Mediaboss Marketing

Activists rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on May 2, 2022, after an initial draft majority opinion indicated that the cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey should be overturned, which would end federal protection of abortion rights across the country. (Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

The U.S. Constitution is a sparse 4,400 words. This parsimonious use of language has provided full employment for generations of American lawyers who can argue what gaps in the document mean. The terse Constitution has also allowed generations of justices on the Supreme Court to act as gap-fillers through the adjudication of cases and controversies. One of the words that does not show up among the Constitutions 4,400 words: privacy.

The Supreme Court has filled that gap by inferring that people in America (not just citizens) have a constitutional right to privacy.There are a few places in the Constitutional text that the justices have located the right to privacy.

The most satisfying is in the Ninth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, which says, The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. In other words, the Ninth Amendment says just because a particular right is not mentioned in the text of the Constitution does not mean that people in America do not have it. Thus the Ninth Amendment is a catch-all protection for rights that are not specifically listed.Historically, the Supreme Court has been extremely hesitant to find new rights in the Ninth Amendment because this opens the justices to the criticism that they are just making up rights to suit their own prejudices or whims. (For a good layperson explanation of the Ninth Amendment, check out the play What the Constitution Means to Me on Amazon Prime.)

A second source of the right to privacy that justices have relied on for decades are the two due process clauses found in the Fifth Amendment and 14th Amendment. (The Fifth Amendment applies to the federal government, and the 14th applies to the 50 states.) The Supreme Court has used the due process clauses to articulate the protection of fundamental rights including the right to privacy. The 14th Amendments due process clause states: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law This word liberty is the textual peg the Supreme Court has used to find the right to contract, the right to marry, the right to intimate relationships, the right to use contraception and the right to abortion. When the Supreme Court rules a right is fundamental using a due process clause, this is known as substantive due processand reproductive freedoms have long been covered as substantive due process rights.

And a final source of the right to privacy is the shadow of the Bill of Rights.In a case called Griswold v. Connecticut from 1965, the Supreme Court was considering the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that made use of contraceptives by married couples a crime. Justice Douglas wrote in Griswold that privacy could be found in the emanations and penumbra of the Bill of Rights.

A penumbra is a term from astronomy that refers to the shadow cast by a planet from a light source like the sun. Here the light source was the Bill of Rights, and the shadow (or penumbra) created a zone of privacy.Using this metaphor, Douglas concluded that marital privacy included the right to use contraception. Other justices in Griswold located the right to privacy in either the Ninth Amendment or the 14th Amendment.But the upshot was clear: After Griswold, married women had the right to use the pill and other contraceptives like diaphragms. The Supreme Court would later expand access to single persons as well in Eisenstadt v. Baird.

When the Supreme Court rules a right is fundamental using a due process clause, this is known as substantive due processand reproductive freedoms have long been covered as substantive due process rights.

The language used by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade in 1973 is:

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendments concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendments reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a womans decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

Thus, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court expanded on the right of privacy articulated in Griswold and said the right also included the decision of whether to have an abortion. (A good overview of how substantive due process has impacted womens privacy rights in particular is the Netflix special, Amend: The Fight for America, episode 4.)

Substantive due process has also been used to protect the right to marriage and sexual intimacy. In Loving v. Virginia in 1967, the Supreme Court invalidated an anti-miscegenation law. The Supreme Court wrote in Loving:

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

(Vice celebrated the 50th anniversary of Loving by talking to interracial couples today.)

And in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, the Supreme Court invalidated a state law that criminalized sodomy. In Lawrence the Court also relied on substantive due process and the right to privacy declaring, The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter. Casey at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual.

(For more on this case, see Lamda Legals Overruled!)

Thus, the problem with Justice Alitos approach to privacy in his leaked opinion overruling Roe v. Wade is that stomping on the right to privacy wont just impact abortion rights. It could have long reaching impacts on keeping the government outside of heretofore private spheres like marriage, sex and our bodies.

Sign and share Ms.s relaunched We Have Had Abortions petitionwhether you yourself have had an abortion, or simply stand in solidarity with those who haveto let the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House know: We will not give up the right to safe, legal, accessible abortion.

