Behind the Music: Sheryl Crow
Petula Clark Downtown. original version
The Times of India (TOI) is an Indian English-language daily newspaper owned by The Times Group. It is the fourth-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world according to Audit Bureau of Circulations (India). It is the oldest English-language newspaper in India still in circulation, with its first edition published in 1838. and the second-oldest Indian newspaper still in circulation after the Bombay Samachar. Near the beginning of the 20th century, Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India, called The Times of India “the leading paper in Asia”. In 1991, the BBC ranked The Times of India among the world’s six best newspapers.
20 August 2013 front page of the Kolkataedition of The Times of India
|Owner(s)||The Times Group|
|Publisher||Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd.|
|Founded||3 November 1838|
|Circulation||2,716,291 daily (as of Jan – Jun 2017)|
|Sister newspapers||The Economic Times
It is owned and published by Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd., which is owned by the Sahu Jain family. In the Brand Trust Report 2012 The Times of India was ranked 88th among India’s most-trusted brands. In 2017, however, the newspaper was ranked 355th.
Monday, August 6, 2018
To: Mayor Donald Hahn, Borough Manager Tom Fontaine, Solicitor Terry Williams, Esq. and the unfit members of the State College Borough Council
From: Joel Solkoff, [email protected]
7 PM: Four minute praise of Mayor Hahn, Borough Manager Tom Fontaine, and denunciation of all members of the State College Borough Council (all of whom, sadly, are Democrats).
7:30: My arrest on Beaver Avenue between Allen and Pugh
On her 90th birthday, Lilian asked if I could see what I could do about slowing down the intense traffic on Beaver Avenue which limited her ability to participate in the community of State College.
I called the Borough and spoke to one of its otherwise excellent employees who observed, “Fat chance.”
The following day, I had lunch with a high level elected official who told me the Borough cannot control the autocrats at PennDot.
Since then, I have regretted not making what is in effect a federal case. Governor Wolf, under the authority invested in you, I beg you to issue a proclamation declaring the Borough of State College a “man made disaster.”
A State of emergency exists in the Borough of State College, PA for those of us who are low-income disabled and elderly residents. We are being deprived of our rights to practice our religion, to have access to restaurants and other public accommodations, to adequate housing, to receive adequate medical and dental care, to safe housing, and to vote.
Video by Emily Hartsay
§ 7302. Temporary housing.
(a) Authority of Governor.–Whenever the Governor has proclaimed a disaster emergency under this part, or the President has declared an emergency or a major disaster to exist in this Commonwealth, the Governor is authorized:
(1) To enter into purchase, lease or other arrangements with any Federal agency for temporary housing units to be occupied by disaster victims and to make the units available to any political subdivision of this Commonwealth named as a party to the emergency or disaster declaration.
(2) To assist any political subdivision of this Commonwealth which is the locus of temporary housing for disaster victims to acquire sites necessary for such temporary housing and to do all things required to prepare such sites to receive and utilize temporary housing units by:
(i) advancing or lending funds available to the Governor from any appropriation made by the General Assembly or from any other source;
(ii) “passing through” funds made available by any agency, public or private; or
(iii) becoming a copartner with the political subdivision for the execution and performance of any temporary housing for disaster victims project;
and for such purposes to pledge the credit of the Commonwealth on such terms as the Governor deems appropriate having due regard for current debt transactions of the Commonwealth.
(3) Under such regulations as the Governor shall prescribe, to temporarily suspend or modify for not to exceed 60 days any public health, safety, zoning, transportation (within or across this Commonwealth) or other requirement of statute or regulation within this Commonwealth when by proclamation the Governor deems the suspension or modification essential to provide temporary housing for disaster victims.
A person commits the crime of treason if he levies war against his state or country or sides to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. Treason is a crime under federal and some state laws. Treason is made a high crime, punishable by death, under federal law by Article III, section 3 of the U.S. Constitution: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
Under this article of the Constitution, no person shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Treason requires overt acts such as giving sensitive government security secrets to other countries, even if such countries are not enemies. Treason can include spying on behalf of a foreign power or divulging military secrets.
The majority of states outlaw treason in their constitutions or statutes similar to those in the U.S. Constitution. There have been only two successful prosecutions for treason on the state level, that of Thomas Dorr in Rhode Island and that of John Brown in Virginia.
In English criminal law, attainder or attinctura was the metaphorical “stain” or “corruption of blood” which arose from being condemned for a serious capital crime (felony or treason). It entailed losing not only one’s life, property and hereditary titles, but typically also the right to pass them on to one’s heirs. Both men and women condemned of capital crimes could be attainted.
Attainder by confession resulted from a guilty plea at the bar before judges or before the coroner in sanctuary. Attainder by verdict resulted from conviction by jury. Attainder by process resulted from a legislative act outlawing a fugitive. The last form is obsolete in England (and prohibited in the United States), and the other forms have been abolished.
PLYMOUTH, Minn. – If President Trump needs tips for dealing with Vladimir Putin, there’s a real estate agent in Plymouth who may have some insight.
