Latest news with #Clause
Ottawa Citizen
5 days ago
- Politics
- Ottawa Citizen
Penny Boudreau, who strangled her 12-year-old daughter, tries for 'early' release
Article content The Conservatives focused on toughening up the chance for early parole for criminals convicted of multiple murders. Leader Pierre Poilievre promised to use Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, known as the Notwithstanding Clause, to reintroduce the Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, which the Supreme Court of Canada struck down in 2022 because, in their opinion, it violates an offender's Charter rights. Article content The Supreme Court's decision has impacted the sentences of some of Canada's most notorious killers like Alexandre Bissonnette, who was serving a life in prison with no chance of parole for 40 years for shooting and killing six people in a Quebec Mosque in 2017. After the Supreme Court's decision, Bissonnette will be eligible for parole after serving 25 years. Article content The decision doesn't affect Boudreau, who was convicted of one murder (not multiple murders). She is required to provide her DNA and is prohibited from owning weapons for her lifetime. She has no previous offences that offer insight into her mindset at the time of the murder. She has referenced experiencing low self-esteem, a sense of inadequacy and fears of abandonment, according to her psychological risk assessments in her prison file. Article content Article content Her assessments described her overall risk for unescorted absences and/or day parole was 'generally low.' These ratings, it said, have withstood the test of many years of incarceration and would not be expected to change unless 'you were in an unhealthy relationship which is currently not a concern.' It also noted Boudreau has recently spoken of 'how you work through the many emotions that come with accepting the offence you committed, daily feelings of guilt and shame.' Article content Article content Boudreau toured a community residential facility — halfway house — last December and met with the director. The location remains confidential. In March, the Parole Board of Canada acknowledged recent threats made to Boudreau's personal safety increase the need for security and suggested any measures necessary will be taken when Boudreau appears before the hearing. Article content Article content Today, there is still a memorial for Karissa on the LaHave riverbank where her body was found. Sarty goes there when she is struggling to make sense of how her friend's mother, a woman she knew, could forsake her unconditional love for her daughter. Article content 'I have my own son and my love is deep. He could curse me and put me down to the lowest, and I'm still going to look at him and say, 'I love you.'
Japan Today
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Japan Today
U.S. accepts Boeing jet from Qatar for use as Air Force One
Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani (R) and US President Donald Trump speak to each other at the Royal Palace in Doha on May 14, 2025 U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has accepted the Boeing 747 that the Gulf emirate of Qatar offered to President Donald Trump for use as Air Force One, the Pentagon said Wednesday. Qatar's offer of the jet -- which is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars -- has raised huge constitutional and ethical questions, as well as security concerns about using an aircraft donated by a foreign power for use as the ultra-sensitive presidential plane. "The Secretary of Defense has accepted a Boeing 747 from Qatar in accordance with all federal rules and regulations," Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement. "The Department of Defense will work to ensure proper security measures and functional-mission requirements are considered for an aircraft used to transport the President of the United States," Parnell said, referring questions to the U.S. Air Force. The U.S. Constitution prohibits government officials from accepting gifts "from any King, Prince or foreign State," in a section known as the Emoluments Clause. But Trump has denied there are any ethical issues involved with accepting the plane, saying it would be "stupid" for the U.S. government not to take the aircraft. "It's a great gesture," the 78-year-old billionaire told reporters at the White House last week when asked if the oil-rich Gulf state would expect anything in exchange. "I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person (and) say 'no we don't want a free, very expensive airplane.'" The leader of the Democratic minority in the U.S. Senate introduced legislation earlier this week that would block Trump from using the aircraft. Chuck Schumer's Presidential Airlift Security Act would prohibit the Pentagon from using taxpayer funds to retrofit any plane previously owned by a foreign government for use as the presidential plane. "Donald Trump has shown time and again he will sell out the American people and the presidency if it means filling his own pockets," Schumer said in a statement. "Not only would it take billions of taxpayer dollars to even attempt to retrofit and secure this plane, but there's absolutely no amount of modifications that can guarantee it will be secure." Although several Republicans have voiced concerns about the proposed gift, Senate Majority Leader John Thune -- a Trump loyalist -- is not obliged to bring the bill to the floor of Congress's upper chamber. But Schumer plans to force a vote by offering it as an amendment to spending bills that Republicans will have to pass later in the year. © 2025 AFP
France 24
21-05-2025
- Politics
- France 24
US accepts Boeing jet from Qatar for use as Air Force One
Qatar's offer of the jet -- which is valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars -- has raised huge constitutional and ethical questions, as well as security concerns about using an aircraft donated by a foreign power for use as the ultra-sensitive presidential plane. "The Secretary of Defense has accepted a Boeing 747 from Qatar in accordance with all federal rules and regulations," Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement. "The Department of Defense will work to ensure proper security measures and functional-mission requirements are considered for an aircraft used to transport the President of the United States," Parnell said, referring questions to the US Air Force. The US Constitution prohibits government officials from accepting gifts "from any King, Prince or foreign State," in a section known as the Emoluments Clause. But Trump has denied there are any ethical issues involved with accepting the plane, saying it would be "stupid" for the US government not to take the aircraft. "It's a great gesture," the 78-year-old billionaire told reporters at the White House last week when asked if the oil-rich Gulf state would expect anything in exchange. "I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person (and) say 'no we don't want a free, very expensive airplane.'" The leader of the Democratic minority in the US Senate introduced legislation earlier this week that would block Trump from using the aircraft. Chuck Schumer's Presidential Airlift Security Act would prohibit the Pentagon from using taxpayer funds to retrofit any plane previously owned by a foreign government for use as the presidential plane. "Donald Trump has shown time and again he will sell out the American people and the presidency if it means filling his own pockets," Schumer said in a statement. "Not only would it take billions of taxpayer dollars to even attempt to retrofit and secure this plane, but there's absolutely no amount of modifications that can guarantee it will be secure." Although several Republicans have voiced concerns about the proposed gift, Senate Majority Leader John Thune -- a Trump loyalist -- is not obliged to bring the bill to the floor of Congress's upper chamber. But Schumer plans to force a vote by offering it as an amendment to spending bills that Republicans will have to pass later in the year.
