Category: News Feeds

AI
innovation
often
depends
on
partnerships.
Whether
it
is
a
cloud
provider
offering
infrastructure,
a
niche
developer
supplying
a
specialized
model,
or
a
data
vendor
providing
essential
inputs,
these
relationships
move
products
forward.
They
also
carry
risk.
If
a
vendor’s
system
malfunctions,
violates
a
regulation,
or
misuses
data,
the
consequences
land
at
your
company’s
door.

For
in-house
counsel,
the
vendor
agreement
is
the
tool
to
turn
uncertainty
into
clear,
enforceable
expectations.
It
is
not
just
about
legal
protection.
It
is
about
setting
the
tone
for
how
the
AI
will
be
developed,
maintained,
and
governed
throughout
the
life
of
the
relationship.

Defining
Responsibility
Clearly

Every
AI
contract
should
start
with
an
unambiguous
allocation
of
responsibility.
If
the
system
produces
harmful
results,
fails
accuracy
tests,
or
violates
applicable
laws,
the
agreement
should
state
who
is
accountable.
This
includes
performance
standards,
quality
controls,
and
obligations
to
fix
problems
promptly.

Regulatory
compliance
cannot
be
assumed.
Vendors
should
commit
to
meeting
relevant
laws
and
notify
you
immediately
if
legal
changes
require
updates
to
the
system
or
its
deployment.

Demanding
Operational
Transparency

To
manage
risk,
you
need
visibility
into
the
AI
system.
That
means
contractual
rights
to
documentation
that
explains
how
it
works,
where
its
data
originates,
and
how
it
reaches
its
conclusions.

This
might
take
the
form
of
technical
summaries,
training
data
disclosures,
and
change
logs
for
updates.
Without
this
information,
you
may
be
left
unprepared
when
a
regulator
asks
for
details
or
when
a
customer
challenges
the
product’s
decisions.

Clarifying
Ownership
And
Use
Rights

In
AI
projects,
intellectual
property
rights
are
rarely
straightforward.
The
contract
should
specify
who
owns
the
model,
who
owns
the
outputs,
and
whether
the
vendor
can
use
your
data
to
improve
its
technology
for
other
clients.

Clear
terms
prevent
misunderstandings
about
licensing
scope,
exclusivity,
and
the
limits
on
reusing
your
proprietary
information
or
derived
datasets.
Without
this
clarity,
disputes
can
arise
long
after
the
product
is
in
market.

Setting
Data
Governance
Standards

Data
is
the
lifeblood
of
AI
and
the
source
of
many
legal
risks.
Contracts
should
set
explicit
rules
for
how
the
vendor
will
handle
your
data,
from
storage
security
to
deletion
protocols.

Decide
in
advance
whether
production
data
can
be
used
for
further
training
or
testing
and
under
what
safeguards.
Strong
governance
clauses
help
maintain
compliance
with
privacy
regulations
and
align
with
your
company’s
own
data
policies.

Managing
Change
Over
Time

AI
systems
are
not
static.
Vendors
may
update
models,
integrate
new
datasets,
or
alter
processing
methods.
The
contract
should
require
notice
of
any
significant
changes
and
your
right
to
approve
them
before
deployment.

Termination
rights
are
also
critical.
You
should
be
able
to
exit
the
relationship
if
changes
compromise
compliance,
safety,
or
business
fit.
These
protections
are
far
easier
to
secure
at
the
start
than
in
the
middle
of
a
problem.

Contracts
As
Strategic
Tools

An
AI
vendor
contract
is
more
than
a
risk-allocation
exercise.
Done
well,
it
ensures
that
the
vendor’s
operations
support
your
regulatory
obligations,
ethical
commitments,
and
business
priorities.
It
gives
you
the
insight
and
control
needed
to
deploy
AI
responsibly,
even
when
the
core
technology
comes
from
outside
your
organization.

For
in-house
counsel,
moving
from
standard
boilerplate
to
tailored
AI
clauses
means
building
agreements
that
safeguard
trust
and
foster
collaboration.
A
strong
contract
does
not
just
protect
the
company
from
harm.
It
helps
the
partnership
deliver
AI
that
is
reliable,
compliant,
and
aligned
with
the
goals
of
the
business.

