Archiv: Parameter / Kriterien / Vorgaben / Definitionen / Leitlinien / „Definitionsmacht“ / parameters / criteria / specifications / definitions / guidelines / „power of definition“


11.01.2026 - 16:07 [ Congress of the United States of America ]

ArtI.S8.C18.7.1 Overview of Congress‘s Investigation and Oversight Powers

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:

[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Congress’s power to conduct investigations stands on equal footing with its authority to legislate and appropriate. Although the „power of inquiry“ was not expressly provided for in the Constitution, it has nonetheless been acknowledged as „an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function“ derived implicitly from Article I’s vesting of „legislative Powers“ in the Congress. This implied constitutional prerogative to gather information related to legislative activity is both critical in purpose, as Congress „cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information,“ and extensive in scope, as Congress is empowered to obtain pertinent testimony and documents through investigations into nearly any matter. Included within the scope of the power is the authority to initiate investigations, hold hearings, gather testimony or documents from witnesses, and, in situations where either a government or private party is not forthcoming, compel compliance with congressional requests through the issuance and enforcement of subpoenas.

20.12.2025 - 10:29 [ theAtlantic.com ]

‘They’re Delusional If They Think This Is Going to Go Away’

Khanna told me that he was discussing next steps with Massie and others on the oversight committee, which may include contempt of Congress or articles of impeachment for Bondi and Blanche.

“We’re exploring all options—including impeachment,” Khanna said. “They’re delusional if they think this is going to go away.”

20.12.2025 - 09:46 [ Thomas Massie ]

Unfortunately, today’s document release by @AGPamBondi and @DAGToddBlanche grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law that @realDonaldTrump signed just 30 days ago. @RepRoKhanna is correct.

(…)

20.12.2025 - 09:43 [ Ro Khanna / X ]

The DOJ’s document dump of hundreds of thousands of pages failed to comply with the law authored by @RepThomasMassie and me. One document, 119 pages of Grand Jury testimony, was completely redacted.

I explain what is missing and what the survivors and their lawyers are still expecting to be released.

20.12.2025 - 07:12 [ Congress of the United States of America ]

S.2557 – Epstein Files Transparency Act

(3) DECLASSIFICATION TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall declassify, to the maximum extent possible, any information that the Attorney General would otherwise withhold or redact as classified information under this section.

(B) UNCLASSIFIED SUMMARY.—If the Attorney General determines that information described in subparagraph (A) may not be declassified and made available in a manner that protects the national security of the United States, including methods or sources related to national security, the Attorney General shall make publicly available an unclassified summary of the information.

09.12.2025 - 09:07 [ International Court of Justice ]

OBLIGATIONS OF ISRAEL IN RELATION TO THE PRESENCE AND ACTIVITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS, OTHER INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THIRD STATES IN AND IN RELATION TO THEOCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY

(October 22, 2025)

164. The Court recalls that, on 29 November 1948, referring to General Assembly resolution 181 (II) on the future government of Palestine, Israel applied for admission to membership of the United Nations, formally declaring that it “hereby unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations” (letter dated 29 November 1948 from Israel’s Foreign Minister to the United Nations Secretary-General concerning Israel’s Application for Admission to Membership of the United Nations and Declaration Accepting Obligations under the Charter, UN doc. S/1093). On 11 May 1949, the General Assembly took note of this declaration when it admitted Israel as a Member of the United Nations (General Assembly resolution 273 (III)).

