The current conflict in Israel has brought the alliance between Israel and the United States under scrutiny. While this alliance looks strong today, the two nations have not always been so close. Read on to learn more about how the alliance began, what the two nations get out of it, and whether or not the current conflict might spell trouble for the friendship.

Has the U.S. always strongly supported Israel?

No. While it might feel like America and Israel have always been close friends, there was a time when there was debate over whether or not the United States should even support Israel as a state.

Recognition of Israel was a huge point of contention for President Harry Truman’s administration. Truman’s Secretary of State George Marshall was staunchly against the creation of a Jewish state, in part because he believed that many of the Jews immigrating to the Middle East were communists. He was so opposed the creation of a Jewish state that he threatened to vote against Truman if Israel were to be recognized. However, counsel to the President Clark Clifford urged Truman to vote for the partition, arguing that the United States could curb Soviet expansion in the Middle East by supporting a Jewish state. Truman sided with Clark, but it wasn’t just Marshall that opposed the plan. The entire American delegation to the United Nations nearly resigned when Truman eventually decided to recognize Israel in 1948.

Here is a good summary of the factors surrounding this decision:

President Dwight D. Eisenhower was not much friendlier. During the Suez Canal crisis of 1957, Eisenhower told Israel to withdraw all troops from the Sinai region. If Israel did not comply, Eisenhower would withdraw all monetary aid from Israel.

When did the United States become strong allies with Israel and why?

The United States began seriously supporting Israel under the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson understood that supporting a Western-style democracy in the Middle East was vital to projecting American dominance abroad. He also understood the domestic power of the Jewish voting bloc. In 1964, Johnson increased the amount of aid given to Israel by 75 percent. He then doubled that amount in 1966. This aid continued during the Six-Day-War, a fight between Israel and Egypt. Since Egypt was backed by the Soviet Union, this conflict became a proxy war. While the United States did not give military assistance to Israel, it did give the country political support and tried to work out a diplomatic solution to the crisis. In the end, the United States benefitted from Israel’s surprising victory over Soviet-backed Egypt. As a result, Johnson broke with the precedent that Eisenhower set and did not demand that Israel return the new land which it had conquered.

After the war, American public opinion strongly shifted to support Israel. Some American Jews became Zionists (those who support the concept of a Jewish state) and America’s foreign policy followed suit. The United States has strongly supported Israel ever since.

What forces maintain this alliance?

Even after the Cold War, the United States has continued to support Israel for a few reasons.

One reason is that Israel maintains a stable status quo in a volatile region. This status quo is important in a region where the slightest amount of unrest can send shockwaves through global markets. Israel’s stable democracy is attractive to the U.S. when compared to nearly any other Middle Eastern nation.

There are also huge domestic pressures on politicians to keep supporting Israel. In a CNN/ORC poll conducted last month, 60 percent of Americans either had very or mostly favorable views of Israel. Support for Israel is even higher when they are not involved in what are seemingly becoming their regular conflicts with Gaza.

Israel’s American lobbying arm, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), is incredibly influential. Fortune magazine once ranked it as the second most powerful interest group in America. The lobbying organization is known for being highly influential in Congress. Watch President Barack Obama speak highly of Israel at an AIPAC conference during the 2012 presidential campaign:

How does the alliance benefit Israel?

The most tangible benefit of Israel’s alliance with the United States comes in the form of aid. The exact dollar amount differs depending on the source, but it is estimated that the United States gives over $130 billion dollars in aid to Israel. This money allows Israel to afford and develop technologies like the Iron Dome–Israel’s rocket defense system that has kept their casualty rate so low during the current conflict.

The United States is also the only consistent ally that Israel has in the international community. America is often the only vote in favor of Israel on UN resolutions. On July 24, the United States was the only vote against a UN inquiry into potential war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza. When the UN voted to give Palestine non-member observer status, the United States was one of nine countries that voted against the measure. Watch UN Ambassador Susan Rice react to the vote:

Who else voted with the United States and Israel on Palestine’s status?

• Czech Republic
• Canada
• Marshall Islands
• Micronesia
• Nauru
• Panama
• Palau

With the possible exception of Canada, this is not exactly a list of nations that share America’s status on the world stage. The United States is the only very powerful country willing to stand up for Israel in the international community. This does not mean much in the historically weak General Assembly. However, it matters a great deal in the Security Council, where the United States has veto power over any binding resolutions.

How does the alliance benefit the United States?

Many supporters of Israel argue that the United States and Israel should continue to be allies simply because the two countries share values and ideals. Israel and America are both liberal democracies. This common trait is enough for some Americans.

However, there are more pragmatic reasons to keep the alliance around.

Israel is inarguably one of America’s best security partners in the world. Israel shares a significant amount of intelligence with America, which is then used to counter terrorist threats in the Middle East. Israel has also undertaken military action to prevent Syria and Iraq from gaining nuclear weapons.

There are also economic incentives. Silicon Valley companies utilizes Israel’s technological industry to further their own products. Watch this report on Israel’s technology industry:

Twenty-five percent of American exports to the Middle East go to Israel, making them our best buyer in the region. Israeli business partnerships are responsible for an estimated 10,000 American jobs.

The United States military also benefits from the Israeli alliance. American troops can train in Israel, American planes can refuel in Israel, and the Pentagon is constantly working with the Israeli military on new technologies.

Why do some people criticize the alliance?

There are some critics in the United States that want the alliance to end because they disagree with the policies of the Israeli government, mainly the occupation of Gaza and the settling of the West Bank.

Israel ceded the Gaza Strip to the Palestinians in 2005. Yet, they still maintain control over Gaza’s airspace and borders. Nothing comes in or out without Israeli approval, including any trade. This control has been referred to by critics as everything from occupation to apartheid, and is one of the reasons that Gaza has a 40 percent unemployment rate. The violent struggles in Gaza between Hamas and Israel have also troubled some American critics. Hamas fires hundreds of rockets into Israel with no regard to civilian life, but Israel has killed a disproportionate amount of Palestinian civilians over the past few years in retaliation. This disproportionate response is in part thanks to the Iron Dome that America helped pay for and the hefty military aid that the United States provides to Israel.

Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, also under Palestinian control, have been seen as a major roadblock towards a peace agreement. These Jewish-only communities on Palestinian land are often seen as clear violations of international law. Palestinians have cited a freeze on settlements as a precondition to any peace negotiations.

The United States has tried to sway Israeli action on both of these issues with little success. Israel has strongly rejected American ceasefire plans and has been ignoring President Barack Obama’s calls for an end to settlements since the beginning of his presidency. Critics cite this intransigence when they claim that the alliance gives the United States little to no sway in Israeli politics.

