Media Search:



Consultant for Continuity in Crisis – Ensuring continuity of NCD care for crisis-affected populations in East Africa Feasibility Assessment -…

Danish Red Cross is looking for a consultant to conduct a feasibility assessment to explore the potential to integrate NCD interventions into existing interventions in Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia with a focus on areas such as disaster preparedness and response, health, resilience, mental health and psychosocial support and migrant/refugee projects.

Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), including cardiovascular diseases, cancers, respiratory diseases, diabetes and mental health conditions currently represent the fastest growing disease burden in Africa adding to the existing high burden of communicable diseases such as malaria and HIV/AIDS[1]. It is estimated that 34% of all deaths in Africa are caused by NCDs (WHO 2015). By 2030, NCDs will be the leading cause of death in Sub-Saharan Africa increasing from 28 to 46 percent of the total disease burden. In the Eastern African countries of Burundi, Rwanda, Kenya, Tanzania, South Sudan and Uganda, 40% of all deaths on average are attributable to NCDs. Most of these deaths occur when people are in the productive age, causing economic hardship to families and countries. Furthermore, every year 703 000people take their own life and there are many more people who attempt suicide. Every suicide is a tragedy that affects families, communities and entire countries and has long-lasting effects on the people left behind. Suicide occurs throughout the lifespan and was the fourth leading cause of death among 1529-year-olds globally in 2019. (WHO, 2021) In the Sub Saharan African, Cases of suicide and other Mental Health conditions have been on the rise and have become a major of grave concern.

Migrants, refugees and internally displaced people (IDP) may face additional risks as they often do lack or have limited access to basic services including health and NCD care. It is estimated that East Africa and the Great Lakes Region currently hosts more than 4.7 million refugees and asylum seekers with almost 4 million residing in Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, Kenya and South Sudan (2021).2 The region thus hosts some 67 percent of the refugees on the African continent and 20 percent of the global refugee population. The largest number come from South Sudan, with significant arrivals from Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan. Most governments have generally continued to maintain open-door asylum policies by adopting progressive national refugee frameworks and promoting the inclusion of refugees into national health, education, and social protection/security systems.

Disasters, particularly those associated with weather related hazards such as floods, storms and drought triggered 2.6 million new displacements during the year(2018). Conflict and disaster events caused by climate change in 2019 suggest that the number of displacements is likely to continue rising. Risks and vulnerabilities linked to disasters and conflict, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic-, have highlighted the importance of addressing health risks holistically while integrating comprehensive NCD care, both in humanitarian response and in efforts to strengthen health systems and reduce risks especially in contexts affected by crisis and disaster. There is an urgent need to ensure continuity of NCD care for vulnerable and marginalized crisis-affected populations without access to NCD care in Africa.

The Danish Red Cross with funding from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, plans to implement a project that seeks to replicate NCD project experiences from Kenya and integrate them into relevant NCD interventions into DRC supported programmes in the East and Horn of Africa, including Ethiopia RC (ERCS) South Sudan RC (SSRC), Sudan RC (SRCS) and Somalia RC (SRCS). The unique access and mandate of RC/RC National Societies to provide lifesaving assistance to migrant and displaced populations and health care and MHPSS in emergencies will form the basis for integration, but the specific target groups and interventions will depend on needs and opportunities in the country contexts selected.

Based on the feasibility assessment conducted, this project will support the four countries in the East and Horn of Africa in planning, designing and integrating NCD activities into ongoing DRC supported programs. This will entail providing technical support, capacity building of staff and the National Society as well as resources for implementation of pilot interventions for 1-2 years. As part of the evaluation, DRC will support the development of case studies of the pilots, which will feed into the documentation and learning objectives of the projects.

The assignment will entail compilation and desk review of existing documents and information about existing services for the target group, review of real time programme data from health facilities, and review of programme documents from Sudan Red Crescent, South Sudan Red Cross, Ethiopia Red Cross and Somalia Red Crescent on services offered so far on the ongoing Health facilities and other relevant documents. The desk review will focus on Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia health care systems and access to NCD care and MHPSS services in these Countries. More data and information will be collected from Focus group discussions, Key Informant interviews and Household/ Individual questionnaires.

We expect that you apply as a firm or as team of consultants with the following areas of Expertise: Public Health with additional training/experience in NCD management, Counselling Psychology and Social Science with additional training/experience in Migration/ population movement/displacements. The team should also have relevant knowledge about the African region. Be familiar with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement. Full proficiency in English is a requirement for this consultancy.

The consultancy is expected to take place in July and August 2022.

[1] Fighting non-communicable diseases in East Africa: assessing progress and identifying the next steps | BMJ Global Health

You can apply through this link: Rde Kors - Consultant for Continuity in Crisis - Ensuring continuity of NCD care for crisis-affected populations in East Africa Feasibility Assessment (easycruit.com)

Please reach out to Sylvia Khamati Anekha, sykma@rodekors.dk, if you need more information about the consultancy.

Application deadline is 15th July 2022.

Visit link:
Consultant for Continuity in Crisis - Ensuring continuity of NCD care for crisis-affected populations in East Africa Feasibility Assessment -...

Operation Lone Star Ramps Up Mass Migration Response Efforts In Preparation For Caravans – Office of the Texas Governor

June 17, 2022 | Austin, Texas | Press Release

Governor Greg Abbott, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), and the Texas National Guard are continuing to work together to secure the border, stop the smuggling of drugs, weapons, and people into Texas, and prevent, detect, and interdict transnational criminal behavior between ports of entry.

Since the launch of Operation Lone Star, the multi-agency effort has led to more than 263,900 migrant apprehensions and more than 16,240 criminal arrests, with more than 13,500 felony charges reported. More than 5,400 weapons and over $41.5 million in currency have been seized.

