limit

RAPPER Young Bleed has tragically died aged 51 after suffering a brain aneurysm.

The star, whose real name was Glenn Clifton Jr, sadly passed away on Saturday, his son confirmed.

He had been rushed to hospital in the days leading up to his death after collapsing in Las Vegas.

Young Bleed rose to fame in the 90s with the hit “How You Do That” and went on to release nine studio albums.

The rap icon’s son, Ty’Gee Ramon Clifton, confirmed the tragic news with an Instagram video captioned: “RIP to the biggest legend I know.”

Addressing fans in the clip, he said: “As of November 1st, my dad gained his wings.

“This is a tough topic for me – not sure how it’s going to go. But I am here to clear up a lot of false narratives.”

He added: “I know with him being a legend worldwide, all lot of people were concerned for him, they wasn’t sure what they heard.

“So I’m here to confirm as his oldest child that he has gained his wings.

“My dad was 51 years out when this happened to him… The My dad didn’t have no real health issues, these are just chapters in life.

“I hope after this video that people that are going through grieving moments find peace in this video.

“My dad like most as you get in [older] in age take had high blood pressure. He would take his medicines… Once he collapsed he did pass from the aneurysm, the bleed to the brain.”

The late rapper’s mother has also set up a GoFundMe page to help cover the cost of medical and funeral expenses. 

She had started the page when he had been hospitalized and admitted it was ‘completely unexpected and has turned our world upside down.’

Young Bleed was born on June 6, 1974, in Baton Rouge, Louisiana and his passion for music was sparked at nine-years-old.

He shot to fame in the 90s and worked with fellow rappers C-Loc, Max Minelli, J-Von, and J-Von’s younger brother Chris Hamilton.

They created the group Concentration Camp in 1995 and his song with C-Loc How You Do That was released two years later, seeing him rise within the industry.

The song peaked at No. 1 on Billboard’s R&B and Hip Hop album charts the following year.

Ismail Omar Guelleh could seek re-election in 2026 after parliament votes to remove age restriction for presidential candidates.

Djibouti’s parliament has removed the constitutional age ceiling for presidential candidates, opening the door for Ismail Omar Guelleh to seek a sixth term despite being 77 years old.

All 65 lawmakers present voted on Sunday to eliminate the age restriction of 75 years, a move that would allow the veteran leader to contest elections scheduled for April 2026. The decision requires either presidential approval followed by a second parliamentary vote on November 2, or a national referendum.

Guelleh, known widely as IOG, has governed the Horn of Africa nation since 1999, when he succeeded Hassan Gouled Aptidon, the country’s founding president.

The constitutional barrier was introduced by Guelleh himself in 2010 alongside reforms that scrapped presidential term limits, but reduced each term from six to five years.

National Assembly Speaker Dileita Mohamed Dileita defended the change as essential for maintaining stability in a turbulent region. He said public support exceeded 80 percent for the measure, though Al Jazeera is not able to verify this claim.

Earlier this year, in an interview with the Jeune Afrique magazine, Guelleh gave an important indication that he had no plans to relinquish power. “All I can tell you is that I love my country too much to embark on an irresponsible adventure and be the cause of divisions,” he said.

Rights advocates condemned the move as a step toward permanent rule. “This revision prepares a presidency for life,” said Omar Ali Ewado, who heads the Djiboutian League for Human Rights, calling instead for a peaceful democratic transition.

Daher Ahmed Farah, a leader in the Movement for Democratic Renewal and Development, told Al Jazeera that international partners should reconsider their priorities. “The country is in a strategic position and hosts many bases, but these interests lie with the Djiboutian people, not with a single man,” he said.

Guelleh won his fifth term in 2021 with more than 98 percent of votes after opposition groups boycotted the election. At the time, the United States welcomed the result but encouraged the government “to further strengthen its democratic institutions and processes in line with recommendations from the observer missions”.

Guelleh is East Africa’s third-longest-serving leader behind Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, in power for nearly four decades, and Eritrea’s Isaias Afwerki, with a tenure reaching 27 years.

Despite its small population of one million, Djibouti wields outsized geopolitical influence. The country hosts the only permanent US military base in Africa, alongside installations operated by France, China, Japan and Italy. Its position overlooking the Bab al-Mandab Strait makes it vital for global shipping between Asia and Europe.

That strategic value has kept Djibouti stable while neighbouring states face mounting crises, including Sudan’s civil war and Somalia’s fragmentation.