How has the current conflict impacted American attitudes toward Israel?

Even in America, Israel is losing the messaging battle in this conflict.

Jonathan Chait, a New York Magazine writer who has almost always been pro-Israel, recently wrote an article titled “Israel Is Making It Hard To Be Pro-Israel.” In the piece, Chait expresses a frustration shared by many liberal American Jews that Israel, specifically Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has abandoned any hope of a two-state solution with Palestine and has no plan to deal with the current conflict. To Chait, constant military conflict is an unacceptable option.

Chait is not alone in this criticism. Many pro-Israel elites have begun to express similar qualms.

Ezra Klein, founder of Vox and one of the most prominent voices in online journalism, recently penned an article largely agreeing with Chait. Klein is quick to point out that he is pro-Israel, but has “become much more pessimistic about its prospects, and more confused and occasionally horrified by its policies.”

Roger Cohen, a New York Times columnist and self-proclaimed Zionist, recently lambasted the Israeli government for creating an environment for Hamas to thrive in, and ended his column with this particularly powerful sentence:

This corrosive Israeli exercise in the control of another people, breeding the contempt of the powerful for the oppressed, is a betrayal of the Zionism in which I still believe.

To be clear, these are people who usually strongly support Israel. Something about this conflict, whether it is the death toll or the lack of a coherent strategy, has caused them to rethink their support of Israel in a way they never have before.

Even the government of the United States is criticizing Israel. The State Department released a statement on August 3 referring to Israel’s shelling of a United Nations school in Gaza as “disgraceful” and stated that “Israel must do more to meet its own standards and avoid civilian casualties.” This is the strongest language the United States has used against Israel during this conflict.

This report from The New York Times showcases other sources in the White House and State Department that are frustrated with Netanyahu’s government.

Yet, it is important to note that none of these commentators take Hamas’s side. They all agree that Hamas is employing disgusting tactics (firing rockets from populated areas, using human shields, etc.) and that they are a terrorist organization. The criticism of Israel seems to stem mostly from Netanyahu’s leadership.

This elite criticism has not translated into public support for Israel significantly dropping. As noted earlier, a plurality of Americans still support Israel and few Americans support Hamas. While support is dropping among younger Americans, the shift is slight and has not yet permeated the larger American population.

America also has not seen the same kind of anti-semitic rallies that Europe has been plagued with in recent weeks. This indicates that American support for Israel is still higher than support abroad.

Is the alliance at risk?

No. This tweet shows why:

Classic: CNN reports Obama expresseing concern to Israel about dead civilians–while also shipping new weapons. http://t.co/iUfvorw1NI

— Greg Mitchell (@GregMitch) July 30, 2014

Obama would not continue to arm the already lopsidedly powerful army if an immediate ceasefire in Gaza was really the primary concern of the United States. Yes, Obama would like a ceasefire to happen, but Israel’s safety and security is much more important.

Regardless of what critics say, America’s alliance with Israel provides significant military, security, and economic benefits. It is hard to imagine a scenario where America forgoes the significant advantages Israel offers while taking on the political behemoth that is the Israel lobby. Like it or not, the America-Israel alliance is probably here to stay, at least for now.

Resources

Primary

Truman Library: Timeline of Truman’s Recognition of Israel

United Nations: US Votes Against Palestinian Non-Member Status

Other

CS Monitor: Five US-Israel Low Points

Jewish Press: A Look Back at LBJ and Israel

Jewish Virtual Library: The 1968 Sale of Phantom Jets to Israel

Polling Report: Polls of the American Public on Israel

Wired: US Funds Iron Dome System

Mondoweiss: US Casts Lonely Vote Against War Crimes Inquiry

Foreign Affairs: FriendsWith Benefits: Why the Alliance is Good

Vox: American Aid to Israel Doesn’t Buy Any Leverage\

New York Magazine: Israel is Making it Hard to be Pro-Israel

Huffington Post: I’m Done Apologizing For Israel

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The US-Israel Alliance: A Strong But Turbulent Friendship appeared first on Law Street.

It is getting harder and harder for states to kill people.

Four executions by lethal injection have been botched in the past calendar year. In July, it took two hours for an Arizona inmate to die after he was given 15 times the dose of drugs usually used. And, with the supply of those drugs running out fast, it looks like America is in store for even more of these gruesome mishaps. Cries are growing louder and louder for an end to the death penalty as more and more executions are botched.

Yep, neither the number of innocent people on death row nor the inhuman delays that keep prisoners guessing if and when they will be killed are responsible for the most recent national conversation about the death penalty. Instead, it’s a lack of efficiency in our execution tactics that has Americans up in arms.

Don’t fret, death penalty supporters! There is a simple solution to this problem. It just isn’t as pretty or as comforting as lethal injection.

A federal judge recently called for replacing lethal injection with the firing squad, and his argument is pretty sound:

Lethal injection uses medication to make an execution look peaceful. Since one of the drugs used paralyzes the inmate, all anyone sees is a person slowly falling asleep. U.S. 9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski has a problem with that:

Executions are, in fact, brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should we. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf.

Kozinski’s argument against lethal injection is a moral one. He believes that America needs to look at the ugliness of executions and reckon with what they have wrought upon their fellow man.

I agree that the firing squad should be used, but I would like to go one step further in arguing why. The firing squad isn’t just a moral solution to our death penalty crisis. It’s also a much more practical way to end the lives of our most degenerate citizens. It is time for this nation to abandon its experiment with lethal injection and join Somalia in the practice of shooting its citizens.

Lethal injections have become a crapshoot, where people who aren’t even medical officials mix untested drugs to try their best to kill someone. There is a lot of room for error.

Firing squads, on the other hand, are almost impossible to screw up. Five marksmen shoot the sitting and sedated inmate in the heart with rifles. One of the marksmen is firing a blank so none of them know who fired a kill shot, but the odds of four trained shooters missing their target is highly unlikely. A guaranteed quick, albeit bloody, death is the primary benefit of the firing squad.

But wait, there’s more! Death by firing squad is one of the only execution tactics that preserves the organs for donation (except for the heart, obviously). There are tangible benefits!

Sure, like all good things, there are some downsides to the firing squad. For one, shooting people is surprisingly expensive. The salaries of the five shooters and the cost of the rifles, chair, hood, and sedative all add up to the hefty price of $165,000. But, can we as a society really put a price on justice?

