Constitution (US)

Subterms

    Latest story

    150 Shares41 Views

    Activists Sent to Prison for Pouring Powder Over Case Holding U.S. Constitution

    by

    One climate activist was sentenced to 18 months in prison, the other to two years. They said that they had meant to draw attention to climate change.Two climate activists who dumped red powder over the display case that holds the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives Museum in February were each sentenced this week to more than a year in prison.Judge Amy Berman Jackson of U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Tuesday sentenced one activist, Jackson Green, 27, of Utah, to 18 months in prison to be followed by two years of supervised release.On Friday, Judge Jackson sentenced the other activist, Donald Zepeda, 35, of Maryland, to two years in prison with two years of supervised release.They must pay $58,607.59 in restitution to the National Archives, according to court records.In an episode that was captured on video, Mr. Green and Mr. Zepeda poured powder over the display case in the rotunda of the National Archives Museum on Feb. 14 in what prosecutors described as a “stunt” that was meant to draw attention to climate change.The two men also poured powder over themselves and stood in the rotunda, calling for solutions to climate change.The Constitution was not damaged, according to the National Archives Museum, which said that the powder was made of pigment and cornstarch.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 63 Shares71 Views

      in Elections

      Los nombramientos temerarios de Trump

      by

      Donald Trump ha demostrado de innumerables maneras que no es apto para la presidencia, pero una de las más claras es la compañía con la que se rodea: figuras marginales, teóricos de la conspiración y aduladores que anteponen lealtad a él por encima de todo. Esta semana, una serie de nombramientos para el gabinete por parte de Trump mostraron de la forma más cruda posible los peligros potenciales que entraña su dependencia a su círculo de allegados.Para tres de los puestos más importantes y de mayor rango del país, Trump dijo que nombraría a leales sin cualificaciones discernibles para sus trabajos, personas manifiestamente inapropiadas para puestos cruciales de liderazgo en la aplicación de la ley y la seguridad nacional.Lo más irresponsable fue su elección para fiscal general. Para ocupar el puesto de máximo responsable de la aplicación de la ley del país, el presidente electo dijo que nombraría al representante por Florida Matt Gaetz.Sí, ese Matt Gaetz.El mismo que pidió la abolición del FBI y de todo el Departamento de Justicia si no dejaban de investigar a Trump. El que estuvo entre las voces más audibles del Congreso en negar los resultados de las elecciones de 2020, quien dijo que estaba “orgulloso del trabajo” que él y otros negacionistas hicieron el 6 de enero de 2021, y quien elogió a los alborotadores del Capitolio como “estadounidenses patriotas” que no tenían intención de cometer actos de violencia. Aquel cuya maniobra para desbancar al presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, Kevin McCarthy, en 2023 paralizó el liderazgo de su propio partido en la Cámara durante casi un mes.Gaetz, quien presentó su carta de renuncia al Congreso el miércoles después de que se anunciara su nominación, fue objeto de una investigación federal sobre tráfico sexual que duró años y que condujo a una condena de 11 años de prisión para uno de sus socios, aunque él negó cualquier participación. El Departamento de Justicia cerró esa investigación, pero el Comité de Ética de la Cámara de Representantes sigue investigando las acusaciones de conducta sexual inapropiada, consumo de drogas ilícitas, aceptación indebida de regalos y obstrucción de las investigaciones gubernamentales sobre su conducta. McCarthy, el expresidente de la Cámara, culpó a Gaetz por su destitución, con el argumento de que Gaetz “quería que detuviera una denuncia de ética porque tuvo relaciones con una joven de 17 años”.

      [data-testid=”brand-bar”] {
      display:none
      }
      [data-testid=”masthead-container”] + p a {
      visibility: hidden;
      }
      [data-testid=”masthead-container”] + p a::after {
      content: “Opinión”;
      visibility: visible;
      display: block;
      margin-top: -1rem;
      }

      .NYTApp .adjacency-label {
      visibility:hidden;
      }

      .NYTApp .adjacency-label::before {
      content: “Opinión”;
      visibility: visible;
      display: block;
      }
      .NYTApp .adjacency-label span {
      visibility: visible;
      margin-top: -1rem;
      }

