-------------------------------------------
Update Californias path to victory in border wall lawsuit is a narrow one, analysts say Los Angele - Duration: 6:45.
Update Californias path to victory in border wall lawsuit is a narrow one, analysts say Los Angele
When a lawsuit challenging President Trumps plan to build a border wall goes before a federal judge in San Francisco, California and 15 other states will argue that the administrations decision to bypass Congress violates the U.S. Constitution.
But legal analysts generally agreed Tuesday that the lawsuit could prevail on more narrow grounds if it succeeds at all.
This is so clearly unconstitutional and illegal that the Supreme Court will say it is not permissible, predicted UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky.
University of Texas law professor Robert Chesney, on the other hand, said California faces an uphill battle.
In any normal presidency, there is almost no chance that the courts would second guess the president on the issues cited in the lawsuit, he said. But this isnt a normal president.
If there is judicial second guessing, Chesney added, it is going to be pretty dramatic because it normally wouldnt take place.
On Monday, California Atty. Gen. Xavier Becerra and 15 other state attorneys general , challenging its declaration of a national emergency to redirect billions of dollars from government programs to pay for a physical barrier along the U.S. Mexico border.
At least two other lawsuits also have been filed, and more are expected in the coming days.
Legal scholars say the states suit is likely to face early procedural challenges. To prevent the suit from being dismissed and obtain a preliminary injunction, the states will have to show they face concrete and imminent harm.
The lawsuit says states will be harmed because money will be diverted from construction at military bases, stopping drug trafficking and other law enforcement programs, hurting their economies and endangering their citizens.
To obtain legal standing, the states also have to show specific injury, which could be difficult at this early stage.
The Trump administration has yet to release information about exactly which government projects will lose money, undercutting the states case, analysts said. And it could stagger spending, starting with sources of funding unencumbered by legal restrictions.
There will be a question raised as to whether a court should get into this quite so early, said Peter Shane, a constitutional law professor at Ohio State University.
Aside from such technical challenges, judges who take up the lawsuit might be inclined to base their rulings on the language of the individual laws governing the pots of money Trump plans to tap not on broader constitutional issues, Shane said.
Courts generally try to avoid big constitutional statements if they can, he said. If the Supreme Court is concerned about giving broad emergency powers to presidents, including future Democratic presidents, one way they could push back is to focus just narrowly on the statutes.
The constitutional argument is that Trump is violating the separation of powers, usurping Congress power of the purse after lawmakers rejected his request for dollar 5.7 billion to build the wall.
Instead of settling that argument, courts could rule more narrowly on a federal law that allows a president to transfer money from military construction projects in an emergency, Shane and other legal analysts said.
The bulk of Trumps planned spending dollar 3.6 billion would come from diverting funds from military construction projects.
The law says money may be tapped from that fund if it is necessary to support troops.
Can you really say building the wall is necessary to support the armed forces? asked Chemerinsky.
Trump also plans to divert dollar 601 million from the Treasury Departments forfeiture fund, made up of assets the government seized in legal cases, and as much as dollar 2.5 billion set aside by the Department of Defense to fight drug trafficking.
By focusing on the language of the military construction law, the U.S. Supreme Court could split the baby and avoid rebuking Trump for declaring a national emergency, Shane said. Instead, the court could rule the funds simply are unavailable, he said.
Chemerinsky, though, believes the constitutional arguments are powerful.
He pointed to the Supreme Courts 1952 ruling in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. vs. Sawyer, which blocked President Truman from seizing steel mills during the Korean War to prevent a strike. The court said the president lacked the authority to take action Congress had not authorized.
Never before has a president been refused money by Congress for a particular project and said, I am going to go ahead and do it anyway in the name of a national emergency, Chemerinsky said.
But UC Berkeley constitutional law professor John Yoo said the steel mill ruling was not on point.
Truman was doing it under his inherent presidential power, and here President Trump is acting under a law passed by Congress to move money around during a national emergency, said Yoo, who is best known for writing a memo for former President George W. Bush justifying the use of torture to fight terrorism.
Trump declared the emergency under the National Emergencies Act, passed by Congress in 1976.
