The Gaza Ministry of Health systematically undercounts the dead. First, they only attemp to count direct casualties, which excludes preventable deaths from malnutrition, disease, loss of shelter, etc. Second, their capacity to find the dead is significantly reduced due to the war. This isn’t unique to this situation. For almost any disaster, casualty estimates continue to go up after the disaster itself is over, and there are resources to spend looking for dead bodies.

Congress does not have the constitutional authority to declare a prior Congresses laws invalid. For a bunch of internal stuff like the fillubuster rules, or remote voting, the current Congress can do whatever it wants without presidential review. However once a law is passed through the constitutional process, the constitution does not have a separate process for repealing it. This means that Congress would need to go through the same constitutional process to repeal it, which includes the possibility of a presidential veto.

Having said that, the Supreme Court does have the constitutional authority to declare a law invalid[0], and the President has no veto authority over that. Further, the current Supreme Court has invented out of nothingness two bedrock pillars of constitutional analysis:

1. The Major Questions Doctrine, which states that questions of major political or economic significance may not be delegated by Congress to the executive branch.

2. The Non-Delegation Doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate it’s lawmaking authority to other entities.

Since the Supreme Court is an unbiased arbiter of the law, I’m confident that they will apply these principles consistently and determine that Congress’s initial delegation if tarrif authority was unconditional. /s

[0] This is not actually explicit in the Constitution. But has been how it is interpreted since Marbury v Madison in 1803.

No they aren’t. Marrying a US citizen makes it easier to get a green card, but you still need to apply and go through the process. Even then, there is no legal guarantee that your application will be granted.

Normally, I would respond to this type of argument by explaining how the two party system is structural. But in this case, you are complaining about one of the only politicians that is not part of a political party.

Zionism is an ethnonationalist Ideology that says that Israel should exist as a Jewish state. Like all ethnonationalist movements, Zionism also has a strong component of territorial expansionism.

Israel’s founding was absolutely a Zionist project. And Zionism has been a large part of Israeli politics since then. However, there is another school of thought that goes “I don’t care how we got here, but it is 2025, and the state of Israel is a thing that exists, and I support the right of that entity and it’s citizens”.

This is a bit muddled in today’s climate, because the current Israeli leadership has been thoroughly captured by ultra Zionist. As in, Netenyahu’s government is only holding on to power by forming a coalition with far right fringe parties that until a few years ago were a third rail in Israeli politics. Back in 2007, their c now current Minister of National Security, Ben Gvir, was convicted of supporting a terrorist organization.

However, as with every country, people can have a different view towards the country as a whole, and it’s current political state.

Legally yes. Practically, the people handling the FOIA request do not know about it and do not have access to it, so they will not look at it when responding to a FOIA request. Also practically, if you submit a FOIA request for operational details of military action, the response will be no, and every judge you stand before to challenge that no will side with the government.

Because the thing people refer to when they say “linux” is not actually an operating system. It is a family of operating systems built by different groups that are built mostly the same way from mostly the same components (which, themselves are built by separate groups).