The History of the American Justice System Has Several Dark Aspects: The Case of Marcellus (Khalifa) Williams Unjust Execution!

The history of the American justice system has several dark aspects, particularly concerning racial discrimination and systemic injustices. 

1. Slavery and Post-Civil War Era: After the Civil War, the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws were enacted to maintain racial segregation and disenfranchise African Americans. These laws criminalized minor offenses to control and exploit Black labor.
2. Convict Leasing and Chain Gangs: Following the abolition of slavery, Southern states used convict leasing and chain gangs to continue exploiting African American labor. Convicts, often arrested on dubious charges, were leased to private companies for labor.
3. Mass Incarceration: The late 20th century saw a dramatic rise in incarceration rates, disproportionately affecting African Americans and Latinos. Policies like the War on Drugs led to harsher sentencing and increased prison populations.
4. Racial Profiling and Police Brutality: Throughout history, minority communities have faced disproportionate levels of police surveillance, brutality, and racial profiling. High-profile cases of police violence against African Americans have highlighted ongoing issues within law enforcement.
5. Disparities in Sentencing: Studies have shown that people of color often receive harsher sentences compared to their white counterparts for similar crimes. This disparity is evident in drug-related offenses and capital punishment cases.

These aspects underscore the need for ongoing reforms to address systemic biases and ensure a fairer justice system for all.

#AmericanJusticeSystem #RacialDiscrimination #SystemicInjustice #Slavery #PostCivilWar #BlackCodes #JimCrowLaws #ConvictLeasing #ChainGangs #MassIncarceration #WarOnDrugs #RacialProfiling #PoliceBrutality #SentencingDisparities #CriminalJusticeReform #SocialJustice #Equality #CivilRights #BlackHistory #JusticeForAll #MarcellusWilliams

Concerns Over President Biden's Health Highlight 25th Amendment Provisions

                     Biden appeared with Macron at the ceremony, at which both spoke as they honored veterans                   © Reach Publishing Services Limited

The recent D-Day memorial on June 6th presented a poignant scene as viewers watched  President Joe Biden exhibit what many interpreted as awkward senior moments. These instances have elicited concerns of the President physical and mental fitness and even more sympathy for his devoted wife, Dr. Jill Biden who was visibly trying to shield him from further embarrassment. Observers might feel a growing concern about the President's ability to physically endure the remaining years of his term, or even the coming months.

This discussion transcends partisan politics and is rooted in a collective concern for the well-being of the President, his family, the Democratic Party (which I am part of), and the nation. There is a growing sentiment that the President should consider stepping aside to allow a younger leader to assume the role. If this does not happen, the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment before the next election looms large, which could end his presidency in a destabilizing manner, further fracturing an already divided electorate.

The 25th Amendment

Ratified in 1967, the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution addresses presidential succession and disability, providing a clear framework for what happens when the President cannot perform the duties of the office. Here are its key sections:

Section 1: Presidential Succession  

This section states that the Vice President becomes President if the President is removed from office, dies, or resigns. This formalizes the practice of vice-presidential succession.

Section 2: Vice Presidential Vacancy

If there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President nominates a new Vice President. The nominee takes office upon confirmation by a majority vote in both houses of Congress, ensuring the position is always filled.

Section 3: Voluntary Transfer of Power

The President can voluntarily transfer power to the Vice President by submitting a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, stating that the President cannot discharge the powers and duties of the office. The Vice President then becomes Acting President until the President submits another written declaration stating they can resume their duties.

Section 4: Involuntary Transfer of Power 

This section addresses situations where the President is unable or unwilling to declare their inability to perform the duties of the office. The Vice President and a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments (the Cabinet) can submit a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, stating that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. Upon this declaration, the Vice President immediately becomes Acting President.

If the President contests this declaration, they can submit a written declaration stating that no inability exists. The Vice President and the Cabinet have four days to respond with another statement of inability. If they do, Congress must assemble within 48 hours and decide the issue. If Congress, by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, determines that the President cannot discharge the powers and duties of the office, the Vice President continues as Acting President. If not, the President resumes the duties of the office.