Mark Stipakov knows the Russian president from his earliest days, as an elementary school kid at School 193 in Leningrad. They spent five years together as classmates in the Soviet Union, before Stipakov switched schools at the end of sixth grade.
David Hickton, former U.S. attorney who pioneered the tactic of indicting state actors for hacking, talks with Rachel Maddow about the value of indicting nation-state adversaries even if the chances for extradition are low. » Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc
The involuntary removal of a sitting President of the United States has never occurred in our history. The only legal way such can be accomplished is by the impeachment process. This article discusses the legal standard to be properly applied by members of the U.S. House of Representatives when voting for or against Articles of Impeachment, and members of the U.S. Senate when voting whether to convict and remove from office a President of the U.S., as well as the procedure to be followed.
Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:
“The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Thus, the operative legal standard to apply to an impeachment of a sitting President is “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” There is substantial difference of opinion over the interpretation of these words.
There are essentially four schools of thought concerning the meaning of these words, although there are innumerable subsets within those four categories.
The first general school of thought is that the standard enunciated by the Constitution is subject entirely to whatever interpretation Congress collectively wishes to make:
“What, then, is an impeachable offense? The only honest answer is that an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office…” Congressman Gerald Ford, 116 Cong. Rec. H.3113-3114 (April 15, 1970).
This view has been rejected by most legal scholars because it would have the effect of having the President serve at the pleasure of Congress. However there are some, particularly in Congress, who hold this opinion.
An Indictable Crime
The second view is that the Constitutional standard makes it necessary for a President to have committed an indictable crime in order to be subject to impeachment and removal from office. This view was adopted by many Republicans during the impeachment investigation of President Richard M. Nixon. The proponents of this view point to the tone of the language of Article II § 4 itself, which seems to be speaking in criminal law terms.
There are other places in the Constitution which seem to support this interpretation, as well. For example, Article III § 2 (3)provides that “the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury.” Clearly the implication of this sentence from the Constitution is that impeachment is being treated as a criminal offense, ergo, impeachment requires a criminal offense to have been committed.
Article II § 2 (1) authorizes the President to grant pardons “for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This sentence implies that the Framers must have thought impeachment, and the acts which would support impeachment, to be criminal in nature.
In the past, England had used impeachment of the King’s ministers as a means of controlling policy (Parliament could not get rid of the King, but could get rid of his ministers who carried out acts Parliament believed to be against the best interest of the country). However, in English impeachments, once convicted that person was not only removed from office but was also punished (usually by execution).
The third approach is that an indictable crime is not required to impeach and remove a President. The proponents of this view focus on the word “misdemeanor” which did not have a specific criminal connotation to it at the time the Constitution was ratified. This interpretation is somewhat belied by details of the debate the Framers had in arriving at the specific language to be used for the impeachment standard.
Initially the standard was to be “malpractice or neglect of duty.” This was removed and replaced with “treason, bribery, or corruption.” The word “corruption” was then eliminated. On the floor during debate the suggestion was made to add the term “maladministration.” This was rejected as being too vague and the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” was adopted in its place. There are many legal scholars who believe this lesser standard is the correct one, however.
Relating to the President’s Official Duties
The fourth view is that an indictable crime is not required, but that the impeachable act or acts done by the President must in some way relate to his official duties. The bad act may or may not be a crime but it would be more serious than simply “maladministration.” This view is buttressed in part by an analysis of the entire phrase “high crimes or misdemeanors” which seems to be a term of art speaking to a political connection for the bad act or acts. In order to impeach it would not be necessary for the act to be a crime, but not all crimes would be impeachable offenses.
Some hold the opinion that Congress could pass laws by declaring what constitutes “high crimes and misdemeanors” which would, in effect, be a list of impeachable offenses. That has never happened. (Query: If Congress passed such a code of impeachable offenses, could that be applied retroactively, much as a definition, to a sitting President? Would such an application be viewed as an ex post facto law? Also, would such a statue be an attempt to amend the Constitution, without following the amendment procedure?)
How Congress Sets the Rules for Impeachment
Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.
Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.
The trial in the Senate is handled by “Managers” from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
If the President is convicted by a vote of the Senate, and removed from office, yet another grave constitutional crisis is then presented. Does the President have a right of appeal, and if so, to whom? Article I § 3 of the Constitution states:
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…”
For many years, the conventional view was that the forgoing section of the Constitution meant that the Senate was the final arbiter when it came to impeachments (at least as to Federal Judges) and that what constituted an impeachable offense would be unreviewable. See Ritter v. U.S., 84 Ct. Cl. 293 (1936) cert denied 300 U.S. 668 (1937).
However, if there is an impeachment standard (and there can be no doubt that there is as the Constitution specifically establishes one — “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors”), then it is only logical that it is possible for that standard not to be correctly followed. If such is the case, who is responsible for saying that the standard was not correctly followed? There can only be one answer — the courts. As there has never been a successful impeachment and removal of a sitting President, there is no authority “on all fours” for the proposition either way. However, there is authority which would shed some light on this complicated question.
