An Associated Press report released in September revealed that the Department of Homeland Security had “erroneously” granted at least 858 immigrants American citizenship. Typically, in any presidential election season, political parties would seize on a report like this, and would try to spin it to win the election. An issue concerning immigration is a political match to be lit, and the reactions could be explosive. Considering immigration reform has been one of the top priorities for legislators, the report may be especially relevant.

Pundits are asking questions about whether this report showed the Obama administration attempting to streamline citizenship applications to get more Democratic voters. Republican officials are seizing on an email asking Homeland Security employees to work overtime in order to process more applications. Then again, this may be a case of an honest mistake, one where overworked bureaucrats may have overlooked a key step in admitting immigrants into our country.

In large bureaucracies like the U.S. federal government, administrative errors do occur, but the scope of this issue has raised concerns about who was granted citizenship, where we went wrong, and asking what can we do to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

The Inspector General Report

The Associated Press highlights an Inspector General’s report, titled “Potentially Ineligible Individuals Have Been Granted U.S. Citizenship Because of Incomplete Fingerprint Records,” regarding a review on whether the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services successfully uses its fingerprint record database to access any applicant’s information. The 24-page report showed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is still grappling with digitizing its old records, and this lag in information can spread to other agencies in the attempt to legitimately do background checks on immigrant applicants.

When considering an immigrant from a “special interest country,” places that pose a risk to U.S. national security or have high rates of immigration fraud, applies for citizenship, it becomes very important to conduct a background check. The check makes sure that the immigration applicant does not misrepresent who they are for the sake of admission into the country. Additionally, a background check is a reliable tool for apprehending criminals who are trying to enter the contract for intentionally unlawful purposes. The fingerprint database can be accessed either before or after an interview with an ICE officer. The check into the database allows a verification into the identity of the applicant, and any lapse in consistent ‘digital bookkeeping’ can undermine that responsibility.

This lapse is what allowed the more than 800 immigrant applicants to be granted citizenship (and avoid deportation) because the Department of Homeland Security did not have reliable digital archiving, rendering the appearance that these applicants had clean backgrounds.

While the 858 immigrants that were granted citizenship do not appear to be an imminent threat to the United States, most come from “special interest countries.” Although the report does not define which countries fall under the “special interest” category, countries that are currently in conflicts or have high rates of immigration fraud such as Syria, Iran, or Yemen can be considered to be some of those in question. Applicants may use different names and birthdays, and without cross-checking fingerprint information, it becomes hard to weed out those who are illegally attempting to enter the country.

Once anyone receives their citizenship, they receive the corresponding American rights and privileges. The report shows that three applicants had gone on to receive jobs handling classified information. One received a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, allowing access onto secure naval bases or ships. The other two received Aviation Worker credentials, granting access to secure areas in airports. Another immigrant went into law enforcement. Ever since the Inspector General’s report, all credentials have been revoked.

Apart from the staggering number of immigrants that were admitted wrongfully, the report sheds light on America’s information gap between its federal agencies. Fingerprint records were not consistently acquired in the same way. One agency may have fingerprint files that are not digitized at all, while another may have an entire online archive. This makes it difficult for agencies that need to coordinate with each other in order to successfully perform their operations.

The Agency Info-Gap

In order to talk about what information is needed to successfully complete an immigration application into the United States, it is necessary to point out the steps people need to take to get past the review process in general.

The video below outlines initial actions an applicant needs to take before an interview with an ICE official:

The sample video from ICE below shows how an interview usually happens, including what questions are asked and how to answer them:

Throughout the citizenship process, ICE has to conduct background checks, which includes searching fingerprint information. If you are from a “special interest country,” there are some additional steps necessary to complete the process, such as cross-referencing your information with the FBI fingerprint database.

The problem is that agencies have inconsistent information acquisition, which means that everyone has a different way of receiving and storing their information. The Department of Homeland Security only started to consistently digitally archive its fingerprint bank in 2010. The act of digitally uploading and archiving fingerprints is a tedious process, which may not catch up with the stream of citizenship applications. According to an email that urges DHS employees to speed up their application review process, the end of the year is a time when applications are at an especially high volume. When the priority is to successfully process applications, certain security protocols can slow the down the process, especially if agency cross-referencing is necessary.