      We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares161 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know About the Electoral College

      by

      “This is a very unique and bespoke system that I think nobody would create again today,” one expert said.Voters are already casting ballots for local offices, state legislators, governors, every member of the U.S. House and one-third of the U.S. Senate as Election Day nears.They are also choosing the next president but with a twist: Americans will actually select the electors, who will, in turn, elect Kamala Harris or Donald J. Trump, and their running mates.Yes, there are really two elections: one in which voters cast their ballots, and a second in which the electoral votes are cast and counted. Or, in other words, the winner of the most votes nationally is not assured victory.This is the way it has been done for more than 200 years, and it is likely to endure, even though a majority of Americans would prefer to have the winner of the most votes nationally rise to the presidency.What is the Electoral College?The Electoral College is made up of 538 elected members, one for each U.S. senator and U.S. representative, plus three for Washington, D.C.A presidential candidate needs to win a simple majority of them (270) to win the White House. The electors meet and cast votes for president and vice president in mid-December.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Rare Copy of U.S. Constitution Sells for More Than $11 Million

      by

      The document, which was sold to an anonymous bidder at an auction in North Carolina, was among the first copies of the Constitution ever printed, experts said.A rare copy of the United States Constitution that was printed shortly after the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and played a role in the document’s adoption by the original 13 states sold for more than $11 million during a live auction on Thursday evening.The high bid, from a buyer whose identity was not disclosed, was $9 million. That does not include the buyer’s premium of 23 percent or the taxes, which were not disclosed.The sale was handled by Brunk Auctions, which is based in Asheville, N.C. Bidding began at $1.1 million but quickly jumped to $5 million. It took just over seven minutes before the bidding closed at $9 million, said Nancy Zander, director of external affairs for Brunk Auctions.“It was a spectacular price,” Ms. Zander said in an interview Friday night. “It’s really important that important things get strong prices.”The copy of the Constitution was found two years ago in a filing cabinet in the house at Hayes, a farm once owned by Samuel Johnston, who served as governor of North Carolina from December 1787 to December 1789. The document’s discovery garnered national attention for being an early copy of the document and for the role it played in the document’s ratification.After the Constitutional Convention and after Congress added a ratification resolution, copies were sent to the governors of the original 13 states, who then gauged interest among their residents. Among those copies was the one sold on Thursday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      City Illegally Fined Woman Over Profane Political Yard Sign, U.S. Judge Rules

      by

      A federal judge in Tennessee said that it was unconstitutional for the City of Lakeland, Tenn., to fine Julie Pereira for the sign she posted expressing disapproval of President Biden and Donald J. Trump.A federal judge in Tennessee ruled this week that it was unconstitutional for a city to fine a woman who had displayed a sign in her yard that used profane language to express disapproval of both President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.The woman, Julie Pereira, 40, of Lakeland, Tenn., who posted the sign, which said “Fuck Em’ Both 2024,” in January, was fined hundreds of dollars by the city. It told her that the political sign violated its municipal code because it was obscene.In June, Ms. Pereira sued Lakeland in federal court, arguing that she had a First Amendment right to post the sign in her yard.Judge Mark S. Norris of U.S. District Court in Memphis, said in an order issued on Tuesday that Ms. Pereira’s yard sign was not obscene, and that it was unconstitutional for the city of Lakeland to take action against Ms. Pereira over the sign.Judge Norris ordered the city to reimburse her for nearly $700 in fines and pay Ms. Pereira damages of $1 for violating her First Amendment rights, according to the order. Ms. Pereira was also awarded legal fees of $31,000. The judge also barred the city from taking any additional action against her.Julie Pereira’s sign in her yard in Lakeland, Tenn. She won her lawsuit against the city of Lakeland after they fined her hundreds of dollars for putting up the sign.Julie PereiraWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Consumer Watchdog’s Funding

      by

      A decision against the agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, could have cast doubt on all of its regulations and enforcement actions.The Supreme Court rejected a challenge on Thursday to the way the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is funded, one that could have hobbled the bureau and advanced a central goal of the conservative legal movement: limiting the power of independent agencies.The vote was 7 to 2, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion.Had the bureau lost, the court’s ruling might have cast doubt on every regulation and enforcement action it had taken in its 13 years of existence, including ones concerning mortgages, credit cards, consumer loans and banking.The central question in the case was whether the way Congress chose to fund the bureau had violated the appropriations clause of the Constitution, which says that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.”Justice Thomas said the mechanism was constitutional.“Under the appropriations clause,” he wrote, “an appropriation is simply a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes. The statute that provides the bureau’s funding meets these requirements. We therefore conclude that the bureau’s funding mechanism does not violate the appropriations clause.”Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., joined by Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented.The bureau, created after the financial crisis as part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, is funded by the Federal Reserve System, in an amount determined by the bureau so long as the sum does not exceed 12 percent of the system’s operating expenses. In the 2022 fiscal year, the agency requested and received $641.5 million of the $734 million available.A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled in 2022 that the bureau’s funding method ran afoul of the appropriations clause.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Alito Is Holding Trump to a Different Standard