Up next:

See the rest here:
Where Is Privacy in the US Constitution? The Wide-Ranging Ramifications of a Roe Overturn - Ms. Magazine

On 19 March 2020, the European Commission adopted the Temporary Framework on State aid measures to support the economy in the current context of the COVID-19 outbreak ("Temporary Framework"). The Temporary Framework is based on Article 107(3)(b) TFEU and aims to remedy a serious disturbance in the European economy. The Temporary Framework allowed States to adopt measures to contribute to the continuity of economic activity during the COVID-19 pandemic and to ensure recovery after the crisis.

The Temporary Framework, adopted in March 2020 and initially in force until the end of 2020, provided for five categories of aid which could, under certain conditions, be considered by the Commission to be compatible with the internal market:

aid in the form of direct grants, repayable advances or tax concessions, up to a maximum amount of EUR 800,000 per company;

aid in the form of loan guarantees;

aid in the form of subsidised interest rates for public loans;

aid in the form of public guarantees and reduced interest rates provided to enterprises through credit or other financial institutions; and

aid in the form of short-term export credit insurance.

In view of the pandemic's development and its impact on the economies of EU Member States, the Temporary Framework has been amended several times and its duration extended.

On 3 April 2020, the Commission adopted a first amendment so that aid could be used to accelerate research, testing and production of COVID-19-related products, to protect jobs and to further support the economy during the crisis (see our article of 7 April 2020).

On 8 May 2020, it adopted a second amendment to further facilitate access to capital and liquidity for companies affected by the crisis (see our article of 13 May 2020).

On 29 June 2020, it adopted a third amendment to further support start-ups and micro, small and medium-sized enterprises and to encourage private investment (see our article of 10 July 2020).

On 13 October 2020, it adopted a fourth amendment to prolong the Temporary Framework and to allow aid to be used to cover part of the uncovered fixed costs of companies hit by the crisis (see our article of 16 October 2020).

On 28 January 2021, it adopted a fifth amendment to further extend the Temporary Framework, to adapt the aid thresholds set out in the Temporary Framework and to allow reimbursable instruments to be converted into direct grants under certain conditions (see our article of 3 February 2021).

Finally, on 18 November 2021, the European Commission extended the Temporary Framework until 30 June 2022 (see our article of 24 November 2021). The main change concerns the introduction of two categories of phasing-out aid, i.e. the option for Member States to grant investment and solvency support measures beyond the fixed expiry date (i.e. beyond 30 June 2022).

Member States can stimulate private investment in enterprises, provided that the investment aid is granted under an aid scheme and in various forms and that the maximum individual aid to an enterprise does not exceed EUR 10 million in nominal value. This ceiling is increased to EUR 15 million where the aid scheme provides for aid exclusively in the form of guarantees or loans. In addition, individual aid must not exceed 1% of the total budget of the scheme, save in exceptional situations duly justified by the Member State concerned.

The eligible costs covered by these investment support measures must only include the costs of investment in (in)tangible assets, excluding financial investments.

In addition, the aid intensity must not exceed 15% of the eligible costs, although increases may be justified where small or medium-sized enterprises are concerned. In the case of aid in the form of guarantees or loans, the aid intensity must not exceed 30% of the eligible costs.

Finally, Member States may limit investment aid to specific economic areas that are of particular importance for economic recovery, provided that such limits are designed in a general way and do not constitute an artificial restriction on eligible investments.

This instrument is available to Member States until 31 December 2022 if the investments concerned were made before 1 February 2020.

Solvency support is intended to alleviate the difficulties associated with a company's level of indebtedness and to act as an incentive for private investment in equity, subordinated debt or quasi-equity, with the aim of achieving risk sharing between Member States and private investors.

Risk sharing is achieved by limiting the value of such a guarantee to a maximum of 30% of the underlying portfolio when covering first losses, with a limit of EUR 10 million on the total amount of funding provided per company.

Like investment aid, solvency support is granted under an aid scheme established on the basis of transparent and objective criteria, in the form of state guarantees or similar measures. Such support will be granted on market-oriented terms and will only be targeted at SMEs as final beneficiaries. Financial institutions are explicitly excluded from the measure.

This instrument is available to Member States until 31 December 2023.

In addition, the Commission has made other changes, namely:

extending from 30 June 2022 to 30 June 2023 the option for Member States to convert certain reimbursable instruments (such as guarantees, loans and repayable advances) granted under the Temporary Framework into other forms of aid, such as direct grants;

adjusting the maximum amounts of certain types of aid in proportion to their extended period;

clarifying the exceptional flexibility provisions of the Commission's rescue and restructuring guidelines; and

extending by three months (from 31 December 2021 to 31 March 2022) the adapted list of non-marketable risk countries for short-term export credit insurance.