The Inspector General’s report points out that 148,000 immigrants who have final deportation orders or who are criminals or fugitives do not have their fingerprints digitized. If these immigrants have any criminal record, it becomes difficult to proceed with a case against them if there is no way to confirm their identity. The FBI can only do so much if there is no digitized record of an individual in its system.

In a statement regarding his report, DHS Inspector General John Roth said:

This situation created opportunities for individuals to gain the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship through fraud. To prevent fraud and ensure thorough review of naturalization applications, USCIS needs access to these fingerprint records. DHS agreed with our recommendations. ICE has plans to digitize and upload all available fingerprint records, and the Department has told us it plans to review the eligibility of each naturalized citizen whose fingerprint records reveal a deportation order under a different identity. We will continue to monitor DHS’ progress.

Why This Is So Important

Immigration is consistently ranked as one of the top concerns for American voters every election year. After the failed Gang of Eight immigration reform bill, the attempt at reaching consensus on immigration has fizzled. Both sides of the debate have become more partisan in nature, making it very difficult to strike a deal and get a bill passed through Congress. Donald Trump started off his presidential race with a pitch accusing Mexican immigrants of bringing drugs into the country, whereas Democrats are pointing out that illegal immigration amounts to millions of individuals just overstaying their visas.

No matter the root cause of a broken immigration system, one thing that can always streamline the process of admitting new immigrants is by having a uniform background check system that is archived online for easy access. Currently, ICE checks fingerprints through two systems: the FBI’s Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and the DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). Although an agency may have different reasons for checking a fingerprint file, the archive has to be universal so as to make a search as efficient as possible.

Immigrants make up 13 percent of the total U.S. population as of 2014, according to the Migration Policy Institute, and that percentage only continues to grow. Critics point out that if the issue with immigration is that there are too many people who are here illegally, and that is due to overstayed visas, it may be an administrative issue on the federal government’s end that needs to be resolved. One example is a gap in digitized information that the government needs to archive so that it is easier to catch immigrants that may be of higher concern for the country.

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Did the DHS Mistakenly Grant Citizenship to 858 Immigrants? appeared first on Law Street.

In a last minute stay, Justice Samuel Alito ordered the immediate halt to a Missouri man’s execution. Russell Bucklew, who was convicted of murder, kidnapping, and rape in 1996, was scheduled to be executed Wednesday evening, but his attorneys had successfully appealed to delay the execution on the grounds that the intended drug cocktail can create the same complications as the one used on an Oklahoma death row inmate earlier this month. That execution caused massive controversy after the inmate ended up seizing and having a heart attack instead of the usual quick death.

The Supreme Court usually keeps its nose out of execution cases, which makes Alito’s action very rare. Opponents of the drug mixtures that are currently used on death row inmates may herald this as a victory. Traditional drugs that used to execute inmates are in short supply, forcing prisons to resort to mixing drugs together from companies that are not very anxious to reveal their sources. In a Georgia, the state Supreme Court ruled against a death row inmate suing to find out where his killer drugs were coming from. With that information, the inmate’s lawyers argued, they can then proceed with investigations into whether the drugs being supplied would constitute cruel and unusual punishment; however, the Georgia Supreme Court decided 5-2 that protection from harassment for the pharmaceutical company was more important than the right to know where drugs came from.

With Alito’s stay, capital punishment is set to become the next legal debate on the national stage. As capital punishment continues, there is greater outcry as to why it is acceptable to use shady drugs supplied by anonymous pharmaceutical companies. After all, isn’t it cruel and unusual that inmates are not being told where their killer drugs are coming from? Maybe the Supreme Court can decide.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Piorkowski via Wiipedia].

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler revealed his new ‘net neutrality’ proposals yesterday, which essentially approve a fast lane option for companies that want to charge a higher rate for those wishing for a faster Internet based on content. (See our previous coverage on what recent developments mean for you and for startups.) Facing intense opposition, Wheeler needs to show these opposing groups that his proposed rules are part of the principle of net neutrality in the first place: that all content on the Internet will remain free in value.

The problem? The rules gut that principle entirely.

