Archive for March, 2022

FIFA Will Ban Russia, Ejecting It From World Cup Qualifying – The New York Times

FIFA and UEFA decided to bar Russia only hours after the International Olympic Committee called for international sports federations to prohibit Russian athletes and teams from all global sporting events where possible. The Olympic officials said Russia had breached a commitment known as the Olympic Truce, and signed before the start of the Beijing Winter Games and scheduled to run through the Paralympics that open this week when it invaded Ukraine.

The immediate consequence of soccers ban on Russia is that it will lose its place in a four-team group for one of Europes final places for the World Cup. Poland, which was scheduled to play Russia in March in Moscow, had said flatly that it would refuse to take the field for the game, a stance it repeated after FIFA announced its initial slate of penalties on Sunday night.

Cezary Kulesza, the president of Polands soccer federation, called FIFAs initial decision not to eject Russia totally unacceptable. In a post on Twitter, he added: We are not interested in participating in this game of appearances. Our stance remains intact: Polish National Team will NOT PLAY with Russia, no matter what the name of the team is.

Sweden and the Czech Republic, the teams that could have met Russia also in Moscow if the Russians beat Poland, said that they, too, would refuse to play, even at a neutral site.

A Ukrainian city falls. Russian troops gained control of Kherson,the first city to be overcome during the war. The overtaking of Kherson is significant as it allows the Russians to control more of Ukraines southern coastline and to push west toward the city of Odessa.

The indefinite ban on Russia also extends to its club teams, meaning that Spartak Moscow, its last remaining participant in a continental competition, will no longer be able to compete in its Europa League knockout game against Germanys RB Leipzig. That match was in doubt before Mondays decision, with officials unsure how the Russian team could travel after the European Union issued a blanket ban on Russian flights into the 27-member bloc.

It remains unclear if the decision to exclude Russia will face a challenge in the courts. Russia, as well as some of its athletes, has in recent years successfully fought exclusion from other events, including the Olympic Games, by getting punishments watered down through appeals to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

The Russian Football Union, known as the R.F.U., called the ban discriminatory, and said it was considering its legal options. Such actions split the international sports community, which has always adhered to the principles of equality, mutual respect and independence from politics, the F.R.U. said. We reserve the right to challenge the decision of FIFA and UEFA in accordance with international sports law.

See the rest here:
FIFA Will Ban Russia, Ejecting It From World Cup Qualifying - The New York Times

Jamie Redknapp disagrees with Thomas Tuchel over Kepa Arrizabalaga decision in Carabao Cup final – Football.London

Former Tottenham and Liverpool player Jamie Redknapp believes Chelseas loss on penalties to the Reds should put to bed the discussion surrounding a change of goalkeepers before a shootout.

It comes as the Blues suffered an 11-10 loss in the penalty shootout at the hands of Jurgen Klopps men, after 120 minutes were unable to separate the two sides.

Towards the end of extra-time, Thomas Tuchel made the brave call to bring on Kepa Arrizabalaga, despite the performance of Edouard Mendy throughout the game.

It was a rehearsed decision from the German coach, who has made the same substitution before in the Super Cup final last summer.

Discussing the reason for that change last year, he said: "It [the substitution] was not spontaneous. We talked about it with the goalkeepers when we came and had the first cup game against Barnsley.

"So we had some statistics, we were well prepared, that Kepa is the best in percentage in saving penalties.

"The analysis guys and the goalkeeping coaches showed me, introduced me to the data, then we spoke with the players, that this can happen when we play in a knockout game, and since then they know.

The move proved costly this time though, as Kepa failed to save 11 straight penalties before blazing his own spot kick over the bar.

It was a decision that, after the game, Jamie Redknapp was against.

The pundit said on Sky Sports: I hope it puts to bed the substitutions now of putting goalkeepers on. Edouard Mendy is one of the best goalkeepers in the world and you bring on Kepa instead of him, ridiculous.

I didnt like his behaviour when the penalties were being taken and then he took one of the worst penalties youve ever seen.

I dont like it, I dont understand why you do it. You have one of the best goalkeepers in the world, he shouldve stayed in there in the first place.

It may cause Tuchel to readdress his choice in the future for such crucial matches, especially after the showing of Mendy for the majority of the match.

What this means for the Blues now is yet to be seen, though theres little time to do too much reflection, with an FA Cup tie against Luton on the horizon.

Read more:
Jamie Redknapp disagrees with Thomas Tuchel over Kepa Arrizabalaga decision in Carabao Cup final - Football.London

Eddie Hall vs Thor Bjornsson: 8 fellow strongmen offer their predictions – GIVEMESPORT

Eddie Hall is being backed by his fellow strongmen to knockout Game of Thrones star Hafthor Bjornsson when they meet next month.

The pair are set to fight on March 19 in Dubai finally settling their long-running feud. They will fight under the super-heavyweight division.

Six out of the eight from the gargantuan group that spoke to Muscle and Health believe that Hall will KO his opponent when they meet.