Premier League clubs are divided over whether to introduce a controversial new ‘salary cap’ prior to next month’s vote on financial regulations, BBC Sport has been told.

The ‘top-to-bottom anchoring’ model – or TBA – would restrict the amount any club can spend on player wages, agents and transfer fees to five times the income earned from broadcasting and prize money by the bottom club in the English top flight.

The approach means that a cap would be imposed on clubs’ spending, regardless of their own income.

TBA is currently being trialled by the Premier League, alongside a ‘squad cost ratio’ (SCR) system of financial control that allows clubs to spend up to a percentage of their total revenues on squad-related costs.

On 21 November the Premier League will meet and vote on whether to adopt either, or both, models, and replace the current Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) that allow losses of £105m over a three-year reporting cycle.

Nine of the Premier League’s 20 clubs already have to comply with Uefa’s SCR rules as a result of qualifying for Europe, and some believe it makes sense to align the regulations.

In order to encourage sustainability, Uefa permits participants in its competitions to spend up to 70% of their revenues on their squads, while the Premier League has said it would allow a more generous 85%.

However, BBC Sport has been told that a number of Premier League clubs would only vote for SCR to be implemented if it was accompanied by ‘anchoring’, so that those with the largest revenues did not get too far ahead of the rest, and competitive balance was protected.

This stance has been hardened by the additional money being generated by expanded European club competitions and the Club World Cup.

Last year 16 clubs voted to conduct detailed analysis of TBA, with only Manchester United, Manchester City and Aston Villa voting against.

All three were known to be concerned that being pinned to the revenue of the league’s bottom-placed club would risk putting them at a disadvantage compared to some of their European rivals, who only have to adhere to SCR rules.

At the time, United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe said anchoring would “inhibit the top clubs in the Premier League, and the last thing you want is for the top clubs in the Premier League not to be able to compete with Real Madrid, Barcelona, Bayern Munich, Paris St-Germain – that’s absurd”.

In the 2023-24 season, 20th-placed Sheffield United earned around £110m. So last season no top-flight club would have been able to spend more than a total of £550m on player wages, amortised transfer fees and agents if TBA had been in force.

Meanwhile, a European club generating revenues of £1bn, for example, would be able to spend £700m while still adhering to Uefa’s SCR rules.

Manchester City spent £413m on wages last year, with total revenue of £715m.

Ahead of its meeting next month the Premier League has now sent proposals to its clubs, which reportedly include a suggestion that those in breach of anchoring rules could be punished with a points deduction.

Everton and Nottingham Forest were handed points deductions in 2023 and 2024 as a result of breaching PSR.

Back in February the Professional Footballers’ Association (PFA) issued what the Premier League described as “legal demands” over concerns it had about the impact that anchoring could have on player contracts if introduced.

The league said that the players’ union had been given “multiple opportunities to provide feedback”. The PFA remains opposed to TBA, and has hired barrister Nick de Marco in case it decides to launch legal action.

In 2021 the PFA’s claim that a planned salary cap by the EFL for League One and League Two was “unlawful and unenforceable” was upheld by an independent arbitration panel.

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court justices like to talk about the Constitution’s separation of powers and how it limits the exercise of official authority.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts and his conservative colleagues have given no sign so far they will check President Trump’s one-man governance by executive order.

To the contrary, the conservative justices have repeatedly ruled for Trump on fast-track appeals and overturned federal judges who said the president had exceeded his authority.

The court’s new term opens on Monday, and the justices will begin hearing arguments.

But those regularly scheduled cases have been overshadowed by Trump’s relentless drive to remake the government, to punish his political enemies, including universities, law firms, TV networks and prominent Democrats, and to send troops to patrol U.S. cities.

The overriding question has become: Are there any legal limits on the president’s power? The Supreme Court itself has raised the doubts.

A year ago, as Trump ran to reclaim the White House, the justices blocked a felony criminal indictment against him related to his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, mob attack on the Capitol as Congress met to certify Trump’s defeat in the 2020 election, for which Trump was impeached.

Led by Roberts, the court ruled for Trump and declared for the first time that presidents were immune from being prosecuted for their official actions in the White House.

Not surprisingly, Trump saw this as a “BIG WIN” and proof there is no legal check on his power.

This year, Trump’s lawyers have confidently gone to Supreme Court with emergency appeals when lower-court judges have stood in their way. With few exceptions, they have won, often over dissents from the court’s three liberal Democrats.

Many court scholars say they are disappointed but not surprised by the court’s response so far to Trump’s aggressive use of executive power.

