Connect with us

Features

Spotlight on SCOTUS: Trump and the Political System on Trial in the US

Published

on

US Supreme Court Justices: Front row, left to right: Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: Amy Coney Barrett, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

by Rajan Philips

SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States, is the most common coinage that is currently in political circulation in the US. On Thursday the Court heard oral arguments in the Colorado case, Trump v. Anderson. The case involves Donald Trump’s appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court ruling disqualifying him from being a candidate in the State of Colorado for the US Presidential election on account of his involvement as instigator in the 2021 January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol in Washington, to prevent the ratification of the (November 2020) election of Joe Biden as President by the US Congress.

Come Monday, the Court will have to deal with another Trump appeal – against the February 6 ruling of the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit, rejecting Trump’s claim of absolute immunity for ever from criminal prosecution for actions during his time as President.

The Appeal Court’s ruling dismissed Trump’s interlocutory appeal against his four-count Indictment in the Washington District Court on account of his actions challenging the 2020 election results and interfering with the process of certification of the results by the US Congress on January 6, 2021.

An American Labyrinth

To be clear, the case in Colorado was brought by a group of Republican voters led by Norma Anderson, a 91-year old former Republican State Legislator. The group was seeking to stop the Colorado Secretary of State from placing the name of Donald Trump on the ballot for the State’s Republican presidential primary election for nomination of the Republican candidate for the presidential election in November. The group claimed that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution disqualified the former President from seeking the presidency in 2024, because he had engaged in insurrection on 2021 January 6, after swearing an oath as President to support the US Constitution.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, adopted in July 1868, is a product of the post-Civil War era, and Section 1 of the Amendment is one of the most consequential and litigated provisions of the US Constitution. Its many clauses have been used to extend civil liberties to African Americans, enable abortion and gay rights, and enforce equal protection and due process requirements.

The Amendment also includes one of the most dormant parts of the constitution, i.e., Section 3, which forbids former office holders, who violate their oath of office to support the constitution by participating in an insurrection or rebellion, from holding office again.

Its historical purpose was to prevent former confederates from becoming elected or appointed officials in the federal and state governments after the Civil War. There has only been one judicial pronouncement on Section 3 soon after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, and only one instance of its application to disqualify a person in election.

That was in 1919, when Section 3 was invoked to prevent Victor Berger, an Austrian American and a founding member of the Socialist Party of America, from assuming his seat in the US Congress after winning elections twice, in 1919 and 1920, from a district in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Berger had been previously elected twice and served as a Congressman, becoming the first Socialist to enter the US Congress in 1910. His later disqualification arose on account of being convicted under the Espionage Act for anti-war writings during World War 1. His expulsion was overturned by the US Supreme Court and Berger went on to serve as a Congressman for three terms after winning three elections in the 1920s.

Almost a 100 years later, Section 3 has been invoked in Colorado to challenge Donald Trump’s qualification as a presidential candidate. Trump is palpably more disqualified than Victor Berger ever was, but the legal opinion on the matter is strongly divided. And those who disagree with the disqualification school are more concerned about the practicality of enforcing it and they would seem to prefer the easier alternative of leaving it to the voters to have the final say.

That apparently is the democratic way. But that would be treating Donald Trump differently, and perhaps deferentially, from others. Needless to say, many Democrats, including Democratic States, such as California, disagree with the approach taken by Colorado, even the action in Colorado was triggered by Republican voters.

Unlike the Colorado case, the case against Trump in the Washington District Court has been brought by independent Special Counsel Jack Smith appointed by the US Justice Department. Remarkably, the Washington case that indicts Trump on four counts for his actions challenging the 2020 election results and for interfering with the process of their certification by Congress, makes no mention of insurrection or Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

It is a straightforward criminal case and Trump’s challenge of the indictment is on the grounds of presidential immunity. The District Court rejected his challenge, and the Federal Court of Appeal has now endorsed the lower court’s rejection. Trump has been given till Monday to appeal this ruling to US Supreme Court.

Looking for an Off-Ramp

Pundits and court watchers are predicting SCOTUS to overrule the Colorado decision, that would enable Trump to be a presidential candidate in November this year. For a third time in a row, a first after Franklin Roosevelt during World War II. The Court is equally expected to uphold the Federal Appeal Court ruling rejecting Trump’s immunity claim, potentially without even a hearing. Even a rare unanimity among the judges is expected in both cases.

