Its 1300 hours james a little after 9 am in new york where the United Nations Security Council is about to hold its open session on the Israeli Palestinian conflict the issue though is the land specifically israels plans to an excess palestinian territory in the occupied west Bank Something the United Nations is urging israel to a band so we got special coverage on this news and analysis of course of the Security Council meeting with correspondents in west jerusalem and the Jordan Valley as well as of course the United Nations in new york a diplomatic editor james bays is there for us james take us through whats expected today. Well it will start we think in the next few minutes what we know is that this meeting is the regular monthly meeting of the u. N. Security council on the israeli and palestinian issue however its been upgraded this month because of the issue of an exception so ministers can take part and we know that ministers from a number of the Security Council countries will
Land israels plans to. Territory in the occupied west bank which the u. N. Is urging israel to abandon now it is carrying on right now representative from vietnam is speaking in about i would say the next 5 to 10 minutes we will hear from the u. S. Representative at the United Nations kelly craft u. S. Ambassador kelly craft that will be interesting obviously the one Security Council member which we know backs israels position of. Already though we have heard from the likes of nickell who is the uns middle east peace envoy. Who is the arab League Secretary general but 1st it was the u. N. Secretary general and tony a good terrace he summed it up in calling for nothing short of israel abandoning its annexation plans. If implemented and accession of course into the most serious violation of International Law grievously harmed the prospect of a to spend solution and the current possibilities of a new will of negotiations. I call on the Israeli Government would ban is an exception class. S
Oh yea, oh yea, oh yea, all persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to give their attention for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court. Chief Justice Roberts we will hear argument first this morning in case 19465, chiafalo and others versus the state of washington. Mr. Lessig may it please this court. The question in these cases is straightforward. Do states have the power to control, through law how an elector may vote . They do not. The expected meaning of the words of the constitution against the background of the framers deliberation make it clear that the states have no such power. But what is also clear is that washington does not like the constitutions design. It declares that the votes cast are not, as the constitution expressly describes them, their votes, meaning the electors votes, but instead of the votes of the state, article 2 effectively gives the states the power to cast v
Court. The question is straightforward. To the states have the power to control, through law how an elector may vote . The do not, the words of constitution against the background of the framers naked clear that the states have no such power. What is also make it clear that the states have no such power. What is also clear is that washington does not like the design. Votes cast that the are not, as the constitution expressly describes them, their votes, but instead of the votes of the state, article 2 effectively gives the states the power to cast votes for president in such manner as the Legislature Thereof May direct. The actual article 2 does not give the states the power to cast votes. It gives the states the power to appoint electors. The actual electors that the constitution creates, have a legal discretion, as every unfettereds, not an discretion, to the contrary, it is a completely fettered discretion, fettered by moral and political obligations, not legal constraints. To vetto
All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are to give their attention. The court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court. We will hear arguments first this morning in this case. It it pleases this court, the question in these cases is straightforward. To the states have the power to how an elector may vote . They do not. They declare that the vote is as the constitution expressly describes them, their vote, meaning the electoral votes but article two, in washington effectively gives the states the power to cast votes for president in such a manner as the legislature therefore thereof. The actual article does not give the states the power to cast votes. Togives the states the power appoint electors. The actual electors that the constitution creates have legal discretion as every elector does. Is covertlyary, it fettered discretion. Washingtons alternative to best discretion in citizens rather than electors may be