Operation Lone Star continues to fill the dangerous gaps left by the Biden Administration's refusal to secure the border. Every individual who is apprehended or arrested and every ounce of drugs seized would have otherwise made their way into communities across Texas and the nation due to President Biden's open border policies.

RECENT HIGHLIGHTS FROM OPERATION LONE STAR:

READ: Migrant Caravan Runs Face-First Into Texas Governor Greg Abbott

When Mexico last week granted federal humanitarian travel permits to 15,000 U.S.-bound third-country migrants whodformed the largest caravanin Mexican history, most planned to head straight to the border to cross illegally into the Texas towns of Del Rio and Eagle Pass, writes Todd Bensman with the Center for Immigration Studies. Few, if any, of those thousands are finding their way over the Rio Grande into the Border Patrols Del Rio Sector. Mexican state police areblocking northbound commercial busesat the bus station in the Coahuila state capital of Saltillo, and at many other stations, and emptying migrants from trucks and vans at checkpoints on all roads leading into that states border cities of Piedras Negras, across from Eagle Pass, and Acuna, across from Del Rio, according toMexican press reporting.

The Mexican state police response comes after Governor Abbott reminded Coahuila Governor Miguel Angel Solis of his security obligations under the memorandum of understanding the governors signed in April.

WATCH: National Guard, DPS Perform Mass-Migration Exercise Along Texas-Mexico Border

Texas Army National Guard soldiers and DPS state troopers rehearsed mass-migration response capabilities on Saturday, June 11. The soldiers and state troopers are able to rapidly respond to incidents of mass migration at any point along the Texas-Mexico border.

WATCH: Texas National Guard Soldiers Establish Command-And-Control Post To Prepare For Mass Migrations

Last Saturday, a command-and-control post was established by the Texas National Guard at the Anzalduas International Bridge in preparation for a mass-migration response. The post will allow effective coordination of partner agencies on the ground by directing joint and multi-agency operations during a mass-migration event.

So long as there is a threat that exists here, our job is to remain proficient, competent, capable, and ready to respond, day or night, said MAJ Jason Cordaway, Task Force East Commanding Officer.

WATCH: Fox News Exclusive On Crisis In Eagle Pass

DPS Lieutenant Christopher Olivarez gives a border tour to Fox News Rachel Campos-Duffy to shed light on the ongoing crisis along the Texas-Mexico border. Campos-Duffy and Lt. Olivarez view groups of migrants along the Rio Grande in a helicopter tour, followed by interviews with interdicted migrants.

Texas National Guard Seize Transnationally Trafficked Narcotics

Texas Army National Guard soldiers assisted law enforcement in seizing transnationally trafficked narcotics. The guardsmen detected a group of men illegally crossing the Texas-Mexico border and interdicted the group, who dropped the packages of narcotics and fled the scene. The narcotics were seized by law enforcement as the men returned to the Mexico side of the border.

VIDEO: High-Speed Pursuit Through Multiple Counties Leads To Arrest Of Smuggler

DPS engaged in a high-speed pursuit of a smuggler through several counties. The smuggler eventually came to a stop and was charged with the smuggling of persons and evading arrest.

Criminal Trespassers Apprehended By National Guard Soldiers, DPS On Privately Owned Ranch

Texas Army National Guard soldiers assisted DPS state troopers in apprehending a group of illegal migrants last week. The illegal migrants were spotted by federal agencies, which called the soldiers and state troopers to track the group within a large stretch of privately owned ranch land. The Guard notes it is common for illegal migrants to avoid detection by border patrol agents by trespassing into ranch lands on foot.

VIDEO: DPS Troopers Traffic Stop Results In Arrest Of Driver For Smuggling Illegal Migrants

A traffic stop by DPS troopers on a passenger car resulted in the arrest of the driver for the smuggling of persons. All of the illegal migrants were referred to the U.S. Border Patrol.

Read more:
Operation Lone Star Ramps Up Mass Migration Response Efforts In Preparation For Caravans - Office of the Texas Governor

Summit of the Americas: Biden’s attempt to unite the region on migration gets off to a shaky start – The Conversation

The ninth Summit of the Americas, hosted by the Joe Biden in Los Angeles from June 6 to 10, was overshadowed by US presidents decision not to invite the presidents of Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua. The reason given for this was antidemocratic leadership and disrespect for human rights in those countries. But you might question this exclusion if you believe that the main democratic principles include freedom of association, speech and inclusiveness.

In his remarks at the opening plenary of the summit, Biden emphasised on various occasions the importance of working together and collaboration between the North, Central and South America when tackling regional issues, such as economic, climate and migration crises, among others. But the decision to exclude the three countries led several other leaders to boycott the event in solidarity. Mexican president Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador (AMLO), as well as the presidents of El Salvador (Nayib Bukele), Honduras (Xiomara Castro), and Guatemala (Alejandro Giammattei), also skipped the event.

Mexico is an interesting case. After a rocky start, AMLO managed to build a friendly relationship with Donald Trump during his time in the White House. But he hasnt struck up such an easy relationship with Biden. This might seem counter-intuitive when you consider that while Trump had a zero-tolerance migration policy, Biden is looking to introduce a more humane immigration system.

AMLOs respect for Trump was reflected by Latino voters in the 2020 presidential election in which he won the border state of Texas and in Florida, the US states with the high population of Latinos, predominantly Mexican-American and Cuban and Venezuelan-American, respectively.

Biden used the summit to launch a new economic partnership plan, Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity. This, he said, would aim to grow economies from the bottom up: developing innovation, strengthening supply chains and aiming to prioritise the growth of the green economy, with jobs in producing clean energy and protecting biodiversity.