In the Colorado case, the Court is expected to rule against the State for practical reasons, sidestepping the grounds Trump’s appeal is based on. In the immunity case, the judges are expected to quietly endorse the ruling of the Appeal Court which has been widely praised as a judicial tour de force in constitutional rulings.

In effect, the two SCOTUS decisions would leave Trump continuing as a candidate with his legal jeopardy continuing alongside. In the best case scenario for the American political system, Trump will be defeated in the November election and that should end the phenomenon of Trumpism in American politics, but not necessarily the end of the forces in American society and their grievances against American elitism and establishment that Trump has been able to mobilize and sustain through three US election cycles.

In the worst case scenario, Trump will win the election and all chaos will break loose. But it will not be the end of the world for America, and there could be a new America at the end of four years if a second Trump presidency were to last a full term surviving its own endemic chaos.

Without question, there would be irreparable setbacks and irreversible changes, mostly on the external front. America will be isolated from the outside, and it would be a wholly different isolationist experience from the internally inspired desire for isolationism that is part of the American political tradition.

Trump doesn’t belong to that tradition or, for that matter, to any positive tradition in the country. The worst case scenario for America could also be the best case scenario for Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel, if he were to last that long in office; and to a lesser extent for Vladimir Putin in Russia, who would likely outlast all his western detractors.

It is fair to assume that all of the nine Supreme Court judges would be hoping the November election would see the defeat of Trump and create the best case scenario for their county. That includes not only the liberal leaning, Democratic appointees on the Court (Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kegan, both appointed by President Obama; and Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed by President Biden), but also the two archetypal conservatives (Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George HW Bush; and Samuel Alito, appointed by President George W Bush); the three Trump appointees (Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett); not to mention the beleaguered Chief Justice of the ideologically divided Court, John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush.

That all of them are leaning towards dismissing the Colorado is the inference of almost all pundits and commentators after listening to oral submissions by lawyers appearing for Trump and the Colorado petitioners and the tones and lines of questioning by Justices. Some of the sharpest questions came from two liberal Justices, Elena Kegan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – the newest Justice on the Court and appointed by President Biden.

Justice Kagan is considered to have hinted at a potential ‘off-ramp’ on which all the justices could agree. And that involves what Justice Kagan called the “broader principle” of state and federal powers.

She contended that while “states have great power over many different areas” in the American federal system, “there are certain national questions where states are not the repository of authority,” and one of them could be the election of a president. The same point was made by the Chief Justice that allowing one state to disqualify a (Republican) presidential candidate now could have the effect of enabling other states to disqualify a Democratic presidential candidate in a partisan tit for tat in the future.

For all justices, the practicality of the remedy seemed to outweigh the legal question involving Trump’s candidacy in terms of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. And the Justices’ questioning seemed to indicate any illegality of Trump’s candidacy could only be addressed by the Congress after his election. That would be akin to asking the Congress to do what Trump is now being accused of asking the Congress to do against Joe Biden after the 2020 election.

Jason Murray, the young lawyer appearing for the Colorado petitioners, acquitted himself very well against some tough questioning by Justices during the oral hearing. Later on in media interviews, Mr. Murray acknowledged the tough questions he faced, but pointed out that he faced the same questions before the Colorado Supreme Court. He said he is hopeful that as with the Colorado judges, the Supreme Court Justices would also have to deal with the illegality of Trump’s candidacy in spite of their initial skepticism about the practicality of doing it.

Donald Trump is facing multiple indictments, involving numerous charges, in multiple courts. Perhaps no American before him, let alone a former President, has been simultaneously implicated in so many litigations. At the same time, even as he is mired in multiple cases, Donald Trump has also put on trial the entire American political system.



Features

Combining local resources,traditional knowledge and science to build a food-secure Sri Lanka

Published

on

World Food Day 2026: Innovating today for a better food future

by Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara

What will be on the Sri Lankan dinner table ten years from now? Will our children be able to get nutritious food at a price their families can afford? Will farmers be able to grow enough despite changing weather and rising costs? And how much of the food we produce will actually reach the consumer, instead of being lost or wasted along the way?

These questions can’t wait. A farmer faces unpredictable weather. A family faces rising food costs. Fruit goes unsold after a good harvest. Some children do not get enough nutrition. The future of food is tied to the future of Sri Lanka itself.

World Food Day 2026 is a chance to look beyond the immediate problems and ask whether we can build a food system that feeds our people well, gives farmers better opportunities, protects the environment and makes better use of what we already have. The answer can be yes, but we will have to think differently.

