Mediaboss Marketing

In June 2022, a tweet went viral that supposedly showed a map of a 100-mile border enforcement zone and claimed that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowed border patrol agents to violate the Fourth Amendment in this area and enter any home without a warrant and assault you.

The 100-mile border enforcement zone is real, but it wasnt recently created by a Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, border patrol is not explicitly allowed to enter any home without a warrant within this zone (the 100-mile rule generally applies to vehicles) and there are no laws that permit agents to assault people. That being said, the Supreme Court did recently rule against an individual who was suing a border patrol agent for violating Fourth Amendment rights by using excessive force.

While many people may think of the border as the dividing line between the United States and Mexico, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents actually operate around the entire border of the United States. That includes the countrys northern border with Canada, as well as the eastern, western, and southern coastlines.

This so-called Border Enforcement one, as the meme called it, has been around since the 1950s, when the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 established that a reasonable distance of the border would extend 100-air miles around the outline of the country.

According to 8 U.S. Code 1357, employees of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Patrol are granted certain powers without warrant within this area, such as the authority to board and search for aliens on any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. This law also gives border patrol agents the authority to access private lands, but not dwellings, for the purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal entry of aliens into the United States. However, the law states that border patrol agents only have the authority to access private lands within 25 miles of the border, not 100 miles.

Heres how the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) described this border enforcement zone:

Are immigration officials allowed to stop people in places wholly inside the U.S.?U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency tasked with patrolling the U.S. border and areas that function like a border, claims a territorial reach much larger than you might imagine. A federal law says that, without a warrant, CBP can board vehicles and vessels and search for people without immigration documentation within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States. These external boundaries include international land borders but also the entire U.S. coastline.

What is a reasonable distance?The federal government defines a reasonable distance as 100 air miles from any external boundary of the U.S. So, combining this federal regulation and the federal law regarding warrantless vehicle searches, CBP claims authority to board a bus or train without a warrant anywhere within this 100-mile zone. Two-thirds of the U.S. population, or about 200 million people, reside within this expanded border region, according to the 2010 census. Most of the 10 largest cities in the U.S., such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, fall in this region. Some states, like Florida, lie entirely within this border band so their entire populations are impacted.

The map included in the above-displayed tweet appeared to have originated with a 2020 article from the Southern Border Communities Coalition (SBCC), a border-policy advocacy group. This organization wrote at the time:

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which includes the Border Patrol, is the largest law enforcement agency in the country. The jurisdiction they claim spans 100 miles into the interior of the United States from any land or maritime border. Two-thirds of the U.S. population lives within this 100-mile border enforcement zone, including cities like Washington D.C., San Francisco CA, Chicago IL, New Orleans LA, Boston MA, & more.

Because these are considered border cities, federal border and immigration agents assert the power to board public transportation or set up interior checkpoints and stop, interrogate and search children on their way to school, parents on their way to work, and families going to doctors appointments or the grocery store all done without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.

We reached out to CBP and we will update this article if more information becomes available.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In short, it was designed to protect Americans against arbitrary arrests and requires law enforcement to obtain warrants before searching homes.

While performing searches without a warrant may seem like a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has previously ruled that searches within the zone do not violate that amendment. In the 1976 case United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, for example, the Supreme Court ruled that immigration checkpoints within this zone were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, writing that it would be impractical to require such stops to always be based on reasonable suspicion and that brief questioning of the vehicles occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The tweet above went viral in the days after the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Egbert v. Boule, which dealt with an interaction between a border agent (Erik Egbert) and the owner of a bed and breakfast on the border of the United States and Canada (Robert Boule). This case did not establish or change the size of a new border zone. Rather, as The New York Times reported, the court ruled that only Congress could authorize lawsuits against federal agents for violating constitutional rights.

The New York Times reported:

The owner of an inn on the Canadian border who said he had been assaulted by a Border Patrol agent may not sue the agent for violating the Constitution by using excessive force,the Supreme Court ruledon Wednesday.

