Indivisible Wabash Valley: On a mission to ‘remake the democracy'
WABASH VALLEY, Ind. (WTWO/WAWV) — 'Liberty and justice for all' is the motto of Indivisible, a nationwide organization with chapters all across the United States including right here in the Wabash Valley.
The organization's goal being to 'remake the democracy.'
'We just want the government to stop being a thing that is by the billionaires and for the billionaires,' said Karina Moffett, a member of Indivisible Wabash Valley. 'We want it to start being more back what we originally wanted the United States to be of the people, by the people, for the people.'
Indivisible's mission is to form an inclusive, diverse lasting network of organizations that can work together.
'Indivisible nationwide is really great at getting help organizations to work together, so things like food pantries, ACLU, shelters, things like that. All sharing resources and people power in working together so they're more efficient,' said Moffett.
At the Vigo County Courthouse, you can find Indivisible Wabash Valley often making their voices heard.
'People have been really disconnected from activism, from their government, and getting them to see what we are,' said Janet Wall-Myers, a member of Indivisible Wabash Valley. 'If we want our voices to be heard, we have to be active. We have to speak.'
The national organization was formed in 2016 in response to the election of Donald Trump. The group states this is not about political affiliation.
'It's not that we are anti-Republican we are just pro-democracy. So, if we are against a specific politician that's because they are anti-democracy not because we are anti-republicans,' said Moffett.
The group of men and women you often see protesting at the Vigo County Courthouse is Indivisible Wabash Valley, with peace as their state of mind.
'We usually don't call it a protest. We call it a rally because we like to keep it more positive if we can,' said Moffett.
Indivisible Wabash Valley is always accepting new members into their organization no matter what age, background, or affiliation you come from.
'Everyone is welcome as long as you are interested in upholding the Constitution and making sure the democracy continues,' said Wall-Myers. 'It doesn't matter what political party you come from. It doesn't matter if you've been active in politics before or not.'
Although there are no rules or requirements to become a member of the organization, there is one specific and important request.
'We are very focused on being nonviolent. We want to keep everything very peaceful. Like I said, we have children that come and participate with us, and we want everybody to be safe. So that's really our only requirement. Do you believe in fighting for democracy, and do you want to remain nonviolent with us,' said Moffett.
Indivisible nationwide will be calling for a day of action on Saturday, July 14th. The local chapter has plans of a peaceful protest at the Vigo County Courthouse from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
For more information on Indivisible Wabash Valley or how to support the chapter click here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Trump Is Wrong About Birthright Citizenship. History Proves It.
'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.' That's the opening line of the Fourteenth Amendment. The vast majority of legal scholars have long understood the clause to confer citizenship on immigrant children born in the United States. But not President Donald Trump. 'This had to do with the babies of slaves,' the president asserted yesterday, at a press conference celebrating a Supreme Court decision that partially clears the way for the administration to end the practice of birthright citizenship, though the attempt will face further legal hurdles. (The court has not ruled on the challenge to birthright citizenship itself, only the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions against it.) According to Trump and his supporters, Congress never intended the amendment to grant citizenship to immigrant children — only to formerly enslaved people and their children. As legal experts have explained, the text of the amendment itself disproves Trump's claim, which the court's conservatives — who so often extoll the virtues of originalism, interpreting the Constitution based on its meaning at the time it was written — should well know. So does the historical record. We do not have to guess what members of Congress intended with the Fourteenth Amendment and the children of immigrants. We know, because they told us themselves. And Trump won't like what they had to say. The president is correct on one point: The Fourteenth Amendment's framers intended its primary beneficiaries to be formerly enslaved Black people. In the months immediately following the Civil War, ex-Confederate states began forming new governments and passing laws that sharply curtailed the rights of freedmen who had been liberated under the terms of the Emancipation Proclamation and Thirteenth Amendment. The so-called Black Codes varied by state but shared common features. In Mississippi, for example, Black people were required to sign annual labor contracts, and those who left their jobs could be arrested for vagrancy. In South Carolina, African Americans were barred from any occupation other than farming or domestic work unless they paid a special tax. Many codes also limited Black people's rights to own property, bear arms, serve on juries or testify against white people in court. These laws effectively criminalized Black life and sought to reimpose slavery in all but name. In response, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over President Andrew Johnson's veto, conferring rights and citizenship on Black Southerners. Recognizing that they might not enjoy congressional supermajorities in perpetuity, they also sought to enshrine these rights permanently in the Constitution, via the Fourteenth Amendment. But today, Trump contends that the amendment does not apply to immigrants. His argument rests on two conceits: First, that the text of the amendment specifically limits birthright citizenship to 'persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' — which, conservatives argue, does not include immigrant children, as they owe allegiance to a foreign power and are not fully subject to U.S. sovereign authority. Second, as the president explained on Friday, he believes the framers intended only to confer citizenship on freedmen (retroactively) and their children (prospectively). In effect, they were attempting a constitutional repudiation of the infamous Dred Scott decision, in which the Court in 1857 denied that Black persons could be citizens. We know both of these arguments are shambolic, because the framers told us so. Senator Jacob Howard, a Republican from Michigan, drafted the birthright citizenship language and was clear in his intent. 