Subscribe to our daily newsletter to keep in touch with the subjects shaping our future.

Elon Musk Acting Strangely as He Stammers Through Oval Office Appearance

Across more than three dozen charts, top Wall Street experts explain how the stock market's outstanding two-year run is reaching a turning point as a new president enters the Oval Office and interest rates are expected to remain higher than the pre-pandemic normal.

Yahoo Finance Chartbook: 44 charts that tell the story of markets and the economy to start 2025

Oval

oval

AI Bias Isn't Always Loud—Sometimes Its Laissez-Faire

In the aftermath of the recent Oval Office meeting between the US President and Ukrainian leader, we witnessed a concerning departure from diplomatic protocol. What was scheduled as a discussion of peace initiatives quickly veered off course, with the original agenda abandoned in favor of an attempt to strengthen position against Russia. This deviation raises an important question i.e. How can we ensure diplomatic engagements remain focused on their stated objectives? When Traditional Diplomacy Strays from Its Purpose The event that unfolded on live television revealed a fundamental vulnerability in conventional diplomatic exchanges. When the conversation shifted away from peace negotiations toward taking sides in a geopolitical conflict, we observed how easily diplomatic missions can be derailed from their original purpose. This incident highlighted three notable challenges of traditional diplomacy: Agenda drift: The meeting, ostensibly organized to discuss peace initiatives, quickly diverged from its stated purpose. When diplomatic conversations aren't anchored to verifiable commitments, they can easily drift toward unrelated or counterproductive topics.


Inconsistent adherence to objectives: As the conversation evolved, the original mandate for peace gave way to positioning that potentially complicated the very peace process that was meant to be advanced.


Unverifiable commitments: The statements and promises made during such meetings remain largely unverifiable, leaving all parties, and the public uncertain about what was actually agreed upon and what actions will follow. What if diplomatic engagements were structured to prevent such deviations? What if we had a system that ensured all parties remained faithful to the agreed-upon agenda? Proof-of-Work Diplomacy: From Subjective Interpretation to Objective Verification In my previous writing on Bitcoin's proof-of-work mechanism as an emancipation engine, I outlined how this technology enables verification through objective computational effort. Today, I propose applying these principles to international diplomacy. Just as Bitcoin replaced subjective trust with mathematical verification, diplomatic exchanges could transition from easily diverted conversations to objectively trackable commitments. Consider how diplomatic relations might function through a framework inspired by blockchain technology: Agenda-Bound Smart Contracts: Diplomatic meetings could begin with all parties committing to a cryptographically secured agenda. Deviations would be immediately apparent and recorded on the public ledger.
Objective Progress Tracking: Rather than relying on post-meeting interpretations of what was discussed or agreed upon, a blockchain-based system would provide a transparent record of commitments, actions, and adherence to stated objectives.
Neutral Verification Mechanisms: Instead of competing narratives about what transpired in diplomatic exchanges, all participants and observers could independently verify what was discussed and agreed upon through an immutable record. From Tongan Micro-Governance to International Diplomatic Standards This application of blockchain principles to diplomacy builds upon concepts I explored in my whitepaper "Decentralized Micro-Governance Model for the Kingdom of Tonga Based on Proof-of-Work Consensus." In that model, governance processes are stabilized through cryptographic verification, ensuring participants remain faithful to established procedures and objectives. Applied to international relations, this framework would ensure diplomatic engagements remain focused on their intended purpose. When peace is the stated objective, the technological architecture would make it difficult to divert the conversation toward unrelated positioning or rhetoric that undermines the peace process. The recent Oval Office incident demonstrates the need for such a system. In a proof-of-work diplomatic framework, the original mandate for peace would have remained the central focus, with any attempt to redirect the conversation immediately visible to all stakeholders. Beyond Rhetoric: Diplomacy Anchored in Verifiable Reality When Satoshi Nakamoto introduced Bitcoin to the world, they provided a framework for verification that transcends human tendencies toward inconsistency and bias. This same framework could transform how nations engage with one another on the world stage. Imagine if the recent Oval Office meeting had been conducted within a blockchain-based diplomatic framework: The peace agenda would have been cryptographically secured as the foundation of the engagement