---

Olga
V.
Mack is
the
CEO
of TermScout,
an
AI-powered
contract
certification
platform
that
accelerates
revenue
and
eliminates
friction
by
certifying
contracts
as
fair,
balanced,
and
market-ready.
A
serial
CEO
and
legal
tech
executive,
she
previously
led
a
company
through
a
successful
acquisition
by
LexisNexis.
Olga
is
also
a Fellow
at
CodeX,
The
Stanford
Center
for
Legal
Informatics,
and
the
Generative
AI
Editor
at
law.MIT.
She
is
a
visionary
executive
reshaping
how
we
law—how
legal
systems
are
built,
experienced,
and
trusted.
Olga teaches
at
Berkeley
Law,
lectures
widely,
and
advises
companies
of
all
sizes,
as
well
as
boards
and
institutions.
An
award-winning
general
counsel
turned
builder,
she
also
leads
early-stage
ventures
including Virtual
Gabby
(Better
Parenting
Plan), Product
Law
Hub, ESI
Flow,
and Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self,
each
rethinking
the
practice
and
business
of
law
through
technology,
data,
and
human-centered
design.
She
has
authored The
Rise
of
Product
Lawyers, Legal
Operations
in
the
Age
of
AI
and
Data, Blockchain
Value,
and Get
on
Board,
with Visual
IQ
for
Lawyers (ABA)
forthcoming.
Olga
is
a
6x
TEDx
speaker
and
has
been
recognized
as
a
Silicon
Valley
Woman
of
Influence
and
an
ABA
Woman
in
Legal
Tech.
Her
work
reimagines
people’s
relationship
with
law—making
it
more
accessible,
inclusive,
data-driven,
and
aligned
with
how
the
world
actually
works.
She
is
also
the
host
of
the
Notes
to
My
(Legal)
Self
podcast
(streaming
on Spotify, Apple
Podcasts,
and YouTube),
and
her
insights
regularly
appear
in
Forbes,
Bloomberg
Law,
Newsweek,
VentureBeat,
ACC
Docket,
and
Above
the
Law.
She
earned
her
B.A.
and
J.D.
from
UC
Berkeley.
Follow
her
on LinkedIn and
X
@olgavmack.

The
results
of
the
California
bar
exam
are
in,
and
after
years
of studying
to
become
a
lawyer without going
to
law
school,
reality
star
turned
business
mogul
and
actress
Kim
Kardashian
has finally
learned
her
fate.

Did
she
pass?
Unfortunately,
not
this
time,
but
her
announcement
about
it
was
refreshingly
honest.
“Six
years
into
this
law
journey,
and
I’m
still
all
in
until
I
pass
the
bar,”
she
wrote
on
Instagram.
“No
shortcuts,
no
giving
up
—
just
more
studying
and
even
more
determination.”
See
her
full
Instagram
post,
below.

Kardashian
is
in
good
company
when
it
comes
to
the
California
bar
exam,
which
is
widely
regarded
as
one
of
the
toughest
in
the
nation.
According
to
a
press
release
from
the
State
Bar
of
California,
only
54.8%
of
those
who
took
the
July
2025
test
passed.
While
69.7%
of
all
first-time
takers
passed,
just
12.4%
of
repeat
takers
were
able
to
so
do
—
numbers
that
underscore
just
how
difficult
the
exam
can
be.

But
this
isn’t
a
story
about
celebrity
failure.
It’s
about
perseverance,
grit,
and
the
willingness
to
take
on
something
incredibly
hard
—
all
while
balancing
work
and
family
in
the
court
of
public
opinion.
By
sharing
her
results
openly,
Kardashian
showed
a
kind
of
vulnerability
that
made
her
feel
genuinely
relatable.
“Falling
short
isn’t
failure
—
it’s
fuel,”
she
said.
“I
was
so
close
to
passing
the
exam
and
that
only
motivates
me
even
more.”

Kardashian
began
her
studies
in
2018,
officially
announcing
the
following
year
that
she
was studying
to
become
a
lawyer through
the
law
office
study
program,
which
allows
aspiring
lawyers
in
California
to
apprentice
under
practicing
attorneys
rather
than
attend
law
school.
Though
the
program
is
typically
four
years
long,
the
pandemic
and
her
demanding
schedule
stretched
the
process
a
little
longer
than
expected.