Well, yes. The current price of justice is $1,286.86. That is how much it costs to kill someone with the newest drug cocktail. You know, the one that isn’t even working the way it is supposed to. I’m willing to pay a little more in taxes if it means fewer criminals gasping and wheezing for two hours on a prison gurney.

There’s also the slight problem that being shot in the heart by four bullets is a gruesome way to die. That is why we as a society decided on lethal injection in the first place. All we see is a bad person falling asleep. It’s a sanitary and supposedly peaceful end.

But, as Kozinski reminds us, executions are not supposed to be pretty. The state is murdering one of its own citizens. It is supposed to be gruesome. We shouldn’t hide from this reality. If we are going to allow states to continue killing the people they are supposed to protect, we should accept the barbaric nature of this policy. There are few forms of death that embrace this philosophy more than exploding a man’s heart with four small pieces of lead.

America needs to change its course if lethal injections continue to be botched. The firing squad is the most effective way of killing criminals quickly and humanely.

Or, we could just repeal the death penalty, save billions of dollars, and bring our criminal justice system up to the ethical standard of the rest of the developed world.

But that would be silly. Open fire!

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [T Woodward via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time To Bring Back The Firing Squad appeared first on Law Street.

The nation has been waiting for the Senate’s 6,000 page report on the use of torture during the War on Terror since an investigation began in 2009. However, a series of stumbling blocks–including tampering by the CIA and large redactions by the Obama administration–have continually pushed back the public release date. The Senate’s frustration is clear, and there’s no way to know when this crucial report will finally be released.

The Senate Torture Report 

The controversy revolves around a report that the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote on potential abuses of the detention and interrogation program during the Bush administration’s War on Terror. Those who have seen the report say that it is damning proof that the CIA used cruel tactics, including water-boarding, against detained terror suspects. The report also concludes that these tactics did not produce any useful intelligence information, and that CIA officials lied to Congress during multiple hearings on the subject. However, the committee was not unanimous in this conclusion. The committee’s Republicans came out strongly against the report, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) referred to the investigation as a “mistake.”

CIA reaction to the report

CIA employees are having a slight panic attack. As one not-so-eloquent headline puts it, “CIA Employees Worry They’ll Be Shafted After Torture Report’s Release.”

The primary concern of those who participated in the detention program is that they could potentially be prosecuted for torturing suspected terrorists. It is unclear whether or not this could ever happen. CIA Director John Brennan seems to be unsure, and political leaders are not providing much information either. President Barack Obama made it clear when he came into office that he would not be prosecuting Bush administration officials for their role in the detainment program, but that was five years ago.

This kind of concern over the report might explain why the CIA tried to impede the investigation.

CIA tampered with Senate computers

Last week, Brennan admitted that the CIA had accessed computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee. CIA employees tampered with the investigation and deleted files from the computers.

According to an inquiry by the CIA’s inspector general, Five agency employees, two attorneys, and three information technology staff members gained access to emails written, sent, and received by members of the Senate committee.

This is a clear violation of the separation of powers. Watch Sen Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) list the laws that the CIA may have broken:

That speech from Feinstein took place on March 11. Brennan did not actually admit that Feinstein was correct until July 31 after an internal inquiry.

Back in March, just a few hours after Feinstein’s speech, Brennan promptly dismissed any claim that the CIA had hacked Senate computers, saying “nothing could be further from the truth.” He claimed that such hacking was “beyond the scope of reason.” Brennan has had to walk back that statement in the past few days and has apologized to Feinstein.

Feinstein has recognized but not accepted the apology. Many Senators have expressed shock and anger at this violation of the separation of powers. Some, including Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) are even calling for Brennan’s resignation.

The only person who seems to be defending Brennan is the man who appointed him to his current position. At a recent press conference, Obama defended Brennan, claiming that he had “full confidence” in the CIA leader. Obama further stated:

Keep in mind, though, that John Brennan was the person who called for the I.G. report, and he’s already stood up a task force to make sure that lessons are learned and mistakes are resolved.

Critics of Brennan still contend that he should be fired, not just for this offense but for prior offenses, including his involvement in a drone program that has killed American citizens. Brennan will come under even more fire when the committee’s report comes out. At that point, he will probably have to defend his agency against charges of torture and illegal spying.

What’s going on with the report now?

The report was sent to the Obama administration after Senate completion in April for a declassification review. During such a review, the administration and other federal agencies redact parts of the report they believe could compromise national security or the safety of CIA agents. Obama can redact anything from a single word to an entire section.

The executive branch completed this process on July 2 and submitted the reviewed report to the Senate. Feinstein has complained that there were “significant redactions” in the new version of the report. The Senate Intelligence Committee is not satisfied and has withheld release of the report until they discuss these redactions with the executive branch. Anonymous sources have told VICE News that the redacted sections of the report that discuss forms of torture, the living conditions of detainees, and the intelligence gained from torture.

Congress and Obama will have to spend a significant amount of time resolving these issues before releasing the report to the public, and the status of the CIA tampering is still up in the air. This is a controversy with a lot of angry players; but when the report is finally released it will certainly be illuminating.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Justin Norman via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Senate Torture Report: Government Infighting Over Release appeared first on Law Street.

The FCC is on the verge of allowing internet fast lanes that would allow content providers to pay for faster access for their customers. Read on to learn why this proposal has generated so much controversy.

What is an internet  fast lane?

When commentators say “fast lane,” they are usually referring to paid prioritization. This is when an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as Comcast or Time Warner, charges a content provider, such as Google or Facebook, an extra fee for faster “lanes” of bandwidth. Effectively, the ISPs would be allowing content providers to pay for easier access to customers.

Netflix recently agreed to pay Comcast for faster access to its customers. This is the first deal of its kind.

Netflix is not happy about the deal at all. In a blog post, CEO Reed Hastings referred to the fee as an “arbitrary tax” and expressed concerns that escalating fees could continue to be charged to Netflix and other content providers. Netflix may have agreed to pay this fee not to gain an advantage but to gain download speeds they once had. This graphic from the Washington Post shows that Netflix’s download speeds on Comcast tanked during the negotiations and then suddenly spiked once Netflix agreed to pay the fee:

Why are ISPs allowed to create fast lanes?

ISPs like Comcast are allowed to charge content providers for faster access because of a recent court decision that struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rules regarding net neutrality. The FCC is the federal agency in charge of regulating communications over mediums such as radio and television.

Net neutrality is the concept that all data on the Internet should be treated equally. You should be able to load a Netflix page just as fast as you can load a YouTube page. This video from Mashable provides a clear visualization of the concept.

The FCC created regulatory rules in 2010 that would enforce net neutrality. Cable companies and other ISPs immediately cried foul and filed lawsuits.

