Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor discusses the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II, a practice that was upheld by the Supreme Court of the time. “A judge should never rule from fear,” she says. “A judge should rule from law and the Constitution.” (0:23)
Guillermo Perez-Cadalso, former Foreign Minister and Honduran Supreme Court Justice, says that in the midst of all the media has failed to seperate the issue of President Zelaya’s removal from the country versus his proper removal from office under the terms of the Honduran Constitution. He highlights the fact that Zelaya was “legally and constitutionally removed from office.” (0:18)
By Courtney Ann Jackson-Talk Radio News Service
By attempting to run for reelection, did ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya’s violate his country’s constitution? On Friday, representatives from seven Latin American organizations testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere Subcommittee to discuss the question.
Certain members of the committee were adamant in their view that Zelaya’s actions had, in fact, crossed constitutional boundaries.
“I think it was clear that virtually all major Honduran political institutions and actors opposed President Zelaya’s efforts. Not only were the Supreme Court, Congress, and Zelaya’s own Attorney General against him, even members of his own political party and the influential Catholic Church were hostile to Zelaya’s efforts to change the constitution,” said Committee Chairman Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y).
Cynthia Arnson, Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Washington Office on Latin America, noted that Zelaya’s actions should serve as a “wake-up call” that further progress to advance democracy in Latin America is still needed.
Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.), the committee’s ranking member, said, “It seems to me that the more we look at Mr. Zelaya, the more we find a man who believes he is above the law, untouchable, and clearly a man who has no respect for democracy.”
Guillermo Perez-Cadalso, former Foreign Minister and Honduran Supreme Court Justice, said he believes the international community rushed to judgement over the coup before evaluating all the facts. He testified under the title of “Concerned Honduran Citizen” rather than using his official government title.
Perez-Cadalso argued that Zelaya was “legally and constitutionally removed from office,” and that the “military is not in charge of Honduras; the consitutional order of [the country] remains intact.”
The U.S. State Department headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has endorsed a dialogue process with the Organization of American States. On that subject, Perez-Cadalso noted, “I am optimistic that this situation can be resolved through the dialogue. This process will be successful if both sides refrain from emotional personal reactions and stick to constructive discussions about the issues.”
By Celia Canon-Talk Radio News Service
On Tuesday, experts from the Inter-American Dialogue warned that Honduras would continue to be unstable as long as ousted President Manuel Zelaya was not allowed back into the country.
“Zelaya is the elected President… If things degenerate further you won’t have good elections,” said Peter Hakim, President of Inter-American dialogue.
Hakim advised the international community to pursue “open negotiations involving [the] interim government.” Once an agreement is reached among the global community, Hakim advised Honduras to hold an election but warned that the quality of these elections depends on the stability of the country.
On June 29th, the Honduran military led a coup to overthrow President Manuel Zelaya. Armed forces intervened hours before a national referendum was due to take place to determine whether the constitution could be modified to allow the President to assume a second term, rather than the single term outlined in the country’s constitution. Zelaya was replaced by interim-President Roberto Micheletti.
Though the future of Honduras is nothing short of uncertain, many actors, including the international body Organization of American States, have gotten involved in the reestablishment of peace and stability in the Central American country.
“The OAS could take a strong position but then [it could be better to] not put the de facto Honduran government against the wall,” Hakim said
Genaro Arriagada, a Senior Fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, added that besides the obvious necessary changes that should be brought to the Honduran government and constitution, further changes should involve the OAS 2001 democratic charter which was adopted by member states in order to ensure the presence of democratic institutions in all countries of the Americas.
The Charter needs to be reconsidered, explained Arriagada, “because it gives protection to the government but not to the opposition to the government.”
By Matthew S. Schwartz — Talk Radio News Service
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses against them, and that includes the technicians who analyze the evidence found at the scene, the Supreme Court ruled today in a 5-4 decision that crossed the court’s ideological lines.
Until today, the Confrontation Clause only guaranteed defendants the right to face witnesses who were explicitly testifying against them; scientists and technicians who merely ran tests and prepared sworn “certificates of analysis” did not need to come to court and face the defendant in person. With today’s ruling, they do.