'This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States,' he explained. But Howard qualified his explanation. 'This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.' At first blush, it would seem that meant to exclude the children of foreign-born immigrants from enjoying birthright citizenship. But the Senate debate makes clear he and his colleagues meant only to exclude the children of foreign diplomats and officials in the United States on business. In a key exchange, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania fretted that the amendment would expose the United States to mass demographic upheaval, specifically by making immigrant children citizens. He worried particularly about 'Gypsie' (or Roma) immigrants in his home state and a small but growing population of Chinese immigrants in California. In response, John Conness, a senator from California, who supported the bill, agreed with Howard that the citizenship clause applied to immigrants, affirming that the amendment 'relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.' Setting aside their crude racial determinism, the exchange makes clear that Howard and other Republicans intended the amendment to apply to all persons born in the U.S., not just freedmen. Cowan was the only Republican senator to vote against the amendment, specifically because of his concerns over birthright citizenship and immigration. In other words, even the amendment's opponents understood its meaning and intent. In debating who was subject to the 'jurisdiction' of the amendment, the Senate focused almost entirely on the question of whether Native Americans, who had treaty rights and sovereignty, enjoyed its provisions. Most Republican supporters believed at the time they did not. But there was essentially no disagreement about the children of immigrants, who were understood to qualify for citizenship. And the Supreme Court agreed in a landmark 1898 decision, United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to Chinese immigrant parents who were barred from naturalization under the Chinese Exclusion Act. After a trip abroad, he was denied re-entry to the U.S., prompting a legal battle over whether he was a citizen. In a 6–2 decision, the court ruled that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or immigration status — establishing a foundational precedent for birthright citizenship that remains in place today In last week's decision, the court didn't specifically uphold Trump's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it significantly limited the power of lower courts to issue nationwide (or 'universal') injunctions blocking policy implementation, including Trump's executive order denying passports and Social Security cards to immigrant children. The court signaled it would likely take up the more specific question of birthright citizenship down the line. For the time being, the decision opens the door to a patchwork legal landscape, where birthright citizenship protections can vary dramatically depending on which states or judges are involved, leaving families in some jurisdictions shielded while others face the executive order's full force. Legal experts warn that curtailing nationwide injunctions could let parts of Trump's order go into effect unevenly — forcing challenges through slower and more localized litigation — and thereby sow confusion, fear and unequal citizenship rights across the country. Trump's argument about the Fourteenth Amendment also calls into question the process by which tens of millions of American families of European descent became citizens. At the time of the amendment's adoption, its framers worried primarily about whether it would make citizens of Asian immigrants. European immigrants — Italians, Irish, Germans, Jews and, later, Eastern and Southern Europeans — were broadly understood to fall under the protections of the original 1790 Naturalization Act, which made all 'free white persons' of 'good character' eligible for citizenship. Many of those 'free white persons' never bothered to become citizens, particularly in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when a large number of immigrants were 'birds of flight' who immigrated and re-emigrated multiple times, mostly to work seasonally and bring wages back home. Many ultimately remained in the United States, but if Trump's reading of the Fourteenth Amendment were in effect, many of their American-born children would not have been citizens if their parents were unnaturalized at the time of their births. Since 1868, birthright citizenship has been central to our understanding of who is legally an American. Take it away, and that understanding gets murky. All eight of my great grandparents were foreign-born Jews from Eastern Europe. A few naturalized. Others didn't. Their children — my grandparents — were born on American soil, well before their parents became citizens. By Trump's reading, my grandparents and parents would not have been entitled to birthright citizenship. Neither, for that matter, would I. The same logic applies to tens of millions of Americans. Lucky for me, the history is clear on this point. If the Supreme Court's conservative majority actually believes in originalism, that means the legality of birthright citizenship is a matter of history — and the history is undeniable. Lawmakers on both sides of the issue acknowledged that the Fourteenth Amendment would extend birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Democrats howling over Iran forced to defend own party's history
