Constitutional right

But it was not until late years that this nullification of the amendments was enacted into state constitutions.

This brings me to the proposition that it is mainly in the enforcement or the administration of the laws, however fair and equal they may appear on their face, that the constitutional rights of Negroes to equal protection and treatment are denied, not only in the South but in many Northern states.

There are noble exceptions, however, of high-toned honorable gentlemen on the bench as trial judges and Supreme Court justices in the South who, without regard to consequences, have stood for fairness and justice to the Negro in their courts.

With the population of the South distinctly divided into two classes, not the rich and poor, not the educated and ignorant, not the moral and immoral, but simply whites and blacks, all Negroes being generally regarded as inferior and not entitled to the same rights as any white person, it is bound to be a difficult matter to obtain fair and just results when there is any sort of conflict between the races.

The two such organizations of this character which have appealed to them are the National Afro-American League, organized in Chicago in 1890, and the National Afro-American Council, organized in Rochester, New York, out of the league in 1898.

The latter organization still exists, the strongest of its kind, but it has never commanded the sympathy and support of the masses of the people, nor is there or has there been substantial agreement and concert of effort among the thoughtful men of the race along these lines.

They have been restrained by selfish personal and petty motives, while the constitutional rights which vitalize their citizenship have been denied or abridged by legislation of certain of the states and by public opinion, even as Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

If they had been actuated by a strong pride of ancestry and of race, if they had felt that injury to one was injury to all,

Cool.

State of Wisconsin, Department of Justice, Constitutional Rights.

You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

They like it when I get a little angry.

Fifth Circuit, no constitutional right to clean water or truthful officials.

Oh, man.

This one's coming from the New American.

And so they were sued.

Jackson residents got upset and they sued the city, rightfully so.

And what does the Fifth District, the Fifth Circuit, sorry, Fifth Circuit, what do they do? They come back and say there is no constitutional right to clean water.

These individuals tried to use the 14th Amendment.

In a 10-to-5 decision, the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to clean drinking water, rejecting a lawsuit by residents of Jackson, Mississippi, over the city's contaminated water system.

The residents claimed that officials deliberately allowed lead to contaminate the drinking water, harming those who drank it and violating their constitutional right to bodily integrity under the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.

The majority was composed of all Republican appointees And the opinion by Judge Kurt Engelhardt, a Trump appointee, said that while the deprivation of clean water was grievous, it did not infringe upon any deeply rooted constitutional right.

Joining me is environmental lawyer Jennifer Novak.

Jennifer, tell us about the underlying dispute here.

And presumably, that meant they weren't really consenting to drink this contaminated water.

And that was the equivalent of forcing them to take a medicine or ingest a poison or something along those lines.

And do you think that sort of stretches constitutional rights? The court here looked for the history and tradition, and they say there's no historical tradition or Supreme Court precedent on this.

So we're fortunate to have her time in this seven weeks before the midterms.

And then our second guest is Yale Bromberg, who's a constitutional rights attorney and a leading scholar of the 26th Amendment.

She is a principal of Bromberg Law, LLC, where she focuses on democracy law and served as a special counsel and strategic advisor to the Andrew Goodman Foundation, which is a national organization that promoted voting in 25 states and 85 campuses.

She was one of the chief architects of the Youth Voting Rights Act, which is a piece of comprehensive legislation to enforce the 26th Amendment, which was introduced in Congress by Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Nakima Williams of Georgia.

It's up to the Secretary of State and he will make the decision.

But it is not off the table if it is a legal constitutional right that is enshrined in the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

It clearly states if there is a majority in favour of United Ireland, then there is a legal obligation to call a border poll.

So that cannot be off the table.

Uh, this story comes to us from Mike L. of North Carolina, and, uh, what he's calling attention to is a lawsuit filed in 2020 by the CCA of North Carolina, the Coastal Conservation Asso- Association of North Carolina, and through six years of litigation, a whole bunch of plaintiffs, including five former members of North Carolina's Marine Fisheries Commission, they were able to prove that by allowing the, the commission, by allowing North Carolina's coastal fisheries to degrade and deteriorate, the state of North Carolina violated the legal rights of North Carolinians to fish and harvest fish in the Atlantic.