On January 14, 2014, a U.S. appeals court overruled the new rules. The reason? Broadband Internet is classified by the government as an information service. The FCC does not have the authority to regulate information services. The Internet used to be classified as a telecommunications service until a 2005 Supreme Court ruling. The FCC is allowed to strictly regulate telecommunications services.

What is the FCC doing about fast lanes?

In the wake of the court ruling, the FCC is in the process of writing a new set of Internet rules that allow for fast lanes. For the past few months, the FCC has allowed public comment on its website on one main question: should the new rules allow fast lanes?

There is a possibility that these rules would permit only some heavily regulated fast lanes to exist. The FCC says that the rules would require these lanes be “commercially reasonable,” but that’s a vague requirement that could be exploited.

There’s also a possibility that the FCC could go in the opposite direction and ban prioritization. The FCC would do this by reclassifying broadband Internet as a telecommunications service, giving it the power to strictly regulate ISPs. This reclassification would almost certainly face a legal challenge by ISPs, as well as a challenge from Congress.

How have people reacted to this proposal?

The FCC received more than one million online comments about the proposed rule change in the span of five months. That is the most comments the agency has ever received, and almost topped the number of complaints the Commission received after Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl.

Activists and content providers alike are not happy that the FCC is even considering legalizing fast lanes.

The Internet Association, an industry group that represents companies like Amazon, Google, and Uber, submitted a lengthy comment to the FCC’s website arguing, in part, that “charging for enhanced or prioritized access […] undermines the Internet’s level playing field.”

The association also expressed concern that ISPs might provide prioritization to their own content. For example, Comcast owns NBC Universal. A fast lane rule would allow Comcast to prioritize access to NBC television streaming over the quality of other network streaming services.

John Oliver, host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, took a more cynical view in this widely shared segment. Oliver accused the FCC and Chairman Tom Wheeler, who used to be a lobbyist for cable companies, of corruption. He also called on Internet trolls to flood the FCC with comments.

MoveOn, the liberal activism website, released this television ad encouraging viewers to call the FCC in support of network neutrality.

MoveOn’s lead campaign director Victoria Kaplan also released a statement saying that “MoveOn members strongly support Net Neutrality and are calling on the FCC to scrap proposed rules that would undermine an open Internet.”

ISPs, for the most part, are issuing vague statements about how they support an “open Internet.” For example, Comcast released a statement saying that “we support the FCC putting in place legally enforceable rules to ensure that there is a free and open Internet, including transparency, no blocking, and anti-discrimination rules.” This doesn’t really say anything specific. Comcast argued later in the statement against a reclassification of broadband Internet, but never argued why they should be allowed to charge for fast lanes.

In stunning contrast, AT&T provided a robust defense of fast lanes in its FCC comment. The whole document is definitely worth a read, but here’s the most important quote:

“In no other area of the economy does the government ban voluntary market transactions (here, for example, quality-of-service enhancements) specifically in order to prevent those with superior resources from offering better services to their own customers.”

The line AT&T concluded the paragraph with is equally important to understanding the company’s argument:

“In short, the theoretical basis of this rationale for a strict nondiscrimination rule is thoroughly unsound and anathema to a market economy.”

AT&T’s argument is pretty unique. It is essentially saying that not allowing content providers to pay for a fast lane or not allowing ISPs to offer such an “upgrade” goes against the very foundation of a capitalist economy.

What’s important about this argument is the claim by AT&T that the fast lane would only amount to an “enhancement” in service for some companies and not a downgrade in service for companies that do not pay the fee.

Many activists doubt this will be the case. Instead, the “free” lane would be significantly slower. As John Oliver put it in the previously embedded segment, “if we let cable companies offer two speeds of service, it won’t be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolt on a motor bike. They’ll be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolted To An Anchor.”

Conclusion

Soon, the FCC will create a new set of rules governing the Internet. It will either allow fast lanes to exist and face harsh public criticism or it will fight for net neutrality and face a barrage of lawsuits and challenges from ISPs and Congress. This is an issue you will want to keep an eye on if you use the Internet regularly.

Resources

Primary

FCC: FCC Launches Rulemaking On How To Protect The Open Internet

FCC: Comment: AT&T

FCC: Internet Association: Comment

Additional

Netflix CEO: The Case for Net Neutrality

Wall Street Journal: Court Tosses Out Open Internet Rules

CNET: 2005: FCC Changes Internet Classification

Hill: Former FCC Chairman on Net Neutrality

NPR: One Million FCC Comments Filed

Comcast: Comment

Guardian: Welcome to the Age of Digital Discrimination

MoveOn: Keep Internet Open

NextGov: The FCC is Getting Serious

Geeksided: MLB Speaks Out Against Fast Lanes

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web appeared first on Law Street.

The nation’s capital is not having a good summer.

Just weeks after Congress tried to overturn a few of D.C.’s laws, a U.S. District Court judge has ruled that the city’s ban on carrying handguns in public is unconstitutional.

If that sounds familiar, it’s because this is the second time that a court has overturned a D.C. gun law in the past six years. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the district’s 32-year-old ban on private handgun ownership was unconstitutional in the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller. This was the first time that the Supreme Court had ever stated that the Second Amendment guaranteed gun ownership for every American. For D.C., it meant the city had to rewrite their gun laws.

These new laws allowed residents to keep registered handguns in their home and required gun owners to obtain a permit before carrying in public. However, the city had a policy of refusing to issue any of these permits. This amounted to a de facto ban on handguns in public. Authors of the law argued that D.C.’s status as the nation’s capital gave it reason enough to ban handguns, since they would put the many federal buildings, government officials, and memorials at risk. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier put it this way at a hearing in January:

The District of Columbia, as the seat of the Federal government, with its multitude of critical official and symbolic buildings, monuments, and events, and high-profile public officials traversing the streets every day, is a city filled with ‘sensitive’ places. Our laws should reflect that reality.

This reasoning did not fly with Senior District Court Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. Heller and a similar ruling in Chicago gave Scullin enough precedent to strike down the ban. Chicago attempted to ban the sale of firearms within city limits. U.S. District Judge Edmond Chang found this law to be unconstitutional. Chang was not convinced that banning the sale of firearms would reduce gun violence.

What’s next?