The decision, by a 6-to-3 vote along ideological lines, stopped just short of overruling a 1971 precedent,Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, that allowed federal courts, rather than Congress, to authorize at least some kinds of lawsuits seeking money from federal officials accused of violating constitutional rights.

But the basic message of Wednesdays decision, Egbert v. Boule, No. 21-147, was that only Congress can authorize such suits.

Heres an excerpt from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas opinion. Thomas wrote:

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), this Court authorized a damages action against federal officials for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment. Over the past 42 years, however, we have declined 11 times to imply a similar cause of action for other alleged constitutional violations [] Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals permitted not one, but two constitutional damages actions to proceed against a U. S. Border Patrol agent: a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim and a First Amendment retaliation claim. Because our cases have made clear that, in all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the courts, we reverse.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion in the Egbert v. Boule case, writing that the decision closes the door to lawsuits from those who suffer serious constitutional violations at the hands of federal agents. Sotomayor referenced the border zone in her opinion, writing:

The consequences of the Courts drive-by, categorical assertion will be severe. Absent intervention by Congress, CBP agents are now absolutely immunized from liability in any Bivens action for damages, no matter how egregious the misconduct or resultant injury. That will preclude redress under Bivens for injuries resulting from constitutional violations by CBPs nearly 20,000 Border Patrol agents, including those engaged in ordinary law enforcement activities, like traffic stops, far removed from the border. [] This is no hypothetical: Certain CBP agents exercise broad authority to make warrantless arrests and search vehicles up to 100 miles away from the border. See 8 U. S. C. 1357(a); 8 CFR 287.1(a)(2) (2021). The Courts choice to foreclose liability for constitutional violations that occur in the course of such activities, based on even the most tenuous and hypothetical connection to the border (and thereby, to the national security context), betrays the context-specific nature of Bivens and shrinks Bivens in the core Fourth Amendment law enforcement sphere where it is needed most.

The map in the tweet showing a 100-mile border enforcement zone refers to the Border Patrols authority to conduct warrantless searches in pursuit of aliens within a reasonable distance of the border. While the map was geographically accurate, the Supreme Court did not create this zone in June 2022.

Sources:

8 U.S. Code 1357 Powers of Immigration Officers and Employees. LII / Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1357. Accessed 10 June 2022.

100-Mile Border Enforcement Zone. Southern Border Communities Coalition, https://www.southernborder.org/100_mile_border_enforcement_zone. Accessed 10 June 2022.

ACLU Factsheet on Customs and Border Protections 100-Mile Zone. American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-factsheet-customs-and-border-protections-100-mile-zone. Accessed 10 June 2022.

Congress Tackles the 100-Mile Border Zone for Federal Checkpoints. Just Security, 30 July 2019, https://www.justsecurity.org/65136/congress-tackles-the-100-mile-border-zone-for-federal-checkpoints/.

Know Your Rights in the 100 Mile Border Zone. ACLU of New Mexico, 24 Sept. 2021, https://www.aclu-nm.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-100-mile-border-zone.

Liptak, Adam. Supreme Court Sides With Border Agent Accused of Using Excessive Force. The New York Times, 8 June 2022. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/08/us/politics/supreme-court-border-agent-excessive-force.html.

Millhiser, Ian. The Supreme Court Gives Lawsuit Immunity to Border Patrol Agents Who Violate the Constitution. Vox, 8 June 2022, https://www.vox.com/23159672/supreme-court-egbert-boule-bivens-law-enforcement-border-patrol-immunity.

The Constitution in the 100-Mile Border Zone. American Civil Liberties Union, https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone. Accessed 10 June 2022.

United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976). Justia Law, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/. Accessed 10 June 2022.

https://www.courthousenews.com/federal-officers-facing-liability-on-civil-claims-get-high-court-pass/. Accessed 10 June 2022.

