The African Diaspora Interbank Market News Scan as of 9:03 am EDT

Currency PairExchange Rate

Source: OANDA

The Court is the King’s bench: Limiting the US Supreme Court by re-aligning institutions …

“The province of the court is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to inquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion.  Questions, in their nature political, or which are, by the constitution and laws, submitted to the executive, can never be made in this court.” Marbury v Madison

I came across the above quote while further reflecting on the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.  During this reflection, I reminded myself that court opinions are pieces of strategic communications first and foremost.  Court or case law reconciles philosophy, government narrative, politics, and policy in order to clarify what the law is.

During days of monarchy, it was clearer as to what the law was.  It was the king’s edict.  The court was the king’s bench.  From the bench, the king announced the law, clarifying it and applying it when settling controversies. His designees, scribes, and later “lawyers” would be tasked with spreading his rulings through the land wherever controversies arose.

I am not calling for a return to those simpler times, but I believe that using that simple framework from antiquity could be used for reforming the court.

When the opinion in Dobbs was issued, the arguments about reforming the court came to surface again.  The most poignant argument from the Left has been that the number of justices on the court needs to be expanded so that the diversity of current society and its values are better represented.  By extension, the Left appears to be saying that a court of say 15 justices, more racially and gender-identity diverse, would come to rulings more in line with the sentiments of society.

The data provides the Left some support in that regard.  As I determined in a previous post, approximately 60% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal, yet the majority in Dobbs noted in its analysis that historically, most states have treated abortion as a crime and given that the right to an abortion is not expressed in the Constitution, history, along with text and precedence, should be a factor when determining if the right exists at all.

But are courts representatives of the people?  Are they a representative body and should they be?  The majority in Dobbs seems to drive home the point that the court is not a representative body.  It is a creature of a republic but not a democratic body.  The court reiterated that the public should have these debates and have the debates decided legislatively via the state representatives they, the people, elected. 

I could see rebuttal from the Left where Marbury is cited as license for the high court to decide on the abortion rights of the individual woman.  The court, at least a court preferring a strict reading of the Constitution, will say, “Sure, we agree that we decide on individual rights, but only on those rights the people and their government explicitly say exists and abortion is not one of them.”

The court did a full-court libertarian press with this opinion, taking itself out of the decision as to what a woman can do with her body.  That is the irony; that pro-choice advocates would want the government involved in the decision at all. I don’t believe these advocates asked themselves if the benefit of having a uniform abortion law that saves them on the costs of forum shopping is worth the cost of their individual liberties and the slippery slope that raises these costs.

But back to the issue of reforming the court.  Reformation should start with ensuring that the court is politically aligned with the administration.  Each member should be nominated or re-nominated by the elected president.  The justices’ terms would be attached to the term in office of the President. It would be understood that decisions on individual rights, the interpretation of the Constitution, the clarification of the law would be done within the philosophy, narrative, politics, and polices of the Administration. This approach raises the importance of voting, especially since a president relies on a supportive Senate majority to get her nominees through confirmation.

Is Congressional legislative intent left out in the cold? No, because the policies of an administration are based on the president’s duty to execute the law, so any interpretation of the law by the court takes Congress’ intent into account.

A real government speaks with one voice.  A re-alignment ensures clarity and reduces uncertainty.

The electorate has been passing the buck for too long.  If Americans endorse the notion of government, it has to endorse an electoral process that aligns all spinners of political narrative into one box.  Society is too split, its government’s policies too disjointed for this reason.     

Alton Drew

30 June 2022

Disclaimer: This blog post should not be construed as legal advice or an agreement to provide legal or political analysis.  To set up a consultation, contact us at

We appreciate your readership and support.  Feel free to donate to us via PayPal or support our advertisers. We are also seeking sponsors for our blog.  Contact us at

The African Diaspora Interbank Market News Scan as of 9:33 am EDT

All money is political …

Currency PairExchange Rate

Source: OANDA

Is the ruling in Dobbs going to create political instability?

On the 24th of June, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization holding that the 14th Amendment does not protect a right to an abortion.  Any such right, the court held, should be deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition and implicit in the concept of implicit liberty.