Biden also announced his plans to combat corruption in the region and promote the rule of law, forging a partnership with Latin American countries to fight the powerful transnational criminal organisations, drug traffickers and the illegal weapons trade. Cooperation would also aim to improve healthcare provision across the region and increase food production. The idea, in a nutshell, is to improve the quality of life and security in Latin America to the extent that illegal migration to America would fall as people enjoy better conditions in their own countries.

At face value, so far, so positive. But the director of the Center for the United States and Mexico at Rice University in Texas, Tony Payan, thinks the plans outlined at the summit have little chance of having the desired impact, especially when it comes to migration. He believes the western hemisphere is too politically divided and chaotic to make any real progress in these areas. Payan told me: For now, no matter how well intentioned the declarations may be, their words will fade away with little to no accomplishments.

On the other hand, the president of the Migration Policy Institute, Andrew Selee, believes that a declaration signed by 20 nations at the end of the summit, the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection marks a significant step forward in creating a common language and a coherent set of ideas for more cooperatively managing migration movements across the Americas.

The goal of The Los Angeles Declaration is to control and regularise an unauthorised migration through the American continent by shared responsibility among all countries. It suggests some concrete metrics as targets for the programme. For example, the US will invest US$314 million (260 million) of humanitarian help for vulnerable refugees and migrants. In addition the US has pledged to accept a further 20,000 refugees in the next two years. An additional US$65 million will be used to promote temporary work among Haitian and Central American temporary workers.

The Los Angeles Declaration not only talks about possible solutions to migration to the US, but also between Latin American countries. Mexico, whose secretary of foreign affairs Marcelo Ebrard attended, has pledged to include 20,000 refugees from Central America and Haiti in its labour market. By the end of August 2022, Colombia will assign regularisation permits to 1.5 million of refugees and migrants from Venezuela.

But the declaration also has its limitations. The executive director of the pro-migrant foundation Amrica Sin Muros (America Without Walls), Bernardo Mndez-Lugo, told me he thinks US money and increased working visas will simply not be enough for millions of needy migrants who take the illegal road towards a better life. He also pointed out that the agreement doesnt specify how the US will legalise the status of the 5 million irregular Mexican migrants or the 2 million irregular migrants from Central American countries already in the US. Nothing has been settled to resolve the status of the 600,000 dreamers the children of illegal migrants who have grown up in the US or the hundreds of thousands of Guatemalans, Hondurans and Salvadorans with temporary protected status in the US.

So while the declaration is no doubt a stepping stone to solving the migration crisis in the Americas, the commitment will need to be followed up with concrete actions from the whole region. It will bear fruit only if all countries are united. And, of course, the absence of significant players in this issue from the summit is not a good sign that the Americas are on the same page when it comes to solving the irregular migration crisis.

The rest is here:
Summit of the Americas: Biden's attempt to unite the region on migration gets off to a shaky start - The Conversation

The Constitution rigs the game against democracy and against Black equality – Vox.com

Part of the Juneteenth issue of The Highlight, our home for ambitious stories that explain our world.

For six years, at the height of Southern leaders massive resistance to desegregation, Derrick Bell held one of the most harrowing jobs in the legal profession.

From 1960 to 1966, as an attorney with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Bell oversaw desegregation lawsuits in the South, trying to make real the integration promised by Brown v. Board of Education.

In the first decade after Brown, integration made little headway by 1964, only 1 in 85 African American students in the South attended integrated schools. Often, Bell and his colleagues couldnt even find a plaintiff willing to sue a segregated district, because Black families justifiably feared theyd be targeted by the Ku Klux Klan if their names appeared on a lawsuit.

Black civil rights lawyers also risked their lives litigating cases. Once, while he was defending two criminal suspects in Tennessee, future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall was arrested on false charges and nearly lynched by a white mob.

Bell, who died in 2011, eventually left behind his career as a full-time civil rights lawyer. But the experience of watching the promise of equality beat down by violent white supremacists informed his work as a critical race scholar.

Racial equality is, in fact, not a realistic goal, he wrote in 1992, warning that by constantly aiming for a status that is unobtainable in a perilously racist America, black Americans face frustration and despair.

To be clear, Bell did not counsel passive despair. We must maintain the struggle against racism else the erosion of black rights will become even worse than it is now, Bell warned in his essay, and he viewed this constant striving as worthy in its own right. The struggle for freedom is, at bottom, a manifestation of our humanity that survives and grows stronger through resistance to oppression, he wrote, even if that oppression is never overcome.

Bell understood something profound about the United States: The American political system is a rigged game. It was originally meant to advantage enslavers and today benefits anti-egalitarian actors with little interest in true racial equality.

That fact has led to the constant erosion of black rights that Bell chronicled something clearly on display one year ago, not long after President Joe Biden had signed legislation marking Juneteenth as a federal holiday. In the presidents words, the holiday marks both the long, hard night of slavery and subjugation, and a promise of a brighter morning to come.

Two weeks later, the Supreme Court defiled that promise, imposing new limits on the Voting Rights Act, which has, since 1965, forbidden race discrimination in elections. The Courts new restrictions on the Voting Rights Act are unlikely to be the last.

Even as the United States celebrates freedom for African Americans, the political equality that sustains that freedom is slipping away.

The pattern in American civil rights history has been brief periods of rapid pro-egalitarian progress think the post-Civil War period or the civil rights era followed by much longer periods of retrenchment, when dominant groups claw back many of those gains.

If the United States is to break its cycle of brief periods of egalitarian triumphs, and longer periods of resentment and retreat, we must have a Constitution that, unlike our current one, fully honors the principle that all people are created equal.

The original Constitution that is, the document drafted at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a truly monstrous document. It was, in the words of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell.

The framers, who included both enslavers and staunch opponents of slavery, produced a document that contains at least four provisions added for the very purpose of protecting slavery. Several other features of the Constitution, like the Electoral College, for example, may not have been inserted for the purpose of promoting slavery, but they certainly had that effect.

