Mediaboss Marketing

Too often is Black history and American history viewed as two distinctly different timelines when, in reality, they are deeply intertwined. Holidays like the Fourth of July have long been understood to be white-centric, but as Killer Mike cites, the first American to die during the Boston Massacre (which led to the Revolutionary War) was a Black man named Crispus Attucks.

There would be no Fourth of July without a Black man, and the fact that Crispus Attucks was the first person to die on the behalf of what would become the republic called America, Mike tells me, as we discuss why he chose to deliver his first solo track in 10 years, Run, on Independence Day. The fact that all Americans dont know that is a problem for me.

Ever since Black people arrived in this country, we have played an intrinsic role in shaping American culture, economy, and infrastructure. Killer Mike has always been an advocate for Black liberation and a promoter of Black history in and out of his music, and Run continues to paint the picture of why he believes Black people deserve to feel just as patriotic as their white counterparts on the Fourth of July. The music video for the track drives that point home, including several historical Black figures who have played integral roles in contributing to American society as we know it today. I wanted people to understand that patriotism is not exclusive to white peoplethis republic is not here simply because of white Anglo-Saxon protestants, Mike explains. You have been here every step of the way, in fact. Everyone has been here every step of the way.

Run isnt about running away from tyranny or our oppressors, instead depicting how Black people have run towards knowledge, freedom, and adversity, and faced it head-on. The track also finds Mike rapping for the first time in a decade without his Run The Jewels partner El-P by his side. The rap veteran explains that this solo venture is only a spin-off from his music in the duo, and he wanted it to sound totally different from his work in RTJ. If Run The Jewels is the X-Men, this solo song represents a storyline thats just Logan, he says.

The No I.D.-produced song opens with soothing organ chords and narration from Dave Chappelle, like a Deacon ushering in the beginning of a church service. Later, we hear a rare Young Thug feature, which comes on the heels of the massive YSL indictment that has called the protection of Black art and the criminalization of rap lyrics into question. Killer Mike spent two weeks with Thug before they laid their verses down, and he says its not right that Thug, Gunna, or YFN Lucci are being penalized for song lyrics.

I think we have a First Amendment right, and I think it should be hands-off Black art, so I support those brothers and their campaign to get a bond and get free, Mike says. Just a year ago, they were paying peoples bonds who couldnt afford bonds to get out, and I see them as community leaders and providers of jobs for a lot of people.

Run was released today, alongside a powerful music video directed by Adrian Villagomez that illustrates why we should never forget the efforts made by our ancestors to push our community forward, while also advocating for the protection of Black art. In the video, Black historical figures like Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglass, Jack Johnson, Sojourner Truth, Fannie Lou Hamer, Shirley Chissem, Tommie Smith, and John Carlos appear at different moments on the battlefield, while the main character is backed by Black folk and allies alike to defeat white supremacists. The video culminates in a portrait of the battle being observed in a museum, reflecting how Black history has always been American history.

In conversation about his first solo work in 10 years, Killer Mike spoke with Complex about the importance of knowing and understanding Black history, the reclamation of Independence Day, and if fans can expect more solo music in the future. You can watch the music video and hear the song here.

Visit link:
The Story Behind Killer Mike's New Song Run With Young Thug and Dave Chappelle - Complex

We do not condone violence, and law enforcement will and has responded to acts of violence when people do not honor their freedom to protest peacefully, but instead violate the laws of our country and the states within it, he continued.

A California man was recently arrested near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and charged with plotting to kill him.

On Saturday, several dozen masked white nationalists, some with police shields and flags, marched through Boston. Last month, people believed to be associated with the same group, Patriot Front, were arrested in Idaho near a Pride event. They were found inside a U-Haul truck containing shields and at least one smoke grenade. Last week, members of the Proud Boys disrupted a drag show in Sacramento, Calif., and allegedly threatened violence. Police intervened and the event was rescheduled.

I have said and this has been echoed by the director of the FBI that domestic violent extremism is one of the greatest terrorism-related threats that we face in the homeland today, Mayorkas said to Brennan.

When asked if funding, recruitment and membership of such groups should be considered grounds for prosecution, Mayorkas said that law enforcement only becomes involved in response to acts of violence and threats to harm people.

We, of course, protect vigorously individuals right to express themselves peacefully, the First Amendment rights, and that is something that we safeguard, but violence and threats of violence we do not condone.

See the original post:
Homeland Security chief: 'We are in a heightened threat environment' - POLITICO

In the waning hours of the 2022 summer legislative session, two of North Carolinas most conservative House members took to the floor to speak out against government overreach.