Any departure from discussing peace initiatives would have been immediately flagged within the system


Commitments made would be recorded in an immutable ledger, allowing for subsequent verification of follow-through Instead of leaving room for competing interpretations about what was discussed or agreed upon, both leaders and the global public would have access to an objective record of the exchange. A New Path Forward for International Relations In a world where diplomatic engagements frequently stray from their stated purpose, where peace initiatives can quickly become geopolitical positioning, we need more than good intentions and traditional protocols. We need diplomatic relations anchored by the same principles that have made Bitcoin revolutionary: transparency, verification, and immutability. One verifiable commitment at a time, we can build a new international order. Not vulnerable to agenda drift or reinterpretation, but founded on the objective reality of what was actually discussed and agreed upon. That's not just more effective diplomacy. That's a fundamental reimagining of how nations interact to address our most pressing global challenges. That's the power of proof-of-work applied to the pursuit of genuine peace. In the aftermath of the recent Oval Office meeting between the US President and Ukrainian leader, we witnessed a concerning departure from diplomatic protocol. What was scheduled as a discussion of peace initiatives quickly veered off course, with the original agenda abandoned in favor of an attempt to strengthen position against Russia. This deviation raises an important question i.e. How can we ensure diplomatic engagements remain focused on their stated objectives? When Traditional Diplomacy Strays from Its Purpose The event that unfolded on live television revealed a fundamental vulnerability in conventional diplomatic exchanges. When the conversation shifted away from peace negotiations toward taking sides in a geopolitical conflict, we observed how easily diplomatic missions can be derailed from their original purpose. This incident highlighted three notable challenges of traditional diplomacy: Agenda drift: The meeting, ostensibly organized to discuss peace initiatives, quickly diverged from its stated purpose. When diplomatic conversations aren't anchored to verifiable commitments, they can easily drift toward unrelated or counterproductive topics. Inconsistent adherence to objectives: As the conversation evolved, the original mandate for peace gave way to positioning that potentially complicated the very peace process that was meant to be advanced. Unverifiable commitments: The statements and promises made during such meetings remain largely unverifiable, leaving all parties, and the public uncertain about what was actually agreed upon and what actions will follow. Agenda drift: The meeting, ostensibly organized to discuss peace initiatives, quickly diverged from its stated purpose. When diplomatic conversations aren't anchored to verifiable commitments, they can easily drift toward unrelated or counterproductive topics. Agenda drift : The meeting, ostensibly organized to discuss peace initiatives, quickly diverged from its stated purpose. When diplomatic conversations aren't anchored to verifiable commitments, they can easily drift toward unrelated or counterproductive topics. Agenda drift Inconsistent adherence to objectives: As the conversation evolved, the original mandate for peace gave way to positioning that potentially complicated the very peace process that was meant to be advanced. Inconsistent adherence to objectives : As the conversation evolved, the original mandate for peace gave way to positioning that potentially complicated the very peace process that was meant to be advanced. Inconsistent adherence to objectives Unverifiable commitments: The statements and promises made during such meetings remain largely unverifiable, leaving all parties, and the public uncertain about what was actually agreed upon and what actions will follow. Unverifiable commitments : The statements and promises made during such meetings remain largely unverifiable, leaving all parties, and the public uncertain about what was actually agreed upon and what actions will follow. Unverifiable commitments What if diplomatic engagements were structured to prevent such deviations? What if we had a system that ensured all parties remained faithful to the agreed-upon agenda? Proof-of-Work Diplomacy: From Subjective Interpretation to Objective Verification In my previous writing on Bitcoin's proof-of-work mechanism as an emancipation engine, I outlined how this technology enables verification through objective computational effort. Today, I propose applying these principles to international diplomacy. writing Just as Bitcoin replaced subjective trust with mathematical verification, diplomatic exchanges could transition from easily diverted conversations to objectively trackable