Latest news with #Federalist
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
11-07-2025
- First Post
History Today: When Mumbai was rocked by serial train bombings
Terror hit Mumbai on July 11, 2006, after a series of coordinated blasts were carried out on the city's local trains during rush hour. The 11 horrific minutes of chaos and carnage left nearly 200 dead and over 800 injured. Also, on this day in 1804, the famed Burr-Hamilton duel took place read more Mumbai was thrown completely in uproar after the local trains, known as the lifeline of the city on which millions rely on every day, came under attack on July 11, 2006. One of the most shocking and horrific incidents in India's history occurred on this day in 2006. Terror hit Mumbai yet again after a series of coordinated blasts were carried out on the city's local trains during rush hour. The 11 horrific minutes of chaos and carnage left nearly 200 dead and over 800 injured. If you are a history geek who loves to learn about important events from the past, Firstpost Explainers' ongoing series, History Today, will be your one-stop destination to explore key events. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Also, on this day in 1804, the famed Burr-Hamilton duel took place. Here are some of the historical events that occurred on this day. Chaos, carnage and bloodshed in Mumbai Eleven minutes of sheer terror. Seven explosions. Mumbai was thrown completely in uproar after the local trains, known as the lifeline of the city on which millions rely on every day, came under attack. The bombs were placed in the first-class compartments of trains leaving Churchgate. The first blasts occurred at Bandra and Mahim stations around 6.20 pm. Everyone held their breath as memories of past attacks in 1993 and 2003 came flooding back. Then, five more explosions on different trains. The authorities revealed that bombs were made of RDX and ammonium nitrate. Mumbai's local trains are known as the city's lifeline. The IEDs were placed in pressure cookers to maximise the blast impact and were detonated using quartz timers. They pointed the finger at the Students' Islamic Movement of India – backed by Pakistan and its powerful Inter-Services Intelligence. The trial took eight years. Over 200 witnesses were called. In the end, a dozen men were found guilty of waging war against the nation, conspiracy and murder, while one was acquitted. Aaron Burr slays Alexander Hamilton in famed duel Before Alexander Hamilton gained renewed fame as a result of the award-winning musical show by Lin-Manuel Miranda, the political figure was perhaps most famous for his notorious duel with Aaron Burr. Which is a shame given that Hamilton was one of the greatest thinkers of his time and one of the original Founding Fathers of America. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While the two men were old-time political rivals, no one had thought it would come to this. After all, Burr was the sitting Vice-President of the United States. Hamilton, who was a major author of the Federalist papers, was himself was a famous and towering figure at the time. The duel was over some allegedly disparaging remarks that Hamilton had made about Burr during a dinner. It was Burr who challenged Hamilton in the 'affair of honour' – the parlance for duelling at the time. Portrait of US Founding Father Alexander Hamilton. Image courtesy: While most such challenges ended with negotiations and compromise, this time the bitterness had gone too far. The fact that duelling had been outlawed didn't stay the hand of either man. Nor did it stop a sitting New York judge William P Van Ness from acting as Burr's second. What happened next has been mired in confusion and lost to history. Hamilton either shot his pistol into the sky on purpose or took aim at Burr and missed. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Burr fired back – hitting Hamilton in the abdomen. Hamilton was taken back to New York – where he spent 31 agonising hours with his family before he died. Burr initially fled, but was later indicted. Ultimately, all charges against him were later dropped. Hamilton died, but his policies remain influential on the United States till this day. Burr, on the other hand, became a political pariah. To Kill a Mockingbird is published The literary classic To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee was published on this day in 1960. Lee's story, set during the Great Depression in the small fictional town of Maycomb Alabama, told the tale of Jean Louise Finch and her father Atticus, a prominent lawyer. While Atticus was based on Lee's father, another character in the novel was based on Lee's friend and writer Truman Capote. Capote, incidentally, would himself be hailed for pioneering the true-crime literary genre with his novel In Cold Blood. Mockingbird deals with the story of a black man being falsely accused of raping a white woman and Atticus' defence of the man. The literary classic To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee was published on this day in 1960. The book was a sensation – selling over 30 million copies across the world and be translated into over 40 languages. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Lee would be awarded the Pulitzer Prize for her work. The novel was famously adapted into a 1962 movie of the same name starring Gregory Peck as Atticus. Peck would win the Academy Award for his performance and become hailed as an indelible part of film history. This Day, That year 1914: Babe Ruth plays his first Major League Baseball for the Boston Red Sox. It would spark off a glittering career in which Ruth would rewrite all baseball records at the time. 1989: Sir Laurence Olivier, perhaps the greatest English thespian in the 20th Century and the only one who could challenge Marlon Brando's claim to be the world's best actor, passed away near London.