The Supreme Court “has been a rubber stamp approving Trump’s actions,” said UC Berkeley law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky. “I hope very much that the court will be a check on Trump. There isn’t any other. But so far, it has not played that role.”

Roberts “had been seen as a Republican but not a Trump Republican. But he doesn’t seem interested or willing to put any limits on him,” said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “Maybe they think they’re saving their credibility for when it really counts.”

Acting on his own, Trump moved quickly to reshape the federal government. He ordered cuts in spending and staffing at federal agencies and fired inspectors general and officials of independent agencies who had fixed terms set by Congress. He stepped up arrests and deportations of immigrants who are here illegally.

But the court’s decisions on those fronts are in keeping with the long-standing views of the conservatives on the bench.

Long before Trump ran for office, Roberts had argued that the Constitution gives the president broad executive authority to control federal agencies, including the power to fire officials who disagree with him.

The court’s conservatives also think the president has the authority to enforce — or not enforce — immigration laws.

That’s also why many legal experts think the year ahead will provide a better test of the Supreme Court and Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order.

“Overall, my reaction is that it’s too soon to tell,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk for Roberts. “In the next year, we will likely see decisions about tariffs, birthright citizenship, alien enemies and perhaps more, and we’ll know a lot more.”

In early September, Trump administration lawyers rushed the tariffs case to the Supreme Court because they believed it was better to lose sooner rather than later.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the government could face up to a $1-trillion problem if the court delayed a decision until next summer and then ruled the tariffs were illegal.

“Unwinding them could cause significant disruption,” he told the court.

The Constitution says tariffs, taxes and raising revenue are matters for Congress to decide. Through most of American history, tariffs funded much of the federal government. That began to change after 1913 when the 16th Amendment was adopted to authorize “taxes on incomes.”

Trump has said he would like to return to an earlier era when import taxes funded the government.

“I always say ‘tariffs’ is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” he said at a rally after his inauguration in January. “Because tariffs are going to make us rich as hell. It’s going to bring our country’s businesses back that left us.”

While he could have gone to the Republican-controlled Congress to get approval, he imposed several rounds of large and worldwide tariffs acting on his own.

Several small businesses sued and described the tariffs as “the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.”

As for legal justification, the president’s lawyers pointed to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. It authorizes the president to “deal with any unusual or extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

The law did not mention tariffs, taxes or duties but said the president could “regulate” the “importation” of products.

Trump administration lawyers argue that the “power to ‘regulate importation’ plainly encompasses the power to impose tariffs.” They also say the court should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security.

They said the president invoked the tariffs not to raise revenue but to “rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits and to stem the flood of fentanyl and other lethal drugs across our borders.”

In response to lawsuits from small businesses and several states, judges who handle international trade cases ruled the tariffs were illegal. However, they agreed to keep them in place to allow for appeals.

Their opinion relied in part on recent Supreme Court’s decisions which struck down potentially far-reaching regulations from Democratic presidents on climate change, student loan debt and COVID-19 vaccine requirements. In each of the decisions, Roberts said Congress had not clearly authorized the disputed regulations.

Citing that principle, the federal circuit court said it “seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the president unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

Trump said that decision, if allowed to stand, “could literally destroy the United States of America.” The court agreed to hear arguments in the tariffs case on Nov. 5.

A victory for Trump would be “viewed as a dramatic expansion of presidential power,” said Washington attorney Stephanie Connor, who works on tariff cases. Trump and future presidents could sidestep Congress to impose tariffs simply by citing an emergency, she said.

But the decision itself may have a limited impact because the administration has announced new tariffs last week that were based on other national security laws.

Last month, Trump administration lawyers asked the Supreme Court to rule during the upcoming term on the birthright citizenship promised by the 14th Amendment of 1868.

They did not seek a fast-track ruling, however. Instead, they said the court should grant review and hear arguments on the regular schedule early next year. If so, a decision would be handed down by late June.

The amendment says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

And in the past, both Congress and the Supreme Court have agreed that rule applies broadly to all children who are born here, except if their parents are foreign ambassadors or diplomats who are not subject to U.S. laws.

But Trump Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said that interpretation is mistaken. He said the post-Civil War amendment was “adopted to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to the children of illegal aliens, birth tourists and temporary visitors.”

Judges in three regions of the country have rejected Trump’s limits on the citizenship rule and blocked it from taking effect nationwide while the litigation continues.

In response to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration raids that have roiled Southern California, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Saturday signed a package of bills aimed at protecting immigrants in schools, hospitals and other areas targeted by federal agents.