Yoo said a more fitting precedent was a 1981 U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the presidents power to nullify court orders and suspend private lawsuits to resolve the Iranian hostage crisis.
The court extended the most extreme and generous deference to the president possible, he said.
Yoo also said the president could justify diverting military construction money to the border wall by saying it is supporting 3,000 troops stationed there.
I actually think Trump is most vulnerable on whether it is a national emergency, he said.
The National Emergencies Act did not define what constitutes an emergency. The states lawsuit argues that Trumps own words and a drop in the number of immigrants crossing the Mexican border without permission show no emergency exists.
Yoo believes even that argument will fail, though. He expects that a majority of the Supreme Court would support a ruling akin to its last year to uphold a ban on travel from mostly Muslim countries.
Instead of travel ban, the court could just substitute the word border, Yoo said.
Andrew Boyle, an expert in national security law at the Brennan Center for Justice, noted that challengers could distinguish between the two cases, but allowed that the Supreme Court may defer to Trump again.
Typically in the national security realm, the Supreme Court has been very deferential to the executive, he said. So to the extent they accept this is a national security issue, they may be deferential again.
-------------------------------------------
Switching to renewable energy is expensive - Duration: 4:03.
Regensdorf in the canton of Zurich, a residential building
like many others across Switzerland,
with 190 apartments and built in the 1970s.
It is heated using natural gas and oil.
Andreas Küng is giving the owners advice concerning its renovation,
since the heating system is now rather outdated.
The building owners want a new system.
These are the heating facilities with two heating systems -
gas-fired and oil-fired with output of 750 kW.
This kind of system,
which supplies 190 homes in this building,
is common in Switzerland, especially the Swiss Mittelland.
If energy-saving targets are to be reached, renovation is necessary.
Yet far from all building owners are choosing to do so.
Only six cantons are even
implementing the regulations for building renovation that were
agreed upon by the cantons four years ago.
Do cantons need to be given even tougher restrictions
in order to meet the targets of the 2050 Energy Strategy?
We spoke to politicians on the Council of States' environmental committee.
The government is lacking in expertise within the building sector.
And I'm convinced that building owners
and tenants should be allowed to make the decision
for themselves, because
if it is not supported by the locals, then forcing the issue
is not the right thing to do.
I don't think that we need to take immediate action,
but perhaps the government should make some conditional decisions,
for example:
"If we've not made significant progress within ten years,
then we need to apply much greater pressure."
Ostermundigen in the canton of Bern.
This apartment building was renovated three years ago.
There was a leak in the roof, condensation on the windows,
resulting in colossal heating costs.
We left the oil-fired heating in place since it is relatively new,
but oil consumption has been
drastically reduced thanks to improved insulation.
Although they were sceptical at first, the tenants are pleased,
says the building's owner.
In terms of the costs involved, everyone benefits from it -
not forgetting the environment.
From an environmental viewpoint,
we now use just half of our previous energy consumption,
which means a 50% saving on our energy bills.
That represents an advantage for tenants.
So what does this mean for tenants on the whole?
It costs them more now.
On average, tenants pay around 200 francs gross more than before,
but they can save at least 100 francs on additional costs.
Rudolf Marti invested around 180,000 francs in upgrading
his building's energy systems.
Around 80,000 francs were funded by subsidies and tax deductions.
According to government estimates, Rudolf Marti will be able to save
over 260,000 francs on energy and operating costs over a 30-year period,
which will also benefit his tenants.
Back to Regensdorf near Zurich.
The 25-year-old natural gas heating system will soon need replacing.
So the question is: what's the best option?
Perhaps using thermal energy
from groundwater or the ground?
We're currently investigating whether we can use groundwater, since
the local authority has recently refused our request
to drill a borehole.
Now we're pursuing the option of using groundwater.
And if we have no other choice, we will probably have to install
a new oil-fired heating system.
There is new, better technology in that field,
but it's not ideal for us or for the building contractors.
These examples show that
upgrading energy systems is complex and therefore expensive,
but it can pay off in the long term,
even if some building owners
may at first be put off by the budgets involved.