They think that The Beast will have too much raw power and will be able to do the job on Bjornsson. Bjornsson however already has experience in the ring and therefore could help him in the fight.

Adam Bishop, who was Britains strongest Man in 2020 said: My money would be on Eddie. While Thor has the reach and looks like a technical boxer, I think this fight is going to turn into a proper old suit-up.

Having known Eddie for a long time, I can attest for how stubborn and focused he is when he puts his mind to something. He goes all in. Hell be well prepared and gunning for this fight.

Heres what other strongest men from around the world had to say.

Nine times Canadas Strongest Man, JF Caron had to say: My money is on Eddie because hes a fighter in his mind. Thor is afraid.

Jerry Pritchett, 2017 Americas Strongest Man stated: Im with Eddie all the way! I believe hes kept more size and strength alongside his boxing training, which will pay off.

I think Eddie is just meaner and more aggressive.

Finally, Travis Ortmayer who was a strongest man competitor and now coach went on to say:

In the beginning, I wouldve said Eddie straight away, but he has given Thor so much time to get better that its pretty open. Thors starting to look pretty dangerous.

If Thor can withstand the early barrage of heaving hitting for Eddie, I think hell will. But I dont know if hes quite there yet and Eddies cardio is pretty strong. I think Eddie is going to take this.

Read more from the original source:
Eddie Hall vs Thor Bjornsson: 8 fellow strongmen offer their predictions - GIVEMESPORT

The Constitution – The White House

Navigate this Section

The need for the Constitution grew out of problems with the Articles of Confederation, which established a firm league of friendship between the States, and vested most power in a Congress of the Confederation. This power was, however, extremely limitedthe central government conducted diplomacy and made war, set weights and measures, and was the final arbiter of disputes between the States. Crucially, it could not raise any funds itself, and was entirely dependent on the States themselves for the money necessary to operate. Each State sent a delegation of between two and seven members to the Congress, and they voted as a bloc with each State getting one vote. But any decision of consequence required a unanimous vote, which led to a government that was paralyzed and ineffectual.

A movement to reform the Articles began, and invitations to attend a convention in Philadelphia to discuss changes to the Articles were sent to the State legislatures in 1787. In May of that year, delegates from 12 of the 13 States (Rhode Island sent no representatives) convened in Philadelphia to begin the work of redesigning government. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention quickly began work on drafting a new Constitution for the United States.

A chief aim of the Constitution as drafted by the Convention was to create a government with enough power to act on a national level, but without so much power that fundamental rights would be at risk. One way that this was accomplished was to separate the power of government into three branches, and then to include checks and balances on those powers to assure that no one branch of government gained supremacy. This concern arose largely out of the experience that the delegates had with the King of England and his powerful Parliament. The powers of each branch are enumerated in the Constitution, with powers not assigned to them reserved to the States.

Much of the debate, which was conducted in secret to ensure that delegates spoke their minds, focused on the form that the new legislature would take. Two plans competed to become the new government: the Virginia Plan, which apportioned representation based on the population of each State, and the New Jersey plan, which gave each State an equal vote in Congress. The Virginia Plan was supported by the larger States, and the New Jersey plan preferred by the smaller. In the end, they settled on the Great Compromise (sometimes called the Connecticut Compromise), in which the House of Representatives would represent the people as apportioned by population; the Senate would represent the States apportioned equally; and the President would be elected by the Electoral College. The plan also called for an independent judiciary.

The founders also took pains to establish the relationship between the States. States are required to give full faith and credit to the laws, records, contracts, and judicial proceedings of the other States, although Congress may regulate the manner in which the States share records, and define the scope of this clause. States are barred from discriminating against citizens of other States in any way, and cannot enact tariffs against one another. States must also extradite those accused of crimes to other States for trial.

The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. In order to prevent arbitrary changes, the process for making amendments is quite onerous. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. In modern times, amendments have traditionally specified a time frame in which this must be accomplished, usually a period of several years. Additionally, the Constitution specifies that no amendment can deny a State equal representation in the Senate without that States consent.

With the details and language of the Constitution decided, the Convention got down to the work of actually setting the Constitution to paper. It is written in the hand of a delegate from Pennsylvania, Gouverneur Morris, whose job allowed him some reign over the actual punctuation of a few clauses in the Constitution. He is also credited with the famous preamble, quoted at the top of this page. On September 17, 1787, 39 of the 55 delegates signed the new document, with many of those who refused to sign objecting to the lack of a bill of rights. At least one delegate refused to sign because the Constitution codified and protected slavery and the slave trade.

The process set out in the Constitution for its ratification provided for much popular debate in the States. The Constitution would take effect once it had been ratified by nine of the thirteen State legislatures; unanimity was not required. During the debate over the Constitution, two factions emerged: the Federalists, who supported adoption, and the Anti-Federalists, who opposed it.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay set out an eloquent defense of the new Constitution in what came to be called the Federalist Papers. Published anonymously in the newspapers The Independent Journal and The New York Packet under the name Publius between October 1787 and August 1788, the 85 articles that comprise the Federalist Papers remain to this day an invaluable resource for understanding some of the framers intentions for the Constitution. The most famous of the articles are No. 10, which warns of the dangers of factions and advocates a large republic, and No. 51, which explains the structure of the Constitution, its checks and balances, and how it protects the rights of the people.