Along
the
way,
Kardashian
documented
her
struggles
and
small
victories
with
unusual
candor

on
social
media.
The
would-be
lawyer
once
admitted
she “fucking
hate[d]”
Constitutional
Law,
and
later
confessed
she “[couldn’t]
deal
with
all
these
fucking
hearsay
exceptions.” For
many
law
students
and
practicing
attorneys,
her
frustrations
felt
all
too
familiar.
When
she
announced
in
2021
that
—
after
three
prior
attempts
—
she
had
finally

passed
the
baby
bar,
social
media
lit
up
with
congratulations
from
fans
and
lawyers
alike.

Today,
Kardashian
plays
a
lawyer
on

Hulu’s
legal
drama
All’s
Fair,
but
she’s
still
chasing
her
dream
of
becoming
one
in
real
life.
For
Kardashian,
the
law
isn’t
just
a
role,
it’s
a
mission
—
and
she’s
clearly
not
done
yet.

The
next
California
bar
exam
is
set
for
February
24-25,
2026.
Here’s
hoping
the
future
brings
us
Kim
Kardashian,
Esq. 

---

Staci
Zaretsky is
the
managing
editor
of
Above
the
Law,
where
she’s
worked
since
2011.
She’d
love
to
hear
from
you,
so
please
feel
free
to

email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
comments,
or
critiques.
You
can
follow
her
on Bluesky, X/Twitter,
and Threads, or
connect
with
her
on LinkedIn.

An
exploration
of
the
AI
companies
in
healthcare,
the
drug
price
debate
and
the
latest
twist
in
the
Trump
Administration’s
allegation
that
Tylenol
is
linked
to
autism
were
the
hot
topics
on
the
latest
episode
of
the
Debunked
Podcast
hosted
by
Arundhati
Parmar,
editor-in-chief
of
MedCity
News,
and
Samir
Batra,
managing
partner
of
Health
Innovation
Pitch.

Part
of
the
conversation
focused
on

TrumpRx,
a
platform
the
Trump
administration
announced
this
summer
that
is
being
designed
to
reduce
drug
prices
for
Americans.
So
far,
two
drug
makers
have
committed
to
support
TrumpRx.
Pfizer
was
the
first
and
published
an
announcement
at
the
end
of
September.

“Pfizer
has
voluntarily
agreed
to
implement
measures
designed
to
ensure
Americans
receive
comparable
drug
prices
to
those
available
in
other
developed
countries
and
pricing
newly
launched
medicines
at
parity
with
other
key
developed
markets,”
the
company

said
in
a
press
release,
adding
that
“Pfizer
will
also
participate
in
a
direct
purchasing
platform,
TrumpRx.gov,
that
will
allow
American
patients
to
purchase
medicines
from
Pfizer
at
a
significant
discount.
The
large
majority
of
the
company’s
primary
care
treatments
and
some
select
specialty
brands
will
be
offered
at
savings
that
will
range
as
high
as
85%
and
on
average
50%.”
One
caveat:
“specific
terms
of
the
agreement
remain
confidential”.

AstraZeneca
also

committed
to
reducing
prices
on
many
of
its
drugs,
as
well
as
supporting
domestic
manufacturing.

Much
of
the
conversation
focused
on
the
outlook
for
companies
jockeying
for
position
in
the
race
to
adopt
AI
in
healthcare.

Ambient
AI
and

Abridge
are
major
players
that
have
raised
millions
to
advance
and
grow
their
AI
software
applications.

Nabla
has
grabbed
attention
for
streamlining
clinical
documentation
for
electronic
health
records
(EHRs).

Nvidia
is
working
with
Eli
Lilly
on
using
AI
to
identify
drug
development
targets
and
other
applications.
Arundhati
and
Samir
also
offered
their
outlook
on
AI.
Samir
said
he
expects
a
lot
of
consolidation
across
the
sector
in
the
next
12-18
months.
He
said
he
expects
70%
of
the
smaller
AI
businesses,
including
startups,
to
either
be
absorbed
by
the
larger
players
through
M&A
deals
or
fade
away.