Speaking at Miguel Contreras Learning Complex in Los Angeles, Newsom said President Trump had turned the country into a “dystopian sci-fi movie” with scenes of masked agents hustling immigrants without legal status into unmarked cars.

“We’re not North Korea,” Newsom said.

Newsom framed the pieces of legislation as pushback against what he called the “secret police” of Trump and Stephen Miller, the White House advisor who has driven the second Trump administration’s surge of immigration enforcement in Democrat-led cities.

SB 98, authored by Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra), will require school administrators to notify families and students if federal agents conduct immigration operations on a K-12 or college campus.

Assembly Bill 49, drafted by Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), will bar immigration agents from nonpublic areas of a school without a judicial warrant or court order. It will also prohibit school districts from providing information about pupils, their families, teachers and school employees to immigration authorities without a warrant.

Sen. Jesse Arreguín’s (D-Berkeley) Senate Bill 81 will prohibit healthcare officials from disclosing a patient’s immigration status or birthplace — or giving access to nonpublic spaces in hospitals and clinics — to immigration authorities without a search warrant or court order.

Senate Bill 627 by Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) targets masked federal immigration officers who began detaining migrants at Home Depots and car washes in California earlier this year.

Wiener has said the presence of anonymous, masked officers marks a turn toward authoritarianism and erodes trust between law enforcement and citizens. The law would apply to local and federal officers, but for reasons that Weiner hasn’t publicly explained, it would exempt state police such as California Highway Patrol officers.

Trump’s immigration leaders argue that masks are necessary to protect the identities and safety of immigration officers. The Department of Homeland Security on Monday called on Newsom to veto Wiener’s legislation, which will almost certainly be challenged by the federal government.

“Sen. Scott Wiener’s legislation banning our federal law enforcement from wearing masks and his rhetoric comparing them to ‘secret police’ — likening them to the gestapo — is despicable,” said DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

The package of bills has already caused friction between state and federal officials. Hours before signing the bills, Newsom’s office wrote on X that “Kristi Noem is going to have a bad day today. You’re welcome, America.”

Bill Essayli, the acting U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, fired back on X accusing the governor of threatening Noem.

“We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials,” Essayli wrote in response, adding he’d requested a “full threat assessment” by the U.S. Secret Service.

The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution dictates that federal law takes precedence over state law, leading some legal experts to question whether California could enforce legislation aimed at federal immigration officials.

Essayli noted in another statement on X that California has no jurisdiction over the federal government and he’s directed federal agencies not to change their operations.

“If Newsom wants to regulate our agents, he must go through Congress,” he wrote.

California has failed to block federal officers from arresting immigrants based on their appearance, language and location. An appellate court paused the raids, which California officials alleged were clear examples of racial profiling, but the U.S. Supreme Court overrode the decision and allowed the detentions to resume.

During the news conference on Saturday, Newsom pointed to an arrest made last month when immigration officers appeared in Little Tokyo while the governor was announcing a campaign for new congressional districts. Masked agents showed up to intimidate people who attended the event, Newsom said, but they also arrested an undocumented man who happened to be delivering strawberries nearby.

“That’s Trump’s America,” Newsom said.

Other states are also looking at similar measures to unmask federal agents. Connecticut on Tuesday banned law enforcement officers from wearing masks inside state courthouses unless medically necessary, according to news reports.

Newsom on Saturday also signed Senate Bill 805, a measure by Pérez that targets immigration officers who are in plainclothes but don’t identify themselves.

The law requires law enforcement officers in plainclothes to display their agency, as well as either a badge number or name, with some exemptions.

“Ensuring that officers are clearly identified, while providing sensible exceptions, helps protect both the public and law enforcement personnel,” said Jason P. Houser, a former DHS official who supported the bills signed by Newsom.

SACRAMENTO — Amid concerns that refinery closures could send gas prices soaring, California legislative leaders Wednesday introduced a last-minute deal aimed at increasing oil production to shore up the struggling fossil-fuel industry while further restricting offshore drilling.

The compromise, brokered by Gov. Gavin Newsom, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas and Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire, would streamline environmental approvals for new wells in oil-rich Kern County and increase oil production. The bill also would make offshore drilling more difficult by tightening the safety and regulatory requirements for pipelines.

With support from Rivas and McGuire, Senate Bill 237 is expected to pass as part of a flurry of last-minute activity during the Legislature’s final week. Newsom’s office said the governor “looks forward to signing it when it reaches his desk.”