See the original post here:
What Is the US Border Enforcement Zone? - Snopes.com

Almost all American adults including parents, medical patients and people who are sexually active regularly exercise their right to privacy, even if they dont know it.

Privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. But for half a century, the Supreme Court has recognized it as an outgrowth of protections for individual liberty. As I have studied in my research on constitutional privacy rights, this implied right to privacy is the source of many of the nations most cherished, contentious and commonly used rights including the right to have an abortion.

The Supreme Court first formally identified what is called decisional privacy the right to independently control the most personal aspects of our lives and our bodies in 1965, saying it was implied from other explicit constitutional rights.

For instance, the First Amendment rights of speech and assembly allow people to privately decide what theyll say, and with whom theyll associate. The Fourth Amendment limits government intrusion into peoples private property, documents and belongings.

Relying on these explicit provisions, the court concluded in Griswold v. Connecticut that people have privacy rights preventing the government from forbidding married couples from using contraception.

In short order, the court clarified its understanding of the constitutional origins of privacy. In the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision protecting the right to have an abortion, the court held that the right of decisional privacy is based in the Constitutions assurance that people cannot be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law. That phrase, called the due process clause, appears twice in the Constitution in the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

Decisional privacy also provided the basis for other decisions protecting many crucial, and everyday, activities.

The right to privacy protects the ability to have consensual sex without being sent to jail. And privacy buttresses the ability to marry regardless of race or gender.

The right to privacy is also key to a persons ability to keep their family together without undue government interference. For example, in 1977, the court relied on the right to private family life to rule that a grandmother could move her grandchildren into her home to raise them even though it violated a local zoning ordinance.

Under a combination of privacy and liberty rights, the Supreme Court has also protected a persons freedom in medical decision-making. For example, in 1990, the court concluded that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.

The right to decisional privacy is not the only constitutionally protected form of privacy. As then-Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist noted in 1977, the concept of privacy can be a coat of many colors, and quite differing kinds of rights to privacy have been recognized in the law.

This includes what is called a right to informational privacy letting a person limit government disclosure of information about them.

According to some authority, the right extends even to prominent public and political figures. In one key decision, in 1977, Chief Justice Warren Burger and Rehnquist both conservative justices suggested in dissenting opinions that former President Richard Nixon had a privacy interest in documents made during his presidency that touched on his personal life. Lower courts have relied on the right of informational privacy to limit the governments ability to disclose someones sexual orientation or HIV status.

All told, though the word isnt in the Constitution, privacy is the foundation of many constitutional protections for our most important, sensitive and intimate activities. If the right to privacy is eroded such as in a future Supreme Court decision many of the rights its connected with may also be in danger.

Scott Skinner-Thompson is Associate Professor of Law at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Excerpt from:
Privacy Isn't In the Constitution. But It's Everywhere in Constitutional Law. - FlaglerLive.com

06.15.22

With the Extremist Supreme Court Poised to Overturn Roe v. Wade, the Need to Protect Location and Health Data is More Crucial than Ever

Data Privacy Expert: Health and Location Data Protection Act would fill one of the largest protection gaps in U.S. privacy law

Washington, D.C. Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, joined Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in introducing the Health and Location Data Protection Act, legislation that bans data brokers from selling some of the most sensitive data available about everyday Americans: their health and location data. The legislation is also cosponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chair of the Senate Finance Committee; Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.); and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. The legislation would reign in largely unregulated data brokers, whose data has been used to circumvent the Fourth Amendment, out LGBTQ+ people, stalk and harass individuals, and jeopardize the safety of people who visit abortion clinics for health care.

As extremist Republican lawmakers work around the clock to criminalize essential health servicesincluding abortionpatients private health and location data must be protected, said Senator Murray. Selling peoples most sensitive data to turn a profit isnt just wrongits dangerous, and risks Americans safety as they seek the care they need. Im proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Health and Location Data Protection Act to protect peoples sensitive health dataparticularly as Republicans attack all of our reproductive rights.