The States proceeded to begin ratification, with some debating more intensely than others. Delaware was the first State to ratify, on December 7, 1787. After New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify, on June 22, 1788, the Confederation Congress established March 9, 1789 as the date to begin operating under the Constitution. By this time, all the States except North Carolina and Rhode Island had ratifiedthe Ocean State was the last to ratify on May 29, 1790.

One of the principal points of contention between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the lack of an enumeration of basic civil rights in the Constitution. Many Federalists argued, as in Federalist No. 84, that the people surrendered no rights in adopting the Constitution. In several States, however, the ratification debate in some States hinged on the adoption of a bill of rights. The solution was known as the Massachusetts Compromise, in which four States ratified the Constitution but at the same time sent recommendations for amendments to the Congress.

James Madison introduced 12 amendments to the First Congress in 1789. Ten of these would go on to become what we now consider to be the Bill of Rights. One was never passed, while another dealing with Congressional salaries was not ratified until 1992, when it became the 27th Amendment. Based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the writings of the Enlightenment, and the rights defined in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights contains rights that many today consider to be fundamental to America.

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

The Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes, a major grievance during the American Revolution.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, and such warrants must be issued by a judge and based on probable cause.

The Fifth Amendment provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.

The Sixth Amendment assures the right to a speedy trial by a jury of ones peers, to be informed of the crimes with which one is charged, and to confront the witnesses brought forward by the government. The amendment also provides the accused the right to compel testimony from witnesses, as well as the right to legal representation.

The Seventh Amendment provides that civil cases preserve the right to trial by jury.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.

The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the States, to either the States or to the people.

Learn more about the Constitution

Here is the original post:
The Constitution - The White House

New York AG’s Effort to Shutter NRA Rejected Over First Amendment Rights – Newsweek

A New York judge blocked the state's attorney general from trying to put the National Rifle Association out of business but will allow a lawsuit accusing top executives of misusing funds to proceed.

Manhattan Judge Joel M. Cohen expressed concerns that shutting down the NRA could infringe on the First Amendment rights of its millions of members. However, the lawsuit regarding allegedly misused funds can continue, but it does not warrant the "corporate death penalty" sought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, the Associated Press reported.

"The complaint does not allege that any financial misconduct benefited the NRA, or that the NRA exists primarily to carry out such activity, or that the NRA is incapable of continuing its legitimate activities on behalf of its millions of members," the judge wrote in his opinion.

In August 2020, James filed a lawsuit to shut down the NRA alleging three top executives and CEO Wayne LaPierre diverted tens of millions of dollars in funds to use for personal use, violating the charity law. The lawsuit alleges LaPierre used the nonprofit's money to fly on private jets, hire car services, pay for travel consultants and personal security, and that he spent more than $500,000 for several trips to the Bahamas with his family, the AP added.

The lawsuit alleges that LaPierre "exploited the organization for his financial benefit, and the benefit of a close circle of NRA staff, board members and vendors." The suit claims NRA senior executives "regularly ignored, overrode or otherwise violated the bylaws and internal policies and procedures that they were charged with enforcing" in order to divert assets, Vox reported.

The CEO is also accused of setting up a $17 million post-employment contract for himself and accepting luxury gifts from vendors including African safaris and a 107-foot yacht, according to the AP.

"The court let stand all of the Office of the Attorney General's claims of self-dealing, abuse, and unlawful conduct by LaPierre, who has been at the helm of the NRA for three decades," James' office said in a statement. "Today, the court affirmed my office's right to pursue its long-standing claims that fraud, abuse, and greed permeate through the NRA and its senior leadership."

The NRA initially denied the allegations of misspending, but the group filed a tax document with the IRS stating the organization "became aware during 2019 of a significant diversion of its assets." The document also showed LaPierre reimbursed the NRA for $300,000 in travel costs, Vox reported.

However, Wednesday's ruling means the New York Attorney General's Office cannot shut down the association or seize its assets.

"This is a resounding win for the NRA, its 5 million members, and all who believe in this organization," NRA President Charles Cotton said in a statement. "The message is loud and clear: The NRA is strong and secure in its mission to protect constitutional freedom."

In 2021, the NRA declared bankruptcy and reported between $100 million and $500 million in assets and the same amount in liabilities, according to the bankruptcy documents. The organization tried to move its state of incorporation to Texas from New York, but a Texas judge blocked the move, saying the bankruptcy was not filed in good faith, the AP reported.

Update 3/2/22, 6:00 p.m. ET: This article was updated with a statement from the NRA.

Go here to see the original:
New York AG's Effort to Shutter NRA Rejected Over First Amendment Rights - Newsweek