Yahoo
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Civics in the time of MAGA: Junior high kids get right what we adults have gotten wrong
So, I'm sitting here on a Thursday afternoon, watching a bunch of junior-high-school kids answering questions about American government and constitutional rights. And the sad irony is they know more about it than at least 90% of the politicians and elected officials I cover on a daily basis. It's called the National Civics Bee. It's like a spelling bee, but with civics. And Thursday was the state finals, held at the downtown Wichita headquarters of the Kansas Leadership Center. What made this a lot more fun than the usual 'bee' format was it was set up to allow for audience participation. Attendees (in a separate group) could play along with the competitors and test their own knowledge. I talked with Chris Green of the Leadership Center and we both agreed it would be fun to invite some of our elected officials next year to see see how they stack up against the sixth-, seventh- and eighth graders in the contest. I wonder how many would accept the challenge. The questions ranged from fairly easy, like . . . Q: A new education reform bill was introduced in Congress and successfully passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate. What is the next step before the bill can become law? A: The president must sign the bill into law or take no action for 10 days, after which it will automatically become law. . . . to the detailed and difficult, for example. . . Q: In Federalist number 39, how does Madison distinguish between a federal and national government, and what does this distinction suggest about the nature of the Constitution as a product of the convention? A: Madison claims that the Constitution is both federal and national, with the House of Representatives representing the national and the Senate representing the federal, suggesting that the constitution will balance power between the state and national. (I got that one wrong. I picked the answer with the House representing the federal and Senate national). In addition to the multiple choice, the five finalists had to read from and answer judges' questions on an essay they wrote on a current issue, ranging from saving rural hospitals to reforming state policy on driver's license revocation. When all was said and done, Tanya Ramesh of Wichita won the competition, a $1,000 giant check, and a ticket to Washington for the national finals. Madeline Stewart of Overland Park took second and $500, while Zane Hoff of Salina got third and $250. I thought the Civics Bee was one of the coolest events I've been to in a while, so I hesitate to even bring this up, but some of the questions probably need updating in this era of MAGA. For instance: Q: How did Afroyim versus Rusk in 1967 affect the government's power regarding citizenship revocation? A: It limited the government's ability to to revoke citizenship. Afroyim v. Rusk was a landmark case that ruled: 'Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. ' The court's revised that stance since, to allow citizenship to be revoked (called denaturalization) if it was granted on false pretenses that would have prevented it in the first place, for example, terrorists or Nazi war criminals living under false identities. Now, denaturalization has become a key part of President Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to deport as many non-white immigrants as possible, whom he accuses (echoing a former world leader named Adolf) of 'poisoning the blood of our country.' During his first term, Trump created 'Operation Second Look,' a program to comb immigrant citizens' paperwork for misstatements or errors that would allow them to be denaturalized. This term, his top immigration advisor, Stephen Miller, has vowed to 'turbocharge' Operation Second Look, which could also lead to denaturalization and deportation of American-born children of immigrants, under Trump's executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship. Another Civics Bee question that caught my attention was this one: Q: Which statement best reflects the application of federalism in the Clean Air Act, considering the following quotation, 'the Clean Air Act represents a partnership between federal and state governments to improve air quality and to protect public health.' A: The federal government sets national standards, while states can implement stricter regulations based on local needs. That's the way it's supposed to work. But it brought to mind a recent press release I got from Kansas 1st District Rep. Tracey Mann, taking a victory lap over Congress rolling back California anti-pollution regulations. At the time, I