dChan
Anonymous ID: 00b43e Dec. 24, 2020, 3 p.m. No.12162284   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2323 >>2533 >>2761 >>2903 >>2908 >>2935 >>2948 >>2967 >>2968

They did it: Kushner, Pompeo, Mnuchin awarded for Middle East peace successes

 

Every administration has tried to bring peace to the Middle East, but not since the Jimmy Carter era has any of it worked until President Trump’s team tried a different approach. And now, after brokering deals to normalize relations between Israel and four Arab nations, the architects of Trump’s Abraham Accords and related peace agreements are getting America's highest award. On Wednesday, the president announced he was giving the National Security Medal to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, senior adviser Jared Kushner, national security adviser Robert O’Brien, Middle East envoy Avi Berkowitz, U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, and John Rakolta, U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. The awards highlight one of the president’s top achievements, one Kushner told Secrets was the crown jewel of the administration's foreign policy. The awards were privately made weeks ago but just announced yesterday and first reported by Reuters. They capped the efforts of the aides to seal peace agreements this year between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. Insiders said that one more nation may join the agreements before Inauguration Day. In Israel this week to highlight the agreements, Kushner said, “It turns out Jerusalem is not the cause of the problem — it is the core of the solution.” Kushner has worked with his team, especially Berkowitz, to draw up a different approach to peace based on economics. “If you look up the definition of an impossible objective in the dictionary, people say Middle East peace. It's almost a metaphor for impossibility,” he told Secrets.

 

Their ideas were mocked by former administration peace negotiators who failed. But the Trump team pushed forward. “We created something that will grow for generations and will change the dynamics of the region. Hopefully, it leads to less conflict. The more economic connectivity we can create between countries, the greater the impact on the average citizen. So I do think the Abraham Accords have fundamentally changed the course of the region and the world, and I'm very, very proud of the role that we've been able to play,” he told Secrets. In an interview with Israel Hayom published Thursday, he said, “We were the most pro-Israel administration that I can think of … but we were also the most pro-Arab/Muslim. We built trust by standing with our allies and partners. President Trump earned the trust of the people in the region, and that gave us the credibility to advance our initiatives.” Berkowitz added, "Even if my time in the administration comes to an end, I feel good about the nations coming together and getting to know one another, that new kosher restaurants will be opening in Morocco, and that this will continue even after I am no longer in the administration."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/they-did-it-kushner-pompeo-mnuchin-awarded-for-middle-east-peace-successes

https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1341952461708341248

https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/trump-gives-awards-to-top-aides-for-arab-israeli-deals-653089

https://twitter.com/Ostrov_A/status/1341815047224475648

https://www.israelhayom.com/2020/12/24/we-were-the-most-pro-israel-administration-that-i-can-think-of/

Anonymous ID: 00b43e Dec. 24, 2020, 3:16 p.m. No.12162422   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2533 >>2618 >>2761 >>2903 >>2908 >>2935 >>2948 >>2967 >>2968

Bombshell New Legal Memo Giving Trump Supporters Hope on Christmas Eve

 

Overcoming the Court’s Abdication in Texas v. Pennsylvania

William J. Olson & Patrick M. McSweeney December 24, 2020

 

In refusing to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania, the U.S. Supreme Court abdicated its constitutional duty to resolve a real and substantial controversy among states that was properly brought as an original action in that Court. As a result, the Court has come under intense criticism for having evaded the most important inter-state constitutional case brought to it in many decades, if not ever. However, even in its Order dismissing the case, the Supreme Court identified how another challenge could be brought successfully — by a different plaintiff. This paper explains that legal strategy. But first we focus on the errors made by the Supreme Court — in the hopes that they will not be made again.

 

Texas v. Pennsylvania The Supreme Court declined to hear the challenge brought by the State of Texas against four states which had refused to abide by Article II, § 1, cl. 2 — the Presidential Electors Clause, which establishes the conditions and requirements governing the election of the President of the United States. In adopting that provision, the Framers vested in each State legislature the exclusive authority to determine the manner of appointing Presidential electors. The Framers’ plan was shown to be exceedingly wise, because we have now learned that allowing other state and private actors to write the election rules led to massive election fraud in the four defendant states. Individuals can be bought, paid for and corrupted so much easier than state legislatures. In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People.

 

The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable. The Supreme Court docket consists primarily of only those cases the High Court chooses to hear. However, just like when it agrees to decide a case, and in disputes where the original jurisdiction of the Court is invoked, it has a duty to decide cases properly brought to them. Two centuries ago, Chief Justice John Marshall construed the obligation of contracts clause in a decision where he wrote: “however irksome the task may be, this is a duty from which we dare not shrink.” Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819). Courts have a duty to resolve important cases even if they would prefer to avoid them. In Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), Marshall described “the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is” because “every right, when withheld, must have a remedy, and every injury its proper redress.” Abdication in a case of this sort is not a judicial option.

 

The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court.

https://www.westernjournal.com/twj-exclusive-bombshell-new-legal-memo-giving-trump-supporters-hope-christmas-eve/