The very fact that allowing certain companies to fast-track their content violates the principle of a fair, open Internet. Wheeler’s justification for allowing the rules to go forward is that there would be regulations watching out for Internet Service Providers intentionally slowing down traffic. While this is also part of a net neutrality ideology, the rules ignore the rampant discrimination inherent in an “Internet fast lane.”

Yesterday’s FCC vote to open the proposals to public comment went largely along party lines. The three Democratic commissioners voted in favor of public comment, while the Republican commissioners voted for only Congressional comment instead and find no legal basis for the Commission to allow the public to weigh in. July 15 is the deadline for initial public comments, followed by the September 10 deadline for responses to those comments.

While this was a partisan vote down the line, the commissioners expressed hesitation for how the process is moving no matter the decision for public comment. “I believe the process that got us to this rule making today is flawed. I would have preferred a delay. I think we moved too fast, to be fair,” said Jessica Rosenworcel, one of the commissioners who voted in favor. Michael O’Reilly, a commissioner who voted against public comment, said, “I have serious concerns that this ill-advised item will create damaging uncertainty and head the commission down a slippery slope of regulation.”

Nevertheless, the FCC is now open to public comments regarding this new proposal. You can send your comment here: http://www.fcc.gov/comments.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Gerd Altmann via Pixabay].

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Last Gasps of Net Neutrality appeared first on Law Street.

Lois Lerner, former Internal Revenue Service official, was held in contempt of the House of Representatives on Wednesday. In a followup resolution, the House had also called on Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate claims that the IRS had unfairly discriminated against conservative tax groups with audits. But just what is a special prosecutor, and how does appointing one change anything?

During Nixon’s presidency, the Watergate scandal eventually gave birth to 1978 Ethics in Government Act. Within the Act was a statute that explained the creation of the ‘Independent Counsel,’ a special prosecutor appointed by the Attorney General to investigate, well, a special case. While the title of ‘Independent Counsel’ changed to ‘Special Prosecutor’ in 1983, and the Ethics law expired in 1999, the value of the position has stayed the same. This all begs the question, why do special prosecutors even matter?

If there’s a special prosecutor, it usually means things are getting serious. Independent Counsel Leon Jaworski successfully argued against Nixon’s denial to share classified documents through the basis of executive privilege in United States v. Nixon in 1974. Morrison v. Olson had proved the appointment of a special prosecutor was a constitutional one in 1988. Then in 1998, Special Prosecutor Ken Starr would eventually be the one to uncover President Clinton’s questionable behavior with Monica Lewinsky.

So behind the House of Representatives’ action calling on the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS, Congress’ meaning is this: we mean business.

How effective will an investigation by a special prosecutor really be? When this scandal first broke, it was thoughts that conservative groups were the only kind to be unusually audited at an alarming rate. Later news reports show that progressive groups were also targeted, throwing a wrench into the argument that the IRSe was participating in partisan discrimination.

In the end, we must be careful with predictions. The Justice Department has refused requests to set up a special prosecutor against the IRS before, and everyone will be waiting for Eric Holder’s reply to the House now that the request has come from a branch of Congress. On the other hand, maybe this is necessary to finally put the IRS controversy to rest, and the Office of the Special Prosecutor comes to deliver justice once again.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Ray Tsang via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is It Time for a Special Prosecutor for the IRS? appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-2 for an affirmative action ban on April 22 that was enacted by a Michigan constitutional amendment. Sonia Sotomayor, one of the two Justices who voted against the amendment, delivered a scathing dissent – 58 pages long – criticizing her colleagues’ affirmative ruling.

“As members of the judiciary tasked with intervening to carry out the guarantee of equal protection, we ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to speak openly and candidly on the subject of race, and to apply the Constitution with eyes open to the unfortunate effects of centuries of racial discrimination.” – Justice Sotomayor

Seven other states have similar constitutional amendments that ban the use of affirmative action in the higher education enrollment process. This ruling is particularly pertinent as there is evidence that minorities as a percentage of the study body is dropping at n colleges that have executed these affirmative action bans.

Sotomayor’s dissent was not met kindly, however, as Chief Justice Roberts rebuked her on the bench.