commitments. Consider how diplomatic relations might function through a framework inspired by blockchain technology: Agenda-Bound Smart Contracts: Diplomatic meetings could begin with all parties committing to a cryptographically secured agenda. Deviations would be immediately apparent and recorded on the public ledger. Objective Progress Tracking: Rather than relying on post-meeting interpretations of what was discussed or agreed upon, a blockchain-based system would provide a transparent record of commitments, actions, and adherence to stated objectives. Neutral Verification Mechanisms: Instead of competing narratives about what transpired in diplomatic exchanges, all participants and observers could independently verify what was discussed and agreed upon through an immutable record. Agenda-Bound Smart Contracts : Diplomatic meetings could begin with all parties committing to a cryptographically secured agenda. Deviations would be immediately apparent and recorded on the public ledger. Agenda-Bound Smart Contracts Objective Progress Tracking : Rather than relying on post-meeting interpretations of what was discussed or agreed upon, a blockchain-based system would provide a transparent record of commitments, actions, and adherence to stated objectives. Objective Progress Tracking Neutral Verification Mechanisms : Instead of competing narratives about what transpired in diplomatic exchanges, all participants and observers could independently verify what was discussed and agreed upon through an immutable record. Neutral Verification Mechanisms From Tongan Micro-Governance to International Diplomatic Standards This application of blockchain principles to diplomacy builds upon concepts I explored in my whitepaper "Decentralized Micro-Governance Model for the Kingdom of Tonga Based on Proof-of-Work Consensus." In that model, governance processes are stabilized through cryptographic verification, ensuring participants remain faithful to established procedures and objectives. whitepaper Applied to international relations, this framework would ensure diplomatic engagements remain focused on their intended purpose. When peace is the stated objective, the technological architecture would make it difficult to divert the conversation toward unrelated positioning or rhetoric that undermines the peace process. The recent Oval Office incident demonstrates the need for such a system. In a proof-of-work diplomatic framework, the original mandate for peace would have remained the central focus, with any attempt to redirect the conversation immediately visible to all stakeholders. Beyond Rhetoric: Diplomacy Anchored in Verifiable Reality When Satoshi Nakamoto introduced Bitcoin to the world, they provided a framework for verification that transcends human tendencies toward inconsistency and bias. This same framework could transform how nations engage with one another on the world stage. Imagine if the recent Oval Office meeting had been conducted within a blockchain-based diplomatic framework: The peace agenda would have been cryptographically secured as the foundation of the engagement Any departure from discussing peace initiatives would have been immediately flagged within the system Commitments made would be recorded in an immutable ledger, allowing for subsequent verification of follow-through The peace agenda would have been cryptographically secured as the foundation of the engagement The peace agenda would have been cryptographically secured as the foundation of the engagement Any departure from discussing peace initiatives would have been immediately flagged within the system Any departure from discussing peace initiatives would have been immediately flagged within the system Commitments made would be recorded in an immutable ledger, allowing for subsequent verification of follow-through Commitments made would be recorded in an immutable ledger, allowing for subsequent verification of follow-through Instead of leaving room for competing interpretations about what was discussed or agreed upon, both leaders and the global public would have access to an objective record of the exchange. A New Path Forward for International Relations In a world where diplomatic engagements frequently stray from their stated purpose, where peace initiatives can quickly become geopolitical positioning, we need more than good intentions and traditional protocols. We need diplomatic relations anchored by the same principles that have made Bitcoin revolutionary: transparency, verification, and immutability. One verifiable commitment at a time, we can build a new international order. Not vulnerable to agenda drift or reinterpretation, but founded on the objective reality of what was actually discussed and agreed upon. That's not just more effective diplomacy. That's a fundamental reimagining of how nations interact to address our most pressing global challenges. That's the power of proof-of-work applied to the pursuit of genuine peace.

