And 100 refugees of fleeting, the filing in the me, on the between Security Forces and rebel groups and in sport, matched to united face man city in the ethic have the final and wembley, man united, have a chance to win their 1st as a cup titling 8 years with their managers future at the club hanging in about the it is 10, g m t 1 pm and gaza is widely strikes to continue across the strip, including in the far as the main says in the south with hundreds of thousands of displays, palestinians have been sheltering. The you and the top court has viewed as relish and stop as offensive in the city. The International Court of justice also ordered israel to open the at off a Border Crossing to allow an aid that says hospitals of Running Office supplies showing and gunfire has also been reported near the crazy hospital in the offer. And the missiles have hit the crowded, ill shoot a refugee camp. And the facility begins coverage from the law. The inter boot of comp, incentives of law, Civil De
Is u. S. Supreme court heard oral argument in questioning the constitutional treaty parties. The case bond versus the u. S. Involves governments prosecution in that pennsylvania woman under federal a federal law designed to ban chemical weapons. The woman was found spreading toxic chemicals on her friends personal property. The underlying issue in the case is the question of when the federal government may intrude on powers traditionally given to the states. In this case police powers. Here is the oral argument to that case. We with her arguments in case 12. 158 bond versus United States. Mr. Clement. Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court. If the statute at issue here really does reach every malicious use of chemicals anywhere in the nation as the government insists it clearly exceeds congresss limit limited and enumerated powers. This court cases that may clear the bedrock of our system that Congress Backs the General Police power to criminalize conduct without regard to juris
Seems to largely copy without getting anything so the treaty could be constitutional but implementing legislation adds nothing is constitutional. I would quarrel with your premise. It is through the convention in the statute used similar terms and terminology. Theres one important difference between the convention and the statute that differentiates the case and the difference is convention itself doesnt directly regulate individual conduct at all. And so all the convention tells the States Parties go regulate individual conduct in exactly the way this convention regulates state parties. And then what the legislation does is as Justice Ginsberg said just mirrored the convention as the convention contemplated. Taking quite precise with the convention says and this is article vii section i 33 a of the blue brief appendix what it says is each nation status on the convention agrees in accordance with its constitutional processes to pass penal laws that make unlawful for individuals, conduc
Founders to justify their own meanspirited, short down, pro shutdown ideology. What senator cruise doesnt understand is the patriots he founded New Hampshire, the patriots he founded maryland did not pray for their president to fail, they prayed for their president to succeed. [applause] delivernt intelligence, they didnt belittle earnings. They actually aspired to it and they hoped others would as well. They did not appeal to americas fears, they brought forward bravery and they would never have abandoned the war on war on to declare a women, war on workers, war on immigrants, a war on the sick, and a war on hungry children. [applause] i know that people like mitch inell and kelly ayotte know they have been trying to distance themselves from the tea party ever since they nearly drove our country into default. But the truth is, sadly, there is very little difference today between the tea party and so called mainstream republicans. Just ask terrell shea porter. Just ask annie custer. Th
Being prepare so there will be one narrative of history, know that the british, the french, the americans, the chinese, fought against the nazis nazis and the japanese imperialism in world war ii, and you have people who are part of the establishment, like andre, the political scientist who was planted in new york as a representative of the institute for democracy and Something Else, the russian government funded operation, says, oh, but hitler was good until 1939. Until 1939, that included the nuremberg laws, the austria, czechoslovakia, and the so, you have the grandson of your colleague saying, oh, the aryan slavic tribes the narrative is becoming more and more racist, nazilike, justifying even hitler, which is inconceivable in this myth of fighting german fascism. Whats going on with that . The people whom you mentioned, they can justify whatever they have been told to justify. Who is telling them to justify that . I think we know their instinct. They just want to please the chief,