At the height of the euro crisis, I met a high-level civil servant of the European Commission. He described his professional situation this way: since the election of François Hollande to the French presidency, the Commission has finally regained a little power. Previously, "Merkozy," the duo formed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel and then-French President Nicolas Sarkozy, systematically placed the rest of the European apparatus before a fait accompli. But with François Hollande, Germany and France quarrelled and the Commission had to be called in to mediate. This is how one of the world's three largest economies is governed in times of acute crisis.

What is diplomatically called a "democratic deficit" – the fact that we, EUROPEAN CITIZENS, DO NOT CHOOSE THOSE THAT RUN THE EUROPEAN UNION, as well as the fact that THEY ARE NOT ACCOUNTABLE to us – is now so flagrant that it is embarrassingly troublesome.

The major countries – in practice, two countries – hold the levers. Decisions are made behind closed doors. Political leaders elected to national functions govern all Europeans. None of them is invested with a mandate to speak in the name of Europe. That is why what was once wishful thinking is today becoming a demand from the people as well as a political necessity: Europe must be able to choose its leader through direct universal suffrage. The primary function of a democracy is undoubtedly the ability to sack, via the ballot box, an unwanted leader and to elect a new one instead.

Market players in fast-paced financial centers like London, New York, Frankfurt and Paris spent hours staring at their screens, with mounting confusion and increasingly glazed eyes, waiting for news from a 10-hour hearing held by Germany's Federal Constitutional Court that could determine the fate of Europe's currency.

All they wanted was a quick yes or no from the court, which convened to weigh a request from plaintiffs that it pass a temporary injunction barring a German law on the permanent euro rescue fund and the EU's fiscal pact from coming into effect, pending the court's final decision on the matter. The court didn't oblige, and indicated that it might take up to three months, rather than the expected three weeks, to rule on whether to impose the injunction.

The plaintiffs, including the opposition far-left Left Party and a group called "More Democracy" representing 23,000 signatories, argue that by signing up to the €500 billion ($610 billion) European Stability Mechanism and the fiscal pact enforcing debt reductions, Germany will jettison too much sovereignty and undermine the power of its democratically elected parliament to determine what happens with taxpayers' money. If the Germans were now to be prevented by their constitutional court from doing so, Europe would face an economic disaster that would engulf even the biggest euro member country.

A handful of state attorneys general said they are looking into whether they have jurisdiction over the banks, and are starting preliminary discussions to determine what kind of impact the conduct involving the Libor rate may have had in their states. "Our office is aware of the allegations around the manipulation of the Libor, and we are working with other state agencies to determine whether Massachusetts has suffered any losses as a result," a spokesman for Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley said.

A spokesman for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said his office is aware of the recent settlement reached by British bank Barclays with US and UK authorities and "will look at the case to the extent that our office might have any jurisdiction in the matter." Barclays last month agreed to pay $453 million to settle charges that it manipulated Libor - the London interbank offered rate, which is compiled from estimates by large international banks of how much they believe they have to pay to borrow from each other.

LIBOR IS USED FOR $550 TRILLION OF INTEREST RATE DERIVATIVES CONTRACTS, as well as influencing rates on mortgages, student loans and credit cards.

They fired in the air to intimidate people and started smashing the tombs, said Ibrahim Cisse, who witnessed the scene. The new destruction comes after attacks last week on other historic and religious landmarks in Timbuktu that UNESCO called "wanton destruction". Islamists of the Ansar Dine group say the centuries-old shrines of the local Sufi version of Islam are idolatrous.

Since 2005, Michael Salman and his wife have been hosting gatherings of about 15 or 20 people where they share food, fellowship and discuss the Bible. Unfortunately, that kind of thing is against the law in Phoenix, Arizona apparently.

At one point, nearly a dozen armed police officers raided their home and "evidence" of their "crimes" was gathered. Michael Salman was found guilty of 67 "code violations", and now he is going to be ripped away from his family and put in prison for two months. In addition, the assistant city prosecutor is asking the court to "revoke his probation and convert it into a 2 1/2 year jail sentence since he continues to hold worship gatherings on his property despite court orders."

This kind of case has the potential to have a huge "chilling effect" on home gatherings of all kinds all over the United States. The implications of this story are staggering. Over the past couple of decades, the number of "house churches" in the United States has absolutely exploded as an increasing number of Americans reject the big, institutional churches for one reason or another. Now we are seeing a backlash against the home church movement.

Europe's leaders said all the right things - even if the details were a little hazy. First, Europe's leaders said that countries wouldn't have to borrow money from the euro bailout fund to bail out their own banks. Instead, the euro bailout fund would bail out banks directly. Second, they said that any bailout loans would not be senior to other loans.

It sounded like Europe's leaders were finally learning from their mistakes. The most obvious such mistake was Europe's wildly unsuccessful bailout of Spain's banks. Just weeks before, Europe had announced that they were piling €100 billion ($123 billion) into Spain's failing banks - and then watched Spain fall apart faster than ever. That wasn't supposed to happen. But investors were wary due to concerns that the deal increased Spain's public debt, and perhaps made that debt riskier for private investors by subordinating it. Now, Europe was admitting they had gotten it wrong.

It sounded too good to be true. It was. After nose-diving immediately after the big summit, they (Spanish bonds) have spiked back into the danger zone above 7 percent. It's one step forward, and two steps back.