The word “witnesses” in the Sixth Amendment means anyone who presents testimony against the defendant, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his bench statement discussing his majority opinion, which was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Certificates of Analysis are testimonial statements against the defendant, and so the analysts must be called for cross-examination, the Court ruled.
“Confrontation is designed to weed out not only the fraudulent analyst, but the incompetent one as well,” Scalia wrote. “Serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials.”
The four dissenting justices were, put bluntly, aghast at the decision today, arguing that the majority had, in one fell swoop, disregarded the accepted Confrontation Clause rules that have been in place for at least 90 years, and extend across 35 states and six federal Courts of Appeals.
“It is remarkable that the Court so confidently disregards a century of jurisprudence,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the dissent, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Samuel Alito. “We learn now that we have misinterpreted the Confrontation Clause — hardly an arcane or seldom-used provision of the Constitution — for the first 218 years of its existence.”
Particularly problematic, the dissenters argue, is the fact that the Court required the “analyst” to testify, but made no attempt to explain which analyst they were referring to. In the context of a standard drug test that leads to a Certificate of Analysis, there could be four different technicians that each count as the “analyst.”
The ruling “has vast potential to disrupt criminal procedures that already give ample protections against the misuse of scientific evidence,” Kennedy wrote, calling the Court’s new reading of the Confrontation Clause “formalistic and pointless.”
The case was Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.
Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) expresses his concern over the President and Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s interpretation of the Constitution, primarily in regard to the Second Amendment. “It’s a very important question that goes…beyond the question of bearing arms but whether or not we are still a Constitutional republic,” Said DeMint. (0:37)
Former Judge Andrew P. Napolitano says that President Barack Obama’s financial reforms “does not respect” the U.S. Constitution. (0:43)
By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service
Today one of Enron’s former executives found himself back in the lime light as the Supreme Court heard his case of being unjustly prosecuted. F. Scott Yeager, an executive at Enron Broadband Services, was caught up in the hunt for white-collar wrongdoing after the Enron scandal. He was charged with wire fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, money laundering, and conspiracy to engage in securities fraud and wire fraud. The original trial saw Yeager acquitted of three of the charges, but the jury couldn’t agree on the charges of insider trading and money laundering.
The United States government then tried to re-try the insider trading and money laundering charges, since the jury was undecided on the matter, something that Yeager says violates his rights against being prosecuted twice for the same matter. Yeager moved to have the case thrown out. He argued that he is protected by collateral estoppel, which prohibits the same issue from being tried twice, and is similar to double jeopardy. Yeager’s legal team relied on a good-faith defense in his initial trial, saying he was not guilty because he had a reasonable belief in his company’s financial stability. The argument for collateral estoppel was that since he was acquitted based on the good-faith defense, it would not be possible to prosecute him on insider trading, since the jury established he could not have illegality at the heart of his actions.
Both the District and Circuit Courts denied Yeager’s motion to have the case thrown out. Yeager then took the matter before the Supreme Court, in Yeager v. United States.
The Justices were undecided in the courtroom about whether or not the acquittal on the similar charges was enough to remove Yeager from any shadow of wrongdoing. Justices Samuel Alito and David Souter felt that he might have been acquitted for other reasons than simply the good-faith defense, although it was self evident that they could not know with certainty why the jury did what it did. The counsel for the United States said that the jury should have said Yeager was not guilty on the two undecided charges if they really meant it. Chief Justice John Roberts showed concern at the effect this decision could have on the Seventh Amendment in the Constitution, which protects the right to jury trials. Roberts questioned whether or not retrial of the undecided charges would undermine the jury’s decisions in the acquitted charges. Although Justice Stephen Breyer did not display a firm position on the case at large, he did say that he can’t think of why this wouldn’t be a second trial, and why collateral estoppel should not apply.
The Court is expected to return a decision on this case in May or June of this year.
Ellen Ratner Bureau Chief interviews Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y) about the current administration and Obamas presidency. (16:38)
ACLU Washington Legislative Office Director Caroline Fredricksen said that the ACLU was able to use data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate that there are 197.4 million people who live within a hundred miles of maritime or coastal borders, which would mean that two-thirds of the U.S. population are exposed to the possibility of being searched without probable cause according to the ACLU (0:30)