The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that it should not review judicial impeachments, using the “political question” doctrine to sidestep the issue. Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993). In the Walter Nixon case, Judge Nixon attacked the rule of the Senate allowing a subcommittee to hear evidence, rather than the Senate as a whole, in his judicial impeachment. The opinion of the Supreme Court declined to review Judge Nixon’s case, and in dicta is not binding on future Courts.
Even though the Court was unanimous in concluding not to review Judge Nixon’s removal from office, there were multiple concurring opinions. The concurring opinion of Justice White indicates an unwillingness, on his part at least, to conclude in advance that a Presidential impeachment would be unreviewable. See Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 244. As stated by Justice White at footnote 3, page 247 of the Walter Nixon case:
“Finally, as applied to the special case of the President, the majority’s argument merely points out that, were the Senate to convict the President without any kind of trial, a Constitutional crisis might well result. It hardly follows that the Court ought to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Nor does it follow that, in cases of Presidential impeachment, the Justices ought to abandon their constitutional responsibilities because the Senate has precipitated a crisis.”
This view is echoed by Justice Souter in his concurring opinion in the same case:
“If the Senate were to act in a manner seriously threatening the integrity of its results…judicial interference might well be appropriate.” Walter Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. at 253.
This article was written by Ronald Arthur Lowry.
IE. Hearings begin
“Say ahhh. I’m going to pull nine teeth. This is going to hurt a lot.”
Monday, I have an appointment with oral surgeon Stephen L. Engroff, MD, DDS, all around good guy at Tri-County Oral Facial Surgeons, a convent short scooter ride away.
Please think of this as a donation opportunity
If you have to have a tooth pulled (I have) or root canal work (I have) TriCounty is the place to go.
[Too longer for a t-shirt or a bumper sticker.]
My fine dentist Harvey Israel recently revised his prediction. Initially, he thought Medicare would only pay for it if I stayed in the hospital overnight and had all nine teeth removed at once. Perhaps, Dr. Engroff can arranged to have four teeth pulled, then another four teeth, then three more.
My motto:”I do not embrace dental pain. Dental pain embraces me.”
Thepulling begins the second week in April immediately following my granddaughter’s first birthday party.
In keeping with International Holocaust Remembrance Day, today and tomorrow, I am hereby posting a review of Robert Briscoe‘s book, published on Amazon.com. The book is entitled, For the Life of Me and was recommended to me by Briscoe’s son Benjamin, who succeeded his father as Lord Mayor of Dublin. My review of For the Life of Me discusses the work my father, Isadore Solkoff did to try to prevent the Holocaust.
For the Life of Me
This autobiography by Robert Briscoe Zionist and Irish revolutionary who became the first Jewish Lord Mayor of Dublin is a terrific read. The following provides background on Briscoe’s Zionist activates, described in a heartbreaking chapter on Briscoe’s attempt to encourage Polish Jews to leave the country before they were killed.
Briscoe was a friend of my father Isadore Solkoff. Briscoe attended a seder at the rear of my grandfather’s candy store in Jersey City in the 1930’s. Both my father and Briscoe were devoted followers of the charismatic Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940),founder of the political party that currently runs Israel.
My father arranged for Jabotinsky to speak to a packed crowd at Town Hall in New York City in March of 1935 warning of the impending Holocaust.
Briscoe introduced Jabotinsky to the early leaders of the Irish fight for independence. Before and after Jabontinsky’s death, Briscoe worked at transporting Jews from Nazi-dominated countries to Palestine.
My father introduced Briscoe to New York City Jewish organizations. Solkoff and Briscoe both collaborated with Ben Hecht to create a highly controversial full-page advertisement on the back page of the first section of The New York Times. The year was 1943. The ad was entitled, “FOR SALE TO HUMANITY, 70,000 JEWS, GUARANTEED HUMAN BEINGS AT $50 A PIECE.”
Romania had offered to let their Jewish citizens leave Romania on the condition that the Four Superpowers pay $50 for each Jewish head and agree to transport them to Palestine. The British opposed transportation to Palestine, which was under their control. The Jews who might have been saved died.
My father’s most important contribution to the effort to avert the Holocaust was a secret, private meeting he arranged between Robert Briscoe and Louis Brandeis (1856-1941) then a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Brandeis took pride in his influential role with President Franklin D. Roosevelt and in the American Jewish community. The meeting did not go well. It took place at Brandeis’ Washington home. Briscoe gave Brandeis a warning about the American Jewish community’s indifference to the plight of Jewish European refugees.
Later Briscoe reported to Solkoff the warning he gave Brandeis. “Your accomodationist stance with the British will result in millions of unnecessary Jewish deaths at the hands of the Nazis.” Briscoe continued, “The blood of those Jews will be on your hands too and that of the rest of the American Jewish community. It will be on your hands even though you do not directly commit the murders.”
An account of the interview and its critical condemnation of President Roosevelt is recorded in For the Life of Me. It was also documented in correspondence my father initiated with Justice Brandeis in which he arranged for the appointment.
— Joel Solkoff, Isadore’s son, is the author of The Politics of Food and other books.