Data brokers profit from the location data of millions of people, posing serious risks to Americans everywhere by selling their most private information, said Senator Warren. With this extremist Supreme Court poised to overturn Roe v. Wade and states seeking to criminalize essential health care, it is more crucial than ever for Congress to protect consumers sensitive data. The Health and Location Data Protection Act will ban brokers from selling Americans location and health data, rein in giant data brokers, and set some long overdue rules of the road for this $200 billion industry.

When abortion is illegal, researching reproductive health care online, updating a period-tracking app, or bringing a phone to the doctors office all could be used to track and prosecute women across the U.S. It amounts touterus surveillance. Congress must protect Americans privacy from abuse by far-right politicians who want to control womens bodies. Im proud to work with Senator Warren to introduce theHealth and Location Data Protection Act,said Senator Wyden.

Americans ought to feel confident that their highly sensitive data isnt hocked to the highest bidder without their consent. We need sensible rules for the handling of personal health and location data, especially in light of recent efforts to ban or even criminalize abortion care and other important health care,said Senator Whitehouse.Im pleased to join Sen. Warren in introducing this important bill.

Data brokers collect and sell intensely personal data from millions of Americans, often without their consent or knowledge, reaping massive profits. Largely unregulated by federal law, the unsavory business practices of data brokers pose real dangers to Americans everywhere.

The Health and Location Data Protection Act would:

The legislation is endorsed by a wide range of data and sexual privacy experts, including experts from Duke University, University of Virginia, and Washington University in St. Louis.

Health and location data are incredibly sensitive and can be used for a range of harms, from profiling and exploiting consumers to spying on citizens without warrants to carrying out stalking and violence. Companies should not be allowed to freely buy and sell Americans health and location data, on the open market, with virtually no restrictions. Imposing strong legal and regulatory controls on this dangerous practice is vital to protecting the privacy of every Americanparticularly women, the LGBTQIA+ community, people of color, the poor, and other vulnerable communities, said Justin Sherman, Fellow and Research Lead, Data Brokerage Project, Duke University Sanford School of Public Policy.

This bill provides crucial protection to the privacy of our intimate lives. Our health and location information should not be sold or shared but rather treated with utmost care. It paints a detailed picture of our close relationships, health conditions, doctor visits, and other aspects of our intimate lives for which we expect and deserve privacy. This bill includes strong and clear rules against the sharing of health and location data and civil penalties and injunctive relief to back them up, said Danielle Citron, Jefferson Scholars Foundation Schenck Distinguished Professor in Law and Caddell and Chapman Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law & Vice President, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative.

I am happy to endorse Senator Warrens Health and Location Data Protection Act, said Neil Richards, Koch Distinguished Professor in Law and Director of the Cordell Institute, Washington University in St. Louis. For far too long, shadowy networks of data brokers have engaged in an unregulated and unethical trade in our sensitive data for their own profit. This bill would offer significant protections for everyone in our society at a time when the privacy of our health and our location data is becoming ever-more important to our ability to live our lives without fear of betrayal, manipulation, or coercion. The HLDPA would be a significant step in restoring the balance of power between humans and the corporations who trade in their data for profit.

By sharing peoples sensitive and personal information, data brokers fuel harmful surveillance and endanger the most vulnerable members of our society. The Health and Location Data Protection Act would finally begin to rein in these invasive business practices, offering people long-overdue protection from this notoriously unregulated and reckless industry, said Thomas Kadri, Assistant Professor, University of Georgia School of Law.

This is an important bill that will protect digital privacy, and at an especially sensitive time when location data may be used to track those seeking reproductive health services after the Supreme Court decides the Dobbs case, said Elizabeth E. Joh, Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law, UC Davis School of Law.