165. For the purpose of responding to the question posed by the General Assembly, the Court will not examine all the obligations that Israel has undertaken as a Member of the United Nations under the Charter with regard to the question of Palestine. It will limit its analysis to those obligations concerning the presence and activities of the United Nations, including its entities, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

(…)

223. For these reasons,

THE COURT ,

(1) Unanimously,
Finds that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested;

(2) Unanimously,
Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;

(3) Is of the opinion that the State of Israel, as an occupying Power, is required to fulfil its obligations under international humanitarian law. These obligations include the following:

(a) Unanimously,
to ensure that the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory has the essential supplies of daily life, including food, water, clothing, bedding, shelter, fuel, medical supplies and services;

(b) By ten votes to one,
to agree to and facilitate by all means at its disposal relief schemes on behalf of the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory so long as that population is inadequately supplied, as has been the case in the Gaza Strip, including relief provided by the United Nations and its entities, in particular the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, other international organizations and third States, and not to impede such relief;
IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;

(c) Unanimously,
to respect and protect all relief and medical personnel and facilities;

(d) Unanimously,
to respect the prohibition on forcible transfer and deportation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

(e) Unanimously,
to respect the right of protected persons from the Occupied Palestinian Territory who are detained by the State of Israel to be visited by the International Committee of the Red Cross; and

(f) Unanimously,
to respect the prohibition on the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare;

(4) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion that, as an occupying Power, the State of Israel has an obligation under
international human rights law to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of the population of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including through the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third States, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;

(5) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has an obligation to co-operate in good faith with the United Nations by providing every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory;
IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;

(6) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has an obligation under Article 105 of the Charter of the United Nations to ensure full respect for the privileges and immunities accorded to the United Nations, including its agencies and bodies, and its officials, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory;

IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;

(7) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has an obligation under Article II of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations to ensure full respect for the inviolability of the premises of the United Nations, including those of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, and for the immunity of the property and assets of the Organization from any form of interference;
IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde;

(8) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion that the State of Israel has an obligation under Articles V, VI and VII of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations to ensure full respect for the privileges and immunities accorded to the officials and experts on mission of the United Nations, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
IN FAVOUR: President Iwasawa; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Xue, Nolte, Charlesworth, Brant,
Gómez Robledo, Cleveland, Tladi;
AGAINST: Vice-President Sebutinde.

09.12.2025 - 08:46 [ United Nations ]

CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946

SECTION 3. The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whom soever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.

(…)

SECTION 30. All differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the present convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless in any case it is agreed by the parties to have recourse to another mode of settlement. If a difference arises between the United Nations on the one hand and a Member on the other hand, a request shall be made for an advisory opinion on any legal question involved in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the Court. The opinion given by the Court shall be accepted as decisive by the parties.

04.11.2025 - 18:57 [ United Nations ]

United Nations Security Council: PERMANENT AND NON-PERMANENT MEMBERS

The Council is composed of 15 Members:

Five permanent members: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States, and ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly (with end of term year):

– Algeria (2025)
– Denmark (2026)
– Greece (2026)
– Guyana (2025)
– Pakistan (2026)
– Panama (2026)
– Republic of Korea (2025)
– Sierra Leone (2025)
– Slovenia (2025)
– Somalia (2026)

04.11.2025 - 18:51 [ New York Times ]

U.S. Seeks Two-Year U.N. Mandate for Gaza Stabilization Force

It is not clear whether the draft would have enough support at the Security Council to be approved. Nine of the 15 members would need to vote in favor of it, and all five permanent members, including Russia and China, would have to abstain from a veto.

The draft is largely in line with Mr. Trump’s plan, which was first presented in September. It says the force would operate under the guidance of an international body known as the “Board of Peace,” and that its mandate would expire on Dec. 31, 2027. The draft suggests that date could be extended.

04.11.2025 - 18:42 [ Axios ]

Scoop: U.S. seeks UN approval for Gaza security force with broad two-year mandate

The U.S. sent several UN Security Council members a draft resolution on Monday for the establishment of an international force in Gaza for a duration of at least two years, according to a copy obtained by Axios.

04.11.2025 - 18:40 [ Reuters ]

Netanyahu says Israel will decide which foreign troops acceptable to secure Gaza ceasefire

(October 27, 2025)

„We are in control of our security, and we have also made it clear regarding international forces that Israel will determine which forces are unacceptable to us, and this is how we operate and will continue to operate,“ Netanyahu said.
„This is, of course, acceptable to the United States as well, as its most senior representatives have expressed in recent days,“ he told a session of his cabinet.