Maybe Trump and Zelenskyy Should Try Blockchain Diplomacy—At Least It Would Keep Them Honest

Магчыма, Трампу і Зяленскаму варта паспрабаваць блокчэйн-дыпламатыю — прынамсі, гэта застане іх сумленнымі

Tal vez Trump y Zelensky deberían probar la diplomacia blockchain: al menos los mantendría honestos

Ehkä Trumpin ja Zelenskyyn pitäisi kokeilla Blockchain-diplomatiaa - ainakin se pitää heidät rehellisinä

Forse Trump e Zelensky dovrebbero provare la diplomazia blockchain, almeno li manterrebbe onesti

トランプ氏とゼレンスキー氏はブロックチェーン外交を試すべきかもしれない。少なくともそれは彼らの誠実さを保つだろう。

შესაძლოა, ტრამპმა და ზელენსკიმ სცადონ ბლოკჩეინის დიპლომატია - ეს მაინც დაიცავს მათ პატიოსნებს

Балким, Трамп менен Зеленский блокчейн дипломатиясын сынап көрүшү керек — жок дегенде бул алардын чынчылдыгын сактайт

Mohlomongwe Trump le Zelenskyy Ba Swanetše go Leka Bodiplomate bja Blockchain—Bonyenyane E be e tla Ba Boloka ba Botega

شاید ټرمپ او زیلینسکي باید د بلاکچین ډیپلوماسۍ هڅه وکړي — لږترلږه دا به دوی صادق وساتي

Labda Trump na Zelenskyy Wanapaswa Kujaribu Diplomasia ya Blockchain-Angalau Ingewaweka Waaminifu

Kumbexana Trump na Zelenskyy Va Fanele Va Ringeta Vudiplomasi bya Blockchain—At Least Swi Ta Va Hlayisa Va Tshembekile

Mhlawumbe uTrump noZelenskyy Kufanele Bazame I-Blockchain Diplomacy-Okungenani Kungabagcina Bethembekile

Donald Trump, $80k Bitcoin and the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve

Unlocking the Secrets of Autocatalytic Sets: How Bit Strings and Reactions Shape Molecular Evolution