D.C. will appeal this ruling, and they have reason to be confident. In 2012, a U.S. District Court struck down a Maryland law which only issued carry permits to individuals who could provide a “good and substantial reason” for carrying a firearm outside of the home. The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned this ruling one year later. This provides an important precedent for proponents of the D.C. ban. There are reasonable restrictions that can be placed on an American’s right to carry a firearm in public. Even Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said as much in his majority opinion in Heller:

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

While the court ruled in 2008 that citizens are allowed to own firearms, it added that restrictions on such ownership were not unconstitutional. Specifically, Scalia’s majority opinion argued that “the carrying of firearms in sensitive places” can be forbidden. It might be a stretch to claim that the entire District of Columbia is a “sensitive place,” but at least D.C. has a leg to stand on.

In the meantime, how will this ruling impact D.C. residents?

The D.C. Attorney General has requested a stay, but one has not yet been granted. This means that, for now, it is legal to carry a handgun in the nation’s capital. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier has instructed officers to not arrest anyone holding a registered handgun. Those visiting D.C. who have a carry permit from another state will also be allowed to carry their handgun.

As frustrating and frightening as it is to see a judge allow any Joe Schmo to carry a gun in a city that is home to so many important people and high-profile targets, the city should have seen this coming, especially in the wake of Heller. To respond to a court’s rejection of your strict gun ban with another strict gun ban is foolish, and claiming that an entire city is a “sensitive place” is laughable. Yes, many parts of D.C. are home to federal buildings, but there are large areas of D.C. that look like any other city. There are shopping centers, grocery stores, apartment complexes, and everything else that makes a city a city. There are also threats to the safety of the average citizen, and D.C. residents have the constitutional right to defend themselves from those threats with a gun.

For the safety of D.C. residents, Mayor Vincent Gray and the city council need to approve new and sensible gun laws that balance the need to protect our government officials with the right of all D.C. residents to defend themselves. Banning or allowing guns everywhere in the city are not viable options.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Robert Nelson via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post D.C. Gun Laws Ruled Unconstitutional, Again appeared first on Law Street.

The Class of 2018 is having an exciting summer. They get to figure out which dorms they will live in, which intro classes they will take, and, most importantly, which loans they will take out to pay for the next four years. Meanwhile, the Class of 2014 is experiencing some discomfort as they figure out how exactly to pay for those loans they took out four summers ago. Student loans burden a reported 40 million Americans. Read on to learn all about how these people and their finances are impacted by politics.

What is a student loan?

A student loan is pretty self-explanatory. It is a type of loan specifically meant to pay for university tuition and all other costs associated with going to college. This can include books, computers, and housing. Student loans differ greatly from other types of loans. For example, federal student loans do not have to be paid back until graduation. People obtain student loans by filling out the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), a form that gives students access to all sorts of financial aid, including Pell Grants and Federal Work Study.

Who provides these student loans?

While some students obtain these loans from private banks, many of them obtain loans from the federal government. Federal loans are all backed and funded by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), which means that the interest rate is often lower than those provided by a private bank.

What are some problems with the student loan system?

The big problem is that so many students need them. Twelve million students each year, 60 percent of all college students, pay some portion of their tuition with student loans. This is partly because college is more expensive than it used to be. Over the last 24 years, the average cost of in-state public college education rose by $5,470. And that’s just in-state public school. Tuition at some private institutions is staggering.

This contrast illustrates it best: the overall consumer price index has risen 115 percent since 1985. How high has the college education inflation rate risen? Nearly 500 percent. It’s no wonder that more Americans than ever have student loan debt. Here’s President Barack Obama decrying skyrocketing tuition:

Interest rates used to be a problem. In previous years, the interest rate on student loans would be set permanently by Congress. However, these rates were set up so that, unless Congress reauthorized them, they would double. There was a fight to keep these rates low in 2012 and 2013. That’s why this weird clip from Late Night With Jimmy Fallon with Obama exists:

Congress quickly realized that going through this battle every year was not good for anyone. That’s why they passed the Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act of 2013. This law tied student loans to the 10-year Treasury note and locked in individual rates for life. This means that, while your own rate will never rise, the rates of future students will raise independent of action from Congress.

The bigger problem is that student loans have saddled 37 million graduates with serious debt. It takes years, sometimes decades, to pay off these loans. Worse, these debts have been steadily rising over the past few decades.

Why does it take so long to pay back student loans?

Simply put, graduates just aren’t very good at paying these loans back. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of borrowers are late on their payments. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 35 percent of American student loan borrowers were delinquent on payments in the third quarter of 2012. This local news broadcast called the situation an “economic crisis.”

Graduating students are also struggling to pay back these loans because they are entering an awful job market. For example, 6.7 percent of students who graduated in 2008 were still unemployed in 2012. How are these young people expected to start paying down this debt when they have little or no income?

Many graduates also do not know how to correctly pay these loans back. This advice column from The New York Times shows just how complicated paying back student loans can be.

If so many graduates cannot quickly pay off their debts, they may be left out of certain opportunities, like buying a house. Student loan debt is a drag on the economy.

PBS NewsHour has more on that issue here:

What assistance is available to those with student loan debt?

Not much. Some politicians are attempting to reform the system to help graduates (we’ll get to that later), but there are only a few ways the government can currently help.

Loan consolidation is one such option. This is when the government lets you combine all of your loans into one. Graduates who are having trouble paying off multiple loans consider this option so that they can only have one manageable monthly payment. There are also some instances in which debt holders can defer their payments on principle and interest. Find out if your student loan payments can be deferred here.

Private companies exist that offer to help lower monthly payments, but these companies have recently come under fire from federal and state regulators for using predatory practices and charging graduates hefty upfront fees for services that the DOE offers for free. Illinois has sued some of these companies and more states are likely to follow.

In the past, those looking for forgiveness of their debt were out luck. Even today, graduates who want an immediate forgiveness of their debts will have trouble doing so. This table shows just how hard it is to get student loan debt forgiven. Even bankruptcy does not always result in a forgiveness of student debt. However, action taken by President Obama made forgiveness a little easier. Read on to the next section to find out how.

How is President Obama trying to fix student loans?

Obama has used his executive power to bypass Congress and expand the Pay As You Earn program. Pay As You Earn is a federal program that allows borrowers to cap their monthly payments at 10 percent of their income and forgives remaining debt after 20 years. This program was previously only available to new students. Obama expanded the program to a majority of loan holders, who can begin to take advantage of it in 2015.

Obama also supports the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. This bill, introduced this May by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), would allow those with outstanding debt to refinance their loans based on newer and lower interest rates.

What does Congress think about these reforms?

As noted in the last section, Democrats are on board with Warren’s plan. Every single Democratic Senator voted for the bill when it was brought to the Senate floor. This is most likely because it is a targeted demographic of the Democratic Party’s base — young adults — and that it is paid for by a tax that that has been a part of their platform for years.