The late introduction of the measure may force the Legislature to extend its 2025 session, set to end Friday, by another day because bills must be in print for 72 hours before they can be voted on.

The bill was introduced Wednesday as part of a package of energy policies that aims to address growing concerns about affordability and the closure of California oil refineries.

Valero and Phillips 66 plan to close plants in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles County’s South Bay, which would reduce California’s in-state oil refining capacity by an estimated 20%. Industry experts warn that losing refining capacity could lead to more volatile gas prices.

The closures have become a sore spot for Newsom and for state Democrats, pitting their longtime clean-energy goals against concerns about the rising cost of living — a major political liability.

The package tries to strike a balance between the oil industry and climate activists, but neither side seemed particularly pleased: Environmental groups panned the agreements, and industry groups said they were still reviewing the bill.

“I don’t think what’s in that legislation is going to keep refineries open,” said Michael Wara, the director of Stanford University’s Climate and Energy Policy Program.

Crude oil produced in California makes up a fraction of what refineries turn into gasoline, he said, so although increasing production may help stabilize the decline of local oil companies, it won’t benefit the refineries.

The bill would grant statutory approval for up to 2,000 new wells per year in the oil fields of Kern County, the heart of California oil country, which produce about three-fourths of the state’s crude oil. That legislative fix, effective through 2036, would in effect circumvent years of legal challenges by environmental groups seeking to stymie drilling.

The state, which has championed and pioneered progressive environmental policies to slash carbon emissions, also is home to a billion-dollar oil industry that helps power its economy and has significant political sway in Sacramento. Despite steady declines in production, California remains the eighth-largest crude oil producing state in the nation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Hollin Kretzmann, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, said the legislation “acknowledges the harms of oil drilling yet takes radical steps to boost it.”

“Removing environmental safeguards won’t reverse the terminal decline of California oil production but it will allow the industry to do more damage on its way out the door,” Kretzmann said, adding that it will have “no impact on refinery closures or gas prices.”

Ted Cordova, a vice president of E&B Natural Resources, an oil and natural gas company with operations in Kern County, told reporters earlier this week that California needs to reverse falling oil production to keep refineries operating. He said his firm gets emails from pipeline companies saying they are operating “at dangerously low levels, can you send us more?”

The bill also has the potential to create new hurdles for Sable Offshore Corp., the Texas oil firm that is moving toward restarting offshore drilling along Santa Barbara County’s coast, depending on when the company navigates through a litany of ongoing litigation and necessary state approvals.

The company has moved forward on repairs to the network of oil pipelines that burst in 2015 in one of the state’s worst oil spills, despite opposition from the California Coastal Commission.

The bill, which would take effect in January, reasserts the authority of the commission to oversee pipeline repair projects and requires the “best available technology” for any pipe transporting petroleum from offshore. That could add lengthy governmental reviews for Sable if the operation isn’t running by January.

The company, despite reports that it’s running low on capital and has suffered repeated setbacks, continues to say it hopes to begin sales as soon as possible.

Representatives from Sable did not respond to questions Wednesday.

Mary Nichols, an attorney at UCLA Law’s Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, said the bill probably wouldn’t affect the ongoing project off Santa Barbara County’s coast — which remains tied up in litigation — but makes clear that there’s no easy path for any other company looking to take advantage of offshore oil in federal waters under the oil-friendly Trump administration.

“This was designed to send a message to anybody else who might be thinking about doing the same thing,” said Nichols, a former chair of the California Air Resources Board.

Lawmakers also introduced a tentative deal on cap-and-trade, an ambitious climate program that has raised roughly $31 billion since its inception 11 years ago. The revised language would extend the program from its current 2030 deadline until 2045.

The program, last renewed in 2017, requires major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries to purchase credits for each ton of carbon dioxide they emit, and allows those companies buy or sell their unused credits at quarterly auctions.

Assemblymember Lori D. Wilson (D-Suisun City), one of the authors of SB 237, said she was glad to make progress on the push and pull between the state’s fuel needs and its commitment to green energy. She said she understands there are environmental concerns, but “at the end of the day, our purpose was an issue of petroleum supply.”

“We all don’t want an import model,” she said.

Times staff writers Melody Gutierrez and Hayley Smith contributed to this report.