Democrats bashing President Trump for striking Iran without congressional consent are bumping into an inconvenient history: Democratic presidents have done the same thing for decades. From Bill Clinton, to Barack Obama, to (most recently) Joe Biden, every Democratic president of the modern era has employed U.S. military forces to attack targets overseas, including strikes in Bosnia, Syria, Libya and Yemen. While they sought approval from Capitol Hill in some of those cases, Congress never provided it. That history has muddled the Democrats' current argument that Trump, in striking three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend, violated the Constitution by acting on his own, without the formal approval of Congress. The dynamic has not been overlooked by Republican leaders, who have hailed the strikes on Iran as a national security necessity and defended Trump's powers to launch them unilaterally. Those voices are pointing specifically to the actions of Clinton, Obama and Biden to bolster their arguments. 'Since [World War II] we've had more than 125 military operations from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occurred without a Declaration of War by Congress,' House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told reporters after the strikes. 'Presidents of both parties have exercised that authority frequently.' Johnson ticked off a few examples under the most recent Democratic administrations. Biden, he noted, ordered strikes against terrorist groups in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Obama sustained a months-long bombing campaign in Libya. And Clinton had bombed parts of the former Yugoslavia during the Bosnian war of the mid-1990s. 'Every one of those actions were taken unilaterally and without prior authorization from Congress,' Johnson said. That background is forcing Democrats to reckon with that past just as many of them are now demanding that Trump cease all military operations in Iran without explicit congressional approval. Some of them are quick to acknowledge the incongruity, voicing something like regret that Congress didn't stand more firm in the face of those unilateral Democratic missions. 'Just because it was wrong then doesn't mean it's not wrong now,' said Rep. Ted Lieu (Calif.), a former Air Force attorney who's now the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. 'The Constitution is the Constitution. And it says only Congress has the power to declare war. And it's been a bipartisan problem, with Congress ceding way too much power to the executive branch.' Rep. Pete Aguilar (Calif.), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, seemed to agree. He lamented that the politics of Washington have sometimes curtailed Congress's appetite for asserting its war powers as a check on the president, especially when Congress and the White House are controlled by opposing parties. 'That part is unfortunate. Maybe we've missed a few opportunities,' Aguilar said. 'But that doesn't mean that we turn a blind eye right now,' he quickly added. 'It doesn't mean that we just let Donald Trump walk all over us. It means that we stand up for our authority and speak up on behalf of our constituents at every opportunity.' The Constitution makes clear that Congress and the White House both play crucial roles in conducting military operations. Article I lends Congress the power to declare war, and Article II stipulates that the president is 'Commander and Chief' of the Armed Forces, responsible for executing wars that Congress sanctions. Yet that conceptual balance has tilted heavily toward the executive branch over most of the last century: The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1941, after Pearl Harbor. And since then, the president has assumed virtually all power, not only to steer the Armed Forces, but also to launch them into battle. In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress sought to reassert its authority by passing the War Powers Act. (President Nixon vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode him). The law requires presidents to 'consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities,' but it does not demand the formal authorization of the legislative branch. As tensions in the Middle East exploded earlier in the month, lawmakers in both parties sought to limit U.S. involvement with war powers resolutions requiring Trump to get explicit congressional consent before using military force in Iran. One was sponsored by three leading Democrats: Reps. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.), Jim Himes (Conn.) and Adam Smith (Wash.). Another was bipartisan, championed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.). Supporters of the resolutions are quick to acknowledge that the president has the power to act unilaterally in extraordinary circumstances, like if the nation is attacked. But there's no evidence, they say, to indicate that Iran posed an immediate threat to Americans ahead of Trump's strikes. 'Any president has self-defense authority under Article II of the Constitution. But to meet that threshold, you have to show that there was an imminent risk of attack against Americans or U.S. facilities. That's the standard,' said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. 'As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, I have not seen any evidence leading up to the attack that there was an imminent risk to Americans or to U.S. facilities to meet that threshold.' Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) delivered a similar assessment. 'If our country is attacked, all and any powers go to the president to act,' she said. 