Though modern-day scholars disagree about whether the Electoral College was, in the words of Harvard historian Jill Lepore, a compromise over slavery, it nevertheless gave tremendous political power to the states that enslaved the most people. Thats because the Constitution gives each state a number of electoral votes matching the number of seats it controls in Congress, and the Constitutions infamous three-fifths clause permitted slave-holding states to count 60 percent of their enslaved population when US House seats were apportioned.

Even after the Northern population outstripped the Souths to such a degree that slave states could not dominate the House, another anti-democratic feature of our Constitution ensured that enslavers would wield outsize power.

The Senate remained a bastion of power for enslavers for generations. Because the Constitution gives each state two senators regardless of its population, enslavers could still block anti-slavery legislation so long as they did not permit the total number of free states to exceed the number of slave states, something they did successfully for decades.

Two hundred and thirty-five years after the Constitutional Convention, the Constitution remains a profoundly inegalitarian document. The Senate and the Electoral College remain stains on the soul of the nation.

Similarly, while three constitutional amendments ratified after the Civil War abolish slavery, pledge equal citizenship rights to all Americans, and promise equal voting rights, these promises were only as valuable as the public officials entrusted with keeping them. As anyone familiar with the history of the Jim Crow South knows, most of these officials didnt even begin to keep these promises for nearly a century.

The times when those promises were kept at all can be attributed to interest convergence, a phenomenon Bell first wrote about more than four decades ago: The interest of blacks in achieving racial equality is accommodated only when that interest converges with the interests of whites in policy-making positions.

Bell did not argue that white people concerned about the immorality of racial inequality are nonexistent, but he believed that this cohort of white people is insufficient to form a victorious political coalition when it links arms with Black people.

To some extent, Bells principle is implicit in the fact that racial minorities are, well, in the minority. And Black people have historically carried a particular burden because white supremacists have often tried to separate them from the social and political mainstream, in many cases through explicitly segregationist policies.

The Constitutions pathologies exaggerate this problem. Because of the Electoral College, Senate malapportionment, and quasi-constitutional barriers to legislation such as the filibuster, Black Americans and the broader Democratic coalition that most Black voters belong to need to win supermajorities in multiple elections to pass legislation protecting their rights, like a law restoring the Voting Rights Act.

Even if they were to successfully do that, Republicans need only to file a lawsuit and convince five of their fellow partisans on the Supreme Court to strike down that legislation.

This is not a new dilemma the structural barriers facing Democrats today pale in comparison to the ones facing enslaved Black people in 1860, or the ones facing civil rights activists in 1960. But one of the frustrating things about this particular moment in American history is that our Constitution now prevents Black Americans from achieving crucial civil rights victories even when a coalition aligned with their interests controls the Congress and the White House and when their interests align with a majority of the nation.

That is a potent reminder that, in those rare moments when an egalitarian coalition does wield power, it should emphasize structural reforms that will allow it to achieve future victories and sustain past ones.

Because the best way to win a rigged game is to change the rules.

In 2022, the interests of Black people have converged with the nations majority political party, at least on the crucial topic of voting rights.

The president of the United States supports legislation to restore the sort of voting rights protections that the Supreme Court stripped away in Shelby County and similar cases. So does the vice president. So do 219 members of the House of Representatives. So does every Democrat in the Senate although Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) backs a weaker version of this legislation than the Democratic leadership initially proposed.

Yet, because of structural barriers such as Senate malapportionment and the filibuster, this convergence of interests is not enough to pass a bill through Congress.

In the current Senate, Democrats and Republicans control an equal number of seats, but the Democratic half represents 43 million more people than the Republican half. Black people, and racial minorities generally, bear the brunt of this uneven representation. According to a 2019 memo by the progressive think tank Data for Progress, Black voters have nearly 20 percent less influence over Senate elections than they would if Senate seats were distributed fairly so that every Americans vote counted the same.

In effect, while the Constitution once treated Black Americans as three-fifths of a person, todays Senate treats Black Americans as four-fifths of a person.

Absent structural reform, its going to get worse. By 2040, according to a University of Virginia analysis of census projections, half of the United States will live in eight states. About 70 percent will live in 16 states which means that just over 30 percent of the population will control 68 percent of the Senate.

This sorting of most Americans into just a few states has profound implications for Black voters, who are overwhelmingly Democratic. In the last three presidential elections, the Democratic candidate received 90 percent or more of the Black vote and it may soon be impossible for Democrats to win a majority in the United States Senate.

One of the best predictors of partisan voting patterns in the United States is population density densely populated areas tend to be Democratic bastions, while sparsely populated areas are typically Republican strongholds. If this pattern holds, Republicans may soon gain a permanent supermajority in the Senate.

Without a Senate majority, Democrats not only wont be able to pass federal legislation, they also wont be able to confirm justices to replace the ones who voted to gut the Voting Rights Act. In effect, Black Americans as well as non-Black Democrats, urban residents, and liberals generally will only be able to achieve policy victories when their interests converge with an overwhelmingly white Republican Party.

Perhaps that will happen occasionally, especially on symbolic matters; the vote to make Juneteenth a federal holiday was bipartisan. Its also possible that, especially as the United States slides closer to one-party rule, an increasing number of conservative Black Americans will join the GOP in the hopes of gaining some modicum of political power.

But on issues like voting rights, its hard to imagine Black interests converging with Republican interests anytime soon. Why would the GOP protect the voting rights of a cohort that overwhelmingly prefers Democrats?

Its not that there isnt hope for Black Americans. Its easy to design a more just and egalitarian system than the US Constitution. But it is also very hard to make an ideal constitution into a reality.

The obvious first step is to abolish the Senate or to, as University of Connecticut historian Manisha Sinha suggested to me, make our Senate a bit like the House of Lords a largely advisory body that does not have the power to block legislation outright.