Republicans in Congress are not a fan of Warren’s bill, mainly because it would be funded by the Buffett Rule. The Buffett Rule, proposed by Obama before the 2012 election, is a plan to tax millionaires so that they are not paying a lower share of their wealth in taxes compared to middle-class Americans. Even Senate Republicans, often seen as more moderate than House Republicans, rejected the bill, calling it a “political stunt.” Only three Republicans voted for the bill.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), a possible 2016 candidate, has introduced a bill that looks nearly identical to the Pay As You Earn program, but applies the same logic to every single student loan. It caps payments as a percentage of income and allows for debt forgiveness. However, while Pay As You Earn forgives all debt after 20 years, Rubio’s bill would only forgive that debt if it were less than $57,500. The debt would be forgiven in 30 years if it were any higher than that figure. Still, there is a lot of common ground between conservatives and Democrats. Common sense would dictate that this bill has a real chance of being passed.

Yet, as those who follow Congress know all too well, common sense rarely impacts Congressional results. The main obstacle for Rubio’s reform bill is that not all conservatives are the same. There are significant divisions in the Republican party on this issue. Many conservatives do not even believe that the federal government should be in the business of paying for young people to go to college. When asked about his vote against Warren’s bill, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stated that it is not Congress’ job to forgive “obligations that have been voluntarily incurred.” He also said “not everybody needs to go to Yale,” presumably arguing that students who cannot afford college should look for cheaper options instead of depending on the government. There are certainly cheaper options than Yale, such as for-profit college. McConnell believes that students should consider these less-expensive options before depending on the government.

How do Americans feel about student loan reform?

There has not been much polling done on the issue of student loan reform; however, one 2013 Public Policy Polling poll shows that all Americans are unsurprisingly unified on one issue: 83 percent of all Americans want Congress to either keep rates on student loans the way they are or lower them. This poll was taken back when rates could have potentially doubled, so it does not reflect feelings toward current reform packages, but it does show that the American people are in favor of Congress acting to keep interest rates low.

Americans are much more divided when it comes to opinions on the worthiness of their own loans. A poll by the National Foundation for Credit Counseling shows that, by a two-to-one margin, most Americans believe that their own student loan was worth the cost. However, most would not recommend taking out student loans to finance an education and some claimed they would not have taken a loan out if they were aware of how much it would cost them in the long run.

Congress would be wise to spend time on this issue, regardless of which reform plan they support. According to a Harvard University Institute of Politics poll, 57 percent of Millennials believe that student debt is a major problem. That concern is consistent across party lines. This statistic will likely keep the student loan issue on the Congressional agenda for quite some time.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Senate: S 1241 The Bipartisan Student Loan Certainty Act

Additional

U.S. Department of Education: FAFSA

College Board: Average Net Price Over Time for Full-Time Students at Public Four-Year Institutions

Forbes: College Costs Out of Control

Huffington Post: Elizabeth Warren Slams Mitch McConnell: He Wants ‘Students to Dream a Little Smaller’

U.S. News & World Report: Congress Approves Student Loan Deal

Huffington Post: How Millennials and Students Won a Massive Victory on Loan Rates

Huffington Post: Why the Student Loan Deal is Bad News for Students

Vox: 2008 Was a Terrible Year to Graduate College

The New York Times: A Beginner’s Guide to Repaying Student Loans

U.S. News & World Report: Obama Sidesteps Congress to Expand Student Loan Repayment Program

CBS: Senate Republicans Block Consideration of Student Loan Bill

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Student Loans Burden a Generation appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge ruled last week that California’s death penalty system is unconstitutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This decision is notable, but not in the way you might think. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney did not rule the death penalty itself to be unconstitutional, but rather the conditions that accompany it–namely the long wait for California’s death row prisoners.

California has not executed an inmate since a different federal court put a hold on executions in 2006. U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that the use of the death penalty was cruel and unusual because the technicians administering the drugs were mostly untrained and had little experience with the drugs they were using. As a result, California had to stop executing inmates until they came up with new protocols for humane executions. This has not happened yet, so the ban has remained.

Yet California has not stopped giving felons death sentences. They currently have 748 inmates on death row, the most of any state.

Carney argues that leaving the fate of these prisoners uncertain is more cruel and unusual than killing them. In his eyes, prisoners have the right to know if they are going to die or not. Here’s a notable excerpt of his ruling:

“California juries have imposed the death sentence on more than 900 individuals since 1978. Yet only 13 of those 900 have been executed by the State. Of the remainder, 94 have died of causes other than execution by the State.”

Carney’s problem with California’s death penalty is not the pain it causes but the arbitrariness of it all. More death row inmates in California have died in their jail cells than have been executed. None of these inmates knew how their end would come. There is no way to tell which death row inmates will ever actually be killed. In fact, the death of an inmate is often not based on legitimate factors, such as severity of crime, but on unpredictable factors like length of appeal.

Carney argues that a death penalty must be administered fairly, and not just based on who can appeal their case the longest. Inmates with a shorter appeals process have a greater chance of being killed once California sorts out its implementation problems.

This decision is notable because it is the first time that a federal judge has ever ruled that delays in death row proceedings are a form of cruel and unusual punishment. This is especially interesting because the Supreme Court has previously ruled that delays are not a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Carney seems to be bucking a precedent set by the highest court.

Granted, there will be an appeal. It is possible, even likely, that an appeals court will side with the Supreme Court and rule that delays are not cruel and unusual but merely a normal part of the death penalty process. Still, the fact that a court ruled that a prisoner has the right to know if or when he or she will be killed is significant.

California could potentially get the death penalty back if they sped up the process with which they kill their criminals. But now that a new precedent has been set, states with a large backlog of death row inmates should prepare for some legal challenges.

The list of states with many inmates on death row may have new additions soon–states are running out of the drugs necessary for lethal injection, and experiments with other drug cocktails have not gone well. Some states are continuing with experimentation. Some are trying out new and untested drugs. However, it is likely that many will have to wait for a more viable option to present itself. It is possible that this waiting could be found to be cruel and unusual punishment for those on death row. Only time will tell, but this ruling has the chance to change the nature of capital punishment in the United States.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Coghlan via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cruel and Unusual: California Death Penalty Delays appeared first on Law Street.

Congress and President Barack Obama have to quickly respond to a recent influx of thousands of Central American child immigrants spilling over the border into Texas. Read on to learn about why they are coming here and why finding a place for them will be a challenge.

How many people are coming over the border?