At the beginning of 2022, the Commission consulted Member States on a possible extension of the Temporary Framework and requested related macroeconomic data.

However, the European Commission announced on 12 May 2022 that the Temporary Framework would not be extended beyond 30 June 2022, although some measures can be implemented by States after this date; for example, Member States will still be able to convert loans into limited amounts of aid in the form of direct grants, subject to the conditions of the Temporary Framework and provided that this option has been envisaged in their national schemes. This conversion option could be used under strict conditions to cancel loans or parts of loans for the benefit of borrowers who are unable to repay.

Similarly, Member States will also be able to implement their schemes to restructure loans, for example by extending their duration or lowering the applicable interest rates, within defined limits.

In addition, during the phasing-out and transition phase, Member States will be able to adopt the specific investment support and solvency support measures described above until 31 December 2022 and 31 December 2023 respectively, subject to prior authorisation by the Commission (see above).

In conclusion, just over two years after the Temporary Framework's entry into force, the Commission will have enabled Member States to provide rapid and flexible support to companies affected by the COVID-19 crisis. The Commission has in fact adopted more than 1,300 decisions in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, authorising almost 950 national measures for a total amount of State aid estimated at almost EUR 3,200 billion.

Visit link:
Phasing-out of the Temporary Framework on State aid linked to the COVID-19 crisis - Lexology

A Georgia man has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for hiding the death of a popular high school teacher whose disappearance remained a mystery for more than decade

ByThe Associated Press

May 23, 2022, 6:36 PM

3 min read

OCILLA, Ga. -- A Georgia man was sentenced to 10 years in prison Monday for hiding the death of a popular high school teacher whose disappearance baffled family, friends and investigators in her rural hometown for more than a decade.

Ryan Alexander Duke was sentenced in Irwin County Superior Court just three days after a jury acquitted him of murder in the 2005 death of Tara Grinstead. Duke testified that he gave investigators a false confession after a friend killed Grinstead. He was convicted only of concealing her death.

The 10-year sentence imposed by Judge Bill Reinhardt was the maximum punishment allowed. Duke has already served about half that time in jail awaiting trial.

A history teacher and former beauty queen, Grinstead vanished at age 30 from her home in Ocilla. Even as years passed, her family held out hope that Grinstead would be found alive until Duke told investigators in 2017 that he killed Grinstead and with the help of a friend burned her body to ash.

Every day, they couldnt find Tara," Judge Reinhardt told Duke at sentencing. "And it is true that despite whatever your selfish feelings were for not coming forward, you had to the power to stop that pain for years.

Five years ago, Duke told agents with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation that he had broken into Grinstead's home in October 2005 to steal money for drugs. He saidhe fatally struck Grinstead when she startled him.

But Duke recanted his 2017 confession during his trial, testifying to the jury that he made it up under the influence of drugs and in fear of the real killer his friend with a similar last name, Bo Dukes.

Prosecutors insisted Duke's confession included details only the killer would know such as Duke telling investigators he called Grinstead's home from a pay phone after fleeing the house to see if she would answer. When she did not, he said, he returned to find her dead.

He confessed because he got caught, Grinstead's sister, Anita Gattis, told the court during Duke's sentencing hearing. There is nothing sanctimonious about that.

Investigators also found Duke's DNA on a latex glove found in Grinstead's yard. Still, his testimony sewed enough doubt with the jury that he was acquitted of all charges except for concealing her death.

Duke testified that his friend, Dukes, in 2005 woke him up inside the mobile home they shared and told Duke he had killed Grinstead. He testified that Dukes showed him Grinstead's purse and wallet.

He said they both took Grinstead's body to the pecan orchard and burned it. Investigators later found bone fragments at the site, but said DNA tests seeking to match them to Grinstead were inconclusive.

Dukes was called to the witness stand but declined to answer questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Dukes is already serving 25 years in prison after being convicted in 2019 of concealing Grinstead's death, giving false statements to investigators and hindering the apprehension of a criminal.