We should not have a government tracking people, said Rep. Keith Kidwell, the House deputy majority whip.

The Beaufort County Republican was not addressing privacy concerns that have been raised since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, ending the constitutional right to an abortion.

Rather Kidwell was angry about a provision tucked inside Senate Bill 201, legislation that would make a number of changes to North Carolinas motor vehicle and transportation laws.

The objectionable section would allow the state Department of Transportation to enter into agreements with the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation for the placement and use of automatic license plate reader systems within land or right-of-way owned by the DOT as part of a pilot program.

The cameras provide real-time data for law enforcement and could be useful in the case of a stolen vehicle or an Amber alert.

But Rep. Kidwell was unwavering.

Now, Ive had someone write to me and say we do not have an expectation of privacy once were outside of our home. Well, that may be true, but I do think we have an expectation of privacy that our government should not track us every place we go.

Then I hear, You dont trust your government? No. I dont to be quite honest with you, Kidwell answered. Thats one of the main reasons Im here. I dont trust my government.

Kidwell then directed the House to read the Constitution.

Pull up that Fourth Amendment and read it and see if you dont agree this is a blatant violation of that right the right to privacy.

Tracking political opponents, dissidents

Rep. Larry Pittman (R- Cabarrus Co.) joined in Kidwells opposition, calling the pilot program reprehensible.

Rep. Pittman

We hope and pray we never have government leaders in this state who want to keep tabs on political opponents, but this system would allow that, Pittman warned. I am not gonna sit still for that as long as I am here.

Pittman said while cell phones can provide tracking data and ones location, that handheld technology could easily be left at home, whereas the license plate could not legally be removed from ones car.

If there becomes a totalitarian government in this nation, this state, you should not be putting in a system by which they can track political opponents wherever they go.

I know the benefits of it. Oh, we can catch kidnappers, we catch bank robbers. You can also catch dissidents, Pittman warned his colleagues.

Fifteen Republicans joined with Pittman and Kidwell in rejecting Thursdays version of the bill. A rare 55-55 vote sent SB 201 off the floor and back to a group of conferees.

This is America in 2022?

In the upper chamber, state Senator Natasha Marcus was also thinking about privacy last week in the aftermath of the Supreme Courts opinion in Dobbs.

It pains me to think my daughters or any bodys daughters might face a problem pregnancy, an unwanted pregnancy, a not viable pregnancy and not be able to get the healthcare they need in America, said Marcus in an interview with Policy Watch.

This is America in 2022? That we are going to have forced birth?

The Mecklenburg County Democrat said it is stunning to think we are now in a place where we are not going to trust women to make the very personal choice that is best for them and their families in consultation with their doctors.

Instead, we are going to have politicians almost literally in the exam room.

She said this is a terrifying prospect for women.

For now, abortion is still legal in North Carolina. We cannot slide backwards or allow the government to block people from making our own decisions about such deeply personal matters, Sen. Marcus said.

Marcus sponsored a bill this session that would codify Roe and Casey protections.

Under that proposed legislation, the state would be prohibited from imposing any undue burden on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability.

Marcus and other progressives believe the measure is essential as Republican-controlled states quickly begin to ban or severely restrict abortion access.

Another unsettled issue being debated is whether women might be punished for traveling out of state to get an abortion.

Senate Bill 888 was sent to the Rules committee in late May. It was never given another hearing.

A different ending in the House

But what of Senate Bill 201, the transportation bill that raised concerns because the pilot license plate readers might track motorists?

Reps. Kidwell and Pittman won their push for privacy.

The 13-page bill became a 12-page bill in a matter of hours; the section was removed entirely.

The House passed the conference committee substitute for SB 201 unanimously last Friday.

Follow this link:
"Privacy" concerns, "government overreach" take center stage in the final days of NC's legislative session | The Pulse - The...

It sounds like the start of a bad knock-knock joke: A bed and breakfast owner and a federal agent run into each other at an inn on the northern border. But what happened next is far from humorous.

Robert Boule, the owner of Smugglers Inn on the Canadian-US border in Washington, sued a US Border Patrol agent for violating his Fourth Amendment right by entering his home and using excessive force against him. Boule alleged the border agent pushed him to the ground during a dispute and then retaliated by reporting him to the IRS after he complained to the agents supervisors.

The US Supreme Court ruled against Boule on June 8, holding that his case did not fall under the 1971 precedent Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents. In its ruling, SCOTUS effectively concluded that federal courts no longer have the right to decide on border police liability, but instead should defer to Congress.