The President's repeated incidents of falling, forgetting who he is speaking to, or walking in the wrong direction are increasingly difficult to ignore. These moments amplify the urgency for responsible leaders to consider what is best for the President and the country.

Historical Context and Use

The 25th Amendment was proposed and ratified to address ambiguities about presidential succession and incapacity, particularly highlighted by the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Section 3 has been invoked a few times, such as when Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush underwent medical procedures and temporarily transferred power to their Vice Presidents. Section 4 has never been formally invoked, though it has been discussed in situations where a President’s fitness for office was in question.

The 25th Amendment provides a crucial mechanism for ensuring the continuity and stability of executive leadership in the United States. Addressing both voluntary and involuntary transfers of presidential power, it is designed to safeguard the nation's governance structure during times of presidential incapacitation.

As the nation watches and debates, the need for a delicate, respectful approach to this issue is paramount. It is not just about politics, but about preserving the dignity of the office and the individual who holds it.

References

Foley, E. (2020). Presidential Succession and Inability: Before and After the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Fordham Law Review, 89(3), 907-940.

Goldstein, J. (2017). The Twenty-Fifth Amendment: Its Complete History and Applications. Princeton University Press.

"LIVE: Biden and Macron Mark 80th D-Day Anniversary in Normandy." YouTube, The Times and The Sunday Times, 6 June 2024, https://www.youtube.com/live/y3bHBGyICbA.

Fireworks' Fun Display of One Neighbor Is a Trauma for Another: Where to Draw the Line! 

Fireworks displays can have various effects on war zone survivors (I am a child of war), refugees, school shooting survivors, gun violence survivors, and veterans of foreign wars, especially if they have experienced trauma. Fireworks trigger Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and unpleasant memories. To some it is a form of celebratory practice, to trauma survivors, it is the flashback memories of bombing, sonic bombs that the enemy combatants deployed to terrorize us. It is the trigger for the loss of loved ones, family members,  friends, classmates, neighbors and beyond.

 

PTSD can have significant effects on refugees, war children, and veterans when it comes to fireworks. These individuals may experience heightened sensitivity and distress due to the loud noises, flashing lights, and sensory stimulation associated with fireworks displays. Here's a breakdown of how fireworks can affect each group:

1. Refugees: Refugees often have a history of traumatic experiences, including war, persecution, or displacement. Fireworks can trigger memories of explosions, gunfire, or bombings, which can intensify their feelings of fear, anxiety, and helplessness. The sudden loud noises and unpredictable nature of fireworks can lead to a heightened state of hypervigilance and feelings of being in danger. It is essential to approach fireworks displays with sensitivity and awareness in areas with refugee populations.
2. War Children: War children, who have grown up in conflict zones or have experienced war firsthand, may have already been exposed to traumatic events. Fireworks can remind them of the sounds and visual effects of war, potentially retraumatizing them. They might experience heightened anxiety, flashbacks, or emotional distress during fireworks displays. It is crucial to create safe spaces and provide support for war children during events involving fireworks.
3. School Shooting Survivors: Individuals who have survived school shootings or have been directly affected by such incidents may associate loud noises like fireworks with the traumatic event they experienced. The sound of gunshots and the chaos that often accompanies school shootings can resurface during fireworks displays, causing anxiety, fear, and emotional distress.
4. Gun Violence Survivors: Those who have survived gun violence, including victims of shootings or their loved ones, may have heightened sensitivity to loud noises like fireworks. The sounds and flashes can trigger traumatic memories and evoke a sense of danger, leading to increased anxiety, emotional turmoil, and potentially retraumatization.
5. Veterans of Foreign Wars: Veterans, particularly those who have served in combat zones, may have a higher likelihood of experiencing PTSD. Fireworks can trigger memories of their military experiences, such as explosions, gunshots, or other traumatic events. The loud noises and bright flashes can induce anxiety, panic, or a sense of being back in a combat situation. Many veterans find fireworks displays to be distressing and may choose to avoid them altogether.