Ryanair and EasyJet passengers have long been warned about the strict hand luggage rules, but a shoe expert has shared a ‘simple yet effective’ shoe rule to help you stay within the limit

Budget carriers such as Ryanair and easyJet might lure travellers with their low-cost tickets, but their stringent cabin bag policies can quickly bump up the overall price. Holidaymakers are bound by tight restrictions on both the weight and dimensions of their hand luggage if they want to sidestep extra fees for additional carry-ons or checked baggage.

However, a savvy shoe guru has come forward with a “simple yet effective shoe rule” that could help jet-setters keep within the free luggage limits. It’s all about planning your holiday agenda well in advance, which enables you to be discerning about what earns a spot in your suitcase and what gets left at home.

Gabriel Miller from Gatsby Shoes points out that shoes are often the biggest culprits when it comes to hogging space and piling on the pounds in your luggage.

Gabriel’s top tip for travellers is to curb the number of shoes they pack. “Packing efficiently not only eases the stress of travel but also helps you navigate different situations with ease, safe in the knowledge that you have a shoe for every occasion,” he said.

He champions a pared-down packing strategy: stick to a maximum of three pairs of shoes for any trip, which not only frees up space but also encourages thoughtful packing, reports the Express.

Gabriel reassures that a carefully curated trio of footwear can meet the demands of various outings, from exploring urban landscapes during the day to enjoying an elegant evening meal.

“It’s about bringing what you need, not what you might use,” he said.

Gabriel has broken down the must-have shoes for holidaymakers into three essential categories, advising travellers to pack just one pair from each to cover all bases on their trip.

For the first category, Gabriel suggests a pair of comfy walking shoes or trainers that are versatile enough for travel days. “Your primary pair of shoes should be comfortable for walking, durable enough for adventure activities, and stylish enough not to detract from your daily outfits,” Gabriel explained.

He advises sticking to neutral colours that can easily match with a variety of outfits.

Moving on to the second category, Gabriel recommends a smarter pair of shoes for any posh dinners or formal events you might attend while away. “Even on vacation, a dressier shoe option is crucial for evenings out or more formal events,” Gabriel noted.

For men, he suggests versatile loafers, while women might opt for chic heeled sandals that can elevate any look.

Lastly, for those jetting off to sunnier shores or beachside locales, Gabriel insists on including a pair of sandals or appropriate beachwear shoes. These types of footwear are usually light and take up little space in your suitcase.

“Ideal for relaxing days by the water or casual strolls, a good pair of sandals is indispensable,” Gabriel stated. He recommends choosing sandals that are easy to clean, quick to dry, and comfy enough for all-day wear.

ATLANTA — Major League Baseball will present its annual Home Run Derby on Monday night, and Shohei Ohtani isn’t on the list of scheduled participants.

Aaron Judge isn’t either.

A home run contest without baseball’s two most famous home-run hitters?

What’s the point?

Ohtani pointed to the contest’s physical demands as to why he didn’t compete. Judge said he would only consider participating if the event was staged in New York.

How unfortunate for baseball, which has the perfect stage to showcase its two most popular players but can’t persuade them to perform on it.

Here’s one potential remedy: Let Ohtani and Judge write the rules.

That might not change Judge’s position, but it could change Ohtani’s. Ohtani has certainly pondered modifications that could be made to the Derby to make him more inclined to participate, some of which he shared at All-Star media day.

“That’s not for me to decide,” Ohtani said in Japanese. “However, personally, I think there could be limits on the number of pitches, the number of swings, and a focus on flight distance.”

The commissioner’s office should listen.

As profitable as baseball is, its cultural relevance in this country is diminishing. The most popular athletes in the United States are football and basketball players. Outside of Ohtani, and maybe Judge, no baseball player transcends his sport.

In Ohtani, baseball finally has its long-awaited face of the game, and the sport would be negligent to not maximize his stardom, both domestically and abroad.

Cal Raleigh of the Seattle Mariners might be the major league leader in home runs, but he’s a nobody as far as the general public is concerned. The same is true of everyone else in the eight-player Derby field — Matt Olson of the Atlanta Braves, James Wood of the Washington Nationals, Junior Caminero of the Tampa Bay Rays, Jazz Chisholm Jr. of the New York Yankees, Byron Buxton of the Minnesota Twins, Oneil Cruz of the Pittsburgh Pirates and Brent Rooker of the Wandering Athletics.

Shohei Ohtani runs the bases after hitting his 30th homer of the season against the Chicago White Sox on July 1.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

By participating in the Derby, Ohtani wouldn’t just draw attention to the event. He would also elevate his competitors, giving them chances to introduce themselves to audiences that would otherwise remain ignorant of their existences.