We are not starting from zero. Sri Lanka has diverse crops, fisheries, traditional food knowledge, indigenous varieties, research institutions, universities and a young generation able to create new solutions. What we need is to bring these together and act. Producing more will not secure our food future on its own. It will depend on how intelligently we produce, process, preserve, distribute and consume food.

Making more of what we already have

Innovation does not always mean inventing something new. Often it means finding better uses for the resources we have.

Sri Lanka grows traditional rice varieties, kurakkan, green gram, cowpea, jackfruit, breadfruit, cassava, sweet potato, coconut and palmyrah. All of them have great potential for modern, nutritious, value-added foods. Jackfruit and breadfruit can be made into flour and other convenient products. Traditional rice varieties can go into new foods that suit changing consumer needs. Palmyrah, with its strong cultural heritage, can create new income through better processing, packaging, quality assurance and market development.

The aim is to connect our traditional food knowledge with modern consumer needs and technology, while keeping our food heritage.

Stop wasting the food we produce

Reducing food loss and waste should be a major priority. Seasonal fruits such as mango, banana, papaya and pineapple can be lost in large quantities when production exceeds demand or when storage, transport and processing facilities are inadequate. With suitable technology, these fruits can become dried products, pulps, powders, beverages and other shelf-stable foods.

Agricultural and fisheries by-products are resources too. They could be turned into food ingredients, animal feed, bio-based products and other useful materials, which would move us toward a more circular food economy.

Technology alone is not enough. We need stronger local processing facilities, cold storage, efficient transport, collection centres and market information systems, especially close to where food is produced. Cutting food loss raises the value of what our farmers and fishers already produce.

Nutrition and food safety come first

Food security means more than having enough food. People also need food that is safe and nutritious.

Sri Lanka can develop affordable, nutritious foods from local pulses, grains, vegetables, fruits and fish. Children and other vulnerable groups should get particular attention. Schoolchildren in particular deserve a focus: safe, nutritious, locally sourced products for school feeding programs would support child nutrition, local farmers and domestic food industries at the same time.

Food safety must stay at the centre of food innovation. Good hygiene, quality control, laboratory testing, traceability and appropriate food safety systems are what make new products safe as well as attractive and nutritious.

A food system that can cope with climate change

Climate change is already affecting agricultural production, water availability, crop yields and food prices. We need food systems that can handle changing conditions. That means climate-resilient crops, efficient water use, soil and water conservation, better storage and resource-efficient food processing.

Traditional knowledge matters here. Generations of Sri Lankan farmers have developed practices suited to local climates and ecosystems. Combining that experience with modern science can give us solutions that fit local conditions and are sustainable. Technology alone will not build the future of food. Science, experience and local knowledge together can.

Give young people a bigger role

Sri Lanka’s universities have an important part to play in shaping our food future. Young people should be encouraged to identify real problems in the food system and work on practical solutions in areas such as food waste, sustainable packaging, nutrition, food safety, modernising traditional foods and digital technologies.

A good research project should not always end as a research paper. Where appropriate, research should be supported to move on to products, technologies, enterprises and community solutions. That needs stronger partnerships between universities and industry, along with mentoring, research funding, business support and market connections. If young researchers and entrepreneurs can turn their ideas into viable food innovations, both consumers and producers will benefit.

A pathway designed for Sri Lanka

We do not need to copy food-system models from other countries. We can build a pathway that suits our own resources, culture and needs. It would bring together local resources, traditional knowledge, scientific research, appropriate technology and entrepreneurship, with farmers, fishers, universities, research institutions, food industries, entrepreneurs and policymakers working side by side.

The goal goes beyond selling raw materials. We need to create more value, reduce waste, improve nutrition, generate jobs and strengthen rural livelihoods. This matters especially for small and medium-scale food enterprises, which can drive local economic development when they get the right technical, financial and market support.

The choices we make today

The food future will not create itself. It will be shaped by what we grow, what we research, what we process, what we consume and what we choose not to waste.

So, the question for World Food Day 2026 is this: what can we do today so that every Sri Lankan has safe, nutritious, affordable and sustainable food tomorrow?

The answers are already around us, in our farms, fisheries, food businesses, universities, laboratories and communities. We have the resources, the traditional knowledge, the scientific expertise and talented young people. What we need now is to connect them and act.

A better food future begins with the choices we make today.