So, Iyad, what can we do as a community? Given the potential impact on these individuals, it is important to approach fireworks displays with sensitivity and understanding. Communities can take steps to mitigate the effects by considering alternative, less triggering forms of celebration or by providing advance notice and resources to those who may be affected. Raising awareness, promoting education, and fostering empathy within communities can help create a supportive environment for individuals who have experienced trauma and are sensitive to fireworks. Additionally, providing access to mental health support and resources is crucial for those who require assistance in managing their emotional responses to fireworks.

If you made it this far in this blog post, and you found information might be beneficial to someone you know, share it to raise awareness, promote education, and foster empathy within our communities.

Health Care Reform Constitutionality Battle, Would It End Tomorrow?

By: Iyad Afalqa*

June 27, 2012

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s upholding of a key portion of Arizona immigration law, all eyes are fixated on President Barack Obama’s signature policy achievement i.e. the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)— aka Healthcare Reform Law. The critics of this law charge that it establishes an array of new entitlements, poor cost controls, and overly imposing regulations on the health sector that comprises of one-sixth of U.S. economy. Furthermore, they have raised profound constitutional concerns — not only due to its sheer scope, but also because of the authority it claims for the federal government.

Most of the lawsuits challenging the reform act have focused on Section 1501 of the statute, known colloquially as the "individual mandate" or "insurance mandate." This section, which goes into effect in 2014, will require nearly every American citizen either to maintain health-care coverage or to pay an annual penalty submitted with individual tax returns. In some cases, the penalty may be up to $750 per individual per tax year, subject to inflation adjustments.

Again, at the heart of this debate is the basic question of whether the constitution really allows the United States government to compel its citizens to buy insurance. Erwin Chemerinsky, a scholar of constitutional law and the founding Dean of UC Irvine’s Law School, in a recent presentation explained that, “ The most commonly cited authority for the individual mandate is the commerce clause, located in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. This clause gives Congress "power to regulate commerce...among the several States." He further explained that this authority in turn, allows Congress to regulate two general fields of activity; one that consists of the instrumentalities of commerce — such as the phone lines, waterways, boats, rails, and train cars by which interstate trade is conducted or shipped while the other consists of the goods and services that are traded interstate.

So, what will happen? The speculators including experts on constitutional law have argued five different scenarios for the upcoming court ruling. One is for the court to uphold the entire law. Second, to strike the individual mandate while keeping everything else intact including the penalty. A third is to strike both the mandate and the penalty while keeping other provisions. A fourth is to strike the mandate, the penalty, the insurance reforms, but keep everything else in place. And fifth, to  strike the whole law—in other words, keep nothing.

If the court would uphold the entire law as constitutional, this would obviously be a clear win for President Obama. However, if the court would deem the individual mandate unconstitutional and that it could not be separated from the rest of the law (severability) it would leave more than 30 million people who expected to be insured without recourse. This would be a bitter sweet win for the Republicans as well, as they would be under immediate pressure to offer the nation an alternative legislation to fix this increasingly insurmountable healthcare crisis. Achieving the triple aim of higher Quality, lower Costs, and increased Access to care would be an immensely challenging task especially in such a bitterly divided Congress.

According to some experts, the current US Supreme Court make-up is the most conservative since the 1930s.  In addition, being an election year, where Republicans are fiercely pressing the issue of repealing the entire reform, it could be safely assume that an intense debate on the said issue would continue regardless of the court’s decision. On the other hand, since the reform measures are not fully applicable until 2020, its full impact, beneficial or otherwise, is so slow in coming that it no easily palpable arguments could be made in its favor in this age of political expediency.

Iyad Afalqa is an Executive Faculty Fellow at the UC Irvine’s Paul Merage School of Business, where he is pursuing his Healthcare Executive MBA with focus on Healthcare management, policy and strategy. Also, he is a board member of the Medical Network Devoted to Service (MiNDS), a southern CA based charitable network of healthcare providers caring for the uninsured