'That didn't exist here, so the president should have come to Congress.' Complicating their argument are the actions of Democratic presidents who also activated the Armed Services without congressional consent. In 1998, for instance, in response to the terrorist bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered the launch of cruise missiles targeting al Qaeda strongholds in Sudan and Afghanistan. He also joined NATO forces in bombing Serbian targets in the former Yugoslavia. Obama infuriated liberals in Congress in launching strikes against numerous countries during his eight-year reign, including an extensive campaign in Libya in 2011, which helped in the toppling of President Muammar Gaddafi, as well as subsequent incursions in Syria, Yemen and Somalia. Obama had asked Congress for specific authorization in some cases, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill couldn't agree on a resolution to provide it. Instead, those operations leaned heavily on a 2001 resolution — known as an authorization of military force, or AUMF — passed by Congress to sanction the Afghanistan War after the attacks of 9/11. In the same vein, Biden used U.S. forces to target terrorist cells in Syria, Yemen and Iraq. Lieu, for one, emphasized that he was opposed to Obama's use of force without Congress giving the OK. 'I publicly stated at the time that Obama needed congressional authorization to strike Syria. I believe Trump needs congressional authorization to strike Iran,' he said. 'My view of the Constitution does not change based on what party the president happens to belong to.' Other Democrats sought to keep the debate focused more squarely on current events. 'We can write books and fill your column inches with regrets under this dome. We'll save that for other days,' Aguilar said. 'But what is in front of us today is: are we going to stand up for our constitutional authority?' A week after the strikes, the debate over war powers may already be academic. On Tuesday, Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel that, if it holds, may make the constitutional disagreement moot. Massie has said he won't force a vote on his war powers measure if the ceasefire continues. Johnson has refused to consider such a resolution in any event, calling the War Powers Act unconstitutional. And Trump officials are expected to meet with Iranian officials later this week, when the U.S. will seek a commitment from Tehran to abandon any plans to produce nuclear weapons. Still, there are plenty of questions swirling about the ultimate success of the strikes in dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities. And Trump, asked whether he would attack again if necessary, didn't hesitate. 'Without question,' he said. 'Absolutely.'
CNN
3 hours ago
- CNN
Big Trump wins, boomerang appeals define Supreme Court term
President Donald Trump unquestionably secured a big win as the conservative Supreme Court wrapped up its term this past week, but there were signs that the administration's long-running feud with the federal judiciary is far from over. Immigrant rights groups raced into lower courts hours after the justices handed down their final decisions, seeking to block Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship through class-action lawsuits. The outcome of those cases will almost certainly wind up back before the Supreme Court in short order. Uncertainty is also swirling around the court's other blockbuster 6-3 decision, handed down a week earlier, that upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors. While the ruling will protect similar gender-affirming care bans in other conservative states, it did little to address other transgender legal disputes involving sports teams and health insurance coverage. 'In the high-profile cases, you see the court departing from settled precedent, changing the rules of the road, but ultimately leaving a lot open to be decided in the future,' Cecillia Wang, national legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union, told CNN. 'It leaves us room to fight another day.' In all, the Supreme Court issued 62 opinions over the course of its nine-month term that began in October, including many that have already faded from memory. Just before Trump was inaugurated in January, the court upheld a controversial ban on TikTok that the president has since bypassed. And in March, a majority upheld Biden-era federal regulations on 'ghost guns,' mail-order kits that allow people to build untraceable weapons at home. Here are some of the major themes from the Supreme Court's term. Since he returned to power in January, Trump and his allies have waged a rhetorical war on the federal judiciary. But in recent weeks, the Supreme Court has repeatedly given the White House reason to celebrate. The birthright citizenship decision was the most notable example, but the court has also sided with the White House in a series of less high-profile emergency docket cases as well. Earlier in the week, the Supreme Court granted Trump's emergency request to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their homeland, including places like war-torn South Sudan. Trump has secured clear victories in eight of the last 10 emergency cases the court has decided, including decisions that allowed him to end humanitarian parole for certain migrants, to grant the Department of Government Efficiency access to sensitive Social Security data, and to bar transgender Americans from serving in the military. At times, the Supreme Court's language has looked strikingly similar to the points Trump and his allies have been making for months. '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,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the court's birthright opinion. 'When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' While the Supreme Court's term is over, the controversies the justices grappled with for weeks will likely be back — soon. As the justices rose from their mahogany bench Friday for their summer recess, it was increasingly clear that the rulings in their two most important cases — on transgender care and birthright citizenship — are likely returning to them in short order. The fallout from the conservative court's 6-3 decision to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors will land as soon as Monday, when the justices will decide how to deal with half a dozen other cases involving transgender issues pending on the docket, including appeals involving trans athletes. The birthright citizenship decision gave Trump's opponents a wide berth to maneuver their way back to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks. That fight got underway just hours after the Supreme Court handed down its blockbuster opinion Friday curbing the use of nationwide court orders to block Trump's agenda. The ACLU and others raced into lower courts with new litigation that will almost certainly shut down Trump's ability to enforce birthright citizenship again — rulings that, no matter how they turn out, will quickly be appealed. 