-------------------------------------------
Who Is Jussie Smollett, the Actor Charged With Staging His Own Assault? The New York Times - Duration: 3:13.
Who Is Jussie Smollett, the Actor Charged With Staging His Own Assault? The New York Times
The Empire star Jussie Smollett, who was charged on Wednesday with staging a racist and homophobic attack on himself in Chicago last month, has been under a bright spotlight in recent weeks — but perhaps not for reasons that a career actor and singer would prefer.
Mr. Smollett, who is black and openly gay, reported in January that he was the victim of an attack during which masked men poured chemicals on him and put a noose around his neck, prompting an outpouring of support from fans, activists and politicians. In a major twist, Mr. Smollett, who is in his mid 30s, was in connection with the episode.
Mr. Smollett is best known for his acting role in Empire, a hip hop drama on Fox, in which he plays a son vying for the throne of his fathers music empire.
Growing up with five siblings pursuing careers in acting, modeling and music, Mr. Smollett first appeared on the big screen in 1992. He has landed supporting roles in several other films and television shows since, while also beginning a career as an R B singer.
turned hip hop mogul, Lucious Lyon, whose three sons must compete to run his multimillion dollar company. Mr. Smolletts character, Jamal Lyon, is a gay singer songwriter who starts the series estranged from his father because of his sexuality. Mr. Smollett sings in and has written for the soundtrack of the series.
As a child, Mr. Smollett landed a role in the family comedy film The Mighty Ducks, about a lawyer who must coach a youth hockey team after he was sentenced to community service. Two years later, Mr. Smollett starred with five of his brothers and sisters in an ABC sitcom called On Our Own, about siblings who are orphaned after their parents die in a car accident.
Mr. Smolletts younger sister, Jurnee Smollett Bell, as well. She is one of the leads in Underground, a WGN America show about a group of slaves who try to escape from their Georgia plantation. Mr. Smollett is a guest star on the show.
In 2017, Mr. Smollett appeared in the science fiction thriller Alien: Covenant. That year, he also played Langston Hughes in the film Marshall, a biopic about Thurgood Marshall, the first African American Supreme Court justice.
Mr. Smollett and his siblings have been outspoken politically and devoted to causes like H.I.V./AIDS prevention and racial justice. Mr. Smollett sits on the board of four charity organizations, including the Trayvon Martin Foundation and the Black AIDS Institute, according to his website.
Mr. Smollett also has a singing career separate from Empire. In March, he released a 10 song R B album. Days after he reported the attack, in West Hollywood, Calif., telling his fans that he would not let his attackers win and that he had to be here tonight.
Mr. Smollett told the police in January that, while walking in downtown Chicago, he had been confronted by masked white men who directed homophobic and racial slurs at him and announced it was MAGA country, a reference to President Trumps campaign slogan.
As Mr. Smollett has faced questions about whether his hate crime report was truthful, he has continued to insist that the incident occurred just as he reported it.
In a statement released by Fox on Wednesday, before the Chicago police labeled Mr. Smollett a suspect in the case, in response to the polices announcement that the trajectory of the investigation had changed, contrary to reports from multiple news outlets. Fox later declined to comment after Mr. Smollett was charged.
On Wednesday night, following his indictment, his lawyers said in a statement, Like any other citizen, Mr. Smollett enjoys the presumption of innocence, particularly when there has been an investigation like this one where information, both true and false, has been repeatedly leaked.
-------------------------------------------
FEELING BLUE Sarri's fate is already sealed, it's just a question of whether unloved Chelsea boss go - Duration: 6:10.