The
conversation
also
touched
on
HHS
and
the
drama
over
HHS
Secretary
Robert
F
Kennedy
Jr’s
allegations
tying
the
active
ingredient
in
Tylenol,
acetaminophen,
to
autism

before
clarifying
he
has
no
sufficient
evidence
of
a
causal
link.

Texas
Attorney
General
Ken
Paxton
recently
filed
a
lawsuit
against
Johnson
&
Johnson,
which
owns
the
Tylenol
brand.

Watch
the
full
episode:

*
Donald
Trump
pardons
Giuliani
and
other
Big
Lie
ringleaders.
[Reuters]

*
Judge
Wolf
is
resigning
so
he
can
explain,
as
a
Reagan-appointee,
just
how
dangerous
the
Trump
administration
is.
[The
Atlantic]

*
Are
lawyers
calling
out
AI
hallucinations…
vigilantes?
[NY
Times]

*
Faculty
blast
UVA’s
Trump
deal.
[Law.com]

*
Taking
control
of
government
worker
emails
to
send
partisan
messaging
violates
First
Amendment
decides
court
in
easiest
case
ever.
[Courthouse
News
Service]

*
Todd
Blanche
declares
“war”
on
federal
judges
respecting
existing
precedent
rather
than
deferring
to
executive
initiatives.
[Law360]

*
Trump
threatens
to
sue
BBC.
[Guardian]

For
well
over
a
year
the
President
has
been
urged
by
some
sections
of
his
party
to
stand
for
a
third
term
in
office
after
his
current
term
expires
in
2028. 
The
calls
for
him
to
remain
in
office
culminated
in
a
resolution
at
the
party’s
recent
national
conference
in
Mutare
that
the
President’s
term
should
be
extended
by
two
years
to
2030,
and
that:

“The
party
and
government
are
therefore
directed
to
initiate
the
requisite
legislative
amendments
to
give
full
effect
to
this
resolution
to
ensure
continuity,
stability
and
the
sustained
transformation
of
the
nation.”

In
this
bulletin
we
shall
examine
what
constitutional
changes
would
have
to
take
place
for
the
President
to
be
allowed
to
serve
after
2028.

Would
a
Constitutional
Amendment
be
Necessary?

The
first
point
to
make
is
that
the
Constitution
would
need
to
be
amended
before
the
President’s
current
term
could
be
extended
or
the
President
could
be
allowed
to
serve
another
term
in
office.

According
to
section
91(2)
of
the
Constitution:

“A
person
is
disqualified
for
election
as
President
or
appointment
as
Vice-President
if
he
or
she
has
already
held
office
as
President
for
two
terms,
whether
continuous
or
not,
and
for
the
purpose
of
this
subsection
three
or
more
years’
service
is
deemed
to
be
a
full
term.”

By
the
time
of
the
next
general
election
in
2028,
President
Mnangagwa
will
have
served
two
full
terms
in
office,
so
he
will
not
be
eligible
to
stand
for
election
as
President
or
Vice-President. 
Hence,
as
we
have
said,
the
Constitution
would
have
to
be
amended
if
he
is
to
be
allowed
to
do
so.

One
lawyer
has
suggested
that
the
Presidential
term
might
be
extended
from
five
years
to
seven
years
to
enable
Mr
Mnangagwa
to
serve
until
2030,
but
once
again
the
Constitution
would
have
to
be
amended
to
achieve
this
because
section
95(1)
fixes
length
of
the
President’s
term
of
office
at
five
years.

So
whichever
device
is
used
to
allow
the
President
to
remain
in
office,
a
constitutional
amendment
would
be
necessary. 
Which
provisions
of
the
Constitution
would
need
to
be
amended?

Amendment
of
Section
91

The
first
and
most
obvious
amendment
would
be
to
section
91,
which
as
we
have
seen
sets
out
the
current
presidential
term-limit. 
The
amendment
would
entail
repealing
section
91(2)
(if
it
is
decided
to
scrap
presidential
term-limits
altogether)
or
changing
the
words
“two
terms”
to
“three
terms”,
“four
terms”
or
however
many
terms
a
President
will
be
allowed
to
serve
(if
it
is
decided
to
extend
the
number
of
terms
rather
than
scrap
the
limits
completely).