If baseball has to reduce the number of swings taken by Derby participants to gain that kind of exposure for its players, it should reduce the number of swings taken by Derby participants.

For that matter, if Ohtani says he would participate only if he’s allowed to hit soccer balls, let him hit soccer balls.

Why not?

What would be compromised, the integrity of a barely-watchable made-for-television event?

Ohtani’s reticence is based on history. When Ohtani made his only Derby appearance in 2021, the format was similar to what it is now. In the first round, Ohtani had three minutes to hit as many homers as possible, as would be the case today. The Derby has since added a 40-pitch limit.

Ohtani was eliminated by Juan Soto in the opening round, after which he said with a simile, “It was more tiring than the regular season.”

Ohtani went on to win his first most valuable player award that year, but the Derby marked a turning point in his season. In 84 games before the All-Star break, Ohtani batted .279 with 33 homers and 70 runs batted in. In his 71 games after, he hit just .229 with 13 homers and 30 RBIs.

He implied that experience was why he was unlikely to return any time soon.

“With the current rules, it’s pretty difficult,” Ohtani said last month, “so for now, I don’t think there’s much of a chance.”

For baseball, that translates to limited viewership.

Viewership for the Derby was at its highest in the first decade of the 2000s. Of the five most-viewed Derbys, only one was staged in the last 15 years: The 2017 Derby, which Judge won as a rookie. Judge has not competed since.

The Derby doesn’t make the players. The players make the Derby. And if the sport’s only superstar is open to taking part, the league should facilitate it.

June 28 (UPI) — Senate Democrats have failed in their attempt to curtail President Donald Trump‘s ability to use the military against Iran without congressional approval.

The vote Friday night was 53-47. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky voted with Democrats to approve the resolution, and Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was the only Democrat to vote no in invoking the War Powers Act of 1973.

“If we are to ask our young men and women to fight, and potentially give their lives, then we in this body can at least muster the courage to debate if American military intervention is warranted,” Paul who has advocated for restrained foreign policy, said on the Senate floor before the vote.

“Abdicating our constitutional responsibility by allowing the executive branch to unilaterally introduce U.S. troops into wars is an affront to the Constitution, and the American people,” he said.

Fetterman, a staunch supporter of Israel, told reporters he voted against the resolution “simply because I would never want to restrict any future president, Republican or Democrat, to do this kind of military exercise.”

Days before Trump authorized B-2 stealth bombers to strike three Iranian nuclear sites last weekend, Sen. Tim Kaine had already introduced a resolution under the War Powers Act of 1973, which limits a president’s power to enter an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. Israel first struck Iran on June 13 in an effort to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war since World War II.

The War Powers Act was approved after President Richard Nixon expanded the Vietnam War into Cambodia. Congress sought Nixon’s power to continue expanding the war amid deep national displeasure about the war. Nixon vetoed the bill, which was overridden by a near unanimous vote of Congress.

In this new situation, the White House would need approval from the House and Senate before U.S. forces could use further military action against Iran.

“I think the events of this week have demonstrated that war is too big to be consigned to the decision of any one person,” Kaine said on the Senate floor. “War is too big an issue to leave to the moods and the whims and the daily vibes of any one person.”

In 2020, eight Republicans joined Democrats in preventing Trump from acting against Iran during his first term in the White House.

“I’ll be voting with Republicans against the war power resolution. When we’re talking about nuclear weapons, the president should have the discretion he needs to act,” Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who supported the 2020 resolution, posted Thursday X.

Susan Collins, a moderate from Maine, joined her Republican colleagues to vote against the bill.

“I continue to believe that Congress has an important responsibility to authorize the sustained use of military force. That is not the situation we are facing now. The President has the authority to defend our nation and our troops around the world against the threat of attack,” Collins wrote on X after the vote.

In the House, Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky had also introduced a war powers resolution but decided not to press for a vote amid the cease-fire in the Iran-Israel conflict, which announced Monday as his supports hit out against Massie.

The Pro Trump PAC MAGA Kentucky released an ad titled “What Happened to Thomas Massie?” seeking his ouster from the House in 2026 after an interview about the resolution on Sunday morning.

June 28 (UPI) — The latest version of the Senate’s federal budget reconciliation bill would limit the availability of student loans for future borrowers by revising federal student loan programs and regulations.

The budget bill that already has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate version would place a maximum amount on how much people could borrow through the federal Parent PLUS and graduate student loans to help them pay for their college educations.

The House-approved version would limit undergraduate borrowing to $50,000, while the Senate version would limit that amount to $65,000.