Assuming that the United States retains a system where the chief executive is elected separately from the legislature, the Electoral College also must go. In 2020, President Joe Biden defeated Republican Donald Trump by more than 7 million votes. Yet he would have lost the presidency if only 43,000 Biden voters in Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin had not cast a ballot. Thats not acceptable in a nation that purports to be a democratic republic.

Then theres the problem of gerrymandering.

Racial gerrymandering remains a prominent feature of American elections, and the Supreme Court appears determined to keep it that way. Last February, for example, the Court voted 5-4 to reinstate an Alabama congressional map that gave Black voters 14 percent of the states US House seats even though African Americans make up about 27 percent of the states population.

The best solution to the problem of gerrymandering is proportional representation. In a proportional system, the nation would be divided into large electoral districts that would each receive several seats in Congress.

These seats would then be allocated according to the total percentage of votes each party receives so if the Democratic Party receives 35 percent of the votes in a particular district, it would receive about 35 percent of that districts seats. Under our current system, a district composed of 55 percent white Republicans and 45 percent Black Democrats will send zero Democrats to Congress. Under a proportional system, the Black minority in such a district would receive nearly as much representation as the white majority.

Realistically, a constitutional amendment is not a viable solution to implement any of these reforms. Amendments require three-quarters of the state legislatures to agree. And its unlikely that states that benefit from the Constitutions anti-democratic pathologies would agree to cure them.

There may be feasible ways to enact some of these reforms without an amendment. The National Popular Vote Compact, for example, calls for a bloc of states adding up to a majority of the Electoral Colleges electoral votes to agree to give those votes to whichever candidate wins the popular vote. Its an ingenious way to nominally leave the Electoral College in place, while simultaneously ensuring that the candidate who wins the popular vote becomes president.

Other ways around the effectively unamendable Constitution are lawful, but difficult to imagine happening. A 2020 proposal in the Harvard Law Review, for example, suggested dividing the (heavily Democratic) District of Columbia into more than 100 states and admitting them all into the Union and then immediately having these new states approve a raft of pro-democracy amendments to the Constitution.

The thing these solutions have in common is that theyre the sort of fixes that pit the Constitutions formalistic rules against its spirit, and theyd likely trigger a significant backlash or be struck down by a Supreme Court that is still controlled by Republicans unless they had a truly overwhelming political coalition behind them.

Yet, if the reforms suggested above are ambitious and difficult to implement, they are also equal in magnitude to the crisis facing American democracy. If nothing changes, an overwhelmingly white, increasingly authoritarian political coalition could soon gain the enduring power to veto any federal law, along with perpetual control of the Supreme Court.

That is not a democracy, and it is unworthy of a nation that claims to be founded on the principle that all people are created equal.

Transforming the United States into an egalitarian democracy will not be easy. But, as Niko Bowie, a professor at Harvard Law School, reminded me when I asked him how to overcome the many structural disadvantages plaguing American egalitarian movements, the United States has faced such a crisis before ... nevertheless, democracy has emerged.

It has emerged thanks to the work of those who retained a clear moral vision in the face of anti-egalitarianism. So let me close by attempting to offer the same sort of moral clarity William Lloyd Garrison offered to the abolitionist movement.

It is wrong that our Constitution denies the fundamental equality of all Americans. It is wrong to count some votes more than others. It is wrong to drive families into poverty solely because we count some votes more than others. It is wrong to allow the one unelected branch of government to dismantle our voting rights. It is wrong that our Congress will not restore those rights because a few senators care more about preserving the filibuster than they do about ensuring that Black people have an equal voice in our society.

And it is wrong that an authoritarian narcissist, who possesses no aptitude for or interest in governance, was allowed to occupy the White House after receiving nearly 3 million fewer votes than his opponent.

Juneteenth is an apt time to reflect on these matters. Its a reminder of our nations most unforgivable sin. But it is also a celebration of freedom, and of those who overcame unimaginable odds to write equality into our Constitution. It is past time that we made that promise real, by changing the Constitution, if need be.

As Garrison said in 1844, it is an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the Constitution was intended to embrace the entire population of the country under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were actuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty; or that it needs no alteration.

Ian Millhiser is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States.

Follow this link:
The Constitution rigs the game against democracy and against Black equality - Vox.com

On the Knifes Edge of Democracy – The Bulwark

Editors note: The following is the statement of Judge Michael Luttig, submitted to the United States House Select Committeeon the January 6, 2021, Attack on the United States Capitol on June 16, 2022, prior to Luttigs appearance before the Committee. We are reproducing it here in its entirety.

Honorable Members of the House Select Committee

A stake was driven through the heart of American democracy on January 6, 2021, and our democracy today is on a knifes edge.

America was at war on that fateful day, but not against a foreign power. She was at war against herself. We Americans were at war with each other over our democracy.

January 6 was but the next, foreseeable battle in a war that had been raging in America for years, though that day was the most consequential battle of that war even to date. In fact, January 6 was a separate war unto itself, a war for Americas democracy, a war irresponsibly instigated and prosecuted by the former president, his political party allies, and his supporters. Both wars are raging to this day.

A peaceful end to these wars is desperately needed. The war for our democracy could lead to the peaceful end to the war for Americas cultural heart and soul. But if a peaceful end to the war for Americas democracy is not achievable, there is little chance for a peaceful end to that war. The settlement of this war over our democracy is necessary to the settlement of any war that will ever come to America, whether from her shores or to her shores. Though disinclined for the moment, as a political matter of fact only the party that instigated this war over our democracy can bring an end to that war.

Like our war from a distant time, these twin wars are testing whether th[is] nation or any nation . . . so conceived in Liberty . . . can long endure. We must hope that January 6 was the final battle of at least the deadly war for Americas democracy.

