Tunisia: Head of State stresses need to shorten procedures and find new ways of financing projects
TUNIS: President Kais Saïed met on Monday evening at Carhage Palace Minister of Employment and Vocational Training, Riadh Chaoued and Secretary of State to the Minister of Employment and Vocational Training in charge of communitarian companies, Hasna Jiballah.
During the meeting, the President of the Republic emphasised the need to streamline procedures and explore new ways to finance projects, particularly those proposed by young people, to establish this category of companies, according to a Presidency statement.
The Head of State pointed out that what is happening today is neither normal nor innocent, as a number of projects are being blocked for flimsy reasons or with the aim of blocking other projects, in addition to attempts to minimise and marginalise them.
President Kais Saied issued instructions to move forward, facilitate procedures, and confront all the desperate attempts mentioned, which are driven by regressive forces linked to known circles whose only goal is to monopolise national wealth.
He stressed that this wealth belongs to the Tunisian people, as stipulated in the Constitution, and that communitarian companies have the potential to transform all regions of the Republic into sources of wealth.
Tunisia is rich in all kinds of resources and blessings, and their benefits should be reaped by their creators while benefiting everyone.
© Tap 2022 Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (Syndigate.info).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
8 hours ago
- The National
Donald Trump hails 'giant win' after Supreme Court curbs judges' power
The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory on Friday by curbing the power of individual federal judges to block executive actions. Mr Trump, in an impromptu media briefing at the White House, called the decision "a giant win". "This morning, the Supreme Court has delivered a monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions interfering with the normal functioning of the executive branch," he said. The case stems from Mr Trump's order denying birthright citizenship to US-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. "Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoyed on a nationwide basis, and some of the cases, we're talking about ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore," he said. The court's 6-3 ruling, however, did not let Mr Trump's policy come into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The court said nationwide injunctions issued by lower court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts". The outcome was a victory for the Republican President, who has complained about individual judges putting up obstacles to his agenda. But the ruling left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the US an American citizen, including children born to parents in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. Mr Trump said that ruling was meant for "the babies of slaves", rather than for people "trying to scam the system". The US is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.
Gulf Today
12 hours ago
- Gulf Today
In win for Trump, Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
The US Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked his policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling, authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. The ruling thus raises the prospect of Trump's order eventually taking effect in some parts of the country. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing numerous nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The three judges in the birthright citizenship cases found that Trump's order likely violates citizenship language in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump welcomed the ruling and criticised judges who have issued nationwide orders thwarting his policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump told reporters at the White House, describing these judges as "radical left." On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." Friday's ruling did not rule out all forms of broad relief. A key part of the ruling said judges may provide "complete relief" only to the plaintiffs before them. It did not foreclose the possibility that states might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to obtain complete relief. "We decline to take up those arguments in the first instance," Barrett wrote. The ruling left untouched the potential for plaintiffs to also did not a separate path for wider relief through class action lawsuits, but that legal mechanism is often harder to successfully mount. Sotomayor advised parents of children who would be affected by Trump's order "to file promptly class action suits and to request temporary injunctive relief for the putative class." Just two hours after the Supreme Court ruled, lawyers for the plaintiffs in the Maryland case filed a motion seeking to have a judge who previously blocked Trump's order to grant class action status to all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. "The Supreme Court has now instructed that, in such circumstances, class-wide relief may be appropriate," the lawyers wrote in their motion. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." Reuters
Middle East Eye
16 hours ago
- Middle East Eye
US Supreme Court limits judges from blocking Trump order on birthright citizenship
The US Supreme Court has curbed the power of lower court judges to pause executive orders issued by US President Donald Trump, while hearing a case that looks to end the automatic granting of citizenship to people born in the country. In its 6-3 ruling on Friday, which was ideologically divided with liberal judges dissenting against the ruling, the court said nationwide injunctions or pauses issued by district court judges "likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts". The ruling sets a broader precedent that removes a roadblock standing in the way of Trump's often highly controversial executive orders and has far-reaching ramifications for the judiciary's capacity to rein in executive power. The top court did not rule on the constitutionality of Trump's executive order to end "birthright citizenship", which is automatic citizenship rights for nearly anyone born on US territory. Under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, all children born in the US automatically become US citizens, but the Trump administration is looking to abolish that right. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters Trump on Friday called the ruling a 'Giant Win' on Truth Social and organised a White House briefing on Friday to celebrate. He hailed the decision a 'monumental victory for the constitution, the separation of powers, and the rule of law in striking down the excessive use of nationwide injunctions interfering with the normal functions of the executive branch'. Trump accused 'radical left judges' of 'a colossal abuse of power' which he said had only happened in 'recent decades'. 'We've been hit with more nationwide injunctions than were issued in the entire 20th century together,' he said. Federal court judges have been instrumental in blocking many of Trump's executive orders and have been consistently criticised by the president. 'Profoundly dangerous' The Trump administration maintains that 'birthright citizenship was meant for the babies of slaves. It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country'. During a White House briefing on Friday, attorney general Pam Bondi said that the birthright citizenship question will 'most likely' be decided by the Supreme Court in October. In her dissent, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the 'decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the Government to bypass the Constitution. 'Unprecedented crisis': 100 days of human rights under Trump Read More » 'The Executive Branch can now enforce policies that flout settled law and violate countless individuals' constitutional rights, and the federal courts will be hamstrung to stop its actions fully. Until the day that every affected person manages to become party to a lawsuit and secures for himself injunctive relief, the Government may act lawlessly indefinitely.' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also expressed deep concern. "The Court's decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law,' Brown Jackson said. 'The majority's ruling thus not only diverges from first principles, it is also profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate'. During the briefing, Trump also added he had 'numerous policies' that he could now proceed with, including 'ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries'. Ramifications Trump signed an executive order on 20 January to end automatic citizenship rights for people born on US territory - commonly known as "birthright citizenship". The highly controversial move was met with a series of lawsuits, which ultimately led to judges in district courts in three states issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the order from taking effect. Trump's Department of Justice responded by taking the case to the Supreme Court. Therefore, the case was not about birthright citizenship directly, but whether a single federal district court judge has the right to issue a nationwide block to a presidential decree with a universal injunction. Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, told AFP that the court's ruling "sharply undermines the power of federal courts to rein in lawless actions by the government". "The ruling will likely create a patchwork of birthright citizenship rights," Schwinn told AFP, where it is recognised in some locations for people who have successfully sued and not recognised for people who have not sued. "This patchwork approach to individual rights is inconsistent with our history and tradition of federal rights in the United States and is inconsistent with the rule of law," he said. The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to restrict the application of a district court's injunction solely to the parties who brought the case and the district where the judge presides. Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship decrees that children born to parents in the United States illegally or on temporary visas would not automatically become citizens.
