Constitutions

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares76 Views

    South Korea’s President Will Learn His Fate on Friday

    by

    The Constitutional Court will announce on Friday whether Yoon Suk Yeol, who was impeached in December for declaring martial law, will be permanently removed from office or restored to power.Yoon Suk Yeol, the president of South Korea, who was impeached in December over his failed attempt to impose martial law, will learn on Friday whether he will be formally removed from office or returned to power, the nation’s top court said on Tuesday.Suspense was building in South Korea as the country waited for the Constitutional Court to rule on Mr. Yoon’s fate. Mr. Yoon has been suspended from office since the National Assembly impeached him on Dec. 14. In South Korea, the Constitutional Court decides whether an impeached official is removed permanently from office or reinstated.Removing Mr. Yoon would require the votes of six or more of the court’s eight justices; otherwise, he will return to office.​ The court’s decision, which cannot be appealed, is a critical moment in the political upheaval​ that Mr. Yoon unleashed when he declared martial law on Dec. 3.If ​the court removes him, Mr. Yoon will become the second president in South Korean history to leave office through impeachment. (President Park Geun-hye was the first, in 2017.) The country will quickly shift gears toward a new election; a successor must be chosen within 60 days.If he is reinstated, South Korea’s political crisis is likely to deepen. Mr. Yoon’s attempt to impose martial law angered millions of South Koreans. Even if reinstated, he will resume his presidential duties with his ability to govern considerably weakened.Mr. Yoon was detained on Jan. 15 on insurrection charges, also connected to his ill-fated imposition of martial law. The suspense surrounding his future intensified after a Seoul court unexpectedly released him from jail on March 8, saying that his detention was procedurally flawed.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

    • 88 Shares104 Views

      in Elections

      Why Does America Have Presidential Term Limits?

      by

      Congress passed the 22nd Amendment in 1947, creating a two-term limit for American presidents as a check the power of America’s chief executive. But President Trump has not ruled out seeking a third term in office even though the Constitution does not allow it. Here’s what to know about presidential term limits and why they exist.Here’s what you need to know:Has the U.S. always had term limits?Did any presidents try to break with tradition?Have any presidents won a third term?Do other countries have term limits?Has the U.S. always had term limits?Until Congress passed the 22nd Amendment, presidents had largely recognized the precedent established by the nation’s first president, George Washington. In 1796, he declined to seek a third term in office, citing the importance of peaceful transfers of power and the potential for presidential tyranny. Washington’s decision was seen at the time as a guard against the dangers of autocracy, from which the young republic had recently sought to freed itself by declaring independence from the British Empire in 1776.Did any presidents try to break with tradition?Washington’s two-term precedent didn’t stop some of his successors from trying for a third. After serving two consecutive presidential terms, from 1901 to 1909, Theodore Roosevelt returned to the campaign trail in 1912 as a third-party candidate seeking a third term. He was unsuccessful. Before that, Ulysses S. Grant, the former Civil War general, had sought a third term in 1880, but his party declined to give him the nomination.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 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Protests Erupt in Georgia as It Pulls Back From Pro-Western Path

      by

      Thousands of people took to the streets after the government in the Caucasus nation said it had suspended talks on joining the European Union.Thousands of people protested overnight in front of the Parliament building in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, after the government announced on Thursday that it had suspended its bid to join the European Union for four years.The announcement has further deepened the conflict between the country’s opposition, which wants closer ties with the West, and the governing Georgian Dream party, which has been pivoting Georgia away from Europe toward Russia and China.The protests were prompted by an announcement on Thursday by Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze, who said the country was putting the process of accession into the European Union on hold until 2028. Mr. Kobakhidze also said that Georgia would decline all grants from the European Union, which has allocated more than $500 million to the country since 2019.Demonstrators blocked the main avenue in Tbilisi, chanting “slaves” and “Russians,” before they were dispersed by riot police, whose officers used water cannons and tear gas to push the crowd away from the Parliament building.The Ministry of Internal Affairs said in a statement that its law enforcement officers had detained 43 protesters. The police also said that 32 officers were injured. The protests were expected to resume on Friday.A mountainous country of 3.7 million, Georgia has been at the crossroads of great power interests for centuries. The current political crisis was prompted by the disputed victory of the Georgian Dream in parliamentary elections in October.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Mexico Passes Bill Barring Legal Challenges to Constitutional Changes