THOSE searching for signs of gallows humour from Maurizio Sarri are likely to be disappointed
After all, the one thing that nobody will quibble with when the Italian's qualities are raised is that he is not exactly a bundle of laughs at the best of times
But with even Sarri now recognising how precarious is his reign at Stamford Bridge, the big question is whether he chooses to go down fighting - or throwing in the towel
Managerial change at Chelsea is, it must be said, hardly a rare occurrence. Indeed, so poor have the Blues been since Christmas that it might be argued that Sarri should feel lucky to have stayed in the job this long
Yet now it seems like end-game. Probably not immediately. Unless something unlikely and unacceptable happens against Malmo on Thursday night, that is
But Sunday at Wembley, against the City side that humiliated Sarri and his men less than a fortnight ago
COME ON YOU BLEUS Wenger would be 'perfect fit' to replace Sarri at Chelsea, says Arsenal legend A repeat, maybe just a defeat, and it will, it seems, be "Arrivederci, Maurizio"
Sarri himself appears to know it is coming to an end. The briefings against him are coming - not from the club hierarchy, but from those around the players, who have sniffed the wind and joined the feeding frenzy
It is supposed to be office workers who are at risk from repetitive strain injury, not footballers
But now we know that the Chelsea squad are going down and complaining of RTI - Repetitive Training Injury
They are bored with Sarriball. Not just on the pitch, where it is simply not working, but at the club's Cobham headquarters as well
Rats and sinking ships might spring to mind in some cases. But the fans have made it clear they have no faith in the Italian
And when the fans turn, so obviously, it can only end one way. Roman Abramovich has always been prepared to do things his way
He has built Chelsea into a phenomenal, trophy-winning force. That meant hard decisions
Big decisions. But, time after time, correct decisions. While Sarri may feel he needs more time to see his principles and approach properly applied, it has always been a commodity in short supply at SW6
And to get that time, the Italian needed to prove he was on the right path. That he was capable of improvisation
That his players bought into what he was doing. That his approach was not so rigid and inflexible that it became self-damaging
Not too many ticks on that shortlist. Only crosses. Mind you, a few crosses, in the right area, for Gonzalo Higuain, might help
But that is not what Sarri wants to see. It is all about possession but not sufficiently about penetration
And it has failed. Chelsea remain a part of the Big Six. But they are currently - albeit only on goal difference - sixth of six
Some 15 points off the summit. And, it appears, in something close to free-fall. Sarri is the cause, not the symptom
And therefore the rest is inevitable. The issue now is not "if", but "when". And the when is looking like within the next week
-------------------------------------------
Royal news : Is Meghan Markle set for a surprise return to the big screen on The Boys and Girls Gui - Duration: 5:10.
WE all know that Meghan Markle was an actress before her new role as Duchess of Sussex
But she wasn't just Rachel in Suits, Meghan also starred as a bed-hopping, drug-snorting party girl in The Boys and Girls Guide to Gettting Down
Here's how you can you watch it. The Boys and Girls Guide to Getting Down: Why is Meghan Markle set for a surprise return to the big screen? We're more used to seeing her smiling and waving at the cameras than snorting cocaine, but now get ready to see the Duchess of Sussex as you've never seen her before
The former actress may have given up acting to marry Prince Harry, but her 2011 TV show - The Boys & Girls Guide to Getting Down - has now been picked up for film distribution in America
The tongue-in-cheek show follows 20-something singles clubbing and partying in LA over the course of a single night
In a far cry from her prim and proper Suits character Rachel Zane, Meghan plays single Dana, who is shown shimmying into a skintight dress before a night out
When her friend, Heather, says she didn't think Dana was on the hunt for a new man, Dana insists: "I dress this way for me
I'm not looking for a guy tonight. Trust me." A voiceover explains that Meghan's character is also jealous of Heather's ample bust
MEGHAN CUPS HER BREASTS As Meghan cups her own breasts, the narrator adds: "She's considering buying a pair for herself
" The two girls then head to a nightclub where Meghan's character can be seen snorting a suspicious substance that looks like drugs
When the show was released in 2011 it only lasted one episode because telly executives decided they did not want a whole series
But Artist Rights Distribution is planning to re-release it as a film later this year, according to the Hollywood Reporter
Shortly after appearing in the racy comedy, Meghan landed the role of Rachel Zane on Suits
Is Meghan returning to Suits? TV bosses want Meghan Markle to reprise her role as Rachel Zane in Suits for one final brief appearance, reports claim
If the Duchess of Sussex, 37, says yes, sources claim NBC Universal will pay a multi-million dollar donation to the charity of her choice
The Mirror reports that NBC Universal is planning a cameo role of less than two minutes, which could be shot in the UK
Meghan's baby bump could be written into the script as her character Rachel got married in her final appearance last April
One senior production source told the newspaper: "We could be done in half a day or less
" He added: "No final figure has yet been arrived at but negotiations are likely to be opened in the very near future
I've heard sums ranging from two to six million being kicked around and that sounds a lot – but it would be one of the biggest marketing coups in TV history
" Since the Royal Wedding, syndication deals for all seven seasons of the series in which she starred have been struck with TV stations in dozens of countries
In that last episode of Suits, viewers saw Rachel marry law firm partner Mike Ross, played by Patrick J
Adams, who left the show at the same time. The source added: "We could create a storyline where Rachel and Mike have created new lives for themselves and are starting a family, with Rachel showing an obvious baby bump
"I believe we could get away with only one or two lines from Rachel, perhaps saying how she would never have believed she would have such a wonderful life
This particular route would beautifully mirror real life. "It would give one or several charities a big boost, portray Meghan as a thoroughly modern royal… and give us one of the biggest ratings blockbusters of our existence
"
-------------------------------------------
"What church do you go to?" This is my answer - Duration: 9:03.
