Amendment Memo: Fill & Download for Free

Yes. It’s being vastly exaggerated for political capital, by the right-wing press on both sides of the Atlantic. It gives them a chance to inflame the more racist elements, as knife crime’s disproportionately seen within the black communities.The US rightist press also believe it gives them capital to support the Second Amendment.(Memo to them: no-one ever killed 58 people from half a kilometre away with a kitchen knife.)If you’re not a young gang member, and don’t look like one, and you’re not into fighting outside night clubs, you’re extremely unlikely ever to be the subject of knife violence, even in the more run-down areas of the more run-down cities.

James Damore was factually wrong and in violation of Google policy. But most importantly, Damore did not have the protection of a union.Ironic in light of Damore’s politics, but if he had been represented by a union he might still be employed.For the most part the NFL member clubs don’t seem to consider what the protesting players are doing as improper in any way, but if any players did get fired for protesting, the NFLPA would file a grievance and provide counsel and advocacy on behalf of the player(s) and their First Amendment rights.

It should be noted that I have not read the full text of the EO in question, and so I can’t comment on specifics. But, having read the Ninth Circuit’s per curiam opinion and some of the related legal analysis, there appear to be three factors that strongly inveigh against the constitutionality of the order:The fact that the order applies, or appears to apply, to lawful permanent residents, without affording them any semblance of due process;The fact that the order applies to nonimmigrant aliens who have previously been admitted to and are temporarily resident in the United States, without affording them any semblance of due process; andThe fact that the order requires the Government to use an individual’s stated religious beliefs as a qualification for eligibility to receive a benefit.Thus, as a minimum, the order needs to be formally amended to make it clear that it does not apply to lawful permanent residents (a memo issued over the signature of the White House Counsel is not sufficient to formally amend a Presidential Executive Order), it needs to be amended to provide due process to nonimmigrants previously admitted to the United States (which would require, at a minimum, that they be given fair notice of the change of their status and the opportunity to explain why they believe that their status should not have been altered), and it needs to be amended to remove the requirement that individuals who are members of minority religions in the nations in question be eligible for priority consideration. The first two address Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause issues identified by the Ninth Circuit in its analysis; the third addresses the First Amendment Establishment Clause issue identified by the Ninth Circuit.While these amendments may not be sufficient to make the order constitutional (indeed, the fact that the Administration is not willing to provide any evidence in support of their contention that the order was necessary for national security is problematic and suggests that the order may yet still be found unconstitutional for lacking a rational basis), they will address the most glaring problems that arose during the admittedly cursory review of the order by the Ninth Circuit in the context of a “likelihood to prevail” analysis while adjudicating a petition for a stay of an preliminary injunction.