Without congressional action, federal agents may no longer be liable for their actions, no matter how violent. Why? The doctrine of qualified immunity for law enforcement.

As a former public defender and now executive director and co-founder of Partners for Justice, a nonprofit that works to help low-income Americans navigate the legal system by bolstering public defense resources, I have seen first hand the consequences of law enforcement behaving as if they are the law. A child assaulted by a school cop while the schools video surveillance mysteriously cut out. A young man having his face driven by a police officer into the street for carrying a screwdriver.

The police violence that we hear about in the news is occasionalthe police violence that communities of color endure every day is not. It is constant, lethal, and uniquely American.

In no other field are professionals shielded from the worst consequences of their occupational mishaps. If a doctor botches a procedure, they are liable for malpractice. If I, as a lawyer, fail to investigate my clients claims, I could lose my license and be subject to liability. But if police (and now federal agents) use excessive force, they are largely shielded from any public recourse.

Imagine the shock and outrage that would erupt if nurses killed 1,055 civilians in one yearthe number of civilians killed by law enforcement in the U.S. in 2020. Yetdespite the crescendo of voices arguing against qualified immunity after George Floyds murder in 2020our courts persist in creating a consequence-free zone for some of our nations most lethal professionals.

Law enforcement is no longer an emergency response mechanism, but more of an omnipresent, all-purpose force, summoned for everything from excessive noise to mental health crises to school misbehavior. This puts the public at much greater risk from the policewho are everywhere, doing everything, including things they are not trained (social work, mental health, etc.)

Unfortunately when brute force and imprisoning people in desolate locked spaces are the main tools for carrying out cops jobs, the outcome is (predictably) more harm.

The smartest pro-safety solution would be for legislatures to invest in communities needs that foster safety, such as housing, access to medical care or building out public defense as a broader resource to aid people whose lives are dismantled by our criminal system. But that doesnt mean we cant still push for lawmakers to take the most modest step in the right direction: ending qualified immunity.

The Boule decision isnt ideologically uniqueits just a depressing reminder of how expansive law enforcement immunity really is (plus a spotlight on the horror that is our Constitution-free border zone). The Supreme Court has continually kicked rulings on qualified immunity to the legislature, building precedents for protecting law enforcement at the expense of the American people (with a pair of such rulings just last year in City of Tahlequah v. Bond and Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna.)

In a world where Democrats control the Senate only on paper and fact-free crime hysteria is on the rise, its easy to feel SCOTUSs abandonment of the individual is the end of the road. But in fact, there may still be hope.

While we wait for Congress to break the Washington deadlock, there are other system actors who can hold police accountable in court and play important rolesprosecutors and public defenders.

Prosecutors can use do-not-call lists, which are lists of police officers to no longer call to testify in court because those officers arent credible witnesses. This disengages bad cops from courthouse power.

Meanwhile, public defenders can also help. They serve around 80% of accused people and stand as a last bulwark between ordinary people and law enforcement overreach. Public defenders also are often the only legal-system actors present and able to help at moments of peak crisis.

And some local leaders across the country are making strides, with tangible impacts. In Delaware County, Pa., for example, dynamic new leaders in the public defenders office identified the need for change, and by reimagining the role of their office, they have made it a community haven for holistic support, rather than just a space for legal counsel.

Unfortunately, public defender offices continue to be chronically underfunded at all levels of government. For example, the latest numbers show that California recently proposed budgeting 82% more resources to prosecutors than public defendersand this was in a progressive stronghold.

Until our elected officials realize that the shamelessness of American policing is a fertile source of common ground, those of us in the courthouse will have to do our best to repair the irreparable harm of American law enforcement.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines

Emily Galvin Almanza is the co-founder and executive director of nonprofit Partners for Justice. Previously, she worked as a public defender in California and New York.

Read the original post:
Congress Needs to Fix Qualified ImmunityHere's Why - Bloomberg Law

During the quarter-century year career on the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen Breyer constantly cultivated two judicial virtues now increasingly absent from the federal bench. The first is a careful, empirical cast of mind, constantly alive to the lived experience of litigants, institutions, and the world. The second is a humility about the limits of his own knowledge. These led him as a profound respect for other, more democratic bodies such as Congress, federal agencies. and state legislatures. Under their sway, Breyer vindicated Our Democratic Constitution as finely as anyone else to grace the high court bench.