      by

      I mentioned it in passing in my Friday column, but I was struck — disturbed, really — by one specific point made by Justice Samuel Alito during Thursday’s oral arguments in Trump v. United States.Alito began innocuously enough: “I’m sure you would agree with me that a stable democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully if that candidate is the incumbent.”“Of course,” answered Michael Dreeben, the lawyer arguing the case for the Department of Justice.“Now,” Alito continued, “if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?”The implication of Alito’s question is that presidential immunity for all official acts may be a necessary concession to the possibility of a politically motivated investigation and prosecution: Presidents need to be above the law to raise the odds that they follow the law and leave office without incident.If this sounds backward, that’s because it is.There have been, in the nearly 236 years since Americans ratified the Constitution, 45 presidents. Of those, 10 sought but did not win re-election. In every case but one, the defeated incumbents left office without incident. There was no fear that they would try to overturn the results or subvert the process, nor was there any fear that their successors would turn the power of the state against them. Thomas Jefferson did not try to jail John Adams after the close-fought 1800 election; he assured the American people that “we are all republicans, we are all federalists.” Jimmy Carter did not sic the F.B.I. on Gerald Ford in the wake of his narrow victory; he thanked him for “all he has done to heal our land.”By Alito’s lights, this should not have been possible. Why would a president leave if he could be prosecuted as a private citizen? The answer is that the other nine people who lost had a commitment to American democracy that transcended their narrow, personal or partisan interests.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      2 Charged After Pouring Red Powder Over Case Holding U.S. Constitution

      by

      Two activists poured the powder over the protective case at the National Archives Museum last month to call attention to climate change, prosecutors said.Two climate activists who dumped red powder over the display case that contains the U.S. Constitution at the National Archives Museum last month were charged on Thursday with destruction of government property, prosecutors said.The activists, Donald Zepeda, 35, of Maryland, and Jackson Green, 27, of Utah, poured the powder over the display case in the rotunda of the building on Feb. 14 as part of a “stunt, which was intended to draw attention to climate change,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia said in a statement on Friday.During the episode, which officials said was captured on video by supporters of Mr. Green, the two men also poured red powder over themselves and then stood before the Constitution as they called for solutions to climate change.The Constitution was not damaged, according to the National Archives Museum, which said that the powder was found to be a combination of pigment and cornstarch.“Fortunately, the four pages of the Constitution on display were not at risk for damage by this incident,” said Stephanie Hornbeck, a national preservation program officer.The rotunda was closed after the episode, which cost more than $50,000 to clean up, prosecutors said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Illinois Hearing Officer, a Former Republican Judge, Says Trump Engaged in Insurrection

      by

      But the hearing officer said the State Board of Elections should let the courts decide whether Mr. Trump’s conduct disqualified him from the ballot.A former Republican judge appointed to hear arguments on whether to disqualify former President Donald J. Trump from the Illinois primary ballot said on Sunday that he believed Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection by attempting to remain in office after the 2020 election.But the former judge, Clark Erickson, whose nonbinding opinion will be considered by the State Board of Elections on Tuesday, added that he believed the board did not have the authority to disqualify Mr. Trump on those grounds and that the question should instead be left to the courts.The mixed decision was at least a symbolic setback for the former president, who has faced official challenges to his candidacy in 35 states and has been found ineligible for the primaries in Colorado and Maine. Mr. Trump, the leading Republican candidate for president, is still likely to appear on the primary ballots in both of those states as the U.S. Supreme Court considers an appeal of the Colorado ruling.In Illinois, at least five of the eight members of the Board of Elections would have to vote on Tuesday to remove Mr. Trump for him to be struck from the ballot. The appointed board is made up of four Democrats and four Republicans. Their decision can be appealed to the courts before the March 19 primary.The Illinois challenge, like those in other states, is based on a clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that disqualifies government officials who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.At a hearing on Friday in downtown Chicago, lawyers for residents objecting to Mr. Trump’s candidacy accused the former president of insurrection and played footage from the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Lawyers for Mr. Trump denied the allegation and argued that, in any case, the constitutional clause in question did not apply to the presidency. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More