Dr. Kaushalya Wijayasekara

Senior Lecturer, Department of Biosystems Technology, Faculty of Technology, University of Ruhuna

Continue Reading

Features

20th Anniversary of Digampathana blast – the day Sri Lanka Navy cried

Published

on

Aftermath of the terror attack

By Admiral Ravindra C Wijegunaratne
WV, RWP and Bar, RSP, VSV, USP, NI (M) (Pakistan), ndc, psn, Bsc
(Hons) (War Studies) (Karachi) MPhil (Madras)
Former Navy Commander and Former Chief of Defence Staff
Former Chairman, Trincomalee Petroleum Terminals Ltd
Former Managing Director Ceylon Petroleum Corporation
Former High Commissioner to Pakistan

The Digampathana suicide truck attack on 16th October 2006 remains the deadliest single strike in Sri Lanka Navy history, leaving scars that time cannot erase.

It was a seemingly ordinary Monday morning on 16 October 2006, but the calm of that day would soon be shattered in a way none of us could have imagined. As the Commandant of the Naval and Maritime Academy and Flag Officer Commanding Naval Fleet at Trincomalee, I was aware that a number of my cadets were travelling that morning, part of a convoy of fifteen buses carrying naval personnel from Trincomalee, Colombo, and other bases, heading toward Dambulla to rendezvous with another group. The convoy also included trucks and escort vehicles, a routine movement planned and coordinated with the army to ensure the roads were clear. The morning started quietly. Some personnel greeted friends, handed over their weapons, or strolled to a nearby tea shop. It all seemed so ordinary—too ordinary for what would come next.

Sri Lanka Navy sunk LTTE Ships carrying arms, ammunition and warlike materials thousand miles away from Sri Lanka in Indian Ocean in September and October 2007.

By late morning, both convoys had reached the small ground at Digampathana, near the Sigiriya junction, and personnel mingled briefly, unaware that a carefully orchestrated act of terror was waiting. Then, suddenly, an empty half-truck veered directly into the convoy. It exploded with a ferocity I can still recall as if it were yesterday. Nuts, bolts, and high explosives tore through the air. Pandemonium erupted instantly. I later learned that 107 of our naval personnel were killed on the spot and another 153 critically injured. The scene was indescribable—bodies scattered, vehicles mangled, personal effects strewn across the ground. I remember later hearing that the head of the suicide bomber was recovered more than 100 meters away from the blast, a grim testament to the sheer force of the explosion.

I was in my office at the Naval and Maritime Academy when my mobile phone rang. A young midshipman from the 21st intake called, his voice trembling: “Sir, there was a huge explosion at the convoy point! Many are dead … my batch mate Wijesundara is among them.” I immediately jumped into my jeep with my escort Chief Petty Officer and driver and rushed to Digampathana, relying on every ounce of my driving skill to reach the scene. The journey, which usually took little more than an hour, felt endless that day, each passing mile weighed down by dread.

When I arrived, I was confronted with a sight that no training can prepare you for. The injured were being rushed to Dambulla Hospital, where doctors and nurses worked tirelessly, improvising in ways that saved lives despite the overwhelming chaos. I went back to the site after visiting the hospital. The remains of our naval personnel were scattered across the ground, and someone had begun collecting weapons and protective gear. I immediately contacted Surgeon Rear Admiral Nico Jayasekara and received his instructions: collect all body parts in separate bags and transport them to the Trincomalee Naval Hospital mortuary. This gruesome work had to be done with care and dignity, and it filled the icebox in my vehicle. Through DNA testing initiated by Rear Admiral Nico, we were able to identify every naval personnel lost that day, bringing some closure to grieving families.

The Navy Commander at the time, Vice Admiral Wasantha Karannagoda, was devastated. I had worked closely with him and knew how deeply he cared for his men. He ensured that the fallen were honoured with full ceremonial naval funerals at Welisara Naval Base, attended by families and comrades. Sixty-seven funerals were conducted in a single day—a number that still haunts me.

The Digampathana attack remains the largest single loss of naval life in our history. It was a day of sorrow, but also a day that reinforced our resolve. The tragedy galvanized the Navy to target the LTTE Sea Tiger wing with renewed determination and reshaped our maritime operations forever. Every time I think of that day, I remember not just the lives lost, but the courage, professionalism, and dedication of those who survived, those who treated the injured, and those who ensured the fallen were honored properly. May the souls of our naval hero’s rest in peace, their sacrifice guiding us and inspiring generations of naval personnel to come.

Continue Reading

Features

‘Murder at Whitby Abbey’

Published

on

Tales of Mystery and Suspense – 24

I was intrigued by the title of a book I found in a book drop at the condominium of a friend, Murder at Whitby Abbey, and I brought it home with me though I will not be able to return it in the near future. It was described on the cover page as ‘a standout in the crowded medieval mystery field’, though I fear I do not know of other books in this field, apart from the Cadfael series, which I have dealt with earlier.