Unlike the approaches favored by other Justices, Breyers brand of well-tempered empiricism forced him to be candid about what informed his judgment. It avoided simplistic fallaciespeddled hard under the originalist labelto the effect that constitutional law at the high court can avoid normative judgments: The text of the Constitution is too majestically general, and too capacious for it to be otherwise. By bringing to light the laws real justifications, and amplifying the space for democratic choice, his work embodied real judicial restraintand a real commitment to the founding American value of lived democratic choice.

Justice Breyers opinions are characterized by detailed consideration of the many factors that legitimately bite on a legal questions, coupled with close attention to factual detail. His dissent in the New York gun case last week, as well as the careful and modulated dissent from the wrecking-ball abortion decision, show as much. His opinions are often accompanied by voluminous appendices, listing in exhaustive detail the facts behind a specific point.

Sometimes, this exacting attention to the world drove Breyer to progressive conclusions. In a 2015 dissenting opinion, for example, he painted a comprehensive empirical portrait of a capricious, oft-lawless, and racially tainted capital justice system. His relentless and powerful catalog of racialized caprice and malice should lay to rest any thought that the American death penalty can avoid being cruel and unusual in violation of the Eighth Amendment, let alone even-handed across the color line.

In a more centrist vein, he penned in 2006 a sweeping rebuttal of the Courts decision to invalidate race-conscious efforts by schools to maintain integration. Chief Justice Robertss majority rested on a phrase of illusory simplicity: The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. In contrast, Breyer demonstrated beyond doubt that when historical patterns of racial discrimination carve up the present social world, race-blindness has the effect preserving uneven access to quality education.

Justice Breyers solicitude for the facts has not been mere code for liberal outcomes. Instead, respect for facts also led him often to conservative, even illiberal, opinions. In 2011, for example, he dissented from the Courts invalidation of a California statute banning the distribution of violent video games to young people. Canvassing alternatives to a ban, Breyer flagged serious enforcement gaps left by other technological options. In 2005, he cast the decisive vote upholding a six-foot-tall statute of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. This vote was based on his careful evaluation of the way both religious and secular citizens experienced their government in Texas. And in 2002, Breyer provided the pivotal vote in an important Fourth Amendment case about students rights against suspicionless drug testing. He upheld the practice against constitutional challenge, citing the serious national problem with drugs, and the schools decision to avoid criminal or disciplinary.

Indeed, his most recent majority opinion, issued in a religious liberty case at the beginning of May, ruled for the First Amendment claimants wanting to fly a Christian flag in Boston. By todays standards, this was a conservative outcomeyet Breyer managed to put together a coalition of both liberals and conservatives. Where he aimed to encompass diverse constitutional values, his conservative colleagues only weeks later blew past precedent to elevate the constitutional rights of the religious over those of the secular.

The clarity and rigor of Justice Breyers opinions are absent from many of his more conservative Justices recent work-products. As Professor Ryan Doerfler has recently explained, many Roberts Court opinions are an almost comical exercises in logic-chopping semantics. They are woefully lacking in attention to the actual context in which statutes are made.

Further, Breyers candor is at odds with the originalist label that several Justices proudly display. This label is paraded at a moment when critical areas of constitutional lawsuch as campaign finance, property takings, and racial equalityfloat completely free of any anchor in eighteenth-century understandings. In contrast, Justice Breyereven when you disagree with himtreats his reader as democratic equals who deserve an actual justification, not just high-handed sophistry.

The second key trait of Justice Breyers jurisprudence is respect for the ability of our democratic institutions to make their own judgmentsoften with tools far superior to courtsand to act on those conclusions. A 2007 study hence found him among the least likely judges to invalidate either federal or statute statutes. A study one year before that found him least likely to strike down a federal regulation (Scalia was at the other end of the spectrum).

Other Justices engage in democracy talktake Justice Kavanaughs comments about letting states decide on abortion. But Justice Breyer practices what he preaches. Not for him judicially created rules to the effect that agencies cant decide major questionsrecently invoked to shut down President Bidens vaccine mandate. That sort of judge-made rule can too easily be expanded and contracted, accordion-like, to fit the Justices policy preferences.

Justice Breyers career hence tees up the right questions to ask of the Court in coming weeks and months: Will it be well attuned not just to all the facts of the world (not just the convenient ones), and at the same time honor its limited empirical capacities? Will Justices work toward and support a constitutional democracyor are they a threat to that very enterprise? The Court that comes after Justice Breyers retirement has high standards to meet indeed.

More Must-Read Stories From TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com.

See the article here:
What the Supreme Court Loses With Justice Breyer's Retirement - TIME