Awais Tariq’s Post

On the Origins of Republican Violence: PROTESTS, INSURRECTION, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT - PDF: https://lnkd.in/gpNSk7fJ Arms Against Tyranny The obvious political ambition of the right to bear arms is aptly described as an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. It is mentioned as an aside within Justice Antonin Scalia’s 2008 opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, creating for the first time in American law an individual constitutional right to bear arms. There, Justice Scalia wrote that “when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”14 Without a blink or swerve, Justice Scalia would go on to say just pages later that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned,” even when they are the only meaningful instruments for the armed repudiation of a “tyranny” worth its salt.15 Two years later, Justice Samuel Alito, writing in McDonald v. City of Chicago, quoted Justice Joseph Story to the effect that the Second Amendment right was “a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”16 Yet having acknowledged that this fear had “largely faded as a popular concern,” he pivoted to the firearm’s value as a modality of self-defense as an intellectual justification for an extension of the Second Amendment against the several states.17 In these passages, a political account of the Second Amendment’s origin is briefly glimpsed, but then relegated to the attic of constitutional curiosities. 

Yesterday, Donald Trump was complaining that he lacks the support of the majority of the Jewish community for the November election. 😳Trump puts the support between 60% and 40% in favor of Harris. I think Trump is right, and there is a bitter and good reason about it .  It has become apparent that with Biden and Harris in power, the Netanyahu & Gallant Team (both indicted persons by ICC for war crimes) has enjoyed a full and unconditional support in their genocidal war against the Palestinian and Zionist unlawful expansion in the West Bank and beyond. So why would the Zionist Regime, and their surrogates here in US (AIPAC  and Others) would change horses in the midstream at such a critical juncture?, and when it is working so good for them? The record shows that between Obama and Biden, the Israeli War Machine had received the highest money and weapons compared with Trump of other GOP governments. To add more, the Trump- Netanyahu meeting at Mara Lago, in Palm Beach, Florida was not with full of praises, rather cold, and Trump in the closing statement, was critical of Netanyahu by warning that his actions could lead to a World War III 😳 ? My take is that under a new Harris presidency , the US Policy towards Israel will be the same O… S… and it has been proven to be subservient of everything Israel wants to do. This is not a comment for Trump’s endorsement ,NO, absolutely not. But I believe that unless Harris changes her position in the next month or so , the moral and politically correct position, for every decent citizen, it is to have an obligation to confront these horrendous crimes being committed by Israel with the complicity of the present Biden - Harris administration, and consequently, choose to take the position of #UNCOMMITTED in the next election. So Josh Paul is mostly correct again 👍🙏

When asked by media and allies I have expressed a belief that a Harris presidency would be "slightly better" than the Biden Presidency has been for Gaza, in part because she is not a hard-cast ideologue on this issue as Biden is, and in part because her team are more moderate and reasonable (and frankly also more thoughtful and self-aware) than Biden's team are. But the devil is in the details. When it comes to those details, it is hard to point to a specific area where we can be sure a Harris presidency would be better. Would they be more likely to condition or suspend arms transfers? They have been explicit that they would not. Would they enforce the U.S. laws already on the books, such as 620I or Leahy? They have not said they would. Would they stand up for the rights of peaceful protestors on campuses across America? They have given no sign of doing so, and indeed, Harris' responses both to the protests at the time of Netanyahu's visit to Washington DC, and to protests at her own campaign events, have been deeply disappointing - and their unwillingness to even give a Palestinian-American a voice at the Democratic Convention was a very worrying sign. I also believe that no individual, not even at the level of the President of the United States, can bring transformative change to U.S. policy on this issue in the next four years given how firmly entrenched the current approach is across American politics - this is something that will take many years to fix, and in the coming weeks I will be unveiling a new effort to address this strategically, holistically, and effectively. In the meantime, I, and others I have spoken to, would like to believe that Harris would be slightly better than where we are. But there is only so long we can wave our hands at generalities and presumptions - we need clear words from the Harris campaign that give a basis for these hopes. Without those, it is becoming increasingly difficult to hold to such hopes, and the polls demonstrate that the Harris campaign should be increasingly concerned about the implications of this gap between hopes and words - let alone actions - for outcomes of the election in key states. The ball is in their, and her, court.

BREAKING—MONUMENTAL RULING IMPACTING J6 DEFENDANTS: The Supreme Court just ruled that for someone to be charged with federal obstruction, their actions must specifically involve tampering with records or evidence used in official proceedings. NOTE: The decision affects cases like the January 6 Capitol protests, limiting the actions that can be prosecuted under the law. NOTE: The Court aims to prevent overly broad charges and ensure that only specific types of obstruction are punishable, protecting against excessive use of prosecutorial power. THREE KEY THINGS 1 - The ruling limits what can be considered obstruction. It's not enough to just disrupt an official process; the disruption must involve interfering with actual evidence or documents. 2- This decision directly affects cases related to the January 6 Capitol protests. It means that many people involved in the riot might not face federal obstruction charges unless their actions included tampering with evidence or records. 3- The ruling is intended to stop prosecutors from using the obstruction law too broadly. The Supreme Court wants to ensure that only specific, clearly defined actions can be punished under this law, preventing misuse of prosecutorial power.

Can you do what the Vice President did here, responding to being interrupted and heckled by protesters while delivering a faith speech at a church in Pennsylvania? "That is why we fight for our democracy," she said, despite the interruption! This should be a new slogan: "Fighting for Our Democracy!" It means a lot if you can imagine living in or visiting a country without democracy! Here is a link to the full article: https://lnkd.in/eeEMMN8E.

Last December, former President Joe Biden signed the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act into law, including a provision that requires the U.S. Government Accountability Office to develop a proposal to apply enhanced pleading standards in protests challenging U.S. Department of Defense procurements. The new GAO pleading standards could change the calculus of whether protestors file with GAO or protest before the Court of Federal Claims instead. RJO shareholder Lucas Hanback and associate Timothy Wieroniey authored a Law360 article (subscription required) on how these new standards may change where protests are filed. In their article, “Anticipating How GAO Pleading Standards May Shift,” Hanback and Wieroniey analyze the current pleading standards and discuss GAO’s new mandate. They also explore bid protest strategies that government contractors may use moving forward. Read more about their article and view a pdf copy on our website: https://lnkd.in/gFaGCS3f 

Excellent insight!

Where is the limit on this type of behaviour ? Do authorities no longer have the courage and hutzpa to deal with lawbreakers, intimidators and those harassing other private citizens? I recall being rounded up by local police in high school for peacefully protesting, and told to get off the school property or risk being arrested….and so we did (we feared the repercussions of our actions…). We had better wake up and step up, or this kind of civil unrest will fester and grow into far worse. Remember, these are not “students”, these are protests well organized and funded by external, radical political movements. By remaining silent (erego complicit), we are showing a tolerance for law-breaking that will persist into their later lives, as neighbours, citizens and employees. We live in a free society, but only to the point where we impinge on the freedom and safe being of others and their private property - at that point, we are breaking the law, and those who uphold the law are obligated to step in and take definitive action. Without consequences, our laws are nothing but “guidelines”. Wondering where the broad-based public outcry is, putting pressure on police and elected officials to put an end to this, and to demonstrate we do have laws and limits in our society that must be adhered to, or there are real consequences.

#Egypt: Judges' Protests and Subsequent Investigations Frustrated by the lack of response to their grievances, judges turned to private online forums to discuss the financial crisis and broader issues affecting the judiciary. These forums, strictly limited to members of the judiciary, became platforms for candid discussions. However, these discussions prompted the Judicial Inspection Authority, led by Chief Justice Wafae Abskharon and with approval from Justice Minister Adnan Fangari, to launch investigations into approximately 50 judges. These investigations have been widely criticized, with judges and legal experts accusing the ministry of infringing upon judicial independence. The judges facing investigation have refused to cooperate, labeling the process an overreach and a violation of their rights. They argue that their discussions were confined to private groups and did not involve any public dissent or political statements. Instead, these discussions were focused on internal judicial concerns, such as financial disparities and governance issues. This refusal to cooperate has escalated tensions, with judges calling for emergency general assemblies to discuss potential escalatory measures, including strikes or protests. Full details: https://lnkd.in/e4FSE8GC