remember thinking, 'What business is this of Tracey Mann's?' given that he represents a district that sprawls from Colorado to one county away from Missouri, where there are about four times as many cows as people and the largest city, Lawrence, would be a minor suburb of Los Angeles. What he knows of the pollution challenges facing California I'm guessing would fit on a microscope slide, but he couldn't care less as long as he can own some libs and send out a press release titled: 'Rep. Mann Reverses Biden Green New Deal Policies.' When I was growing up, we didn't have civics bees. We barely had any civics education. Truth be told, most of what we ever knew about the workings of government came from 'Schoolhouse Rock,' three-minute educational cartoons sandwiched between Jonny Quest and Scooby-Doo on Saturday mornings. Cue the music: 'I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.' I can't help thinking if we'd had civics bees back then, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in today. So it lifts my heart to see these earnest young kids competing over who knows the most about the people and ideals that built America. It gives me great hope that their future will be better than the present that my generation has handed them.
Sky News AU
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
‘Racist babies?': Woke federal education program yet another example of ‘wasteful' spending
The Federalist elections correspondent Brianna Lyman has spoken on a federal education program that warned teachers about babies being racist and changing the lyrics to 'Old MacDonald'. 'Our test scores … have declined since the creation of the Department of Education,' Ms Lyman told Sky News host James Morrow. 'Where is the money actually being put toward? 'This is another example of wasteful federal spending.'
Sky News AU
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Megyn Kelly vindicated after left's ‘gaslighting' on Imane Khelif exposed
The Federalist elections correspondent Brianna Lyman has lauded Megyn Kelly after being proven right on Olympian Imane Khelif. Bombshell documents show the gold-medal winner at the Paris 2024 Olympics allegedly had male DNA. 'Unfortunately, there is so much gaslighting coming from the left,' Ms Lyman told Sky News host James Morrow. 'Because they're into this gender bending ideology, they tried to smear and malign her.'
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Attacked One of His Top Allies Out of the Blue. We Know Why.
Last week, President Donald Trump took many in the legal world by surprise when he attacked the chief architect of his first-term judicial nomination agenda, Leonard Leo, as a 'sleazebag' who 'probably hates America.' The tone was distinctly Trumpian, but the target was a bit of a shock. Back in 2016, Leo gave the new president-elect a slate of 21 Supreme Court candidates, all 'Federalist people.' Selection of the 234 judges appointed in Trump's first term was then 'in-sourced' to the Federalist Society, according to former White House counsel Don McGahn. Trump's outburst marks a dramatic jolt to the relationship between Trump and the Federalist Society, as well as for the conservative bench at large. It is not likely a rupture, but rather a signal that the society must bend the knee—as all others seeking federal benevolence must do—to keep its prized place. Like the traditional Republican elites Trump has left in the dust, the society needs to find a place among the ornaments on the presidential mantel, or else be cast into the dust. Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society has long exercised subtle, behind-the-scenes influence on Republican judicial picks. Its official line emphasizing 'originalism' and 'textualism' belies how predictably its picks track Republican views on regulation, presidential power, and religion. Such priorities reflect Leo's enduring closeness to traditional Republican elites such as Sen. Mitch McConnell. In 2016, it was Trump who benefited from the Federalist Society stamp of approval. A staggering 77 percent of Republican voters that year reported that Supreme Court appointments were 'very important' to them. The Federalist Society's process for credentialing nominees as clearly conservative helped Trump ostentatiously meet his campaign promise to appoint judges who would please these voters. And the bench he built didn't disappoint. Since 2020, a Supreme Court with three Trump appointees has advanced Republican priorities on affirmative action, abortion, and religious liberties. Perhaps even more significant have been its dramatic curbs on federal regulation in the form of 'the major questions doctrine' and end to so-called Chevron