'Justice Barrett's opinion doesn't actually prevent lower courts from quickly putting nationwide blocks on the birthright citizenship executive order back into place,' said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at Georgetown University Law Center. If lower courts side with the pregnant mothers in a class-action case or with 22 blue states that also sued over the executive order, that would have the effect of pausing Trump's executive order while courts consider its constitutionality. 'It's not hard to imagine, if that happens, that the Trump administration will come right back to the court, which will then have to settle what it quite deliberately ducked on Friday,' Vladeck said. Just over 9% of the court's decisions this term were split along ideological lines, compared with 14% over the past four terms, according to data compiled by SCOTUSblog. About 4 in 10 decisions were unanimous, the data showed, which is consistent with past terms. 'There's a lot of litigation still to come on these,' said Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network and a former clerk to conservative Justice Clarence Thomas. 'But that is, in fact, why we consider those the big cases, because they're going to have a lot of downstream effects,' she added. 'There's always a period of the lower courts working out how to apply them.' Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is the most junior member of the Supreme Court, but after three years on the bench, she is making sure her voice is heard. A series of scathing dissents penned by Jackson have, in recent days, drawn nearly as much attention as the court's majority opinions. Barrett's majority opinion in the birthright case spent a considerable amount of ink pushing back on Jackson's dissent, which she registered with 'deep disillusionment.' The junior justice described the majority's opinion as an 'existential threat to the rule of law' and a 'smokescreen.' 'Perhaps the degradation of our rule-of-law regime would happen anyway,' Jackson wrote in her dissent. 'But this court's complicity in the creation of a culture of disdain for lower courts, their rulings, and the law (as they interpret it) will surely hasten the downfall of our governing institutions, enabling our collective demise.' Days earlier, dissenting from a decision that sided with fuel producers, Jackson wrote that court's opinion left the impression that 'moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.' And in a case dealing with whether Planned Parenthood and one of its patients could sue South Carolina over the state's decision to pull the organization's Medicaid funding, Jackson entered into a sharp exchange with Thomas over the meaning of a Reconstruction-era law that allows people to sue the government in federal court for potential violations of their civil rights. Jackson said that the majority, which barred Planned Parenthood's suit, was weakening 'the landmark civil rights protections that Congress enacted during the Reconstruction Era' and said the court's ruling 'is likely to result in tangible harm to real people.' 'At a minimum, it will deprive Medicaid recipients in South Carolina of their only meaningful way of enforcing a right that Congress has expressly granted to them,' she wrote. 'And, more concretely, it will strip those South Carolinians — and countless other Medicaid recipients around the country — of a deeply personal freedom: the 'ability to decide who treats us at our most vulnerable.'' The Supreme Court has in recent terms sought to roll back the power of federal agencies to make decisions without approval from Congress. That was particularly evident last term, when the court struck down the so-called Chevron doctrine, a 1984 precedent that required judges to defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute in circumstances in which the law in question is vaguely written. But this term, the court rebuffed efforts by conservative groups to keep that momentum going. In some of those disputes, the Trump officials embraced positions originally taken by former President Joe Biden, even though the two administrations are diametrically opposed on many policies. And that put the Trump administration, at times, in the awkward position of defending a policy that Biden had backed but that was being challenged by conservative groups at the Supreme Court. In one of those cases, decided Friday, a 6-3 majority upheld a task force that recommends preventive health care services that insurers must cover at no cost under Obamacare. The Trump administration defended the task force over a challenge from a Texas company, Braidwood Management. The company was represented by Jonathan Mitchell, a veteran conservative lawyer who successfully defended Trump last year from an effort in Colorado to remove him from that state's primary ballot. The court also let stand a series of decades-old government programs that reduce the price of broadband internet and telephone services for poor and rural communities. The Federal Communications Commission pays for those programs with fees applied to Americans' phone bills. Groups had used the case to try to revive a New Deal-era legal doctrine that bars Congress from delegating its authority to federal agencies — a doctrine the court has not relied on since the 1930s. In an opinion joined by both conservative and liberal justices, the court signaled it was unlikely to do so again anytime soon. 'For nearly three decades, the work of Congress and the Commission in establishing universal service programs has led to a more fully connected country,' liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a 6-3 court. 'It has done so while leaving fully intact the separation of powers integral to our Constitution.'
