President Tamás Sulyok has signed the 17th amendment to Hungary’s Fundamental Law, which will end his presidential term the day after its publication. Sulyok stated that his decision stems from a deep respect for law, acknowledging that the amendment, despite his constitutional concerns, was passed through a lawful parliamentary procedure, leaving him with no legal recourse to challenge it. He believes this action diminishes the presidency’s role as a check and balance, signaling a shift away from the democratic rule of law. The amendment also includes provisions such as a 12-year term limit for Members of Parliament and the reinstatement of the retirement age for Constitutional Court judges, while Sulyok’s departure prompts the need for a new presidential election within thirty days.
Read More
The U.S. Justice Department has initiated a significant legal challenge, filing a lawsuit against both Virginia and California, along with their respective state police forces. This action stems from laws enacted in these states that the Justice Department contends unconstitutionally prohibit the purchase and sale of common semi-automatic rifles. The department views these state-level prohibitions as a direct affront to established constitutional principles regarding the right to bear arms, sparking a nationwide discussion about the scope and limitations of such rights.
It’s natural to wonder why these particular states are being targeted when other jurisdictions also have similar gun control measures in place.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court has definitively upheld birthright citizenship, ruling in a 6-3 decision that the Constitution automatically grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment’s language, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens,” was intentionally broad. This ruling directly refutes the executive order that sought to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants or those on temporary visas, reinforcing a legal precedent stretching back over a century, exemplified by the landmark Wong Kim Ark case. The Court concluded that the Founders intended to confer citizenship upon children born within the nation’s borders, irrespective of their parents’ immigration status, with the exception of children of foreign diplomats.
Read More
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship on constitutional grounds, rebuking an executive order that sought to deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who had entered the country illegally or held temporary visas. The Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s clause stating “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” to mean that all individuals born on U.S. soil are automatically granted citizenship, with very few exceptions. This decision reinforces a legal norm that has been in place for approximately 160 years, referencing the landmark Wong Kim Ark case and subsequent codifications of this principle.
Read More
As the Supreme Court nears the end of its term, several significant decisions are anticipated, potentially altering the scope of presidential authority, particularly concerning actions taken by Donald Trump. These rulings, expected by early July, address critical issues such as immigration policy, the structure of federal agencies, and election regulations, with outcomes that could significantly influence the political landscape. The court is examining the limits of executive power, including attempts to remove leaders of independent agencies and challenges to birthright citizenship. Additionally, rulings are pending on election rules, the participation of transgender athletes in sports, and the use of geofence warrants in investigations, all carrying substantial implications for individual rights and governmental practices.
Read More
The idea of revoking the 17th Amendment, which established the direct election of U.S. senators by popular vote, is gaining traction among a segment of Republican lawmakers, and Representative Scott Perry has joined this push. At its core, this movement seeks to return the power to choose senators to state legislatures, effectively stripping individual voters of their direct voice in selecting these federal representatives.
Proponents of repealing the 17th Amendment argue that it would restore a supposed constitutional balance and protect state sovereignty. Their reasoning often centers on the notion that senators are meant to represent their states, and therefore, the states themselves, through their legislative bodies, should be the ones to select them.… Continue reading
A new legal assessment concludes that Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) is “demonstrably unconstitutional” and an attempt to ban the party could be successful. The comprehensive report, compiled over a year by legal experts, examined extensive parliamentary documents, press releases, and social media posts to support its findings. While the legal basis for a ban may exist, the report also highlights significant political dangers due to the AfD’s current popularity. Such a move would require filing a motion with the Federal Constitutional Court, a step currently lacking broad political appetite, with major parties like the CDU/CSU opposing it.
Read More
A senior White House lawyer cautioned President Trump against suspending habeas corpus protections for illegal immigrants, warning it would likely lead to a significant constitutional challenge. Internal memos revealed debates over executive power, with one lawyer detailing the historical and constitutional safeguards of habeas corpus, noting its suspension is permissible only in extreme circumstances and typically requires congressional approval. Another memo addressed the Insurrection Act, acknowledging its broad presidential authority but warning of legal challenges that could cause delays. Ultimately, neither of these drastic proposals was implemented, though the administration later pursued more aggressive detention policies that resulted in extensive litigation.
Read More
The notion that three decades on the Supreme Court is an excessively long tenure is a viewpoint that merits serious consideration, especially when examining the current state of American governance. The idea of lifetime appointments, while perhaps rooted in a desire for judicial independence, appears to be contributing to a stagnation and a disconnect from contemporary societal needs and values. This lengthy service, in many opinions, allows for the entrenchment of ideologies that are no longer representative of the nation’s evolving landscape, leading to a system that feels increasingly out of touch and, frankly, broken.
There’s a palpable sense that the entire system needs an update, a sort of “operating system” overhaul for the oldest democracy on the planet.… Continue reading
During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, several of President Donald Trump’s judicial nominees demonstrated an alarming reluctance to affirm the constitutional limit on presidential terms. When directly asked to explain the 22nd Amendment and President Trump’s eligibility for a third term, nominees like John Marck expressed a need to “review the wording” or dismissed the question as hypothetical. This silence and equivocation from multiple nominees in response to questions about a fundamental constitutional provision has drawn sharp criticism from political observers and legal experts, who view it as a chilling disregard for democratic principles. The nominees’ unwillingness to acknowledge the explicit two-term limit, even after clarification, has raised concerns about their commitment to upholding the Constitution.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood