In a move that has sparked controversy and legal challenges, every public school classroom in Louisiana, from elementary to university level, has been ordered to display a poster featuring the Ten Commandments, as reported by BBC. This Republican-backed measure, signed into law by Governor Jeff Landry on Wednesday, is the first of its kind in the United States.

The new law mandates that the sacred text be displayed in "large, easily readable font" on an 11-by-14-inch poster, with the commandments being "the central focus" of the display. The posters must include a four-paragraph "context statement" describing how the directives "were a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries."

The law's author, Republican state lawmaker Dodie Horton, has spoken of the importance of returning a "moral code" to classrooms. "It's like hope is in the air everywhere," Horton was quoted as saying when the bill received the governor's approval.

BREAKING NEWS: Louisiana just became the 1st U.S. state to require the Ten Commandments be posted in classrooms. pic.twitter.com/aGtfEehxsj

— Dom Lucre | Breaker of Narratives (@dom_lucre) June 19, 2024

 While Christians regard the Ten Commandments as fundamental rules from God on how to live, opponents argue that the law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion. "The law was 'blatantly unconstitutional,'" read a joint statement from the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

BREAKING: We're suing Louisiana for requiring all public schools to display the Ten Commandments in every classroom.

Public schools are not Sunday schools.

— ACLU (@ACLU) June 19, 2024

Similar laws have recently been proposed by other Republican-led states, including Texas, Oklahoma, and Utah. The US Supreme Court has previously ruled against a similar law in Kentucky, striking it down in 1980 on the grounds that requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools "had no secular legislative purpose" and was "plainly religious in nature."

The post Louisiana mandates Ten Commandments poster in all classrooms appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

1.

From the very beginning of the anti-judicial reform protest movement, I wrote that its main goal was to arrive at a constitutional crisis: a clash between the executive and legislative branches and the judiciary. In other words, a clash between the government and the Supreme Court.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The past few months have sharpened the views of both sides and exposed them for all to see after decades of denial and feigned naiveté. The protest leaders believe that the current government does not have the legitimacy to rule (thereby erasing the voice of its voters); the Supreme Court remains the sole source of authority they are willing to accept. This is a practical translation of the "constitutional revolution" instituted by Aharon Barak as Supreme Court President. The legitimate attempt by the Knesset to turn back the tide even a little and check the court's unlimited powers is referred to by opponents as a "regime coup." Woe the irony!

That of course doesn't stop them from claiming their goal is to defend democracy.

2.

Now the protesters, the supporters of the Aharon Barak school of thought, the opposition parties, and most of the media are pushing as hard as they can for a constitutional crisis by getting the Supreme Court to strike down Basic Laws, thus bringing disaster upon us all. The Supreme Court itself defines Basic Laws as chapters of a future constitution, and therefore their normative status is higher than that of ordinary laws. It was through this distinction that the court struck down laws passed by the Knesset on the grounds that they contradicted Basic Laws. Now, when the Knesset has amended the basic laws in a way that is inconsistent with the worldview of opponents of the reform, there is talk of striking down the Basic Laws themselves. But the Knesset has never explicitly authorized the court to strike down its laws, let alone Basic Laws. So, what is the source of the Supreme Court's authority to do this?

The Attorney General has joined petitions against (!) the government over amendments to the Basic Laws enacted by the Knesset. Among other things, she justified her position based on the original doctrine of "unconstitutional constitutional amendment" and on "abuse of constituent power." This is probably insufficient as the doctrines were developed by the Supreme Court and do not come from a higher source of authority. Relying on them is like Baron Munchausen rescuing himself from the swamp by lifting himself out with his own hair. This puts the legislative branch above the other two branches and cements the status of the judges as an oligarchy that has taken for itself the authority that the sovereign – the people by means of the Knesset – never granted them. But opponents of reform and supporters of the current legal situation cry out "Democracy!" Woe the disgrace!

3.

But do not despair, Israel is not a widower. Retired justice Aharon Barak has come to their rescue. In an article he published about a week ago, he reiterated his idea that the source of authority to invalidate constitutional chapters lies in the Declaration of Independence. This is the "external anchor by virtue of which the Constituent Assembly was elected" he wrote, going on to say that the Declaration of Independence has been recognized as such and that it is by virtue of the Declaration that all Knessets have since then served in their two hats: as the legislative branch and as a constituent assembly. Barak illustrated this through a biological parable: "The Declaration of Independence is the mother who gave birth to the Constituent Assembly... The mother's DNA (the Declaration of Independence) was passed on to the daughter's DNA," The daughter being the first Constituent Assembly. Go argue with biology.

Video: PM Netanyahu speaks about judicial reform / Credit: Twitter/Prime Minister's Office

Barak claims that the declaration expresses the "will of the people," and therefore the constitution – in our case, the Basic Laws – "must express the vision of the people and its 'credo.'" The Supreme Court, in his view, is "the institution authorized to determine in a binding manner that the Knesset exceeded its initial constituent authority."

Who was there at the initial moment of the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence? To what extent did it represent the entire people in all its diversity and its different streams and parties? Did David Ben-Gurion himself see the Declaration of Independence as a document above the constitution? Of course not. But this is of no interest to Aharon Barak; he is neither a historian nor a sociologist. Barak uses the Declaration of Independence as a mechanism to create a source of authority – authority that gives the Supreme Court the ability to strike down Basic Laws, or, in other words, to debate constitutional chapters. There is almost no parallel for this in the world, and it is not for nothing that the only source Barak cites is the Supreme Court of India. What joy.

If, until now, we have failed to understand why Barak published his article on the eve of the fateful hearing, at the end of his article he implores the Supreme Court justices who are galloping toward constitutional crisis: "The court not only has the authority to do this, it has the duty to do so." And there we have it: The source of the authority to move forward with this irresponsible act and to invalidate amendments to the constitution is Aharon Barak in the role of Moses.

4.

But even the declaration at Mount Sinai, in the presence of Moses our Teacher himself, was not enough to establish the Torah as the constitution of the People of Israel. After 40 years of wandering in the desert, many of those who had come out of Egypt died and others joined the ranks of the People of Israel just before they entered the Land of Israel, a second covenant was enacted in the plains of Moab. Last Shabbat we read from the book of Deuteronomy: "These are the terms of the covenant which the Lord commanded Moses to conclude with the Israelites in the land of Moab, in addition to the covenant which was made with them at Horeb (Mount Sinai)."

This, too, was not enough to cement the constituent covenant. Therefore, Joshua ben Nun established two more covenants – like Moses, he did so at the beginning of his reign and towards his death. One at the altar on Mount Ebal: "... And there, on the stones, he inscribed a copy of the Teaching that Moses had written for the Israelites (i.e., the constitution) .... All Israel – stranger and citizen alike (i.e., the people) – with their elders, officials, and magistrates, stood on either side of the Ark, facing the Levite priests who carried the Ark of God's Covenant."

By the way, the late archaeologist Adam Zertal found this altar (I recommend visiting the place, it is a formative experience) and today the Palestinian Authority is trying to damage it. They understand its significance for our hold on the Land.

During the decades of Joshua's leadership, many residents of the Land joined the People of Israel, as did family members of those who had been to Egypt. Both groups were required to accept the initial covenant. Shortly before Joshua's death, we are told of a fourth covenant: "Joshua assembled all the tribes of Israel at Shechem. He summoned Israel's elders and commanders, magistrates and officers; and they presented themselves before God. On that day at Shechem, Joshua made a covenant for the People…".

5.

The four chapters in which the covenant between the People and its eternal constitution was established should also teach us something about the Declaration of Independence, to which Barak attributes, in his controversial article, the supreme source of authority for judicial review of the chapters of Israel's constitution. He was quick to put the Supreme Court above the Knesset and the "rebellious" government, and for him the initial covenant was sufficient, even though contrary to the biblical covenant, in real time it was not awarded that status.

Beyond the invented authority that violates the balance between the three branches of government and tips it in favor of the supremacy of the judiciary, his words also harm the standing of the Declaration of Independence as Israel's founding document that enables all of us – regardless of our different political and ideological views – to unite around it. The social consensus that the Declaration of Independence engendered across all Israel's camps, stemmed from its historical value as a declaration of intent rather than a binding constitution. That is no longer the case. The protest movement harmed the status of the army and security forces and used them to force the people to accept the minority opinion. Now, the Declaration of Independence is also being mobilized to serve as a political document through which an unelected minority can impose its opinion on the nation. All this, states Aharon Barak, is done in the name of "the will of the people." Woe for a language that has emptied of meaning.

Let us hope that Supreme Court President, Justice Esther Hayut, will rise above the madness that has enveloped us, and will not harm the Knesset's authority while it is (the Knesset) sitting as the constituent authority. It is a matter of life to us all.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post The Declaration of Independence is not the Mosaic Covenant appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In an extraordinary rebuke of US President Donald Trump, all 10 living former secretaries of defense are cautioning against any move to involve the military in pursuing claims of election fraud, arguing that it would take the country into "dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory."

The 10 men, both Democrats and Republicans, signed on to an opinion article published Sunday in The Washington Post that implicitly questioned Trump's willingness to follow his Constitutional duty to peacefully relinquish power on Jan. 20. Following the Nov. 3 election and subsequent recounts in some states, as well as unsuccessful court challenges, the outcome is clear, they wrote, while not specifying Trump in the article.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

"The time for questioning the results has passed; the time for the formal counting of the electoral college votes, as prescribed in the Constitution and statute, has arrived," they wrote.

The former Pentagon chiefs warned against use of the military in any effort to change the outcome.

"Efforts to involve the US armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful and unconstitutional territory," they wrote. "Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties, for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic."

A number of senior military officers, including Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have said publicly in recent weeks that the military has no role in determining the outcome of US elections and that their loyalty is to the Constitution, not to an individual leader or a political party.

The 10 former Pentagon leaders also warned in their Post article of the dangers of impeding a full and smooth transition at Defense Department prior to Inauguration Day as part of a transfer to power to President-elect Joe Biden. Biden has complained of efforts by Trump-appointed Pentagon officials to obstruct the transition.

Without mentioning a specific example, the former defense secretaries wrote that transfers of power "often occur at times of international uncertainty about US national security policy and posture," adding, "They can be a moment when the nation is vulnerable to actions by adversaries seeking to take advantage of the situation."

Tensions with Iran represent just such a moment. Sunday marked one year since the US killing of Qassem Soleimani, the top Iranian general; Iran has vowed to avenge the killing, and US officials said in recent days that they are on heightened alert for potential Iranian attack on US forces or interests in the Middle East.

In a further sign of US-Iranian tension, the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Milller, announced Sunday evening that he has changed his mind about sending the Navy aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz, home from the Middle East and instead will keep the vessel on duty. Just last week, Miller announced that he was sending the Nimitz home, a decision that had been opposed by senior military officers.

In reversing himself, Miller cited "recent threats issued by Iranian leaders against President Trump and other US government officials." He did not elaborate, and the Pentagon did not respond to questions.

The opinion article in the Post was signed by Dick Cheney, William Perry, Donald Rumsfeld, William Cohen, Robert Gates, Leon Panetta, Chuck Hagel, Ash Carter, James Mattis and Mark Esper. Mattis was Trump's first defense secretary; he resigned in 2018 and was succeeded by Esper, who was fired just days after the Nov. 3 election.

The Post reported that the idea for writing the opinion piece began with a conversation between Cheney and Eric Edelman, a retired ambassador and former senior Pentagon official, about how Trump might seek to use the military in coming days.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post 10 former Pentagon chiefs warn Trump not to drag military into election fraud claims appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

El-Sissi led the military overthrow of an elected but divisive Islamist president amid mass protests against his rule in 2013 and has since presided over an unprecedented crackdown on dissent. Thousands of people, including many pro-democracy activists, have been arrested by authorities. Freedoms won in 2011, when mass protests ended President Hosni Mubarak's nearly three-decade rule, have been rolled back.

Lasheen Ibrahim, the head of Egypt's National Election Authority, told a news conference the amendments to the 2014 constitution were approved with 88.83% voting in favor, with a turnout of 44.33%. The nationwide referendum took place over three days, from Saturday through Monday to maximize turnout. Egypt has some 61 million eligible voters.

In his first public comments on the amendments, el-Sissi thanked the Egyptian people for voting.

"Wonderful scene done by Egyptians who took part in the referendum... will be written down in our nation's historical record," he tweeted minutes after Ibrahim announced the results.

Pro-government media, business people and lawmakers had pushed for a "Yes" vote and a high turnout, with many offering free rides and food handouts to voters, while authorities threatened to fine anyone boycotting the three-day referendum.

Opposition parties had urged a "no" vote, but they have little power in parliament, which is packed with el-Sissi supporters and overwhelmingly approved the amendments earlier this month. The local media is also dominated by pro-government commentators, and the authorities have blocked hundreds of websites, including many operated by independent media and rights groups.

Two international advocacy groups – Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists – had urged the Egyptian government to withdraw the amendments, saying they placed the country on a path to more autocratic rule.

Hassan Nafaa, a political science professor at Cairo University, said the results were expected. "There will be dangerous repercussion from the ruling regime as we will see more repression and restrictive policies," he said.

Generally, the amendments extend a president's term in office from four to six years and allow for a maximum of two terms. But they also include a special article specific to el-Sissi that extends his current second four-year term to six years and allows him to run for another six-year term in 2024 – potentially extending his rule until 2030.

The changes also allow the president to appoint top judges and include language declaring the military the "guardian and protector" of the Egyptian state, democracy and the constitution, while granting military courts wider jurisdiction in trying civilians.

El-Sissi was elected president in 2014 and re-elected last year after all potentially serious challengers were jailed or pressured to exit the race.

Parliament overwhelmingly approved the amendments last week, with only 22 no votes and one abstention from 554 lawmakers in attendance. The national electoral commission announced the following day that voting would begin Saturday.

Since early April, the Egyptian capital had been awash with large posters and banners encouraging people to vote in favor of the changes. Most of the posters were apparently funded by pro-government parties, businessmen and lawmakers.

In Cairo's central Tahrir Square, where mass protests became the symbol of the 2011 anti-Mubarak uprising and of hopes for democratic change in Egypt, the posters urged people to vote in the referendum.

"Take part, say ... 'yes' for the constitutional amendments," said one banner near the offices of the pro-government Nation's Future Party. Most of the posters were apparently funded by pro-government parties, businessmen and lawmakers.

During the referendum, business people and lawmakers loyal to el-Sissi offered incentives to voters. They provided buses to transport people free of charge to a polling center. Also some voters were being handed bags of food staples – like oil, rice and sugar – after they cast their ballots.

Trucks with loudspeakers drove around central Cairo through the three-day referendum, playing patriotic songs and urging people to vote.

The post Egypt voters approve referendum extending president's rule appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.