Peoples health and location data leaves them remarkably vulnerable. It can reveal the most intimate aspects of their lives and also opens them up to pervasive tracking, harassment, wrongful discrimination, financial loss, and physical injury. Yet data brokers remain free to sell and share this data in ways that lead to harm and abuse, said Woodrow Hartzog, Professor of Law and Computer Science, Northeastern University. The Health and Location Data Act of 2022 is a desperately needed intervention that would impose substantive limits on the ability of data brokers to trade on our vulnerabilities. This bill wisely avoids ineffective notice and choice approaches and instead draws clear lines prohibiting selling and sharing of our most sensitive data. It would fill one of the largest protection gaps in U.S. privacy law.

Senator Murray has long been a leader in Congress in the fight to protect and expand access to reproductive health care and abortion rights. Since the Supreme Court agreed to hearDobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization, Senator Murray hasvowedto fight back and protectRoe v. Wadeand everyones reproductive rightsincluding bybuilding supportand fighting tohold a voteon theWomens Health Protection Act, which would protect the right to abortion nationwide. Since the leaked decision revealed that the Supreme Court was planning to overturnRoe, Senator Murray has been a leader in the Senate pushing back:immediately callingthe decision afive alarm fire,pushingfor a voteon WHPA so every Republican Senator was forced to show the American public where they stood andleadingher colleagues in the fight to protect everyones reproductive rights.

Legislative text is available here. A bill summary is available here.

###

Go here to read the rest:
Murray, Warren, Wyden, Whitehouse, Sanders Introduce Legislation to Ban Data Brokers from Selling Americans' Location Data and Health Data | The U.S....

Rep. Bennie Thompson opened his committees hearings on the Jan. 6 insurrection by discussing not just the recent memory of the Capitol riot, but something that happened over 150 years earlier: the Civil War. He was born, he said, in a town midway between Jackson and Vicksburg, Mississippiboth sites of major Union victories that helped turn the tide of the war in 1863. Im from a part of the country where people justify the actions of slavery, Ku Klux Klan, and lynching, Thompson explained. Im reminded of that dark history as I hear voices today try and justify the actions of the insurrectionists of January 6, 2021. And he pointed to the oath of office sworn by himself and his fellow committee members, and highlighted its origin story: The words of the current oath taken by all of usthat nearly every United States Government employee takeshave their roots in the Civil War.

The role of the oath, and the historical lineage behind it, has come up again and again during the select committees hearings on its investigation into the Jan. 6 riot. During the first hearing, not just Chairman Thompson but also Vice Chair Liz Cheney and Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards referenced oaths throughout the hearingemphasizing the importance of the solemn promise they made to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And in his prepared statement released before the committees third hearing on June 16, retired Judge Michael Luttig wrote, Todays politicians believe that they never have to choose between partisan party politics and country, when in fact they are obliged by oath to choose between the two every day[.] Greg Jacob, counsel to Vice President Mike Pence, likewise referenced Pences commitment to his own oath.

On one level, focus on the oath might seem strange. Why spend this time discussing the matter of the oath sworn by government officials, when every minute spent on that topic is a minute not spent talking about the lawbreaking committed by insurrectionists or the culpability of President Trump and those around him in the violence? But the references made to the oath throughout the June hearings speak directly to how the committee seems to understand the nature of its work and its responsibility to the public. In broadcasting the truth of what happened on Jan. 6, the select committee is underlining the extent to which Trump breached his own presidential oath by encouraging the attack on Congressand what this breach represented as a betrayal of the countrys democratic traditions. And the committee, made up of members of Congress who also swore an oath, is taking the opportunity to play a unique role in reflecting on the nature of the promise that government officials make to the American people.

The president is the federal governments most prominent swearer of an oath, and the presidential oath is the only one whose language is set out explicitly in the constitutional text. But as Thompson reminded viewers, the presidents pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution is not the only such oath required by that document. The Constitution also provides that members of Congressalong with state legislative officials and judicial and executive officials at both the federal and state levelsshall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. The committee portrayed the constitutional oath as the sine qua non of government service, and it put forward its own argument for what fidelity to the oath and the Constitution mean. As Cheney said at the hearings closing:

In our country, we dont swear an oath to an individual, or a political party. We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution. And that oath must mean something. Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.