Graduate students would see limits of $100,000 for most master’s programs, while the borrowing limit for professional degrees would be $150,000 in the House version and $200,000 in the Senate bill.

Supporters of the proposed limits say they could save taxpayers more than $300 billion and make it harder for college and university administrators to raise tuition costs and fees.

Opponents say it would make it harder for disadvantaged students to attend college.

“It’s abundantly clear that the budget reconciliation package would reduce access to higher education and healthcare and jeopardize [the University of California’s] ability to carry out its public service mission,” Chris Harrington, U.C. associate vice president for Federal Governmental Relations, said on Monday in a letter to the state’s House delegation in May.

The House-approved bill would eliminate Pell Grants for part-time students, subsidized loans for undergrads and Graduate PLUS loans for graduate and professional students, according to the University of California.

It also would limit eligibility for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Medicaid benefits for low-income students.

The Senate’s version of the proposed fiscal year 2026 budget reconciliation bill numbers 940 pages and might be voted on as soon as Saturday night.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court Monday again made it harder for Death Row inmates and other criminals to challenge their convictions in a federal court by claiming their constitutional rights were violated by state courts.

The pair of 6-3 rulings, including one in a California case, could speed the pace of executions around the nation. Many inmates have kept their legal cases–and themselves–alive by contesting their convictions in prolonged battles in federal courts.

In one decision, the justices reinstated a death sentence against a Sonoma County man who in 1975 shot and killed his wife. The second ruling involved a Virginia case.

Together, the rulings send a now-familiar message: Convicted criminals should not routinely get a second chance to contest their cases in a federal court.

About 95% of criminal cases nationwide are handled in the state courts. During the 1960s and ‘70s, however, the Supreme Court encouraged federal judges to closely review state cases to make sure that a defendant’s rights under the U.S. Constitution were protected. Inmates took advantage of this protection by filing a petition of habeas corpus to transfer their cases from a state to a federal court.

But under Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the high court has stressed the opposite. Federal judges should not casually meddle in state court matters, the conservative majority has said.

The California case concerned whether an inmate should get a second chance to contend that he was unfairly induced to incriminate himself.

The defendant in the case, Owen Duane Nunnemaker, was sentenced to death for the 1975 slaying of his estranged wife, Alice. Nunnemaker went to her home in Sebastopol, Calif., shot her at close range and cut a phone cord to prevent her children from calling for help. She died of her wounds.

He later claimed he loved her, but was temporarily deranged. Prosecutors, however, sent a police psychiatrist to interview Nunnemaker, who found him calm and rational. During the trial, the psychiatrist gave damaging testimony against the defendant, who was convicted and sentenced to death.

In his appeal in state courts, Nunnemaker said his Miranda rights were violated because the psychiatrist never warned him his statements could be used against him. The California appellate courts ruled that it was too late for Nunnemaker to raise this Miranda issue. His lawyer should have objected during the trial, the judges said.

Without giving a reason, the California Supreme Court declined to hear his appeal.

But he fared better in the federal courts. Last year, the U.S. 9th Circuit of Court Appeals ruled that Nunnemaker was entitled to a hearing before a federal judge to see whether his constitutional rights had been violated.

The Supreme Court said the 9th Circuit erred in the case, Ylst vs. Nunnemaker, 90-68. The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said the federal appeals court should have presumed that the California courts declined to hear Nunnemaker’s appeal for procedural reasons, and the federal courts have no power to second-guess those procedural rules.

In their dissent from the ruling, Justices Harry A. Blackmun, Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens said, “The Court today continues its crusade to erect petty procedural barriers” to raising constitutional claims in the federal courts.

Monday’s other death penalty case ruling was written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, herself a former state judge. She rejected the claim of a Virginia Death Row inmate that his initial appeal of his conviction still should be considered by that state’s court system, even though his lawyer was three days late in filing it.

The case “concerns the respect the federal courts owe the states,” O’Connor said. Because the state rules forbid the consideration of a late appeal, the federal courts must do the same, she said in Coleman vs. Thompson, 89-7662.

Law enforcement spokesmen praised the rulings for upholding valid criminal convictions. The decisions mean that an old legal challenge “cannot be resuscitated by some sympathetic federal judge,” said Charles Hobson of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Sacramento. But Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose), whose House subcommittee is considering the federal habeas corpus laws, lambasted the court. The decisions “force innocent prisoners to pay the ultimate price for the errors of their lawyers in a state court,” Edwards said.