In my latest letter, Sell in May and Go Away, I highlighted that we were heading for the low liquidity season of the year and that the crypto markets would need a pause before trending higher. At this moment in time, I think the sluggish summer may finally be coming to an end. Uncertainty regarding the U.S. elections is in front of us, and given the many events that unfolded this month, I think we can expect plenty more volatility where investors will be “trading the election” until we see the results in November. Trump Going to the Oval Office? Trump is likely to become the next president. Following the assassination attempt, prediction markets put his likelihood at 71%, and now with Biden’s withdrawal, that has fallen to a comfortable 60%, with Kamala Harris looking like the second most obvious choice with a 38% probability currently. Digital Assets is the Talk of Town What’s interesting about this election is that digital assets have become a topic for candidates to discuss. Apparently, the political elite has finally understood that the +50M crypto holders in America represent a big voter base. This weekend, Trump and R. Kennedy Jr. are both speaking at the Bitcoin2024conference. Kamala Harris was also expected to speak there but declined the opportunity just a few days ago.Another interesting aspect is Trump’s choice of running mate, JD Vance. JD Vance is a self-proclaimed BTC holder, has been a strong proponent of the crypto industry in the Senate, and one of Gary Gensler's most vocal critics in recent years. A bitcoiner on the running card. How about that? Is it Finally Time to Lower the Rates? It’s now been a year since the Fed raised its benchmark rate to between 5.25% and 5.5%, holding this target range steady to date. In the meantime, Jerome Powell has said again and again that rates would not be lowered before something would either break or before the Fed would have been convinced inflation rates would trend lower towards the target rate of 2%. The most recent economic data signals that the Fed could soon start cutting rates: The Fed is getting closer to its 2% inflation target. In June, the monthly CPI fell by 0.1%, while the annual CPI rose by 3%. The U.S. economy is finally softening. GDP growth slowed to an annual rate of 1.4% in Q1 2024, down from 3.4% in the previous quarter. The labor market is also cooling down; June’s unemployment rate spiked to 4.1%, the highest it has been since November 2021. Additionally, Jerome Powell appeared on Capitol Hill this month and warned that “reducing policy restraint too late or too little could unduly weaken economic activity and employment.” Is the “higher for longer” regime coming to an end? It is still quite a balancing act for the Fed, but it seems inevitable that something has to move sooner rather than later. Currently, the market is predicting a 95.3% chance of a rate cut in September’s FOMC meeting. Bitcoin Remains Resilient Despite Sell-offs Bitcoin’s price has remained range-bound between $60K and $70K for most of the summer despite the drying liquidity from Bitcoin ETFs, which had propelled the price from lows of $42K before the approval to record highs of $73K in March. But what’s more remarkable is BTC’s resilience following the recent $2.87 billion sell-off by Germany’s Saxony state. That said, there's a risk of additional selling pressure. Mt. Gox, the defunct crypto exchange, has started its repayment plan, which aims to reimburse creditors around $9 billion worth of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. 140,000 BTC; this is worth over $9 billion at the current market price. So far, over 40% of the repayments have already been distributed to the creditors. On the brighter side, repayments in-kind does not equal selling pressure as creditors may decide to HODL their BTC. On-chain data shows that BTC withdrawals on Kraken spiked after the exchange completed distributing its share of allocated repayments. This is a sign that a good number of Mt. Gox creditors could be moving their repayments to cold wallets for long-term HODLing. Personally, I remain optimistic that BTC’s price will trend higher in H2 based on its current resilience amid the much-awaited Mt. Gox repayments, which most had predicted would be a huge sell-off event. Additionally, there are some macro and industry-specific factors that could be catalysts in sustaining the current price levels or pushing BTC higher: A good number of the creditors might decide to HODL onto their BTC, causing only short-term downward pressure on BTC’s price. Once the uncertainty over Mt. Gox repayments is over, there is no big expected selling pressure. There is a high chance that the Fed will cut rates in September, likely triggering a rally in risk-on assets. Liquidity is gradually returning to the market. Blackrock’s Bitcoin Spot ETF recently recorded a daily net inflow of $526 million, the largest since March 13th. The crypto market could soon play catch-up with the S&P 500, Nasdaq, and Gold, which showed strength in Q2 while BTC lagged over the past three months. The crypto markets are favoring the Republican Party, and currently, it remains likely that Trump will take office. In my latest letter, Sell in May and Go Away , I highlighted that we were heading for the low liquidity season of the year and that the crypto markets would need a pause before trending higher. At this moment in time, I think the sluggish summer may finally be coming to an end. Sell in May and Go Away Sell in May and Go Away Sell in May and Go Away Uncertainty regarding the U.S. elections is in front of us, and given the many events that unfolded this month, I think we can expect plenty more volatility where investors will be “trading the election” until we see the results in November. Trump Going to the Oval Office? Trump is likely to become the next president. Following the assassination attempt, prediction markets put his likelihood at 71%, and now with Biden’s