use these familiar criminal law terms to enact a novel broad band on speech. The statutes have been on the books since the late 19th century and existed in this current form for decades yet the respondent has listed no statute for activity or concrete documented instances of chilling speech. The absence of such evidence isnt just happenstance and doesnt just reflect longstanding executive selfrestraint. Because the statute isnt aimed at speech and certainly doesnt enc
Out and give them a vastly more interpretation simply to strike the statute down. Unlawful activity have existed since before the founding, and are perfectly constitutional. Interpreting this lot to be unconstitutionally overbroad, would deviate from that tradition and directly contradict the canon of constitutional avoidance. Historical understanding and practice confirm that congress did not use these familiar criminal law terms to enact a novel and broadband on speech. Predecessors to the statute have been on the books since the late 19th century, and this provision has existed and it substantially existed form for decades. Yet they have identified no actual instances in which the statute has been applied to protect the first moment activity or any concrete documented insistence of speech. The absence of such evidence is not just happenstance, and it doesnt just reflect longstanding executive selfrestraint. Its because the statute isnt aimed at speech and it certainly does not encom