“To disagree with the dissent’s views on the costs and benefits of racial preferences is not to ‘wish away, rather than confront’ racial inequality … People can disagree in good faith on this issue, but it similarly does more harm than good to question the openness and candor of those on either side of the debate.” – Chief Justice Roberts

The main reason as to why the Court ruled in affirmation of Michigan’s ban on affirmative action was based on a disagreement over whether the courts had the correct jurisdiction to decide matters regarding these cases, and not by voters themselves choosing directly.

Considering the earlier ruling striking down Sections Two and Three of the Voting Rights Act, people may start to wonder how this Court is taking up issues that are racially controversial. Critics of the ruling say that the Bench is attempting to skirt history by ignoring continuing trends of racism, while supporters of the rulings say that time has simply passed by when racism was at its peak in America. Watching the Supreme Court is important at this point in time, as the country changes demographically in the coming years.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Tony Esopi via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Justices Spar Over Affirmative Action Ban appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate shot down debate on paycheck fairness 53-44 today. Sixty votes are necessary to overcome cloture on the matter. While Democrats and Republicans are using the issue as a political ploy for the midterm elections, there are American women who are waiting for their paychecks to become, if not equal to, as close as possible to the pay grade of their male counterparts. The actual act in question would have closed loopholes seen in the Equal Pay Act of 1963 that aimed to close the gap between male and female wages in the first place. This issue has been contentious for that long, and is not a modern phenomena.

What Congress was attempting to do with this new bill is protect employees from being punished for sharing salary information with their peers, a practice some businesses employ in order to avoid workplace unrest. Such a situation gave way to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which resets the 180-day statute of limitations on gender discrimination with each paycheck given to the aggrieved employee. On top of not being allowed to stop their employees from sharing their salary information, businesses have to show that the pay disparity between two employees is due to performance, and not their gender. Critics of the Paycheck Fairness Act claim that this would open floodgates for lawyers to litigate a slew of discrimination cases. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on Wednesday, “[T]his legislation would double down on job loss all while lining the pockets of trial lawyers.” Supporters may counter that the requirement for businesses to show the reasons behind pay disparity only clears up the situation and can strengthen the position of the employer.

While Congress is stuck debating paycheck fairness for women, the President took matters into his own hands yesterday with two executive orders. On the eve of news that New York City has a pay disparity of 88 cents for every dollar earned between women and men, President Barack Obama signed an executive order mandating that federal contractors report salaries by gender. The other executive order would make it easy for other agencies or contractors to access this data. “Pay secrecy fosters discrimination, and we should not tolerate it, not in federal contracting or anywhere else,” the President said as he signed the orders. Currently, the sound bite being spread around by politicians is that the wage gap between women and men is 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. According to the Pew Research Center, this only accounts for full-time workers. When you account for full-time and part-time workers, the wage gap is more likely to be 84 percent of what men earn, and the gap narrows even more for young women – 93 percent.

As the rhetorical war over paycheck fairness continues, pay attention to the hand-picked figures used by both parties in a year when a lot of Congressional jobs are on the line. Despite the various attempts at closing the wage gap between the two genders, it will be a long time before we see serious progress. As the Pew Research Center points out, women will have to work more in order to cover the gap — yet this does not account for maternity leave or the specific types of labor that skew toward a male demographic, such as construction and other labor-intensive tasks. One thing is clear — the debate is not over, even if it was shot down in Congress.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Martijn Schornagel via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Paycheck Fairness Act Fails in the Senate appeared first on Law Street.

Get ready for even more money to enter politics. The Supreme Court overturned limits on federal political donations yesterday. In an election year in which every Representative and a third of the Senate is fighting to keep his or her job, expect this to be the year of record-breaking campaign donations. In a 5-4 decision along ideological lines, SCOTUS ruled that any caps and limitations on federal campaign donations are unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds. Whereas the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed for unlimited outside political spending by corporations, the outcome of McCutcheon v. FEC now expands unlimited contributions directly to politicians and their parties.

This does not mean that now every American can send in as much money as they want in a single check to their desired politician. An individual contribution in one check still stands at $2,600 per politico. What has been struck down, however, are the aggregate limitations per two-year cycle of $48,600 and $74,600 to candidates and parties, respectively. Now a donor has free reign in terms of the amount of checks they want to send within any given time frame.