These senseless wars are of our own making, and they are now being waged throughout the land, in our city centers and town squares, in our streets and in our schools, where we work and where we play, in our houses of worship even within our own families. These wars were conceived and instigated from our Nations Capital by our own political leaders collectively and they have been cynically prosecuted by them to fever pitch, now to the point that they have recklessly put America herself at stake.

America is now the stake in these unholy wars.

Serious thinkers about the American experiment who are not given to apocalyptic prophesying question whether America is on the verge of a literal civil war. But is even this figurative civil war to be our generations legacy to posterity?

These wars that we are waging against each other are immoral wars, not moral ones, being immorally waged over morality itself. We Americans no longer agree on what is right or wrong, what is to be valued and what is not, what is acceptable behavior and not, and what is and is not tolerable discourse in civilized society. Let alone do we agree on how we want to be governed or by whom, or where we go from here and with what shared national ideals, values, beliefs, purposes, goals, and objectives if any at all.

America is adrift. We pray that it is only for this fleeting moment that she has lost her way, until we Americans can once again come to our senses.

The war on democracy instigated by the former president and his political party allies on January 6 was the natural and foreseeable culmination of the war for America. It was the final fateful day for the execution of a well-developed plan by the former president to overturn the 2020 presidential election at any cost, so that he could cling to power that the American People had decided to confer upon his successor, the next president of the United States instead. Knowing full well that he had lost the 2020 presidential election, the former president and his allies and supporters falsely claimed and proclaimed to the nation that he had won the election, and then he and they set about to overturn the election that he and they knew the former president had lost.

The treacherous plan was no less ambitious than to steal Americas democracy.

Called to Washington D.C. that day by the president, the president himself, and the presidents followers, supporters, and allies gathered near The White House for a Stop the Steal rally. The president maintained at that rally that the 2020 presidential election had been fraudulently stolen from him. The president addressed his faithful followers thus: Were going to the Capitol. . . . Were going to try and give them [the Republicans in the Congress, presumably] the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. . . . We will never give up. We will never concede.

Inflamed, the gathered mob marched up the hill from The White House to the United States Capitol to protest, disrupt and prevent the counting of the electoral votes for the presidency, which the president falsely charged were wrongly about to be counted by the Congress in his political opponents winning favor and in his own losing favor.

Once staged at the Capitol, the mob soon erected gallows on the United States Capitol grounds, chanting that Vice President Mike Pence should be hanged. Hanged, the mob chanted, for cowardly refusing the presidents lawless entreaties that his Vice President declare their president reelected, against the will of the American People, though he had lost both the Electoral College and the popular vote for the presidency.

There were many cowards on the battlefield on January 6. The Vice President was not among them.

Soon thereafter, the rioters stormed the Capitol itself, breaching, occupying, and ransacking the temple of our democracy for seemingly endless wrenching hours at the precise democratic moment when the Congress of the United States convened in Joint Session to begin the constitutional counting of the votes for the presidency of the United States.

Not until over three hours after the riot had begun, and then only after the siege had achieved what by that time was its truncated objective to interrupt and indefinitely delay the counting of the vote, did the president finally yield to the pleas and prayers from his own family, friends, and political allies, and grudgingly ask his supporters in a hastily forced video tweet to disperse and return to their homes.

The Nation wept during the evening of January 6, as the Capitol police began to clear and resecure the Capitol at days end. Finally, at 8:00 p.m. on January 6, seven hours after the siege on the Capitol had begun, Vice President Pence gaveled the Joint Session back into order with measured, understated resolve: Today was a dark day in the history of the United States Capitol. . . . Lets get back to work.

January 6 was a dark day in the history of the United States, too.

It was not until the next day, January 7, 2021, at 3:42 a.m. in the morning almost fifteen hours after the Joint Session had first been gaveled into session by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the Vice President finally declared that Joe Biden had been elected the 46th President of the United States.

On January 6, 2021, the prescribed day for choosing the American president, there was not to be a peaceful transfer of power for the first time in the history of our Republic.

Over a year and a half later, in continued defiance of our democracy, both the former president and his political party allies still maintain that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him, despite all evidence all evidence now that that is simply false. All the while, this false and reckless insistence that the former president won the 2020 presidential election has laid waste to Americans confidence in their national elections. More alarming still is that the former president pledges that his reelection will not be stolen from him next time around, and his Republican Party allies and supporters obeisantly pledge the same.

False claims that our elections have been stolen from us corrupt our democracy, as they corrupt us. To continue to insist and persist in the false claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen is itself an affront to our democracy and to the Constitution of the United States an affront without precedent.

Those who think that because America is a republic, theft and corruption of our national elections and electoral process are not theft and corruption of our democracy are sorely mistaken. America is both a republic and a representative democracy, and therefore a sustained attack on our national elections is a fortiori an attack on our democracy, any political theory otherwise notwithstanding.

Accordingly, if, and when, one of our national elections is actually stolen from us, our democracy will have been stolen from us. To steal an election in the United States of America is to steal her democracy.

As in all things, the essence of our participation in democracy is not knowledge, but judgment studied, discerning judgment. No more so is this true than in the Constitution and in the Law.

Very few ever have the honor of counseling the President of the United States of America. That highest of honors carries with it the highest of obligations. Counsel provided to the President of the United States must be the product of not only exquisite, penetrating legal analysis but also profound, insightful legal judgment. These two combined are so far from mere technical legal competence as almost to be its polar opposite. The President and the country deserve nothing less from those who counsel the President, so consequential are the stakes for the Nation when the President acts upon the advice of his or her Counsel.

Whatever else, the President of the United States did not receive such counsel during his sustained effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. It is as much the former presidents fault as anyones that he did not.