withdrawal, that has fallen to a comfortable 60%, with Kamala Harris looking like the second most obvious choice with a 38% probability currently. Digital Assets is the Talk of Town What’s interesting about this election is that digital assets have become a topic for candidates to discuss. Apparently, the political elite has finally understood that the +50M crypto holders in America represent a big voter base. +50M crypto holders +50M crypto holders This weekend, Trump and R. Kennedy Jr. are both speaking at the Bitcoin2024 conference. Kamala Harris was also expected to speak there but declined the opportunity just a few days ago. Another interesting aspect is Trump’s choice of running mate, JD Vance. JD Vance is a self-proclaimed BTC holder, has been a strong proponent of the crypto industry in the Senate, and one of Gary Gensler's most vocal critics in recent years. Bitcoin2024 A bitcoiner on the running card. How about that? Is it Finally Time to Lower the Rates? It’s now been a year since the Fed raised its benchmark rate to between 5.25% and 5.5%, holding this target range steady to date. In the meantime, Jerome Powell has said again and again that rates would not be lowered before something would either break or before the Fed would have been convinced inflation rates would trend lower towards the target rate of 2%. The most recent economic data signals that the Fed could soon start cutting rates: could The Fed is getting closer to its 2% inflation target. In June, the monthly CPI fell by 0.1%, while the annual CPI rose by 3%. The Fed is getting closer to its 2% inflation target. In June, the monthly CPI fell by 0.1%, while the annual CPI rose by 3%. The U.S. economy is finally softening. GDP growth slowed to an annual rate of 1.4% in Q1 2024, down from 3.4% in the previous quarter. The U.S. economy is finally softening. GDP growth slowed to an annual rate of 1.4% in Q1 2024, down from 3.4% in the previous quarter. The labor market is also cooling down; June’s unemployment rate spiked to 4.1%, the highest it has been since November 2021. The labor market is also cooling down; June’s unemployment rate spiked to 4.1%, the highest it has been since November 2021. The labor market is also cooling down; June’s unemployment rate spiked to 4.1%, the highest it has been since November 2021. Additionally, Jerome Powell appeared on Capitol Hill this month and warned that “ reducing policy restraint too late or too little could unduly weaken economic activity and employment. ” reducing policy restraint too late or too little could unduly weaken economic activity and employment. Is the “higher for longer” regime coming to an end? It is still quite a balancing act for the Fed, but it seems inevitable that something has to move sooner rather than later. Currently, the market is predicting a 95.3% chance of a rate cut in September’s FOMC meeting. Bitcoin Remains Resilient Despite Sell-offs Bitcoin’s price has remained range-bound between $60K and $70K for most of the summer despite the drying liquidity from Bitcoin ETFs, which had propelled the price from lows of $42K before the approval to record highs of $73K in March. But what’s more remarkable is BTC’s resilience following the recent $2.87 billion sell-off by Germany’s Saxony state . Germany’s Saxony state Germany’s Saxony state That said, there's a risk of additional selling pressure. Mt. Gox, the defunct crypto exchange, has started its repayment plan, which aims to reimburse creditors around $9 billion worth of Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. 140,000 BTC; this is worth over $9 billion at the current market price. So far, over 40% of the repayments have already been distributed to the creditors. On the brighter side, repayments in-kind does not equal selling pressure as creditors may decide to HODL their BTC. On-chain data shows that BTC withdrawals on Kraken spiked after the exchange completed distributing its share of allocated repayments. This is a sign that a good number of Mt. Gox creditors could be moving their repayments to cold wallets for long-term HODLing. Personally, I remain optimistic that BTC’s price will trend higher in H2 based on its current resilience amid the much-awaited Mt. Gox repayments, which most had predicted would be a huge sell-off event. Additionally, there are some macro and industry-specific factors that could be catalysts in sustaining the current price levels or pushing BTC higher: A good number of the creditors might decide to HODL onto their BTC, causing only short-term downward pressure on BTC’s price. A good number of the creditors might decide to HODL onto their BTC, causing only short-term downward pressure on BTC’s price. Once the uncertainty over Mt. Gox repayments is over, there is no big expected selling pressure. Once the uncertainty over Mt. Gox repayments is over, there is no big expected selling pressure. There is a high chance that the Fed will cut rates in September, likely triggering a rally in risk-on assets. There is a high chance that the Fed will cut rates in September, likely triggering a rally in risk-on assets. Liquidity is gradually returning to the market. Blackrock’s Bitcoin Spot ETF recently recorded a daily net inflow of $526 million, the largest since March 13th. Liquidity is gradually returning to the market. Blackrock’s Bitcoin Spot ETF recently recorded a daily net inflow of $526 million, the largest since March 13th. The crypto market could soon play catch-up with the S&P 500, Nasdaq, and Gold, which showed strength in Q2 while BTC lagged over the past three months. The crypto market could soon play catch-up with the S&P 500, Nasdaq, and Gold, which showed strength in Q2 while BTC lagged over the past three months. The crypto markets are favoring the Republican Party, and currently, it remains likely that Trump will take office. The crypto markets are favoring the Republican Party, and currently, it remains likely that Trump will take office.