22.10.2025 - 12:30 [ United Nations ]

United Nations Charter, Chapter XIV: The International Court of Justice

Article 96

(1) The General Assembly, the Governing Council or the Security Council may request the International Renewal Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.

(2) Other organs of the Renewed United Nations and specialised agencies, which may at any time be so authorised by the Governing Council or by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

22.10.2025 - 12:25 [ United Nations ]

CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS Adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 13 February 1946

SECTION 3. The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whom soever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference, whether by executive, administrative, judicial or legislative action.

(…)

SECTION 30. All differences arising out of the interpretation or application of the present convention shall be referred to the International Court of Justice, unless in any case it is agreed by the parties to have recourse to another mode of settlement. If a difference arises between the United Nations on the one hand and a Member on the other hand, a request shall be made for an advisory opinion on any legal question involved in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the Court. The opinion given by the Court shall be accepted as decisive by the parties.

07.10.2025 - 00:18 [ Military Times ]

Trump order aims to rebrand Defense Department as Department of War

(September 5, 2025)

The order comes as some of Trump’s closest supporters on Capitol Hill proposed legislation that would codify the new name into law, with Congress having the sole power to establish, shutter and rename federal departments.

18.09.2025 - 15:44 [ Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator for Vermont ]

It Is Genocide

Hamas, a terrorist organization, began this war with its brutal attack on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 innocent people and took 250 hostages. Israel, as any other country, had a right to defend itself from Hamas.

But, over the last two years, Israel has not simply defended itself against Hamas. Instead, it has waged an all-out war against the entire Palestinian people. Many legal experts have now concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The International Association of Genocide Scholars concluded that “Israel’s policies and actions in Gaza meet the legal definition of genocide.” The Israeli human rights groups B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights-Israel have reached the same conclusion, as have international groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Just yesterday, an independent commission of experts appointed by the United Nations echoed this finding. These experts concluded that: “It is clear that there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza through acts that meet the criteria set forth in the Genocide Convention.”

I agree.

08.07.2025 - 19:18 [ UK Constitutional Law Association ]

Nour Haidar: Home Secretary vs Palestine Action: The Constitutional Implications of Widening the Legal Understanding of Terrorism

This post does not focus on assessing the substantive grounds which can be relied on to challenge the lawfulness of Yvette Cooper’s decision-making in seeking to proscribe Palestine Action. Instead, it focuses on the constitutional implications of the decision to proscribe Palestine Action. In short, I argue that the Home Secretary’s decision collapses the distinction between violence against the person and violence against property. This represents a seismic break with constitutional norms regarding how the state regulates the fundamental rights to freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of expression, and the right to freedom of assembly. The decision is a chilling example of executive power being wielded to coercively constrain personal and collective liberties in the UK.

06.07.2025 - 05:36 [ Commissioner of Human Rights / Council of Europe ]

The Commissioner asks the German authorities to uphold freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in the context of the conflict in Gaza

(June 19, 2025)

In a letter addressed to the Federal Minister of the Interior of Germany published today, Commissioner O’Flaherty raises concerns about restrictions to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly of persons protesting in the context of the conflict in Gaza, as well as about reports of excessive use of force by police against protesters, including children.

Commissioner O’Flaherty also observes restrictions on events, symbols, or other forms of expression in this context. He recalls that member states have little scope to impose restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest, in line with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe standards on freedom of expression, hate speech and hate crime. He urges the German authorities to be vigilant that the working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is not distorted, instrumentalised or misapplied to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate criticism, including of the state of Israel.

Recalling that member states have legal obligations to refrain from undue interference with human rights and to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly for all, the Commissioner asks the German authorities to avoid taking measures that discriminate against persons based on their political or other opinions, religion or belief, ethnic origin, nationality or migration status.