Irrespective of the merits of the legal arguments that fueled the former presidents efforts to overturn that election irrespective of them, though there were none those arguments, and therefore those efforts, by the former president were the product of the most reckless, insidious, and calamitous failures in both legal and political judgment in American history.

From their inception, the legal arguments that underlaid the efforts to overturn the 2020 election were, in that context, little more than beguiling and frivolous, perhaps appropriate for academic classroom debate, but singularly inappropriate as counsel to the President of the United States of America in his effort to overturn the presidential election an election he had lost fair and square and as to which there was not then, and there is not to this day, evidence of fraud.

It is breathtaking that these arguments even were conceived, let alone entertained by the President of the United States at that perilous moment in history.

Had the Vice President of the United States obeyed the President of the United States, America would immediately have been plunged into what would have been tantamount to a revolution within a paralyzing constitutional crisis.

The former presidents accountability under the law for the riot on the United States Capitol on January 6 is incidental to his responsibility and accountability for his attempt to steal the 2020 presidential election from the American People and thereby steal Americas democracy from America herself. This said, willful ignorance of law and fact is neither excuse nor defense in law. Willful ignorance, thus, is neither political nor legal excuse or defense available to the former President of the United States, his allies, and his supporters.

On January 6, 2021, revolutionaries, not patriots, assaulted America and American democracy. The walls of all three of our institutions of democracy were scaled and breached on that appalling day. And almost two years thence, one of Americas two political parties cannot even agree whether that day was good or bad, right or wrong. Worse, it cannot agree over whether January 6 was needed, or not. Needed or not. Pause for a moment and reflect on that. The former president and his party cannot decide whether the revolt at the United States Capitol to disrupt and prevent the constitutional counting of the votes for the presidency was needed, and therefore whether another revolt might be needed at a future date to accomplish that which the previous revolt failed to accomplish.

If one of our national political parties one of the two political guardians of our democracy cannot agree even as to whether the violent riot and occupation of the United States Capitol, inspired by the President of the United States and carried out by his followers to prevent Congress from counting the votes for the presidency of those same United States, was reprehensible insurrection or needed, legitimate political discourse, we all can agree on nothing.

Nor should we.

The former presidents party cynically and embarrassingly rationalizes January 6 as having been something between hallowed, legitimate public discourse and a visitors tour of the Capitol that got out of hand. January 6, of course, was neither, and the former president and his party know that. It was not legitimate public discourse by any definition. Nor was it a civics tour of the Capitol Building though that day proved to be an eye-opening civics lesson for all Americans.

January 6 was, rather, a defining, and a redefining, day in American history defining and redefining of America itself. On that day, America finally came face to face with the raging war that it had been waging against itself for years. So blood-chilling was that day for our democracy, that America could not believe her eyes and she turned them away in both fear and shame. Even so, many have already forgotten, and many more have chosen to forget. Some who rioted and occupied the Capitol that day had already decided how this war for our democracy must end, while others of their compatriots, upon sober reflection afterward, decided that no, no, this war must end now, before there is further bloodshed.

As did we, these latter saw how this war ends, and they realized that no one should want for such end.

For their part, the former president and many of his party remain to this day undecided as to which end of this war they will commit themselves undecided, that is, as to which end they want to commit themselves. To be undecided today as to whether to end this war over our democracy is to have decided how one wants this war to end.

Thus, for the rest of us Americans, the time has come for us to decide whether we allow this war over our democracy to be prosecuted to its catastrophic end or whether we ourselves demand the immediate suspension of this war and insist on peace instead.

We must make this decision because our political leaders are unwilling and unable, even as they recklessly prosecute this war in our name. We Americans begin to make this consequential decision this week, when Congress, rightly if painfully, takes us back to that day in January we want so much to forget but mustnt, and reminds us of what was at stake that day and still, in what is this most unholy of wars.

America is at a perilous crossroads. Who is it that we have become and what is it that America has become? Is this who we want to be and what we want America to be? And if not, just who is it that we Americans want to be? And just what is it that we want our America to be?

Many will again turn their eyes away, miscalculating that this is the last time they must see, and thus remember. The partisan mercenaries, who have no interest in either understanding or peace, will be the first who turn away and, in their determined ignorance, ignore. The mercenaries know better than we that what we forcibly put out of our minds or what we forget, we are destined to repeat.

No American ought to turn away from January 6, 2021, until all of America comes to grips with what befell our country that day, and we decide what we want for our democracy from this day, forward.

The genius that is Americas democracy is this. The Constitution vests all power in We the People. We agreed in the Constitution to delegate our power to our representatives, only during their time in our service, and at that, exclusively for the purpose of representing our interests in the Nations Capital, not theirs. Our democracy is the process through which our representatives, using the power that we have delegated to them, in turn and in trust, govern us. We choose in our national elections those who we want to represent us, including most importantly the President of the United States. It is for this simple reason that to steal an election for the presidency from us is to steal our democracy from us.

Americas democracy was almost stolen from us on January 6.

Our democracy has never been tested like it was on that day and it will never be tested again as it was then if we learn the lessons of that fateful day. On the other hand, if we fail to learn the lessons that are there to be learned, or worse, deny even that there are lessons there to be learned, we will consign ourselves to another January 6 in the not-too-distant future, and another after that, and another after that. While for some, that is their wish, that cannot be our wish for America.

America can withstand attacks on her democracy from without. She is helpless to withstand them from within. The relentless assaults on America and its democracy from within, such as January 6, which designedly call into question the

very legitimacy of the institutions and instrumentalities of our democracy, are simply not contemplated by the Constitution of the United States and are therefore not provided for by that Great Charter for our governance.

America is not in constitutional crisis until and unless the Constitution and the institutions and instrumentalities of our democracy are under withering, unsustainable, and unendurable attack from within. Then, and only then, is the constitutional order in hopeless constitutional disorder. Only then is America in peril. Today, America is in constitutional crisis and at a foreboding crossroads with disquieting parallels to the fateful crossroads we came to over a century and a half ago.