The committee chair and vice chair told the story of Jan. 6 as a day of oaths upheld and broken. Oath talk aboundedThompson, Cheney, and the witnesses uttered the word almost 20 times. For Thompson, the police officers who held the line that day honored their oath, including Edwards, who objected to rioters calling her a traitor to my country, my oath, and my Constitution. Cheney hinted at then-Vice President Mike Pences oath adherence when she spoke of his higher duty to the United States Constitution, which Pences chief of staff made explicit in prerecorded testimony played at the hearing: I think [Vice President Pence] ultimately knew that his fidelity to the Constitution was his first and foremost oath. Cheney also praised Trump-appointed lawyers Jeffrey Rosen and Richard Donoghue as oath faithfuls. These men honored their oaths of office, Cheney said. They did their duty, and you will hear from them in our hearings.

As Thompson said, the oath currently sworn by members of Congress and federal law enforcement like Edwards has its origins in the Civil War. But the preeminence of oaths in American government goes back to its founding. Even before the Constitution was drafted, the Continental Congress adopted in 1778 a requirement that federal officers swear an oath of loyalty to the United States. A few years later, the framers mandated oaths in Article I, Article II, Article IV, and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. And the first Congress of the United States passed as its very first law a statute regulating the administration of oaths.

From 1789 onward, officials swore simply to support the Constitution of the United States." During the Civil War, however, Congress developed this language into the far more involved Ironclad Test Oath, committing swearers not only to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic but also to promise that they had never voluntarily borne arms against the United States or engaged in other acts of disloyalty. The oath was later revised further to make room for service by former Confederatesbut the change to the text in the midst of the fighting speaks to the importance of the oath in affirming a commitment to certain core principles undergirding the nation. Likewise, Congress reaffirmed the sanctity of oaths through the passage of the 14th Amendment, which, in Section 3, bars from holding office any individual who had previously sworn an oath to support the Constitution but then engaged in insurrection or rebellion.

Perhaps the most well-known commentary on the oath comes from Justice Joseph Story, who wrote in Commentaries on the Constitution that oaths have a solemn obligation upon the minds of all reflecting mena proposition that he considered too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it. The necessity of the oath, according to Story, comes from the plain right of society to require some guaranty [sic] from every officer, that he will be conscientious in the discharge of his duty. Writing over a century later, Chief Justice William Rehnquist similarly argued that the Constitutions oath requirement aims to assure that those in positions of public trust [are] willing to commit themselves to live by the constitutional processes of our system.

Oaths are solemn, ceremonialized promises tied to institutions and made before witnesses. In that sense, they are political statements. But oaths, as Storys and Rehnquists words suggest, are more than that. To make an oath is to swear not only to do what one has promised to do, but to do ones part to ensure that oaths carry a moral weight that surpasses all other promises.

For this reason, the Jan. 6 committees emphasis on oaths actedsometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitlyas a rebuke of Trump. As one of us has written, the former presidents self-regard and strained relationship with reality arguably makes him a person incapable of understanding or shouldering the moral weight required by the oath. Its telling that, when he spoke at the Ellipse on Jan. 6, Trump rhetorically embraced the Constitution before suggesting that it wasnt binding after all. At first, he referred to the Constitution that he had sworn to protect and defend again and again: Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us, and if he doesnt, that will be a sad day for our country because youre sworn to uphold our Constitution, he said. Were supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution, he added. But near the end of his speech, he effectively conceded that he is willing to dispense with the Constitution when, in his judgment, something has gone wrong: When you catch somebody in a fraud, youre allowed to go by very different rules.