Amendment
of
section
95

If
it
is
decided
to
lengthen
the
presidential
term
from
five
to
seven
years,
then
section
95(1)
of
the
Constitution
would
have
to
be
amended,
because
it
provides
that
the
length
of
the
President’s
term
of
office
is:

“five
years
and
coterminous
with
the
life
of
Parliament”.

The
words
“five
years”
would
need
to
be
changed
to
“seven
years”
and
the
words
“coterminous
with
the
life
of
Parliament
would
have
to
be
deleted
unless
the
life
of
Parliament
is
also
to
be
extended
to
seven
years. 
An
extension
of
the
life
of
Parliament
would
involve
further
constitutional
amendments,
this
time
to
sections
143(1)
and
158(1),
which
fix
the
life
of
Parliament
at
five
years.

The
steps
needed
to
amend
these
section
–
i.e.
sections
91,
95,
143
and
158
–
are
set
out
in
section
328
of
the
Constitution:

• The
  Speaker
  must
  publish
  “the
  precise
  terms”
  of
  the
  proposed
  amendment
  in
  the
  Gazette,
  and
  the
  amendment
  cannot
  be
  introduced
  in
  Parliament
  until
  90
  days
  after
  that
  publication
  [section
  328(3)].
• The
  staff
  of
  Parliament
  must
  immediately
  invite
  the
  public
  to
  comment
  on
  the
  proposed
  amendment,
  through
  written
  submissions
  and
  public
  hearings
  convened
  by
  Parliament
  [section
  328(4)]. 
  In
  practice
  these
  hearings
  are
  convened
  by
  the
  Portfolio
  Committee
  on
  Justice,
  Legal
  and
  Parliamentary
  Affairs,
  and
  written
  submissions
  from
  the
  public
  are
  sent
  to
  that
  Committee.
• The
  Bill
  containing
  the
  amendment
  must
  be
  passed
  by
  a
  two-thirds
  majority
  at
  its
  final
  reading
  [i.e.
  the
  Third
  Reading]
  in
  both
  the
  National
  Assembly
  and
  the
  Senate,
  and
  when
  the
  Bill
  is
  sent
  to
  the
  President
  for
  assent
  the
  Speaker
  and
  presiding
  officer
  of
  the
  Senate
  must
  certify
  that
  it
  has
  received
  the
  requisite
  majorities
  [section
  328(5)
  and
  (10)
  of
  the
  Constitution].
• If
  these
  steps
  are
  taken,
  the
  Constitution
  will
  be
  amended
  to
  allow
  a
  President
  to
  serve
  more
  than
  two
  terms
  in
  office. 
  There
  is
  a
  catch,
  however: 
  the
  amendments
  will
  not
  apply
  to
  President
  Mnangagwa.

Section
328(7)
of
the
Constitution

The
reason
why
the
amendments
would
not
apply
to
President
Mnangagwa
lies
in
section
328(7),
which
was
designed
to
make
it
difficult
for
incumbent
office-holders
(particularly
Presidents)
to
extend
their
terms
of
office. 
It
states:

“Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
this
section,
an
amendment
to
a
term-limit
provision,
the
effect
of
which
is
to
extend
the
length
of
time
that
a
person
may
hold
or
occupy
any
public
office,
does
not
apply
in
relation
to
any
person
who
held
or
occupied
that
office,
or
an
equivalent
office,
at
any
time
before
the
amendment.”

The
phrase
“term-limit
provision”
is
defined
in
section
328(1)
as
meaning:

“a
provision
of
this
Constitution
which
limits
the
length
of
time
that
a
person
may
hold
or
occupy
a
public
office.”

Sections
91(2)
and
95(2)
are
both
term-limit
provisions
according
to
this
definition.