There has been a recent surge of Central American children illegally immigrating into the United States over the Texas border. 47,000 unaccompanied minors have been detained at the border in the past eight months. This is a 92 percent increase from the eight month period prior to that.

Why now?

Evidence points to two different factors.

First, living conditions in Central America have gotten significantly worse in recent years. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), 48 percent of the detained minors had experienced abuse from an organized criminal group before fleeing to America. This should not be too surprising. Honduras, the country where the plurality of children are coming from, boasts the highest murder rate in the world. In 2012, there were more than 90 murders per 100,000 people. The next country on the list, Venezuela, only has 53.7 homicides per 100,000 people. It should be no surprise that children want to leave Central America.

Check out this story from The New York Times to learn more about the gang violence that Honduran children are escaping.

You can also watch this report on gang violence in Honduras, but it is graphic:

So it makes sense that children would want to leave this environment, but why are they coming to America? Why do they choose this specific country? Critics of President Barack Obama argue that his immigration policies have convinced illegal immigrants that they will have an easy time entering the country, and there is some evidence to support that. There is a belief among Central Americans that the United States has recently started treating children easier than they treat adults. This is because of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). The law requires the United States to ensure the safety of any children repatriated back to their homes. This means that the United States cannot just simply turn away or deport children. Border officials have an obligation to make sure that the environment the children are being deported to is safe. President Obama signed this bill into law March 7, 2013; however, a key part of the law allowing these children to gain legal counsel and appeal to stay in the country was signed by President George W. Bush in 2008.

Republicans also assert that Obama’s enforcement of the DREAM act through executive order is an incentive for children to come to America, but there is less concrete evidence to support this.

What is happening to these children when they come here?

These children would be quickly brought back home if they were coming from Mexico or Canada; however, they have to go through a formal deportation process because they are coming from far-away countries. Thanks to the TVPRA, this process involves month-long hearings where the children can appeal to stay in the country. Currently, there’s a massive 360,000-case backlog preventing many of these children from having their cases heard. Since so many are coming at once, it is likely that they will be stuck in detention for some time until a solution is found.

What is the Obama administration trying to do about it?

Obama has requested $3.7 billion from Congress to deal with the border crisis. The administration is telling Congress that the money will go toward building detention facilities to help ease overcrowding, the hiring of judges to hear the backlog of immigration cases, and border security to prevent more children from illegally entering the country. The plan would also allocate $300 million to the State Department to assist Central American countries in repatriating their citizens.

Watch President Obama present this plan to the press:

How are Republicans reacting?

Not well. Republicans are calling the plan a “blank check” without any accountability. Republicans in Congress are also not happy that Obama is not planning on amending the TVPRA to make it easier to deport illegal immigrants.

Conservatives have been crying foul about this crisis for the last week. Texas Governor Rick Perry even called this situation “Obama’s Katrina.” Most notably, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has called for Obama’s impeachment. Palin argues that Obama is deliberately opening the borders and allowing illegal immigrants into the country.

Is Obama going to be impeached? Absolutely not. A President can only be impeached if he has committed high crimes. Obama has not violated any laws. In fact, the current immigration laws are part of the reason this crisis is happening in the first place. Still, Palin’s call for Obama’s impeachment shows that Republicans are angry about this issue.

Watch Boehner blame Obama’s actions for the current problem and criticize the President’s plan to solve the humanitarian crisis:

Law Street’s Allison Dawson lives in the affected area of Texas and has expressed anger at the fact that the children will be housed in abandoned Texas schools that could be used for other purposes.

Across the board, it looks like this has become the newest reason for Republicans to criticize the President.

What does this mean for immigration reform?

Not much. Immigration reform is almost guaranteed not to happen in 2014. Both Speaker John Boehner and President Obama agree that the reform effort is dead.

This is unfortunate because a comprehensive immigration bill could fix many of the problems posed by this spike in illegal immigration, including solving the backlog of cases, sealing the border, and providing a path to citizenship for those who go through the proper channels.

Resources

Primary

US Congress: The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act

Additional

Washington Post: Central American Immigrants Overwhelm Texas Border

Migration Policy Institute: Surge in Unaccompanied Kids Has Deep Roots

CNN: Honduras Has the Highest Murder Rate

The New York Times: Fleeing Gangs, Children Head to U.S. Border

Appleseed Network: Report: Children at the Border

Washington Post: White House Request $3.7 Billion for Border Crisis

MSNBC: Rick Perry: This is Obama’s Katrina

Breitbart: Sarah Palin: It’s Time to Impeach President Obama

Washington Post: Obama is Accused of ‘Lawlessness’ for Following Law

Slate: Immigration Reform is Dead

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crisis at the Border: Influx of Child Immigrants Causes Major Problems appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: July 17, 2014

Congress is on track to accidentally legalize marijuana in the nation’s capital. To understand why, you first have to understand how the District of Columbia governs itself. Or, more accurately, how it doesn’t govern itself.

You see, the Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction over Washington, DC. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which lists the enumerated powers of Congress, says that Congress has the power…

“To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.”

This has been interpreted to mean that Congress has a great amount of control over what laws DC can or cannot pass. No other city has to get all of its local government decisions approved by the Federal government.

To be clear, DC still has a local government. Thanks to the District of Columbia Home Rule Act passed by Congress in 1973, the city has a mayor, city council, and all of the other things that comprise normal city government. This government, however, does not have any real authority. Congress merely allows this government to exist and operate. At any time, Congress could theoretically disband the DC government and overturn every DC law. Congress still has to approve every law that DC passes and still bans DC from passing laws that affect everything from the city budget to the maximum height of its buildings.

DC government is kind of like the student government at an elementary school. The student body president can promise extra recess and nap time all he wants, but the principal has the final say.

Congress is basically Mr. Feeny from Boy Meets World

So, what does this have to do with weed? Well, the DC city council voted for, and Mayor Vincent Gray signed, a law decriminalizing the possession of marijuana in the District. This law eliminated jail time and court appearances for those caught with marijuana. Instead, smokers would be slapped with a light $25 fine. In any other city, this would be the end of the story. Seventeen states have decriminalized marijuana, including DC’s next-door neighbor Maryland.

Maryland Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) is apparently not excited about sharing this similarity with DC. That might be why he led the charge in the House Appropriations Committee to block funding for the decriminalization law.

Reasonable people can disagree on the merits of decriminalization; however, these same reasonable people should all agree that DC’s lack of self rule is unfair. If the people of Maryland can decide to decriminalize marijuana, so should the people of DC. Harris is deliberately ignoring the will of the people while being a blatant hypocrite. Why should his state be able to have rights that DC does not?

We know, Jack. We know.