In the first hearing, Cheney contrasted loyalty to the Constitution with the fealty Trump demanded to himself alone when she commented that, In this country, we dont swear an oath to an individual or a political party. We take our oath to defend the United States Constitution. The argument the committee is making here is not just that those opposing the big lie and battling the insurrection honored their oaths; its that Trump, and those who supported him, betrayed those promises. Or perhaps they were incapable of swearing them honestly in the first place.

Trump was not the only person involved in the attack on Congress who swore an oath. According to the latest count from the George Washington University Program on Extremism, 101 of the rioters so far charged by the Justice Department had military experience, meaning they swore a similar oath. Some of these were members of the perversely named Oath Keepers, one of the two extremist groups frequently mentioned throughout the first Jan. 6 hearing. Founded in 2009, the Oath Keepers actively recruit current and former members of the military, law enforcement, and other public safety positions to defend their extremist interpretation of the Constitution.

In a sense, the committee is presenting its own understanding of the oath as historically and morally rooted in a way that Trumps shallow invocation of the Constitutionand the Oath Keepers violent vision of governanceis not. And as members of Congress, the investigators are uniquely positioned to weigh in on that meaning. Or as Thompson put it of the committee members:

All of us have one thing in common. We swore the same oath, that same oath that all members of Congress take upon taking office and, afterwards, every two years if they are reelected. We swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

They believe themselves to be acting in service of their oath by conducting this investigation. As Thompson put it: I come before you not as a Democrat, but as an American who swore an oath to defend the Constitution. And in their argument, they, not Trump and not the Oath Keepers, are the true guardians of the oaths significance.

Understanding this helps untangle the main questions at the heart of the committees investigation: What is its aim? What would success look like? When these hearings end or when a report is released, there will be no formal pronouncement; Congress already failed to impeach Trump, and there is no jury to deliver a verdict. Besides, the committee has not defined its intended audience beyond vague and predictable references to the American people. Who is it trying to convince, and of what?

Some commentators have argued the committees work is primarily about marshaling the facts and telling the story, with an eye toward creating a historical record. More of them, though, are focused on how the committees work may translate into a criminal case that could be referred to the Justice Department for prosecution. This view implies that the committees investigation will have failed if, at the end of the day, it does not provide enough evidence or build a strong enough case to result in the indictment of Donald Trump.

But Thompsons and Cheneys repeated invocations of oaths suggests that the committee has a differentor at least an additionalpurpose. The first branch of government, after all, is neither a judicial power nor a body meant to take care that the laws be faithfully executed through criminal prosecution. And that is precisely why the committee can use the oath to frame its inquiry. An oath is not justiciable. The FBI cannot investigate adherence to oaths because they are not enforceable as codified law. A prosecutor cannot establish that an oath has been broken by proving certain legal elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and a judge cannot adjudicate it.

What the committee can do, though, is make a public case for Trumps having broken his oath of office and his manifest inability to swear that oath honestlyin other words, for the inconsistency of his actions on Jan. 6 with the Constitution, and for his unfitness to hold positions of public trust. It is not only an effort to prove the supremacy of their own interpretation of the oath or the Constitution it promises to support, but a plea to restore the sanctity of oaths in general. As Cheney said, [O]ur oath to defend the Constitution ... must mean something.

Just as the law lacks legitimacy unless those who make, enforce, and interpret it share a genuine commitment to treat it seriously, so too does an oath lack sanctity unless those who violate it are held to account. The committees emphasis is as much a referendum on Trumps fidelity to the constitutional oath as it is a commentary on the broader importance of oaths to the United States national identity as a country governed by the rule of law. To the committee, it seems the very future of the Republic depends in part on the oathif its leaders can keep it.

Read the original here:
The Jan. 6th Committee on Why Oaths Matter - Lawfare

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

As previously disclosed, on October 25, 2019, Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc.(the "Company"), R. L. Drake Holdings, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of theCompany, Blonder Tongue Far East, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Companyand MidCap Business Credit LLC ("MidCap") entered into a Loan and SecurityAgreement (All Assets) (the "Original Agreement"), which was subsequentlyamended by a Consent and Amendment to Loan Agreement and Loan Documents dated asof April 7, 2020 (the "First Amendment"), a Second Amendment to Loan Agreementdated as of January 8, 2021 (the "Second Amendment"), a Third Amendment to LoanAgreement dated as of June 14, 2021 (the "Third Amendment"), a Fourth Amendmentto Loan Agreement dated as of July 30, 2021 (the "Fourth Amendment"), a FifthAmendment to Loan Agreement dated as of August 26, 2021 (the "Fifth Amendment"),a Sixth Amendment to Loan Agreement dated as of December 16, 2021 (the "SixthAmendment," a Seventh Amendment to Loan Agreement dated as of February 11, 2022(the "Seventh Amendment"), an Eighth Amendment to Loan Agreement dated as ofMarch 3, 2022 (the "Eighth Amendment"), a Ninth Amendment to Loan Agreementdated as of April 5, 2022 (the "Ninth Amendment") and a Tenth Amendment to LoanAgreement dated as of May 5, 2022 (the "Tenth Amendment") and together with theOriginal Agreement, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the ThirdAmendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, theSeventh Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment and the TenthAmendment, (the "Loan Agreement").

The parties have entered into an Eleventh Amendment to Loan Agreement, dated asof June 14, 2022 ("Eleventh Amendment"), to, among other things, (i) modify theLoan Agreement's definition of "Borrowing Base" to extend the Company's WIPadvance and the amortization of the Company's overadvance facility until July 1,2022, and (ii) delete in its entirety from the Loan Agreement the Company'sminimum EBITDA covenant. All other substantive terms of the Loan Agreementcontinue in full force and effect.

The foregoing summary of the Eleventh Amendment is not complete and is qualifiedin its entirety by reference to the full text of the Eleventh Amendment, whichis attached as Exhibit 10.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K and isincorporated herein by reference. In addition, the Original Agreement isattached as an exhibit to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 30,2019, the First Amendment is attached as an exhibit to our Current Report onForm 8-K filed on April 9, 2020, the Second Amendment is attached as an exhibitto our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on January 11, 2021, the Third Amendmentis attached as an exhibit to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 15,2021 the Fourth Amendment is attached as an exhibit to our Current Report onForm 8-K filed on August 2, 2021, the Fifth Amendment is attached as an exhibitto our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on August 30, 2021, the Sixth Amendmentis attached as an exhibit to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on December17, 2021, the Seventh Amendment is attached as an exhibit to our Current Reporton Form 8-K filed on February 15, 2022, the Eighth Amendment is attached as anexhibit to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 4, 2022, the NinthAmendment is attached as an exhibit to our Current Report on Form 8-K filed onApril 8, 2022 and the Tenth Amendment is attached as an exhibit to our CurrentReport on Form 8-K filed on May 5, 2022. We encourage you to read each of theOriginal Agreement, the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the ThirdAmendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, theSeventh Amendment, the Eighth Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, the TenthAmendment and the Eleventh Amendment in its entirety.

Item 2.03 Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an

The information contained in Item 1.01 above with respect to the EleventhAmendment is hereby incorporated by reference into this Item 2.03. Upon adefault under the Loan Agreement, as amended, including the non-payment ofprincipal or interest, the obligations of the borrower may be accelerated andMidCap may pursue its rights under the Loan Agreement, as amended, and therelated pledge agreement, security agreement and guaranty agreement, and underthe Uniform Commercial Code and/or any other applicable law or in equity.

Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits

(d) Exhibits. The following exhibits are filed herewith:

Edgar Online, source Glimpses

Read the original post:
BLONDER TONGUE LABORATORIES INC : Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement, Creation of a Direct Financial Obligation or an Obligation under an...