It is no wonder that America is at war over her democracy. Every day for years now we have borne witness to vicious partisan attacks on the bulwarks of that democracy our institutions of government and governance and the institutions and instrumentalities of our democracy by our own political leaders and fellow citizens. Every day for years now we have witnessed vicious partisan attacks on our Institutions of Law themselves, our Nations Judiciary, and our Constitution and the Laws of the United States the guardians of that democracy and of our freedom. For years, we have been told by the very people we trust, and entrust, to preserve and to protect our American institutions of democracy and law that these institutions are no longer to be trusted, no longer to be believed in, no longer deserving of cherish and protection.

If that is true, then it is because those with whom we entrusted these institutions have themselves betrayed our sacred trust.

And, indeed, it does seem at the moment that we no longer agree on our democracy. Nor do we any longer seem to agree on the ideals, values, and principles upon which America was founded and that were so faithfully nurtured and protected by the generations and generations of Americans that came before us. Yet we agree on no other foundational ideals, values, and principles, either.

All of a sudden it seems that we are in violent disagreement over what has made America great in the past and over what will make her great in the future. In poetic tragedy, political campaign slogan has become divisive political truth. And there is no reason to believe that agreement about America by we Americans is anywhere on the horizon, if for no other reason than that none of us is interested in agreement. In the moral catatonic stupor America finds itself in today, it is only disagreement that we seek, and the more virulent that disagreement, the better.

This is not who we Americans are or who we want to be. Nor is this America or what we want America to be.

Reeling from twin wars, leaderless, and rudderless, America is in need of help. Our polarized political leaders have shamefully and shamelessly failed us. They have summoned our worst demons at the very moment when we needed summoned our better angels.

As a consequence, America finds itself in desperate need of either a reawakening and quickening to the vision, truths, values, principles, beliefs, hopes, and dreams upon which the country was founded and that have made America the greatest nation in the world a revival of America and the American spirit.

Or, if it is to be, we are in need of a revival around a new vision, new truths, new values, new principles, new beliefs, new hopes and dreams that hopefully could once again bind our divided nation together into the more perfect union that We the People originally ordained and established it to be.

We cannot hobble along much longer, politically paralyzed and hopelessly divided, directionless and undecided as to which revival it will be if any at all.

Where do we begin? This is the easier question. Who has the patriotic and political courage to go first? This is the harder question.

As to the first question, we begin where the reconciliation of all broken human relationships, be they broken from war, anger, betrayal, or love, begins by talking with each other, and listening to one another again, as human beings and fellow citizens who share the same destiny and the same belief in America and hope for her future. For years now, taking the lead from our politicians, we Americans have spoken only coarse, desensitizing, dehumanizing political vile at each other, which enables us to speak to each other without guilt or regret. For too many years now, we have spoken to each other as charlatanic political gladiators in an arena that today has become annihilative of Americas future, not promising of that future.

By constitutional order, We the People of this great Nation confer upon our elected representatives the power that they are then, by solemn constitutional obligation, directed to wield on our behalf and on Americas behalf. But today our politicians live in a different world from the rest of us, and in a different world than that ordained by the Constitution. They live in a fictional world of divided loyalties between party and country, a world of their own unfaithful making.

Todays politicians believe that they never have to choose between partisan party politics and country, when in fact they are obliged by oath to choose between the two every day, and every day they defiantly refuse to choose. For todays politicians, never the twain shall meet between partisan ambition and country, and never the latter before the former, either. The politicians in todays America only sponsor partisan incitement and only traffic in the same, rather than sponsor bi partisan reason and lead in thoughtful deliberation. They have purposely led us down the road not in the direction toward the bridging of our differences, but in the direction away from the bridging of those differences. They have proven themselves incapable of leading us.

But still, all it would take to turn America around is a consensus among some number of these political leaders who possess the combined necessary moral authority and who would agree to be bound together by patriotic covenant, to stand up, step forward, and acknowledge to the American People that America is in peril.

In order to end these wars that are draining the lifeblood from our country, a critical mass of our two parties political leaders is needed, to whom the remainder would be willing to listen, at least without immediate partisan recrimination. The logic for reconciliation of these wars being waged in America today dictates that this number needs to include a critical mass of leaders from the former presidents political party and that those leaders need to go first. All of these leaders then need to summon first the moral courage and then the political courage, the strength, and the patriotic will to extend their hands, and ask of the others and of all Americans Can we talk? America needs us.

While Memorial Day is still fresh in our minds, we would all do well to remind ourselves of the immortal words spoken to the West Point cadets at the United States Military Academy a half century ago: Duty, Honor, Country. Those three sacred words of profound American obligation were spoken on that occasion to reassure those who had given their lives for their country in the past, and who would give them in the future, that their sacrifice would not be in vain. Those words are as apt today for this occasion as they were on that day for that occasion, if not more.

Then we need to get back to work, and quickly. We need to get back to the solemn business of preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States and the United States of America.

The hour is late. God is watching us.

Respectfully,

Michael Luttig

* With my respect to the Select Committee, I did not submit this statement prior to my testimony today pursuant to the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, so to avoid any appearance or suggestion that my testimony is that of an interested political party partisan or is on behalf of the Select Committee or any person involved with, on, or after January 6, or is that of a witness in any other way interested in these hearings.

I testify today only as a private citizen, and as a non-partisan, disinterested, independent former Federal Judge on the United States Court of Appeals who happens to have been a fact witness to the events surrounding January 6. The views, the thoughts, and the words herein are mine and mine alone, submitted to the Select Committee on my own behalf and no one elses.

More:
On the Knifes Edge of Democracy - The Bulwark