View original post here:
Acquitted of murder, man sentenced for hiding teacher's body - ABC News

Looking back at Donald Trump and his teams efforts to overturn the 2020 election, it might be tempting to think of Rudy Giuliani as some kind of hapless, buffoonish figure. It was two days after the race was called, for example, when the former New York City mayor held a head-shaking press conference in Philadelphia at the Four Seasons Total Landscaping parking lot, near a sex shop and a crematorium.

Soon after, Giuliani held a different outlandish press conference in which a strange dye ran down his face.

But as ridiculous as his political antics made him appear, Giuliani is not just some random clown in the former presidents orbit. On the contrary, for those investigating the post-election scandals and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, there are few figures more important than the Republican lawyer.

Before Election Day 2020, for example, it was Giuliani who partnered with an active Russian agent in the hopes of undermining the future American president. After Election Day 2020, Giuliani was not only a central figure in Trumps inner circle as Team Trump tried to overturn the results, and he not only spoke at the rally that preceded the riot, but the former New York City mayor also stands accused of helping coordinate the fake-electors scheme thats the subject of multiple ongoing investigations.

By some accounts, Giuliani was also directed by Trump to ask the Department of Homeland Security if it were legally possible to seize control of voting machines in key swing states.

With this in mind, it was of interest to see that Giuliani finally sat down with congressional investigators on Friday. NBC News reported:

Rudy Giuliani, one of the most prominent promoters of former President Donald Trumps lies about a stolen election, testified Friday before the House panel investigating the Jan. 6 riot, according to two sources familiar with the matter. One source told NBC News that the onetime Trump attorney met with the Democratic-controlled House committee for roughly nine hours, including breaks.

Though Giuliani was first subpoenaed in January, his testimony was not a foregone conclusion. Soon after being contacted by congressional investigators, the Republican insisted that the select committee was itself illegal and lacked the authority to subpoena anybody. (None of this reflected reality.)

Eventually, Giuliani switched gears and was scheduled to testify a few weeks ago, but he canceled at the last minute after a disagreement over recording the interview.

Then he switched gears again and testified on Friday under oath over the course of nine hours. A New York Times report noted that the Q&A was interrupted so that Giuliani could host his hourlong afternoon radio show.

As for what he actually said over the course of the many hours, we dont yet know. But given the duration of the proceedings, it seems unlikely that Giuliani simply asserted his Fifth Amendment rights over and over again.

Lets also not forget that the former mayor has drawn the scrutiny of federal law enforcement, and it was a year ago when investigators executed a search warrant at Giulianis home. At least in theory, if he were still facing a possible indictment, testifying under oath for several hours would be a highly risky move.

Watch this space.

Steve Benen is a producer for "The Rachel Maddow Show," the editor of MaddowBlog and an MSNBC political contributor. He's also the bestselling author of "The Impostors: How Republicans Quit Governing and Seized American Politics."

Read the original post:
Over 9 hours, Jan. 6 committee finally gets answers from Giuliani - MSNBC

In the Dred Scott decision, Roger B. Taney, led the court in ruling that Black people could never be citizens of the United States and that slavery could not be banned in any state. The Supreme Court in the case of Dobbs, which will overturn Roe v Wade will have the same result.

Red states like Missouri already have plans that other red states will follow to sue doctors in other states that perform abortions on Missouri women. There is talk of charging women who go to another state for an abortion to face criminal charges when she returns to her home state. Such laws will in effect nationalize the ban on abortion, thus enslaving womens bodies throughout America.

Women should not count on a gang of religious zealots on the Supreme Court groomed by the Federalist Society to protect her rights under the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution or under the Fifth Amendment when she goes to another state.

History rhymes in that black citizens, who sought such protections when traveling from state to state were denied them in the 19th Century. Current red state efforts will become Americas new de facto fugitive slave act, because red states will reach across borders to interfere with women getting an abortion.

Women activists are preparing for the end of Roe v Wade, and efforts are underway to create a new underground railroad that will help women get access to abortion where it is legal, and also to enable women to get necessary contraception and abortion pills as well. But these women will face the same risks of breaking the law that earlier railroaders faced.

The conservative war on women on will continue to not only deny pregnant women abortions, but to ban contraception as well. Women will become secondary citizens in America under patriarchal rule.

George Magakis, Jr., Norristown, Pa.

Read the rest here:
There will be a new version of the Underground Railroad to help women seeking abortions | PennLive letters - PennLive