For more infomation >> "What church do you go to?" This is my answer - Duration: 9:03. -------------------------------------------
Climate change doubter is leading effort to advise Trump - Duration: 3:51.
Climate change doubter is leading effort to advise Trump
WASHINGTON AP — The Trump administration is exploring the idea of forming a special committee to look at climate change and security risks, with the effort being coordinated by a 79 year old physicist who rejects mainstream climate science.
A discussion paper obtained by the Associated Press asks federal officials from an array of government agencies to weigh in on a proposed executive order that President Donald Trump would sign establishing the Presidential Committee on Climate Security.
A memo to those federal officials asks them to direct any questions to William Happer, a member of Trumps National Security Council and a well known denier of mainstream climate science findings.
"Happer would be a fringe figure even for climate skeptics," said retired U.S. Navy Rear Adm. David Titley, now a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University.
Several climate scientists agreed with Titley, including Georgia Techs Kim Cobb, who said Happers "false, unscientific notions about climate change represent a danger to the American people."
Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes, who wrote the book Merchants of Doubt on climate denial, pointed to instances when Happer has claimed that carbon dioxide, the main heat trapping gas from the burning of coal, oil and gas, is good for humans and that carbon emissions have been demonized like the poor Jews under Hitler.
Happers bio at Princeton University, where he previously taught, describes him as a pioneer in the field of optically polarized atoms. It notes that he served in the administration of President George H.W. Bush as the director of energy research at the Department of Energy, where he oversaw a basic research budget of roughly dollar 3 billion.
The National Security Council advises the president on security and foreign policy issues. According to the discussion paper, the council would fund and oversee the committee. Among the committees responsibilities would be to "address existing United States Government reports on climate for scientific accuracy and advise on the national security implications of climate change."
The committee would be composed of 12 members, according to a draft of the executive order. Members would include experts in national security and climate science. The panel would advise the president on how climate "might change in the future under natural and human influences."
A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment. the Washington Post first reported on the proposed executive order establishing the climate security committee.
Trump once tweeted that climate change was a Chinese hoax. More recently, he used a cold snap that hit much of the nation last month to again cast doubts. People cant last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming sic ? Please come back fast, we need you! he tweeted.
Both the Pentagon and the presidents intelligence team have mentioned climate change as a national security threat, and a 2018 National Climate Assessment detailed drastic effects of global warming.
Over about a dozen years, government scientists, military leaders and intelligence experts have repeatedly highlighted climate change as a major national security risk, said Titley, who founded one such study team in the Navy.
Titley said these studies have come to the same conclusions under three presidents, including two Republicans. He said there are a surprising number of documents from the Pentagon and intelligence community after January 2017 [when Trump took office] that talk about climate and security risk.
"For the Pentagon, its about readiness," Titley said. "For the intelligence community, its about risks. We see the risks are accelerating."