      by

      The bill has drawn criticism from legal scholars who say it would bulldoze any judicial oversight of constitutional matters. Mexico’s lower house of Congress approved sweeping new measures on Wednesday that would prevent legal challenges to constitutional amendments, allowing lawmakers to reshape the country’s charter without any judicial review — even from the Supreme Court.The bill, which was already passed by the Senate last week, has drawn criticism from legal scholars and human rights experts, who say it would bulldoze any judicial oversight of constitutional matters and hand the ruling Morena party seemingly unchecked power to pass profound changes to the laws governing the nation.Most state legislatures are expected to approve the measure in the coming days, paving the way for the president to sign it into law.The move comes at a tense moment for Mexico, in which the major branches of government barreling toward open conflict over the fundamental makeup of the judicial system and the role it should play in the country’s democracy.“This reform, if it passes, does place us in a context of an exercise of unlimited power,” said Guadalupe Salmorán Villar, a researcher on global rule of law and constitutional democracy based in Mexico City. “It’s an overt attempt by the federal government, with the support of the large congressional majority of Morena and its allies, to politically subjugate the judiciary.”Olga Sánchez Cordero, a Morena lawmaker, said that while the initiative would bar courts from weighing in on the content of constitutional amendments, it would not prohibit challenges on procedural grounds. Until now, she said, the Constitution has not been clear on how changes to the charter could be revised, but now there would be “a clear, explicit, unequivocal mechanism” for evaluating them.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 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Mega-Donors Pour $8 Million Into Late Push Against N.Y. Abortion Measure

      by

      A late-stage effort to defeat a New York State ballot measure that would enshrine a right to abortion into the State Constitution has been bolstered by $8 million in donations from a handful of conservative donors.The Vote No on Prop 1 political action committee received $6.5 million from Dick Uihlein, a scion of one of the founders of Schlitz beer and the founder of the shipping company Uline. Along with his wife, Mr. Uihlein has given generously to former President Donald J. Trump, as well as to groups opposed to gay and transgender rights. Last year, Mr. Uihlein spent $4 million to defeat Ohio’s abortion amendment, providing the bulk of the funding against the measure.The committee also received $1 million from Thomas J. Tisch, a financier who was a key supporter of Lee Zeldin’s unsuccessful bid for governor of New York in 2022.The late infusion of cash is expected to amplify opponents’ messaging surrounding the measure, known as the Equal Rights Amendment.Conceived of as a way to safeguard abortion after the fall of Roe v. Wade, the initiative would also expand legal protections to people based on sexual orientation, gender identity, age, disability and national origin.Democrats had hoped that the ballot initiative could help boost turnout by energizing voters who care about abortion rights. Public sentiment in New York appeared to be on the ballot’s side: A recent Siena College poll shows that some 69 percent of New Yorkers approve of the amendment.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Montana Certifies Signatures for November Abortion Question

      by

      Also on Tuesday, Arizona’s Supreme Court rejected a challenge to a similar ballot measure. That means at least nine states will vote on whether to establish a constitutional right to abortion.Voters in Montana will decide in November whether to enshrine a right to abortion in the state Constitution, joining eight other states with similar citizen-sponsored questions on their ballots.Montana’s secretary of state sent an email late Tuesday to the coalition of abortion rights groups sponsoring the measure, certifying that they had collected enough valid signatures to place it on the ballot. The coalition had submitted more than 117,000 signatures, nearly double the 60,039 required and the most submitted for a ballot measure in Montana history.And in Arizona — which, like Montana, was facing a Thursday deadline to certify its ballots — the state’s Supreme Court rejected an appeal late Tuesday from anti-abortion groups trying to strike a similar measure that the secretary of state there had approved last week. The justices, all appointed by Republicans, said that their decision did not signal support for the measure, only that they did not agree with the technical objection raised by the anti-abortion groups about the language used on ballot petitions.National Democrats and abortion rights groups are pouring money into ballot measures in both states in the hopes that they can drive turnout to help the Democrats running for the Senate, where the party holds a razor-thin majority. In Montana, Senator Jon Tester is perhaps the party’s most endangered incumbent.Abortion remains legal in Montana until viability — the point when a fetus can survive outside the uterus, generally around 24 weeks of pregnancy — because of a 1999 state Supreme Court decision that said the right to privacy in the state Constitution included a right to “procreative autonomy.”Advocates say the measure is necessary to prevent future members of the court, who are elected, from reversing that decision. And the state’s Republican governor, Greg Gianforte, and the Republican-controlled Legislature have repeatedly tried to ban or restrict abortion.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

      Utah Supreme Court Upholds a Block on a Strict Abortion Ban

      by

      Utah cannot enforce its near-total ban on abortion while a challenge to the law proceeds in the courts, the State Supreme Court ruled on Thursday. The Utah Supreme Court upheld on Thursday a suspension of the state’s near-total ban on abortion, meaning the procedure remains legal while a court challenge to the law proceeds. When the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade, it cleared the way for two Utah laws to come into force: a ban on most abortions after the 18th week of pregnancy, which was passed in 2019 and is currently in effect, and a near-total abortion ban passed in 2020 that would prohibit the procedure at any time during pregnancy, with very limited exceptions, including for cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.The near-total abortion ban took effect in 2022, but the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah almost immediately filed a lawsuit in the state seeking to block the ban. The organization argued that the ban violated several provisions in the State Constitution, including those that guarantee a right to determine family composition and a right to gender equality.A trial court issued a preliminary injunction in July 2022 blocking the state from enforcing the near-total ban while the case proceeded. Utah state officials appealed, but the State Supreme Court ruled against them on Thursday and left the injunction in place. Camila Vega, a staff attorney for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and one of the litigators on the case, said after the state’s appeal was filed last August that the organization would “once again make the case that the trigger ban violates the Utah constitution, which protects pregnant Utahns’ ability to make their own medical decisions and their right to determine when and whether to have a family.”In court filings, the state argued that the Utah constitution does not protect a right to abortion, and that the injunction imposed “severe irreparable harm on the State side of the balance, given the profound state and public interest at stake — the preservation of human life, both the mother’s and the unborn child’s.” The state challenged Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s standing to file the lawsuit, and argued that the trial court had abused its discretion and erred in issuing the injunction. The State Supreme Court rejected those arguments on Thursday. Whether abortion up to 18 weeks will remain permanently legal in the state of Utah depends on the outcome of Planned Parenthood Association of Utah’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the near-total ban. The ruling on Thursday did not decide that question; rather, it said that the lower courts were right to let the case proceed and to keep the state from enforcing the ban in the meantime. More

    • 175 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ¿Cuáles son los métodos que usan los gobiernos autoritarios para influir en las elecciones?

      by

      Al igual que otros líderes autoritarios de todo el mundo, Maduro ha empleado innumerables tácticas para amañar las elecciones en un intento de obtener legitimidad mientras desvirtúa el proceso democrático.[Estamos en WhatsApp. Empieza a seguirnos ahora]El lunes, el presidente Nicolás Maduro fue declarado ganador en la votación presidencial de Venezuela a pesar de las flagrantes irregularidades electorales, lo que ha sumido al país en protestas generalizadas.La votación se produjo después de que millones de venezolanos apoyaran al candidato de la oposición, Edmundo González, quien sustituyó a la popular líder de la oposición, María Corina Machado, a quien el gobierno de Maduro le prohibió postularse. Maduro fue declarado vencedor por la autoridad electoral del país, que no hizo público el recuento completo de votos, lo que alimentó las sospechas sobre la credibilidad de la victoria de Maduro.Machado calificó los resultados de “imposibles” y muchos señalaron a la interferencia del gobierno en los centros de votación.No es la primera vez que se acusa al gobierno de Maduro de presentar resultados electorales falsos. Al igual que otros líderes autoritarios de todo el mundo, Maduro ha empleado innumerables tácticas para amañar las elecciones en un intento de obtener legitimidad desvirtuando el proceso democrático.A continuación, analizamos cinco maneras diferentes en que los gobiernos autoritarios pueden amañar las elecciones.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 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Alabama’s I.V.F. Shield Law Now Faces a Constitutional Challenge

      by

      The challenge, from two of the families who filed the initial lawsuit, raises the possibility that access to I.V.F. could once again be in jeopardy in the state.Two Alabama families at the center of the wrongful-death lawsuit that led to the temporary suspension of in vitro fertilization procedures in the state have asked a judge to overturn a new law that shields clinics and doctors from civil and criminal liability.Their challenge to the law raises the possibility that access to I.V.F. could once again be placed in jeopardy in Alabama. And it could further inflame tensions across the country over whether to enshrine protections for I.V.F., as influential Christian conservatives look to curb the use of the popular reproductive treatment.Alabama lawmakers quickly pushed through the shield law in early March after the State Supreme Court weighed in on the lawsuit and ruled that frozen embryos could legally be considered children. The families had filed the claim over the accidental destruction of their embryos at a Mobile clinic in 2020.Multiple clinics had shuttered to avoid the threat of legal challenges, adding to the emotional, financial and physical toll of infertility for Alabama families suddenly left in medical limbo.The swift passage of the shield law led clinics to reopen and restart embryo transfers. But the law did not explicitly address the legal question of “fetal personhood” raised by the State Supreme Court opinion, and many in the Republican-dominated Legislature acknowledged they would very likely need a more permanent solution.This week, after the clinic asked for the wrongful-death lawsuit to be dismissed, the families argued that the shield law was a violation of their constitutional rights, including equal protection, due process and the Alabama Constitution’s “guarantees of life, the right to bear children and the right to a remedy for wrongful deaths of such children.”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