The book, by Cassandra Clark, is set during the reign of Richard II and has as a backdrop his precarious position, which led to his being replaced, and murdered, by his cousin Henry, who reigned as Henry IV. It is a gloomy book, the action taking place in the twelve days of Christmas leading up to the Epiphany. And the gloom is pervasive, even though this is supposed to be a time of festivity, with mummers performing, and many of those in the guest house where the heroine stays going to town to enjoy themselves, with much drinking and much music, which also fills the guesthouse.

The heroine Hildegarde is a nun, sent to try to acquire a relic being sold by Whitby Abbey, though this was also a penance set by the Abbot of the monastery that governed her abbess because she had had sex with a man. Soon after she and her companions reach the Abbey set high on a cliff, she finds that there are other bidders, and soon suspects that the hierarchy, not perhaps the Abbot who seems a weakling, but his rapacious bursar, is determined to make money, and not above creating false relics to sell to several aspirants.

After Hildegarde and her Cistercian companions – Whitby is a Benedictine Foundation – two monks, Gregory and Egbert, and a young priest Mark, reach the abbey, they find that Aelwyn, a monk they had met on their way to the guesthouse had died. This was in the apple store, and they realize, when they find the surplices of novices stuffed into the air vents, that he had been left to suffocate in the overwhelming scent of apples.

Clark

The Cistercians are asked to look into the death, perhaps because they are likely to get no cooperation from the Abbey folk, but perhaps because those in charge are keen to know what happened. And the infirmarer, an old monk, suggests Hildegarde talk to a man called Edred who worked for the bursar, and had been a friend of Aelwyn’s. But Edred too is killed, before he can keep an appointment he had made with Hildegarde, drowned in a pool near the farmhouse of the Abbey.

Meanwhile tensions arise between the fisherfolk and the abbey for the bursar wants to charge them for using the beach that technically belongs to the abbey to dry their fish and their nets. This leads to physical battles, when the guards used by the abbey, under the command it seems of the bursar whose determination to make money is not resisted by the abbot and the prior, try to storm the area where the fishermen live.

Hildegard finds out more about what had happened through two youngsters, one of whom Torold is the son of Aelwyn by a woman who worked as a prostitute for a cartel, and with whom Mark fell in love. The other works on the farm and had seen Edred meet someone near the pool, after which that someone left the place by himself. And the boy had also found in the pool a sort of dagger with the seal of the abbey.

He and his dog, and Torold who follows her, rescue Hildegarde from a man at arms who has waylaid her and tries to rape her earlier. Escaping into the abbey she was nearly been raped then by the bursar, but she managed to escape, in the process setting fire to him and the muniments room, which led, when he was rescued, to the discovery of a box with the money he said had been stolen, blame being cast on both Aelwyn and Edred.

Matters come to a head when the fisherfolk try to storm the abbey, being resisted by the men at arms stationed on the towers. But then Hildegarde realizes that behind the murders was the bursar’s clerk, whom she pursued to the cathedral. There is great drama then as she escapes from him when he tries to kill her, and then from the man at arms who had tried to both rape and kill her, but they both fall from the scaffolding she had climbed, the latter coming from a tower where he had been stationed.

Both of them think they run the rapacity of the abbey, the latter claiming to work for the nobles opposed to Richard, who is presented throughout the book as devoted to his subjects, not to power or money. But though the villains die, the bursar continues, having got over the hysteria the fire had caused and his acknowledgment then of guilt – and though the abbot and the prior seem less vicious, whether they will be able to assert themselves is questionable.

Before the climax, when the others in the guesthouse were leaving, Hildegarde found that two of them were in possession of the relic, for which they seem to have paid well. Hildegarde herself had made a derisory offer, but before she leaves the abbot gives her the relic, perhaps in gratitude for what she and her fellow Cistercians had discovered, the abbey having made as much money as it needed and more from the gullible other buyers.

Mark’s inamorata is saved from the stews because she moves in with Edred’s widow whom the bursar had thrown out of the rooms he occupied when her husband was found dead. Hildegarde had paid for lodgings, in a house run by the man who ran the brothels, but he had a kindly side and was going to finance them to make nets for the fishermen.

So, the Cistercians set off for their home as swiftly as they can to get there on the day of the Epiphany, having stopped en route to pray for King Richard whose birthday it was.

Continue Reading

Trending