In the majority ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. explained that even if there is popular sentiment that money corrupts the American political system, it is still protected under the First Amendment like other “repugnant” actions.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects … If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Alito, and Thomas joined the Chief Justice in his majority opinion, with Clarence Thomas even going so far as suggesting all campaign contribution limits should have been struck down.

Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan signed onto Breyer’s dissent authoring the call that “[the ruling] creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or a candidate’s campaign … The methods for using today’s opinion to evade the law’s individual contribution limits are complex, but they are well known, or will become well known, to party fundraisers.”

The case was brought forth by plaintiff Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama Republican and CEO of Coalmont Electrical Development. Explaining how he was injured by the campaign limits put forth by the Federal Election Commission in an editorial he authored for Politico, he said, “Somehow, I can give the individual limit, now $2,600, to 17 candidates without corrupting the system. But as soon as I give that same amount to an 18th candidate, our democracy is suddenly at risk.” By arguing the unconstitutionality of campaign finance limits, McCutcheon set himself up to be included alongside legal precedent – and with this ruling he has guaranteed his name in the history books.

But does striking down campaign finance rules under the guise of a healthy democracy truly achieve that aim? As Breyer pointed out in the dissent, allowing more money to flow into the political system can only hurt it more but disenfranchising those who do not donate to their elected official. A report by the Campaign Finance Institute points out that in 2012, the cost of winning a seat in the House chamber was nearly $1.6 million. It is even worse for the Senate, where nearly 10 times the amount, $10.35 million, is needed to win a seat in that chamber. The average voter does not have the same “purchasing power” behind their contributions, as the majority of contributions come from the wealthiest individuals through their companies and organizations. According to OpenSecrets, an organization dedicated to campaign finance transparency, those who give $200 to a politician, political action committee, or party committee only represent 0.12 percent of the United States population.

Pay attention to how politicians and their bases raise money, as it can be expected in this crucial midterm election year to break records for the amount raised and spent. With a Supreme Court more apt to protecting the right of individuals and corporations to donate as much as they would like as frequently as they would like, it would seem that we are on a road to limitless campaign contributions.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [dnkbdotcom via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What SCOTUS’ McCutcheon Decision Means for the Future of US Elections appeared first on Law Street.

The Obama Administration once again announced an extension of an Affordable Care Act deadline this week. For anyone who’s counting, we’re up to at least 11. This time it’s late signups for people who have technical problems that prohibit them from signing up by the March 31 deadline. If that’s you, you can now apply for an extension to mid-April by checking a box on the application. The Administration is trusting that you’ll abide by the honor system and will really only ask for an extension if you need it.

The President has issued many delays since the healthcare law was implemented. Here’s a brief recap:

• Starting in November 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services delayed for a month the decision to set up a federal exchange.
• In July 2013, the employer mandate was delayed. The statute originally imposed fines on businesses with more than 50 employees that do not offer health insurance. Now, no fines will be enforced in 2014.
• November 2013 saw two different delays — one for open individual enrollment in 2015, and the other being open enrollment for small businesses. A month later, the deadline to apply on the individual exchange was delayed twice in a row — first on November 12, and then November 24.
• High-risk pools (groups of people with pre-existing conditions who were uninsured) were slated to end January 1, 2014, but they were extended to March. As soon as we reached that deadline, it was extended yet again.
• The deadline for employers with 50 to 100 employees to offer healthcare was again delayed in February 2014 — they are now allowed to wait until 2016 to offer health insurance.

There is predictably criticism from Republicans ranging from the need to fix key parts of the law to repealing it outright. One suggestion is to repeal the tax on medical devices, a main revenue source for the Affordable Care Act, while others have called for an investigation looking into the constitutionality of the delays. Michael McConnell, quoted in the Washington Post, has said that the continuing deadline delays are blatantly illegal. “Statute does provide broad discretion, but unless there’s some explicit statutory authorization they don’t have the right not to do it … That’s the difference. Suspending and dispensing with statutes are equally impermissible.”