30.06.2025 - 22:36 [ Commissioner of Human Rights / Council of Europe ]

Mr. Alexander DOBRINDT Federal Minister of the Interior: Dear Minister ….

(June 6, 2025)

It is my understanding that since February 2025, the Berlin authorities have imposed restrictions on the use of the Arabic language and cultural symbols in the context of the protests. In some cases, such as an assembly in Berlin on 15 May 2025, marches have been restricted to stationary gatherings. Furthermore, protestors were allegedly subject to intrusive surveillance, online or in person, and arbitrary police checks. I am also concerned by reports of excessive use of force by police against protesters, including minors, sometimes leading to injuries.

(…)

I understand that restrictions have been justified on the basis that events, symbols, or other forms of expression “disrupt public order” or “disturb public peace”. The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights’ (the Court) establishes that freedom of expression “applies not only to ‘information’ and ‘ideas’ that are favourably received, regarded as inoffensive, or which leave one indifferent […] – it implies pluralism, tolerance and openness, without which there is no ‘democratic society’”. In assessing the necessity of the interference, member states have little scope to impose restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest, unless the views expressed comprise incitements to violence, and must always carry out such an assessment case by case.

I observe that other justifications invoked for the restrictions on rights include the prevention of antisemitism. I note with concern reports indicating that the working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has been interpreted by some German authorities in ways which lead to the blanket classification of criticism of Israel as antisemitic. In that regard, I urge you to be vigilant that the IHRA working definition is not distorted, instrumentalised or misapplied to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate criticism, including of the state of Israel

30.06.2025 - 22:05 [ Commissioner of Human Rights / Council of Europe ]

The Commissioner asks the German authorities to uphold freedom of expression and peaceful assembly in the context of the conflict in Gaza

(June 19, 2025)

In a letter addressed to the Federal Minister of the Interior of Germany published today, Commissioner O’Flaherty raises concerns about restrictions to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly of persons protesting in the context of the conflict in Gaza, as well as about reports of excessive use of force by police against protesters, including children.

Commissioner O’Flaherty also observes restrictions on events, symbols, or other forms of expression in this context. He recalls that member states have little scope to impose restrictions on political speech or on debate on matters of public interest, in line with the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe standards on freedom of expression, hate speech and hate crime. He urges the German authorities to be vigilant that the working definition of antisemitism of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is not distorted, instrumentalised or misapplied to stifle freedom of expression and legitimate criticism, including of the state of Israel.

Recalling that member states have legal obligations to refrain from undue interference with human rights and to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly for all, the Commissioner asks the German authorities to avoid taking measures that discriminate against persons based on their political or other opinions, religion or belief, ethnic origin, nationality or migration status.

30.06.2025 - 22:00 [ Nachdenkseiten ]

Menschenrechtskommissar des Europarates kritisiert Bundesregierung wegen Einschränkung der Meinungs- und Versammlungsfreiheit

Der Menschenrechtskommissar des Europarates, Michael O’Flaherty, hat in einem am 19. Juni veröffentlichten Brief an Bundesinnenminister Alexander Dobrindt seine Besorgnis über Einschränkungen der Meinungs- und Versammlungsfreiheit in Deutschland zum Ausdruck gebracht. Explizit verweist er in dem Schreiben auf die behördliche Repression von Protesten gegen Israels Vorgehen in Gaza sowie eine Instrumentalisierung des Antisemitismusvorwurfs, „um legitime Kritik, auch am Staat Israel, zu unterdrücken.“

18.06.2025 - 00:51 [ Constitution.Congress.gov ]

Constitution of the United States: Article I

Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

05.06.2025 - 10:50 [ Daniel Neun / Radio Utopie ]

DER TERRORKRIEG: Seine Dynamik des Schreckens

(December 13, 2015)

Das Wort „terror“ ist lateinisch und bedeutet ins Deutsche übersetzt „Schrecken“. Der vom Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, George Bush Junior, am 20. September 2001 vor dem Kongress ausgerufene weltweite und zeitlich unbegrenzte „war on terror“ ist somit in seiner Begrifflichkeit bereits aus zwei Sprachen zusammengesetzt und vielfältig übersetzbar – z.B. durch „Krieg mit Schrecken“ (entsprechend „on purpose“, „mit Absicht“).