Climate change can "push a marginally stable area into chaos," Titley said, mentioning Syria, which suffered a record drought at the same time as a civil war that triggered a migration of a million people.
Francesco "Frank" Femia, chief executive of a think tank that reviews systemic risk to national and international security, expressed concern that the proposed panel was meant to poke holes in future government reports and studies.
I would welcome a serious study commissioned by the White House on the security implications on climate change that include climate scientists and national security experts, but this is not that, said Femia, the CEO of the Council on Strategic Risks.
Clout: your guide to the wild world of politics
Clout: your guide to the wild world of politics
2019, Philadelphia Media Network Digital , LLC /
2019, Philadelphia Media Network Digital , LLC /
-------------------------------------------
Climate change doubter is leading effort to advise Trump - Duration: 3:56.
Climate change doubter is leading effort to advise Trump
WASHINGTON AP — The Trump administration is exploring the idea of forming a special committee to look at climate change and security risks, with the effort being coordinated by a 79 year old physicist who rejects mainstream climate science.
A discussion paper obtained by the Associated Press asks federal officials from an array of government agencies to weigh in on a proposed executive order that President Donald Trump would sign establishing the Presidential Committee on Climate Security.
A memo to those federal officials asks them to direct any questions to William Happer, a member of Trumps National Security Council and a well known denier of mainstream climate science findings.
"Happer would be a fringe figure even for climate skeptics," said retired U.S. Navy Rear Adm. David Titley, now a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University.
Several climate scientists agreed with Titley, including Georgia Techs Kim Cobb, who said Happers "false, unscientific notions about climate change represent a danger to the American people."
Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes, who wrote the book Merchants of Doubt on climate denial, pointed to instances when Happer has claimed that carbon dioxide, the main heat trapping gas from the burning of coal, oil and gas, is good for humans and that carbon emissions have been demonized like the poor Jews under Hitler.
Happers bio at Princeton University, where he previously taught, describes him as a pioneer in the field of optically polarized atoms. It notes that he served in the administration of President George H.W. Bush as the director of energy research at the Department of Energy, where he oversaw a basic research budget of roughly dollar 3 billion.
The National Security Council advises the president on security and foreign policy issues. According to the discussion paper, the council would fund and oversee the committee. Among the committees responsibilities would be to "address existing United States Government reports on climate for scientific accuracy and advise on the national security implications of climate change."
The committee would be composed of 12 members, according to a draft of the executive order. Members would include experts in national security and climate science. The panel would advise the president on how climate "might change in the future under natural and human influences."
A spokesman for the National Security Council declined to comment. the Washington Post first reported on the proposed executive order establishing the climate security committee.
Trump once tweeted that climate change was a Chinese hoax. More recently, he used a cold snap that hit much of the nation last month to again cast doubts. People cant last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming sic ? Please come back fast, we need you! he tweeted.
Both the Pentagon and the presidents intelligence team have mentioned climate change as a national security threat, and a 2018 National Climate Assessment detailed drastic effects of global warming.
Over about a dozen years, government scientists, military leaders and intelligence experts have repeatedly highlighted climate change as a major national security risk, said Titley, who founded one such study team in the Navy.
Titley said these studies have come to the same conclusions under three presidents, including two Republicans. He said there are a surprising number of documents from the Pentagon and intelligence community after January 2017 [when Trump took office] that talk about climate and security risk.
"For the Pentagon, its about readiness," Titley said. "For the intelligence community, its about risks. We see the risks are accelerating."
Climate change can "push a marginally stable area into chaos," Titley said, mentioning Syria, which suffered a record drought at the same time as a civil war that triggered a migration of a million people.
Francesco "Frank" Femia, chief executive of a think tank that reviews systemic risk to national and international security, expressed concern that the proposed panel was meant to poke holes in future government reports and studies.
I would welcome a serious study commissioned by the White House on the security implications on climate change that include climate scientists and national security experts, but this is not that, said Femia, the CEO of the Council on Strategic Risks.
Clout: your guide to the wild world of politics
Clout: your guide to the wild world of politics
2019, Philadelphia Media Network Digital , LLC /
2019, Philadelphia Media Network Digital , LLC /
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét