Latest news with #Constitutional
Indian Express
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Hosabale remarks on Preamble: Rahul says RSS ‘mask has come off'
A day after RSS general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale sought a discussion on whether the words 'socialist' and 'secular' should remain in the Preamble, Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi said 'RSS mask' has come off once again, and that the Constitution troubles them 'because it speaks of equality, secularism and justice'. Opposition parties, including the CP(I)M and the RJD, too, condemned Hosabale's remarks '…they want Manusmriti. They aim to strip the marginalised and the poor of their rights and enslave them again. Snatching a powerful weapon like the Constitution from them is their real agenda,' said Gandhi in a post on X. 'RSS should stop dreaming this dream – we will never let them succeed. Every patriotic Indian will defend the Constitution until their last breath.' Congress MP and communications in-charge Jairam Ramesh, meanwhile, referred to the November 25 Supreme Court order which dismissed petitions challenging the Constitutional validity of the 42nd amendment — through which the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were added to the Constitution's Preamble the Emergency period in 1976, Ramesh said these terms have achieved 'widespread acceptance, with their meanings understood by 'We, the people of India' without any semblance of doubt'. 'The Chief Justice of India himself delivered a judgment on November 25, 2024 on the issue now being raised by a leading RSS functionary. Would it be asking too much to request him to take the trouble to read it?' he said. Ramesh said that the RSS and the BJP 'have repeatedly given the call for a new Constitution'. 'This was Mr. Modi's campaign cry during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The people of India decisively rejected this cry. Yet the demands for changing the basic structure of the Constitution continue to be made by the RSS ecosystem,' he said. On Thursday, Hosabale had said, 'The words socialist and secular were added to the Preamble. No attempt was made to remove them later. So, there should be a discussion on whether they should remain. I say this in a building (Ambedkar International Centre) named after Babasaheb Ambedkar, whose Constitution did not have these words in the Preamble.' RJD chief and former Bihar CM Lalu Prasad said: 'The country's most casteist and hateful organisation RSS has called for changing the Constitution… They do not have the guts to cast an evil eye on the Constitution and reservations provided therein…' Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said: 'Invoking the emergency to discredit these principles is a deceitful move, especially when the RSS colluded with the Indira Gandhi Government during that time for its own survival… To use that period now to undermine the Constitution reflects sheer hypocrisy and political opportunism.' On November 25, a bench of former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said Parliament's power under Article 368 to amend the Constitution also extends to the Preamble and rejected the argument that the words could not have been added retrospectively in 1976 to the original Preamble which has a cut-off date of November 26, 1949. In a statement, Congress MP and whip in Lok Sabha, Manickam Tagore, said: 'The RSS always wanted the Constitution to be attacked, and to be removed… We all know RSS stands for Manuvad and they want to spread hate. They call themselves a cultural organisation, not a political one. We all know the attack on words like secularism and socialism is an attack on the Constitution and parliamentary democracy. We will fight for the Constitution.'
Time of India
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Time of India
50 years of Emergency: EAM Jaishankar blames 1974 deal for fishermen arrests by Sri Lanka; says consequences still visible in Tamil Nadu
External affairs minister S Jaishankar on Friday said that the root of the ongoing issue of Sri Lanka arresting Indian fishermen lies in a controversial agreement made during the Emergency era, under which India gave up certain fishing rights. Speaking at an event organised by the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) to mark the 50th anniversary of Emergency, Jaishankar said such a deal would not have gone through if Parliament had been functioning properly at the time. 'We hear about our fishermen arrested by Sri Lanka. The reason is that an agreement was entered into during Emergency under which the rights of the fishermen for fishing in some sea waters of Sri Lanka was abandoned,' Jaishankar said. The 1974 maritime agreement, signed under then the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's government, ceded the uninhabited Katchatheevu island to Sri Lanka. A follow-up agreement in 1976 barred Indian and Sri Lankan fishermen from entering each other's exclusive economic zones—restrictions that continue to affect fishing communities in Tamil Nadu. 'The consequences of this decision are still visible in Tamil Nadu,' the EAM noted. Criticising the Congress for bypassing democratic processes during the Emergency, Jaishankar said, 'Had a genuine Parliament functioned at the time, there would have been a debate and this decision would not be accepted.' He said many major decisions were taken without public or parliamentary scrutiny during that 21-month period, which began on June 25, 1975. Reflecting on the time, Jaishankar recalled police raids in Jawaharlal Nehru University hostels and shared how his family had links with anti-Emergency leaders such as George Fernandes. 'I heard from my seniors in the foreign service how difficult it was to defend India after the murder of the Constitution and democracy by the imposition of Emergency,' he said. In a pointed attack on the Congress leadership, Jaishankar said that an Emergency situation arises when the 'family' is kept ahead of the country. 'Some people keep the copy of Constitution in their pockets but have other intentions in their hearts,' PTI cited the external minister. Without naming Rahul Gandhi directly, he questioned the party's refusal to apologise for the Emergency, saying it was not just a political mistake but an assault on the people's way of life. The younger generation must learn how the Congress strangled the Constitution out of greed for power, he said, referring to the mock parliament conducted by the BJYM. He further added that empowering citizens is the key to preventing any similar situation in future. He also took a swipe at the opposition's repeated claims of an 'undeclared Emergency' under the current government. 'I want to clarify that this is not the time of an Emergency nor will there be one in the future. That is why we are all present here at this mock parliament today,' he said. During the Emergency, Jaishankar pointed out, five Constitutional amendments and 48 Ordinances were passed, one of which prevented Emergency provisions from being challenged in any court. Calling India's peaceful resistance during that time proof that 'democracy is in our DNA,' he said the public's rejection of Emergency through the ballot box eventually led to fresh elections and the restoration of democratic rule. He also touched on moments of unity, saying Operation Sindoor, where even opposition leaders joined efforts to bolster India's global position, reflected 'deep national pride' and stood as an antidote to the authoritarianism of the Emergency. "The events of 50 years ago should not just be viewed as history — they still live on in the minds of many. Therefore, we must remain cautious of those who still have no regret about the Emergency," he said.
Forbes
14 hours ago
- Politics
- Forbes
Supreme Court Doesn't Overturn Birthright Citizenship—But Otherwise Sides With Trump
The Supreme Court broadly gave President Donald Trump a win Friday in its first major case over his agenda, as the court limited lower court judges' ability to block his policies nationwide, though the court side-stepped the question of whether his policy restricting birthright citizenship is constitutional. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters on the South Lawn at the White House on June 15. Getty Images The Supreme Court issued its ruling in Trump v. CASA Inc., a case consolidating several lawsuits against Trump's executive order, which reverses longstanding Constitutional precedent to bar children born in the U.S. from automatically getting citizenship at birth if their parents aren't U.S. citizens or permanent residents. The president asked justices to more broadly rule on whether federal judges representing a single state or region can impose injunctions that block a policy nationwide, meaning courts would not be able to unilaterally block his agenda going forward unless the Supreme Court rules. The court punted on the question of whether the birthright citizenship rule is lawful, but ruled 6-3 that lower courts cannot block policies nationwide, saying 'Congress has granted federal courts no such power.' Trump's request to the court on nationwide injunctions comes as administration officials and allies have repeatedly complained about federal judges blocking the president's policies, claiming judges are abusing their power and are biased against him politically. This story is breaking and will be updated. The decision is the first major ruling by the Supreme Court on Trump's second-term policies. While justices have now issued a number of rulings regarding Trump policies on its 'shadow docket'—meaning it issues quicker rulings on issues without taking them up for oral argument first—the birthright citizenship dispute will mark the first time since Inauguration Day that justices held arguments regarding a Trump policy and then issued an opinion. But it's unlikely to be the last: hundreds of lawsuits have been brought against the Trump administration in the months since Trump took office, and the court is expected to make the final call in a number of major disputes on everything from immigration to the economy. A group of small businesses asked the court in mid-June to take up Trump's sweeping 'Liberation Day' tariffs and whether they're lawful, after lower courts blocked the tariffs but appeals courts then put them back into effect while the litigation moves forward. Plaintiffs have asked the Supreme Court to hold oral arguments over Trump tariffs right after its next term starts in the fall, and while the court rejected that request to expedite the case, it still could take up the dispute. Big Number More than 90. That's the approximate number of preliminary injunctions that have been issued against the Trump administration since Inauguration Day, including the ones on Trump's birthright citizenship order that prompted the dispute at the Supreme Court. That number only includes injunctions, which keep a policy on hold while a case moves forward, and does not include quicker temporary restraining orders, which judges use to immediately block a policy while they deliberate on whether to issue a more lasting order. Judges have also issued numerous temporary restraining orders against the Trump administration, which have similarly applied nationwide. While the Supreme Court has only issued one ruling on the Trump administration's policies after hearing oral arguments, the court's quicker 'shadow docket' rulings have largely come out in favor of the president. The court has so far ruled 14 times on Trump administration policies, not including the birthright citizenship case. Of those, the 6-3 conservative court has ruled in the Trump administration's favor nine times, while only three cases have come out against him. Another two rulings have been mixed, with aspects of it both for and against Trump. That being said, Trump has still stewed over the Supreme Court justices he appointed in his first term not being as favorable to him as he hoped, CNN reported in early June, with anonymous sources saying the president has expressed 'particular ire' at Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Trump's birthright citizenship order was one of the first the president issued after his inauguration, after Trump long suggested he could take aim at the policy as part of his wider immigration crackdown. The executive order sparked a number of lawsuits and the first district and appeals court rulings of Trump's second terms, with judges broadly decrying Trump's effort to change the longstanding Constitutional protection. 'The president cannot change, limit, or qualify this Constitutional right via an executive order,' Judge John Coughenour wrote in his ruling blocking the policy. As more court rulings against the president followed, with judges blocking other policies nationwide, the Trump administration and its allies increasingly started taking aim at judges, claiming they were abusing their authority to usurp the president's agenda and claiming judges have been harsher on Trump than courts were on other previous presidents. They also started specifically complaining about judges imposing orders that went beyond their districts: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt decried Judge James Boasberg for blocking the Trump administration from halting deportation flights to El Salvador, for instance, claiming, 'A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil.' In addition to the Trump administration taking the issue to the Supreme Court, Trump's allies in Congress have also sought to solve the issue of lower courts issuing nationwide injunctions, introducing legislation that would prohibit judges' ability to issue orders beyond the region their court covers. That bill is unlikely to become law, however, given it would need 60 votes in the narrowly divided Senate. Further Reading: Forbes Supreme Court Suggests It Won't Allow Trump's Birthright Citizenship Ban—But Could Limit How Other Policies Can Be Blocked By Alison Durkee Forbes Can Trump End Birthright Citizenship? What To Know After Judge Blocks Executive Order By Alison Durkee