deference, not to mention its stratospheric advancement of executive power in Trump v. U.S. In 2025, the judicial and political terrain look different. Thanks in part to rulings like Trump v. U.S., the president is no longer the supplicant. Traditional Republican elites are now 'terrified' of an Elon Musk–funded primary instigated by the president. He is no longer in thrall to policy and personnel choices. Sen. McConnell, for example, has voted against numerous Trump Cabinet nominations—not, to be sure, with any effect. Other stalwarts within the party have bucked against the president's tariffs—again to no palpable result. It is thus not simply that the president and Republican elites have split on policy: The brute force of Trump's political power means that, for now at least, the president has the whip hand. This same pivot is playing out in the president's relation to the courts. For one thing, an administration that doesn't know the meaning of basic constitutional rights such as habeas corpus—even as it violates that right—is unlikely to be one that places great weight on fidelity to originalist constitutional values. For another, a White House that treats mandatory federal spending as a cudgel against ideological foes will surely view judicial nominations in the same transactional way—just another perk with which to punish enemies or reward friends. Today, courts rank among the hostile. Remember that the first Trump administration received bruising losses in cases concerning Deferred Action for Child Arrivals and a census question on citizenship. Even though Trump himself had appointed a full quarter of that bench by the end of his first term, the administration has faced a 'stunning' tally of court losses in recent weeks. Worse, decisions that once were Republican trophies wrought from an archconservative Supreme Court are now albatrosses weighing the Trump II project down. Take last month's ruling invalidating the April 2 tariffs. This unanimous three-judge ruling—joined by one Trump appointee—hinged upon the 'major questions doctrine' that is a cornerstone of the Roberts court's deregulatory policy agenda. Trump is here being bitten by the beast he bred. And unlike traditional Republican elites, Trump now is not pursuing a policy agenda in which the federal courts could be useful aides. The White House has shown that it believes itself capable of redefining citizenship, geography, and even biology by fiat. It hardly needs hand-holding by black-robed jurists. Like Congress, the hope is that the courts can also be relegated to mere accoutrement. In attacking Leo, Trump is thus simply making plain this new alignment of power. Like other parts of the Republican establishment, he is saying, Leo and the Federalist Society have a role to play only if they are unswervingly loyal not to the Constitution, but to Trump's own project. Moreover, the president has made it clear what he demands from judges: As his post on Leo explained, he believes that the only reason a judge would rule against his policies is bad faith. So what he wants are men—like his recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit nominee Emil Bove—of dubious ethics but unswerving and uncaveated loyalty to the president. It will now be up to the Federalist Society to decide whether they will bend the knee, following the example of other Republican elites, to say nothing of law firms and universities. While it might seem that fealty to 'original public meaning' and to history would make this an insuperably difficult ask, it is a mistake to think that the legal conservative movement cannot adapt. Several prominent judges appointed by Trump, for example, have already pivoted from 'originalism' to a vague 'common good' conservativism. (If this sounds harmless, just take a second to reflect on who is implicitly getting to define the common good.) Even those who want to keep their originalist credentials are likely to find new play of the joints of their 'theory.' Witness, for example, the flip-flops of some judges and scholars on the long-settled question of birthright citizenship, including at least one prominent conservative appellate judge said to be auditioning for a Trump appointment to the Supreme Court. Even on the ground, the young men (and a few women) who swell the Federalist Society's ranks in law schools are reportedly champing at the bit to embrace the Trumpian project. So there's no reason to think the Federalist Society won't take the hint. Once, the society styled itself a guardian of the original Constitution. Tomorrow, they may serve a different master as they screen candidates to serve in the judicial Praetorian Guard that this president so keenly desires.