These rights that they infringed on are guaranteed to them by a constitutional right to hunt and fish.

Hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife.

Exactly.

"They screwed me." And I, it, it'll just be really interesting.

I think it's generally positive.

Um, you should go vote for your constitutional right to hunt and fish, um, but who knows where it'll go.

Is it, I wonder if it's going to make it more difficult to get that, uh, you know, passed again in the future in other states, because now they're-

Mm-hmm

... then that means that Anthony would have, but for this, but for the defense team, his defense team relying on this agreement, maybe there-- he would've made a different decision and therefore he was prejudiced and his constitutional rights to testify or not testify-

Were infringed upon

... were inf- yes.

I wanna come back to constitutional rights.

Wanna come back to that.

But to your point, if we're operating under this gentleman's agreement, then that dictates how I approach the trial, my witness, my jury selection, et cetera, et cetera.

And that, there is a constitu- we all have a constitutional right that when, if we're gonna be brought in criminal court, that we are f-fairly treated in the criminal pr-process, right? Did his due process right, his, the fairness of his trial, was it fair? And that's what his attorneys are asking, right? And then was he able to get a complete defense in light of the fact that his defense team relied upon a promise that essentially they're saying the prosecution did not follow through with? Because if they are saying, "We're not gonna bring any testimony about anything happened outside of the tent," and the de-defense knows that there were some things that happened leading up to the tent that could've changed or swayed the jury's thoughts, but because we both have agreed that we're not gonna bring that in because some of that evidence is damning to both Carmelo and it's also damning to the victim, maybe then- He doesn't get a complete defense.

Section 19-5306-3 expressly provides that this right shall apply equally to the immediate families of homicide victims.

The Argument defendant couches his motion in terms of his constitutional rights to due process, to effective assistance of counsel, to an individualized sentencing determination, and to a fair trial in light of intense media coverage.

But he has not demonstrated that these rights, which must be evaluated alongside the victim's rights and the overall administration of justice, will be violated if this case proceeds as currently scheduled.

For the reasons discussed below, the court should deny the motion.

B. Defendant's purported need to conduct additional investigation is unsupported and does not establish prejudice warranting a continuance.

Defendant bases his motion on a claim of insufficient resources and the need to conduct more investigations prior to trial, but he has not yet demonstrated that he is being deprived of anything that he seeks.

Thus, defendant claims that the current state of the defense team's preparations are a matter of speculation and not the type of demonstrable reality needed to support a continuance based on the defendant's constitutional rights.

U.S. v. Darcy v.

But it was not until late years that this nullification of the amendments was enacted into state constitutions.

This brings me to the proposition that it is mainly in the enforcement or the administration of the laws, however fair and equal they may appear on their face, that the constitutional rights of Negroes to equal protection and treatment are denied, not only in the South but in many Northern states.

There are noble exceptions, however, of high-toned honorable gentlemen on the bench as trial judges and Supreme Court justices in the South who, without regard to consequences, have stood for fairness and justice to the Negro in their courts.

With the population of the South distinctly divided into two classes, not the rich and poor, not the educated and ignorant, not the moral and immoral, but simply whites and blacks, all Negroes being generally regarded as inferior and not entitled to the same rights as any white person, it is bound to be a difficult matter to obtain fair and just results when there is any sort of conflict between the races.

The two such organizations of this character which have appealed to them are the National Afro-American League, organized in Chicago in 1890, and the National Afro-American Council, organized in Rochester, New York, out of the League in 1898.

The latter organization still exists, the strongest of its kind, but it has never commanded the sympathy and support of the masses of the people, nor is there or has there been substantial agreement and concert of effort among the thoughtful men of the race along these lines.

They have been restrained by selfish personal and petty motives, while the constitutional rights which vitalize their citizenship have been denied or abridged by legislation of certain of the states and by public opinion, even as Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

If they had been actuated by a strong pride of ancestry and of race, if they had felt that injury to one was injury to all, if they had hung together instead of hanging separately, their place in the civil and political life of the republic today would not be that largely of pariahs, with none so poor as to do them honor, but that of equality of right under the law enjoyed by all other alien ethnic forces in our citizenship.