The holding in Roe v Wade, the court went on to say, abused judicial authority and was egregiously wrong from the beginning.  “The reasoning was weak and the decision has had damaging consequences”, inflaming debate while dividing the country.

The issue belongs to the people and their elected representatives, said the court. The Constitution and rule of law demand that citizens try to persuade each other of their positions and then vote.

My issue is, will the decision create political instability that interferes with the government’s role as a tax and customs jurisdiction and an issuer of debt?  The answer is no.  At risk of a hot summer of protest, there will be no political instability.

According to data from Pew Research, 61% of Americans say abortions should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

Pew also found that 74% of white evangelicals believe that abortion is illegal in all or most cases, while 84% of unaffiliated Americans thought otherwise.

Sixty-six percent of black Protestants; 60% of white non-evangelical Protestants; and 56% of Catholics thought that abortion should be legal in most or all cases.

Seventy-four percent of Asian adults; 68% of black adults; 60% of Hispanic adults; and 59% of white adults agreed that abortion should be legal, according to Pew data.

While the data supports a finding that the majority of Americans support the right to an abortion, there is apparently no support for the uncertainty that arises from 50 different state laws.  Will we see legislation out of Congress that tries to put the holding from Roe v. Wade into statutory law?  And if so, what are the chances of passage?

Reports from The Hill are that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, is considering three legislative proposals including putting the opinion from Roe v. Wade into statutory law.  Unfortunately for the Democrats, a couple scenarios need to occur if legislation is to pass.

Democrats number 220 members in the House of Representatives while the Republicans number 210.  If all House Democrats hold fast and send a bill to the Senate codifying Roe v Wade, the Senate Democrats, assuming all 50 Republicans vote against a codified Roe v Wade, will have to ensure that its Democratic moderates and the Senate’s two independents, Angus King, Independent of Maine, and Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, vote with the Democrats leaving it up to Senate President Kamala Harris to break a tie.

Unless the Democrats make a move before leaving Washington for summer break and campaigning, the abortion issue will be dwarfed by issues in the economy.  Americans will not be moved by video of young college co-eds protesting the lack of federal protection of their right to access a uniform national framework for abortion while families struggle with inflation, tighter credit markets, and wages not keeping up with high prices.

No, Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health will not result in political instability.  For most Americans, abortion will be an issue cooling down during the political summer.

Alton Drew

27 June 2022   

Disclaimer: This blog post should not be construed as legal advice or an agreement to provide legal or political analysis.  To set up a consultation, contact us at

We appreciate your readership and support.  Feel free to donate to us via PayPal or support our advertisers. We are also seeking sponsors for our blog.  Contact us at

Federal Open Market Committee announces its tentative meeting schedule for 2023

The Federal Open Market Committee on Friday announced its tentative meeting schedule for 2023:

January 31-February 1 (Tuesday-Wednesday)

March 21-22 (Tuesday-Wednesday)

May 2-3 (Tuesday-Wednesday)

June 13-14 (Tuesday-Wednesday)

July 25-26 (Tuesday-Wednesday)

September 19-20 (Tuesday-Wednesday)

October 31-November 1 (Tuesday-Wednesday)

December 12-13 (Tuesday-Wednesday)

January 30-31, 2024 (Tuesday-Wednesday)

For media inquiries, e-mail or call 202-452-2955.

The African Diaspora Interbank Market News Scan as of 9:24 am EDT

Foreign Exchange, Africa, Caribbean, United States, Great Britain

I haven’t done an interbank market news scan in some time.  I have decided to focus the scan on the African Diaspora looking at the US dollar in terms of certain African and Caribbean nations.  I expect this scan to expand in the future.

Currency PairExchange Rate

 Source: OANDA

27 June 2022

Dobbs is the continuation of the management of privacy …

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392) is less about the federal government protecting abortion and more about severely and preferably eliminating privacy. Privacy interferes with the flow of information the government and its privateers (business) need in order to manage population.

This is just the beginning ….

Alton Drew

26 June 2022