What
all
this
means,
put
simply,
is
that
an
amendment
to
section
91
or
95
of
the
Constitution
extending
the
number
of
terms
that
a
President
can
serve
or
increasing
the
length
of
presidential
terms
will
apply
only
to
future
Presidents. 
It
will
not
allow
an
incumbent
or
past
President
to
extend
the
period
he
may
hold
presidential
office. 
So
if
section
91
or
95
were
amended
by
following
the
steps
we
outlined
above,
President
Mnangagwa
could
not
benefit
from
the
amendment
and
could
not
legally
be
elected
for
a
third
term
or
continue
serving
an
extra
two
years
of
his
current
term.

To
enable
him
to
be
elected
for
a
third
term
or
to
serve
an
extra
two
years,
section
328(7)
itself
would
have
to
be
amended
or
repealed. 
To
do
this,
a
Bill
amending
or
repealing
section
328(7)
would
have
to
go
through
all
the
steps
we
outlined
above
–
the
Bill
would
have
to
be
published
in
the
Gazette
for
90
days,
it
would
have
to
be
passed
by
two-thirds
majorities
in
the
National
Assembly
and
the
Senate,
and
so
on
–
and
then,
within
three
months
after
being
so
passed, the
Bill
would
have
to
be
submitted
to
a
national
referendum
and
approved
by
a
majority
of
the
voters
casting
their
votes at
the
referendum. 
This
is
set
out
in
section
328(9)
of
the
Constitution.  We
might
add that
the
referendum
would
have
to
be
held
in
accordance
with
the
principles
set
out
in
section
155
of
the
Constitution,
which
means
it
would
have
to
be
peaceful,
free
and
fair
and
based
on
universal
adult
suffrage
and
equality
of
votes.

Summary
of
Procedure
for
Extending
the
Current
President’s
Term

To
sum
up
the
procedure
that
would
have
to
be
followed
if
the
Government
decided
that
President
Mnangagwa
should
be
allowed
to
stand
again
for
election
or
that
his
current
term
should
be
extended,
the
following
steps
would
have
to
be
taken:

• A
  Bill
  amending
  section
  91
  and/or
  95,
  as
  well
  as
  section
  328(7)
  of
  the
  Constitution
  would
  have
  to
  be
  published
  in
  the
  Gazette
  for
  at
  least
  90
  days.
• Parliament
  would
  have
  to
  invite
  public
  comments,
  written
  and
  verbal,
  on
  the
  proposed
  amendments.
• The
  Bill
  would
  have
  to
  be
  passed
  by
  two-thirds
  majorities
  at
  its
  final
  readings
  in
  both
  the
  National
  Assembly
  and
  the
  Senate.
• Within
  three
  months
  the
  Bill
  would
  have
  to
  be
  put
  to
  a
  referendum
  and
  passed
  by
  a
  majority
  of
  the
  voters
  who
  cast
  their
  votes.