Da Krieg aber unzweifelhaft selbst Schrecken verursacht, ergibt sich bereits in dieser Begriffsstruktur des heute vierzehnjährigen Krieges eine perpuitive, sich selbst erzeugende und multiplizierende Dynamik, in der „Schrecken gegen Schrecken“ kämpft und so alle (para)militärischen Erfolge und Misserfolge irrelevant werden, da es jedesmal den gleichen Gewinner gibt. Vergleichbar wäre dies mit einer Kreislaufbewegung in einer Art „Dynamo des Schreckens“, mit Krieg und Terror als den beiden Polen des gleichen Magneten.

Dabei kann diese Kreislaufbewegung nie zu einem Ende führen. Denn auch wenn man nun „Terror“ bzw „Terrorismus“ entsprechend der heute allgemein adaptierten Auffassung als asymmetrische Kriegführung definiert, gelangt man zur Definition des „war on terror“ als einem „Krieg gegen asymmetrische Kriegführung“, also einem „Krieg gegen Krieg“, der sogar im Falle von Niederlagen als Sieger hervorgeht, weil er gegen sich selbst geführt wird und so nie endgültig gewonnen oder verloren, sondern nur ewig weiter geführt werden kann.

In die konkrete Realität (mindestens) seit 2001 übertragen, ergibt sich die Kreislaufbewegung wie folgt: Attentate (bzw Terror / asymmetrische Kriegführung, im Hinterland oder anvisierten Zielgebiet) > Krieg (Einmarsch, Invasion, Intervention) > Attentate (Massaker in den Besatzungszonen, oder im Hinterland der kriegführenden Staaten) > Krieg (ggf. Besatzungskrieg, Drohnenkrieg, etc) > Attentate > Krieg > Attentate > Krieg > Attentate > Krieg > … usw, usw.

Auslösendes Moment bzw Trigger-Event für diesen Dynamo des Schreckens: die quasi „kinetische Energie“ der Attentate des 11. Septembers, um den ganzen Kreislauf überhaupt in Gang zu setzen.

Grundbedingung für die Aufrechterhaltung dieser Dynamik: die unbedingte Unterwerfung unter die Kriegslogik (nach Attentaten bestimmen klandestine Gruppen wie Attentäter und / oder Spione und deren Insitutionen die Realität und Tathergang. Wer widerspricht ist „Verschwörungstheoretiker“ und damit Nazi, Islamist, Spinner und / oder Sympatisant und wird nach Zugriffsmöglichkeit der jeweiligen Behörden entsprechend gesellschaftlich stigmatisiert oder physisch neutralisiert bzw unter „Überwachung“ gestellt).

06.05.2025 - 11:13 [ Bundestag ]

Grundgesetz

Artikel 63

(1) Der Bundeskanzler wird auf Vorschlag des Bundespräsidenten vom Bundestage ohne Aussprache gewählt.

(2) Gewählt ist, wer die Stimmen der Mehrheit der Mitglieder des Bundestages auf sich vereinigt. Der Gewählte ist vom Bundespräsidenten zu ernennen.

(3) Wird der Vorgeschlagene nicht gewählt, so kann der Bundestag binnen vierzehn Tagen nach dem Wahlgange mit mehr als der Hälfte seiner Mitglieder einen Bundeskanzler wählen.