Miami Herald
15 hours ago
- Health
- Miami Herald
Supreme Court allows states to cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood
June 26 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the nonprofit's arm that covers South Carolina, can't sue the state over its closing off of the nonprofit's Medicaid funding because it provides abortions. "The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars," wrote Gov. Henry McMaster, R-S.C., in an X post Thursday. "Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values," he added, "and today, we are finally victorious." The 6-3 decision followed the court's ideological makeup, with the three liberal judges in dissent while the six conservative judges ruled in support. The court's syllabus noted 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, which allows private parties to file suit against state officials who violate their Constitutional rights. However, in the opinion of the Court, which was delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, he wrote that "federal statutes do not automatically confer [Section 1983]-enforceable 'rights.'" "This is especially true of spending-power statutes like Medicaid, where 'the typical remedy' for violations is federal funding termination, not private suits," he continued. "No court has addressed whether that Medicare provision creates [Section 1983] rights," he later wrote. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, and she also referred to Section 1983. "South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors," Jackson stated. "The Court abides South Carolina's request. I would not." South Carolina had announced in July of 2018 that Planned Parenthood could no longer participate in the state's Medicaid program, under a state law that prohibits the use of its own public funding for abortions. The order further affected patients in that it had the effect of also blocking Planned Parenthood patients from receiving services such as breast exams, sexually transmitted diseases and contraception. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic announced on its social media platform Thursday that, "Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that people using Medicaid in South Carolina no longer have the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood South Atlantic as their sexual and reproductive health care provider." "If you are a patient using Medicaid, keep your appointment," the post continued. "We're still here to provide you with the low or no cost care you deserve." The post concluded with "We're in this with you, and we aren't going anywhere." Copyright 2025 UPI News Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
UPI
19 hours ago
- Politics
- UPI
Supreme Court allows states to cut Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood
In April, a pro-choice demonstrator chants outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., ahead of oral arguments in South Carolina's effort to strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo June 26 (UPI) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, the nonprofit's arm that covers South Carolina, can't sue the state over its closing off of the nonprofit's Medicaid funding because it provides abortions. "The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed our right to exclude abortion providers from receiving taxpayer dollars," wrote Gov. Henry McMaster, R-S.C., in an X post Thursday. "Seven years ago, we took a stand to protect the sanctity of life and defend South Carolina's authority and values," he added, "and today, we are finally victorious." The 6-3 decision followed the court's ideological makeup, with the three liberal judges in dissent while the six conservative judges ruled in support. The court's syllabus noted 42 U.S. Code Section 1983, which allows private parties to file suit against state officials who violate their Constitutional rights. However, in the opinion of the Court, which was delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, he wrote that "federal statutes do not automatically confer [Section 1983]-enforceable 'rights.'" "This is especially true of spending-power statutes like Medicaid, where 'the typical remedy' for violations is federal funding termination, not private suits," he continued. "No court has addressed whether that Medicare provision creates [Section 1983] rights," he later wrote. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the dissent, and she also referred to Section 1983. "South Carolina asks us to hollow out that provision so that the State can evade liability for violating the rights of its Medicaid recipients to choose their own doctors," Jackson stated. "The Court abides South Carolina's request. I would not." South Carolina had announced in July of 2018 that Planned Parenthood could no longer participate in the state's Medicaid program, under a state law that prohibits the use of its own public funding for abortions. The order further affected patients in that it had the effect of also blocking Planned Parenthood patients from receiving services such as breast exams, sexually transmitted diseases and contraception. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic announced on its social media platform Thursday that, "Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that people using Medicaid in South Carolina no longer have the freedom to choose Planned Parenthood South Atlantic as their sexual and reproductive health care provider." "If you are a patient using Medicaid, keep your appointment," the post continued. "We're still here to provide you with the low or no cost care you deserve." The post concluded with "We're in this with you, and we aren't going anywhere."