Here's Why It’s Time to Wake Up Again…

Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 21 of 21. IV To the extent that the majority’s new accountability paradigm allows Presidents to evade punishment for their criminal acts while in office, the seeds of absolute power for Presidents have been planted. And, without a doubt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. “If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.” Id., at 312. Likewise, “[i]f the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” Olmstead, 277 U. S., at 485 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). I worry that, after today’s ruling, our Nation will reap what this Court has sown. Stated simply: The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself. As we enter this uncharted territory, the People, in their wisdom, will need to remain ever attentive, consistently fulfilling their established role in our constitutional democracy, and thus collectively serving as the ultimate safeguard against any chaos spawned by this Court’s decision. For, like our democracy, our Constitution is “the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 389 (1821). For my part, I simply cannot abide the majority’s senseless discarding of a model of accountability for criminal acts that treats every citizen of this country as being equally subject to the law—as the Rule of Law requires. That core principle has long prevented our Nation from devolving into despotism. Yet the Court now opts to let down the guardrails of the law for one extremely powerful category of citizen: any future President who has the will to flout Congress’s established boundaries. In short, America has traditionally relied on the law to keep its Presidents in line. Starting today, however, Americans must rely on the courts to determine when (if at all) the criminal laws that their representatives have enacted to promote individual and collective security will operate as speedbumps to Presidential action or reaction. Once self-regulating, the Rule of Law now becomes the rule of judges, with courts pronouncing which crimes committed by a President have to be let go and which can be redressed as impermissible. So, ultimately, this Court itself will decide whether the law will be any barrier to whatever course of criminality emanates from the Oval Office in the future. The potential for great harm to American institutions and Americans themselves is obvious. * * * The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our Court’s ability to prevent Presidents from becoming Kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new Presidential accountability paradigm. I fear that they are wrong. But, for all our sakes, I hope that they are right. In the meantime, because the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 21 of 21. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 21 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here IV To the extent that the majority’s new accountability paradigm allows Presidents to evade punishment for their criminal acts while in office, the seeds of absolute power for Presidents have been planted. And, without a doubt, absolute power corrupts absolutely. “If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.” Id., at 312. Likewise, “[i]f the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy.” Olmstead, 277 U. S., at 485 (Brandeis, J., dissenting). I worry that, after today’s ruling, our Nation will reap what this Court has sown. Stated simply: The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself. As we enter this uncharted territory, the People, in their wisdom, will need to remain ever attentive, consistently fulfilling their established role in our constitutional democracy, and thus collectively serving as the ultimate safeguard against any chaos spawned by this Court’s decision. For, like our democracy, our Constitution is “the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.” Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 389 (1821). For my part, I simply cannot abide the majority’s senseless discarding of a model of accountability for criminal acts that treats every citizen of this country as being equally subject to the law—as the Rule of Law requires. That core principle has long prevented our Nation from devolving into despotism. Yet the Court now opts to let down the guardrails of the law for one extremely powerful category of citizen: any future President who has the will to flout Congress’s established boundaries. In short, America has traditionally relied on the law to keep its Presidents in line. Starting today, however, Americans must rely on the courts to determine when (if at all) the criminal laws that their representatives have enacted to promote individual and collective security will operate as speedbumps to Presidential action or reaction. Once self-regulating, the Rule of Law now becomes the rule of judges, with courts pronouncing which crimes committed by a President have to be let go and which can be redressed as impermissible. So, ultimately, this Court itself will decide whether the law will be any barrier to whatever course of criminality emanates from the Oval Office in the future. The potential for great harm to American institutions and Americans themselves is obvious. * * * The majority of my colleagues seems to have put their trust in our Court’s ability to prevent Presidents from becoming Kings through case-by-case application of the indeterminate standards of their new Presidential accountability paradigm. I fear that they are wrong. But, for all our sakes, I hope that they are right. In the meantime, because the risks (and power) the Court has now assumed are intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms, I dissent. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. supremecourt.gov

What Is Next for America After Trump v. United States?

Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 6 of 21. V This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 634 (Jackson, J., concurring). Our perspective must be more farsighted, for “[t]he peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July 5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). Our first President had such a perspective. In his Farewell Address, George Washington reminded the Nation that “a Government of as much vigour as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable.” 35 Writings of George Washington 226 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1940). A government “too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction,” he warned, could lead to the “frightful despotism” of “alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.” Id., at 226–227. And the way to avoid that cycle, he explained, was to ensure that government powers remained “properly distributed and adjusted.” Id., at 226. It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Continue Reading Here. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings.
This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 6 of 21. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 6 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here V This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 634 (Jackson, J., concurring). Our perspective must be more farsighted, for “[t]he peculiar circumstances of the moment may render a measure more or less wise, but cannot render it more or less constitutional.” Chief Justice John Marshall, A Friend of the Constitution No. V, Alexandria Gazette, July 5, 1819, in John Marshall’s Defense of McCulloch v. Maryland 190–191 (G. Gunther ed. 1969). Our first President had such a perspective. In his Farewell Address, George Washington reminded the Nation that “a Government of as much vigour as is consistent with the perfect security of Liberty is indispensable.” 35 Writings of George Washington 226 (J. Fitzpatrick ed. 1940). A government “too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction,” he warned, could lead to the “frightful despotism” of “alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge.” Id., at 226–227. And the way to avoid that cycle, he explained, was to ensure that government powers remained “properly distributed and adjusted.” Id., at 226. It is these enduring principles that guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. It is so ordered. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. supremecourt.gov

The U.S. Supreme Court: The President Has Immunity for Official Acts Committed During His Presidency

Trump v. United States: All of the Important Summary Points

Fine-tuned LLMs Know More, Hallucinate Less With Few-Shot Sequence-to-Sequence Semantic Parsing 

Unlocking the Power of Data Lakes for Embedded Analytics in Multi-Tenant SaaS

মাল্টি-টেন্যান্ট SaaS-এ এমবেডেড অ্যানালিটিক্সের জন্য ডেটা লেকের পাওয়ার আনলক করা

Entfesseln Sie die Leistungsfähigkeit von Data Lakes für eingebettete Analysen in Multi-Tenant-SaaS

Liberando el poder de los lagos de datos para análisis integrados en SaaS multiinquilino

Libérer la puissance des lacs de données pour l'analyse intégrée dans les SaaS multi-locataires

मल्टी-टेनेंट SaaS में एम्बेडेड एनालिटिक्स के लिए डेटा लेक्स की शक्ति को अनलॉक करना

マルチテナント SaaS の組み込み分析のためのデータレイクのパワーを解き放つ

멀티 테넌트 SaaS에 내장된 분석을 위한 데이터 레이크의 강력한 기능 활용

Desbloqueando o poder dos data lakes para análises incorporadas em SaaS multilocatário

Раскрытие возможностей озер данных для встроенной аналитики в мультитенантном SaaS

Çok Kiracılı SaaS'ta Gömülü Analitik için Data Lakes'in Gücünü Ortaya Çıkarma

Khai thác sức mạnh của Hồ dữ liệu cho Phân tích nhúng trong SaaS nhiều người thuê

释放数据湖的力量，实现多租户 SaaS 中的嵌入式分析

Stories, News & Mentions about OVAL

Categories

Trending Topics

Stories, News & Mentions about OVAL

Oval’s Stories on HackerNoon

Oval's News & Mentions

Categories

Trending Topics