Circumventing
The
Constitution

• We
  said
  earlier
  that
  one
  lawyer
  has
  proposed
  getting
  round
  the
  need
  for
  a
  referendum
  by
  inserting
  a
  new
  provision
  in
  the
  Constitution
  stating
  that
  presidential
  terms
  last
  seven
  years,
  not
  five
  years. 
  This,
  he
  suggests,
  would
  not
  amend
  section
  95(2)
  –
  which
  is
  a
  term-limit
  provision
  –
  and
  so
  would
  not
  require
  a
  referendum
  for
  it
  to
  apply
  to
  President
  Mnangagwa. 
  There
  are
  problems
  with
  this
  proposal:
• The
  word
  “amend”
  is
  defined
  very
  broadly
  in
  the
  Constitution,
  to
  include: 
  “vary,
  alter,
  modify,
  add
  to,
  delete
  or
  adapt”. 
  A
  new
  section
  fixing
  seven-year
  presidential
  terms
  would
  certainly
  vary,
  alter,
  modify
  or
  adapt
  section
  95(2)
  –
  in
  fact,
  it
  would
  practically
  nullify
  it
  because
  while
  section
  95(2)
  says
  presidential
  terms
  last
  for
  five
  years
  the
  new
  provision
  would
  say: 
  “No,
  actually
  they
  are
  seven
  years.” 
  Hence
  the
  new
  provision
  would
  amend
  a
  term-limit
  provision
  and
  so
  could
  not
  apply
  to
  the
  incumbent
  President
  unless
  it
  was
  approved
  at
  a
  referendum.
• More
  broadly,
  the
  new
  provision
  would
  have
  to
  be
  interpreted
  in
  the
  same
  way
  as
  any
  other
  provision
  of
  the
  Constitution,
  that
  is
  to
  say
  it
  would
  have
  to
  be
  given
  a
  purposive
  and
  contextual
  interpretation
  which
  gives
  expression
  to
  the
  underlying
  values
  of
  the
  Constitution. 
  Giving
  it
  a
  purposive
  interpretation,
  one
  would
  have
  to
  concede
  that
  the
  only
  purpose
  of
  the
  new
  provision
  would
  be
  to
  get
  round
  or
  circumvent
  section
  328(7)
  of
  the
  Constitution
  –
  hardly
  a
  legitimate
  purpose. 
  One
  would
  have
  to
  concede,
  also,
  that
  the
  new
  provision
  would
  violate
  at
  least
  one
  underlying
  constitutional
  value,
  namely
  that
  term-limits
  cannot
  be
  extended
  so
  as
  to
  benefit
  incumbent
  office-holders
  –
  a
  value
  so
  important
  that
  it
  is
  specially
  entrenched
  like
  the
  Declaration
  of
  Rights.
• We
  might
  add
  that
  this
  same
  hurdle
  would
  be
  faced
  any
  other
  ingenious
  scheme
  to
  extend
  President
  Mnangagwa’s
  term
  without
  holding
  a
  referendum
  –
  it
  would
  violate
  the
  important
  constitutional
  value
  or
  principle
  that
  incumbents
  cannot
  benefit
  from
  an
  extension
  of
  term-limits
  –
  a
  value
  that
  can
  be
  abolished
  or
  altered
  only
  with
  the
  approval
  of
  a
  majority
  of
  voters
  voting
  in
  a
  referendum.

In
Defence
of
Term
Limits

Term-limits
on
the
exercise
of
executive
power
are
an
important
democratic
check
on
the
abuse
of
that
power,
and
this
has
been
recognised
since
the
days
of
ancient
Rome,
when
consuls
held
office
for
one
year
only.
 If
politicians
know
that
their
time
in
office
will
come
to
an
end
within
a
relatively
short
period,
they
are
likely
to
moderate
their
conduct
in
order
to
avoid
retribution
when
they
cease
to
hold
office. 
They
are
more
likely
to
treat
colleagues
and
even
political
opponents
with
respect
if
they
know
that
in
a
few
years’
time
those
colleagues
or
opponents
may
be
occupying
their
office. 
The
term-limits
laid
down
in
our
Constitution
are
there
for
a
very
good
reason. 
They
must
not
be
altered
lightly.

Veritas
makes
every
effort
to
ensure
reliable
information,
but
cannot
take
legal
responsibility
for
information
supplied

Post
published
in:

Featured

Kirkland
Lawyers
Sent
To
Etiquette
School:
Feedback
suggests
they
don’t
play
well
with
others..
DOJ
Warns
Judge
That
They’re
Not
Going
To
Listen
Anyway:
Government
lawyers
extend
courtesy
of
informing
judge
of
upcoming
contempt.
Conservatives
Already
Dreaming
Of
Impeaching
All
Those
Radical
Leftist
Reagan
Judges:
Federalist
Society’s
annual
“let’s
pretend
this
isn’t
a
political
conference”
conference
calls
upon
Republican
lawmakers
to
start
impeaching
judges
blocking
Trump
administration.
Cadwalader
Spotted
At
The
Merger
Mixer
Again:
Firm
reportedly
in
talks
with
top-50
suitor,
proving
that
“it’s
complicated”
can
also
apply
to
corporate
law.
Judge
Resigns
Over
Traffic
Tickets:
After
facing
disciplinary
action
for
minor
violations,
one
judge
decided
to
yield
rather
than
fight
the
citation-industrial
complex.
Not
All
Heroes
Wear
Capes…
Some
Are
Wrapped
Up:
D.C.
Sandwich
Thrower
trial
offered
plenty
of
comedy.
Simpson
Thacher
Starts
Working
For
Trump:
Another
of
the
elite
firms
embroiled
in
Trump
payola
deals
has
taken
on
administration
work.