When it comes to allowing the executive branch to implement delays in the law, the main concern is over Congress’ role. Congress, the main federal legislative body, is supposed to take up these delays. By allowing the President to give out executive orders delaying legal statues, legislative jurisdiction becomes confused. Who, in fact, has the right to make these delays?

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Wikimedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is it Legal for the President, and not Congress, to Implement ACA Delays? appeared first on Law Street.

Is the federal government ‘too big’ or ‘too small’? Americans have been debating the best size of the federal government since the birth of the Republic. From the Federalist Papers all the way to current court cases seeking to establish the superiority of states rights, the federal vs. state government fight is not a new one. To this day, intellectuals on both sides of the issue fight to prove the merits of their own views, as well as show which government philosophy would be better for taxpayers. Looking at the numbers might surprise you, though. The federal government probably doesn’t spend as much as you think.

The federal government’s budget is one of the most politically sensitive topics there is — entire movements were born from a perceived sense of increased governing spending (hello, Tea Party). While it may be the job of Congress and the President to compromise and agree on a budget, mudslinging and partisanship make its passage very difficult. The most recent budget proposal, presented by the President on April 10, requests nearly $3.8 trillion in expenditures and $3.03 trillion in revenue, putting the deficit at $744 billion, or 4.4 percent of gross domestic product. That’s a decrease in the deficit of nearly $229 billion.

Right now, federal legislative, judicial, and executive branch departments are under what is called ‘the sequester.’ As a result of the failure of Congress and the President to pass a federal budget by January 1, 2013, the Budget Control Act was set to automatically reduce spending in various departments throughout the federal system. Some have applauded the sequester’s sharp curtailing of government spending, while others point to the devastating economic ripple effects the law has had. According to the Government Accountability Office, “19 agencies reported curtailing hiring; 16 reported rescoping or delaying contracts or grants for core mission activities; 19 reported reducing employee training; 20 reported reducing employee travel; and seven reported furloughing more than 770,000 employees from one to seven days.” The Congressional Budget Office has pointed to a possible 0.6 percent contraction of the nation’s economy due to the austerity-minded law.

After the government shutdown in October 2013 due to partisan disagreement over the budget bill, Congressional approval ratings plummeted to 10 percent. Three months later, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, which sought to increase spending caps enacted by the sequester in exchange for extending the duration of the cuts to 2023 -– lowering the national deficit by $23 billion. Advocates calling for lower government spending should be applauding.

As the nation continues to debate whether the sequester cuts have been beneficial or harmful to the nation, the next date to look forward to is in September when the government runs out of authority to spend taxpayer money. With the national debt at $17.5 trillion and counting, and the midterm elections coming this November, we’ll have to wait and see is Congress will work together to pass a compromise appropriations bill.

As time goes by, the federal budget inevitably increases in order to meet the country’s demands. As our infrastructure continues to crumble, more Americans retire, and workers demand a living wage, increased spending cannot be stopped in general, no matter the amount. It is up to our elected officials to take action and simplify the tax code, increase revenue, and close corporate loopholes and subsidies.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Ryan McFarland via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does the Government Really Spend Too Much? appeared first on Law Street.

By most accounts, the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been incredibly rocky. Even as problems with Healthcare.gov have stabilized and enrollment numbers have increased across the nation, the law, alternatively called ‘Obamacare,’ is being hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its various provisions. One such notable lawsuit is Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and it has arrived at the Supreme Court.

The case pits Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius against arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby, and it underscores the fierce resistance by some companies to the 2010 law. The heart of the case lies in the issue of whether or not the ACA’s provision forcing employers to cover contraception as a part of employee-based health care is an attack on religious freedom. Hobby Lobby Stores filed a suit against the United States in September 2012 citing the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993.

The Free Exercise Clause, if anyone needs reminding, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” As for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the gist of the bill is that it prevents the government from passing legislation that would make it extremely hard for someone to exercise their religion. In this case, Hobby Lobby claims that the ACA  makes it too difficult for the family of ownership (the Greens) to exercise their religion due to the provision of contraceptive medication in employee’s healthcare premiums. It is important to note here that there is no explicit mention of contraception coverage in the wording of the healthcare bill.