(4) Kommt eine Wahl innerhalb dieser Frist nicht zustande, so findet unverzüglich ein neuer Wahlgang statt, in dem gewählt ist, wer die meisten Stimmen erhält. Vereinigt der Gewählte die Stimmen der Mehrheit der Mitglieder des Bundestages auf sich, so muß der Bundespräsident ihn binnen sieben Tagen nach der Wahl ernennen. Erreicht der Gewählte diese Mehrheit nicht, so hat der Bundespräsident binnen sieben Tagen entweder ihn zu ernennen oder den Bundestag aufzulösen.

08.04.2025 - 06:13 [ US Supreme Court ]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 24A931 DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. J. G. G., ET AL. ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

J USTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE K AGAN and J USTICE J ACKSON join, and with whom J USTICE BARRETT joins as to Parts II and III–B, dissenting.

(…)

There is, of course, no ongoing war between the United States and Venezuela.

(…)

Congress requires the President to “mak[e] public proclamation” of his intention to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. §21. President Trump did just the opposite. In what can be understood only as covert preparation to skirt both the requirements of the Act and the Constitution’s guarantee of due process, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began moving Venezuelan migrants from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers across the country to the El Valle Detention Facility in South Texas before the President had even signed the Proclamation. ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ 2025 WL 890401, *3 (D DC, Mar. 24, 2025). The transferred detainees, most of whom denied past or present affiliation with any gang, did not know the reason for their transfer until the evening of Friday, March 14, when they were apparently “pulled from their cells and told that they would be deported the next day to an unknown destination.”

B

Suspecting that the President had covertly signed a Proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act, several lawyers anticipated their clients’ imminent deportation and filed a putative class action in the District of Columbia. App. to Brief in Opposition To Application To Vacate 9a (App. to BIO). They contested that Tren de Aragua had committed or attempted the kind of “ ‘invasion’ ” or “ ‘predatory incursion’ ” required to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. Ibid. They also asserted that it would violate the Due Process Clause to deport their clients before they had any chance to challenge the Government’s allegations of gang membership. Id., at 26a. The plaintiffs did not seek release from custody, but asked the court only to restrain the Government’s planned deportations under the Proclamation. Id., at 9a, 29a.

In the early morning of March 15, the District Court informed the Government of the lawsuit and scheduled an emergency hearing. Despite knowing of plaintiffs’ claim
that it would be unlawful to remove them under the Proclamation, the Government ushered the named plaintiffs onto planes along with dozens of other detainees, all without any opportunity to contact their lawyers, much less notice or opportunity to be heard.

08.04.2025 - 05:57 [ ScotusBlog.com ]

Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a 17-page dissent joined in full by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson and in part by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. She contended that her colleagues’ “decision to intervene in this litigation is as inexplicable as it is dangerous.”

Jackson wrote her own two-page dissent in which she lamented that the majority’s “fly-by-night approach to the work of the Supreme Court is not only misguided. It is also dangerous.”

The 1798 law at the center of the case is the Alien Enemies Act, which allows the president to detain or deport citizens of an enemy nation without a hearing or any other review by a court if either of two things occurs: Congress declares war, or there is an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.” The law has been invoked only three times – during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.

08.04.2025 - 05:40 [ Associated Press ]

Supreme Court allows Trump to deport Venezuelans under wartime law, but only after judges’ review

The court’s action appears to bar the administration from immediately resuming the flights that last month carried hundreds of migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The flights came soon after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II to justify the deportations under a presidential proclamation calling the Tren de Aragua gang an invading force.

The majority said nothing about those flights, which took off without providing the hearing the justices now say is necessary.

31.03.2025 - 12:30 [ Constitution.Congress.gov ]

Constitution of the United States: Twenty-Second Amendment

Section 1

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.

31.03.2025 - 12:20 [ New York Times ]

Trump Says He’s ‘Not Joking’ About Seeking a Third Term in Defiance of Constitution

“A lot of people want me to do it,” he said to the program’s host, Kristen Welker, about the possibility of a third term. “But we have — my thinking is, we have a long way to go. I’m focused on the current.”

Any attempt to seek a third term would run afoul of the 22nd Amendment, which begins, “No person shall be elected to the office of the president more than twice.”