Yahoo
20-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Says Birthright Citizenship Is Only 'About the Babies of Slaves.' Historical Evidence Says Otherwise.
During the recent oral arguments in Trump v. Casa, Solicitor General John Sauer repeatedly defended President Donald Trump's executive order stripping birthright citizenship from millions of U.S.-born children on the grounds that the 14th Amendment "extended citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to people who are unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States." Unfortunately for Sauer and his boss, the historical evidence tells a different story. On May 30, 1866, the U.S. Senate kicked off its debate on the Citizenship Clause of the proposed 14th Amendment, which says, "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." The first opponent to speak was Sen. Edgar Cowan (R–Penn.), who objected to the 14th Amendment on the grounds that it would bestow U.S. citizenship on the children of unpopular immigrants. "Is it proposed that the people of California are to remain quiescent while they are overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race?" Cowan demanded. "Are they to be immigrated out of house and home by Chinese?" Cowan also worried about the presence of "Gypsies" in Pennsylvania. "They wander in gangs in my State," he declared. "These people live in the country and are born in the country. They infest society." Are their children also to be granted birthright citizenship by the language of the amendment? "If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right," Cowan complained, "then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous." Sen. John Conness (R–Calif.) then rose to speak in response to Cowan. "I beg my honorable friend from Pennsylvania to give himself no further trouble on account of the Chinese in California or on the Pacific coast," he said. "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." Note that Cowan and Conness both agreed on the meaning of birthright citizenship. They only disagreed about whether or not that meaning would produce a welcome result. And note also that their shared original understanding runs counter to the position now advanced by the Trump administration. In that same 1866 speech, Conness also pointed out that he had already joined a majority of Congress in voting for birthright citizenship once before. "The proposition before us," he said, "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. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation." Conness was referring here to the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which Congress had passed in April over the veto of President Andrew Johnson. Why did Johnson veto it? Among "the provisions I cannot approve," Johnson wrote, was the first section of the law, in which "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States." It was bad enough, according to Johnson, that this statutory guarantee of birthright citizenship would make citizens "out of the entire race designated as blacks." In his view, "four million of them have just emerged from slavery to freedom. Can it be reasonably supposed that they possess the requisite qualifications to entitle them to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?" But Johnson also objected to the fact that the Civil Rights Act would make citizens out of the children of "the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, [and] the people called Gipsies." Just like Cowan and Conness, Johnson also understood that birthright citizenship would apply to the U.S.-born children of unpopular immigrants. Trump may think that birthright citizenship is only "about the babies of slaves." But as these statements from the 1866 debates make clear, the historical evidence proves him wrong. The post Trump Says Birthright Citizenship Is Only 'About the Babies of Slaves.' Historical Evidence Says Otherwise. appeared first on
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump weighs in ahead of Supreme Court arguments on birthright citizenship
President Trump made the case for his administration's view on ending birthright citizenship ahead of Supreme Court arguments on the issue Thursday, arguing the current policy shows the U.S. is a 'stupid country.' 'Big case today in the United States Supreme Court. Birthright Citizenship was not meant for people taking vacations to become permanent Citizens of the United States of America, and bringing their families with them, all the time laughing at the 'SUCKERS' that we are!' Trump posted on Truth Social from a trip to the Middle East. 'The United States of America is the only Country in the World that does this, for what reason, nobody knows — But the drug cartels love it!' he added. 'We are, for the sake of being politically correct, a STUPID Country but, in actuality, this is the exact opposite of being politically correct, and it is yet another point that leads to the dysfunction of America.' The president outlined the argument he and his allies have made since signing an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. Trump has argued that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868, was meant to grant citizenship to the babies of enslaved people. 'Remember, it all started right after the Civil War ended, it had nothing to do with current day Immigration Policy!' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Trump administration in March asked the Supreme Court for an emergency intervention limiting lower court rulings that are blocking Trump's plans to restrict birthright citizenship. The justices will hold oral arguments Thursday on the matter of nationwide injunctions before deciding whether lower courts can issue such injunctions when ruling against Trump's order. At the center of the case is a major debate over the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, a dispute contested across the political spectrum, including in conservative legal circles, that could ultimately reach the high court. Most academic scholars have long espoused the view that birthright citizenship applies to nearly anyone born in the country, with few exceptions. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