The arts and crafts chain store only took their case to the next level after the Supreme Court refused to grant an injunction excusing Hobby Lobby from providing contraception coverage, saying simply, “Applicants do not satisfy the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief they seek.” Then, in July 2013, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton provided the Green family an exemption from the “contraceptive mandate.” In his ruling, Judge Heaton said:

Given the importance of the interests at stake in this case, the fact that the ACA’s requirements raise new and substantial questions of law and public policy, and that substantial litigation as to the mandate at issue here is ongoing around the country, the court concludes there is an overriding public interest in the resolution of the legal issues raised by the mandate before Hobby Lobby and Mardel are exposed to the substantial penalties that are potentially applicable. The public interest therefore lies in preserving the status quo until the issues raised by plaintiffs’ claims are resolved.

The tables were turned on Hobby Lobby when the Center for Inquiry filed its own amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in January 2014. In the brief, the Center cited the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the same basis of argument used by Hobby Lobby, stating that the government cannot make an exception on religious grounds for one company. With the Supreme Court granting certiorari since November 2013, many are eager to see the result of this massively influential case, and the next arguments are scheduled for March 25.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [DangApricot via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Craft of Contraception Rights: SCOTUS to Hear Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby appeared first on Law Street.

In the 21st century, many people do not consider how vulnerable their high-tech gadgets are to outside hackers. Information can be stolen at the swipe of a password, and it will take some time before you notice anything is wrong. The same can be said for governments fighting to stay on top of the latest technologies — especially the type that can help defend them against various enemies. These enemies, however, are no longer those we traditionally think of (‘evil’ governments and terrorists), at least not for our elected officials. In fact, the challenge of our time according to many top feds and military officers, is defending against cybercrime.

Following the hacking onslaught against retail giant Target, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) warned that more attacks are on the way, considering the attraction for additional cyber criminals to score easy money off of unsuspecting businesses. According to a paper released by the Ponemon Institute in 2012, cybercrimes cost businesses at least $8.9 million annually , and if they do not modernize security practices soon, hackers may get away with a lot more than just someone’s credit card information.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a federal technology agency, released a 39-page report on Wednesday to set industry standards implementing adequate protections so that businesses do not continue to get hit with hacking attacks from all over the globe. The report itself focuses on three main points:

1. Framework Core: “A set of cybersecurity activities, desired outcomes, and applicable references that are common across critical infrastructure sectors…that allows for communication of cybersecurity activities and outcomes across the organization from the executive level to the implementation/operations level.”
2. Framework Implementation Tiers: “Provide context on how an organization views cybersecurity risk and the processes in place to manage that risk. Tiers describe the degree to which a organization’s cybersecurity risk management practices exhibit the characteristics defined in the framework.”
   
3. Framework Profile: “The alignment of standards, guidelines, and practices to the Framework Core in a particular implementation scenario. Profiles can be used to identify opportunities for improving cybersecurity.” 

Even though the goals are well-intentioned, the fact the report comes out of an executive order from the President could throw a wrench into the implementation within Congress, as the members are already at odds as to whether or not the President should have more freedom interpreting legislation. However, there may still be a shot at cooperation between the two branches on this front, as business executives continue to pressure lawmakers at cybercrime hearings.

And they may not have a choice but to work together, as Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey explained at a speech in June 2013 that “strengthening our cyber defenses on military systems is critically important, but it’s not enough in order to defend the nation.” Citing an investment of $23 billion into cyberdefense, four thousand new Cyber Command recruits, and three new teams focusing on defense of the nation, battlefield commands, and global military networks, Chairman Dempsey indicated that the United States is mounting intimidating offenses but that the country has a lot of catching up to do. In another hearing in February 2012, Senator Lindsey Graham inquired of Dempsey about cyberattack threats from China, often an alleged source of hacking. In response, the Joint Chiefs Chairman replied that China’s hacking seems to target intellectual property and trade secrets more than anything else, but if they were to attack the United States’ infrastructure, they should expect a similar response.

As major nations all around the globe come to grips over the rising tide of cybercrime, the United States is most certainly ramping up its defenses. While military leaders warn that what we have in store is not enough, federal officials continue to release new indicators that they’re serious about tackling the issue. Despite all of the rhetoric, business leaders in the nation continue to experience cyber crimes, having their secrets stolen and clientele information hacked. There is still a lot of work to be done if the United States is going to be ready for a future of relentless cybercrime.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [elhombredenegro via Flickr]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is America Ready to Fight Cybercrime? appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, January 20, 2014, President Obama nominated Vice Admiral Michael S. Rogers to replace General Keith Alexander to be the new Chief of the National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA has been buffeted by controversy after controversy due to the documents leaked by Edward Snowden. Considering all of the new allegations coming to light on a continual basis, it is important to ask how Michael Rogers, if confirmed by the Senate, can change the NSA — and if he can change it for the better.

Vice Admiral Rogers is a decorated, longtime member of the armed forces, specializing in cryptology in the Navy shortly after graduating Auburn University in 1981. Beginning in 2003, Rogers served the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the Iraq War as part of the Joint Staff, the advisory team tasked with analyzing current and future strategies in warfare, including the network defense capabilities overseen by Rogers himself. The Vice Admiral has had a smooth career progression since that stint, shooting up to Director of Intelligence for Pacific Command in 2007, Director of Intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2009, and finally becoming the first-ever commander, U.S. Fleet Cyber Command.

Rogers’ Senate confirmation most likely will take another month, and citing a tradition barring any media interviews until after confirmation, it is unlikely that average Americans will get to know their future NSA Chief ahead of that. He is most likely going to be asked about his operations in Cyber Command, as that agencies, as well as the NSA, are pertinent to national cybersecurity. President Obama, ignoring recommendations from an NSA advisory panel and Director of Intelligence James Clapper, Jr., has decided to keep the NSA and Cyber Command leadership posts under the same roof.

Yet, now that we know Vice Admiral Rogers is an exemplary officer, the question arises whether he’ll be looking to safeguard Americans’ privacy in this new digital age. The Snowden documents have outlined numerous programs designed to collect bulk data from Americans every day, and there is a new public shift in opinion toward reigning in these programs. According to an Associated Press/GfK poll released January 27, 60 percent of respondents reported valuing privacy over terrorism concerns regarding NSA activities. In a statement following Rogers’ nomination, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said, “I am…confident that Adm. Rogers has the wisdom to help balance the demands of security, privacy, and liberty in our digital age.” Confidence in Rogers would be appropriate considering his admirable service to our country, but it remains to be seen how Rogers will deal with the politics that come along with the country’s concerns over domestic surveillance programs.

One issue to ponder during Rogers’ confirmation hearings include possible clemency for Edward Snowden, as interest in this topic has picked up in recent weeks. A Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that the majority of Americans think Snowden should be charged with committing a crime, as opposed to allowing full clemency (52-38%). Reconciling this information with editorial boards, such as the New York Times, calling for forgiveness for the former systems administrator, will be tough, indeed. Rogers will have to work with the NSA’s new privacy advocate, Rebecca Richards, in order to properly safeguard Americans’ privacy rights. On top of these new responsibilities of the newest NSA leader, there are reports that privacy advocates aren’t too sure of the President’s nominee. This is natural, considering Rogers’ extensive experience within the nation’s armed forces.

President Obama introduced new reforms into the government’s phone metadata collection program, one of the first operations revealed by the Snowden leaks through the Guardian and the Washington Post. It is not clear as of now how Vice Admiral Rogers will handle changes such as acquiring a warrant before searching the metadata database; tracking individuals two steps removed from a suspected terrorist as opposed to the former three steps; and deciding where the metadata information will be stored. The pressure’s on for the experienced cryptologist, as there are conflicting court decisions over the legality of the phone surveillance program, as well as a federal commission voting 3-2 that the metadata practices are unconstitutional.

Whether one thinks that the National Security Agency programs are constitutional or illegal, it will take some time for there to be a consensus within the federal court system — most likely to be determined by the Supreme Court. In the meantime, it’ll be important to see how Vice Admiral Rogers answers the questions at his upcoming Senate confirmation hearings. This will be the key to how America’s spy programs will be run for the time being.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Joshua J. Rogers via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Who Is Our Next NSA Chief? appeared first on Law Street.