However, as the Washington Post has pointed out, this may have backfired. Harris decided to use his power on the Appropriations Committee to block the bill. Since that committee deals with the allotment of funds, instead of just rejecting the bill, he decided to defund it, penning an amendment that states no money can go toward the enforcement of the law.

But what money does DC need to enforce this law? It doesn’t cost the police any money to not arrest somebody for holding marijuana. According to the Washington Post, the money would be used to print and process the $25 fine for possession. If money cannot go toward this enforcement, then fines will not be doled out. If the fines are not being given out, and the law is still on the books, then there are no consequences for possessing marijuana in DC, effectively legalizing the substance.

This somewhat hilarious mistake is just one example of Congress’ tyrannical rule over DC gone awry. Another example took place in 2012, when Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) tried to restrict abortions in DC. As a form of protest, DC residents began to flood his office with other complaints about district problems.

“The protesters came to the office with complaints about potholes, street signs blocked by overgrown trees and other municipal issues. One even came armed with a plunger to represent concerns about sewage overflows into the Anacostia River during floods, concerns they wanted addressed by “Mayor Franks.””

This is a fantastic way to protest a lack of true DC home rule. It annoys the Congressman and eloquently illustrates the absurdity of Congress’ power over DC laws. This leaves me with one question: why aren’t the people of DC doing this again?

DC residents, you know what you have to do. Here is a link to Harris’ “Contact Me’ page. Is there a nasty pothole outside your apartment? Does the corner on your street need a traffic light? Is your trash not being picked up fast enough? Send a message to Mayor Harris. If you’re near Capitol Hill, schedule a meeting. Better yet, just visit unannounced!

I’m sure he would be more than happy to help the residents of the fine city he is so concerned about.

UPDATE: July 17, 2014

This week Congress passed an amendment that would undo DC’s strict gun laws. You know, the gun laws that DC’s elected representatives voted for. Clearly they weren’t listening when I said that they should not steal DC’s government from its people. So I would like to directly address Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), the amendment’s author:

Hey Thomas! How are you today? I noticed that you have been spending a lot of time worrying about DC and may have forgotten about your own state. So I thought I would present you with some statistics about Kentucky, the state you claim to represent:

• Kentucky has a 7.7 percent unemployment rate. That’s a lot higher than the country’s 6.3 percent unemployment rate.
• Kentucky’s poverty rate is 18.6 percent. America as a whole only has a 14.9 percent poverty rate.
• Kentucy’s median income is nearly $10,000 lower than the national media income.

Your state faces a lot of challenges and needs leaders willing to tackle those problems. I would guess that your constituents care a lot less about whether or not a DC resident can buy a semi-automatic weapon than they do about problems they experience personally. Your constituents didn’t vote for you  so that you would mess with DC. They voted for you to improve their own state.

Take your hands off of DC laws and do your damn job.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Andrew Bossi via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Mayor Harris” Might Accidentally Legalize Weed in DC appeared first on Law Street.

Iran and the major world powers (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany) have less than two weeks to come to a deal on Iran’s controversial nuclear program. As talks continue in Vienna, here’s your guide to everything you need to know about why the United States doesn’t want Iran to have nukes, whether or not a deal will be worked out, and what options remain if talks fail.

UPDATE: July 22, 2014

How long has Iran had a nuclear program?

Iran has had a nuclear program in some form since the 1950s. Oddly enough, the United States helped Iran lay the foundation for their programs with President Eisenhower’s Atoms For Peace initiative. Atoms For Peace exported nuclear materials, including highly enriched uranium. This program was merely for developing peaceful uses for nuclear energy around the globe. Eisenhower did not intend to develop a nuclear weapons system in Iran.

Iran’s nuclear energy program was supported by the United States in some capacity until the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Iran was then left without international support and continued to develop its nuclear program.

Iran has always insisted that its program is merely for energy, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the leaders of many Western nations have accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons.

Is Iran allowed to have nuclear weapons?

If Iran is making nuclear weapons, and most signs point to this being true, then it would be violating international law. Iran is a signatory, along with every country but North Korea, Pakistan, India, Israel, and the South Sudan, to the The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). This treaty holds signatory nations to three main points:

1. The signatory nation must not create nuclear weapons.
2. Signatory nations must disarm themselves of all nuclear weapons.
3. All signatory nations have the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.

It is important to note that the NPT labels the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China as nuclear-weapons states. This means that they do not have to disarm. They only have to negotiate in good faith to work toward disarmament.

Iran often cites point three in its defense, while critics argue that the country is violating points one and two.

Here is a NATO overview of the NPT:

Why does the United States not want Iran to have nukes?

There are few reasons the United States does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. The main reason is that the United States and Iran have not been on good terms in the past few decades.

In 1953, the CIA was involved in overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government and replacing it with the Shah, a monarch who was friendly to the interests of the United States. The Iranian people remembered this when they overthrew this government during the Islamic Revolution. This, plus the fact that the United States took in the Shah after his exile from Iran, is why revolutionaries held diplomats hostage at the American embassy in Iran  for 444 days. Relations have been cold ever since. This video provides a more in-depth summary of U.S.-Iran relations:

There’s another big reason the United States does not want Iran to have nukes: Iran is geographically close to Israel, a close American ally. The Iranian government does not like Israel, and the Israeli government does not like Iran. For emphasis, these two countries really do not like each other. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one of the worst kept secrets in international politics, and letting its  adversary also have nuclear weapons is a recipe for trouble.

A third concern is that Iran could spark a domino effect of sorts in the region. If Iran has nukes, then Saudi Arabia will want nukes, which will motivate another Middle Eastern country after another to get nukes until the Middle East, a rather unstable region, is covered in warheads.

How has America tried to stop Iran?

For now, the United States, and many other countries, has used economic sanctions to make Iran stop its nuclear problem. According to the State Department, these sanctions target the Iranian sectors of finance, transportation, shipping, energy, and more.

Why is Iran willing to talk now?

There are two reasons that Iran is willing to come to an agreement with the world’s powers.

First, the sanctions worked. The economic punishments vastly increased the average Iranian’s cost of living and increased Iran’s inflation rate to a staggering 40 percent. This can be mostly attributed to the American and European embargoes on Iranian oil. In 2012, when the sanction took effect in Europe, Iran’s exports dropped from 2.5 million barrels per day (bbl/d) to 1.53 bbl/d. The Rial (Iran’s currency) also collapsed, dropping by 80 percent between 2011 and 2012.

Second, Iran’s current President, Hassan Rouhani, is much more reasonable than the last one. You might remember former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the crazy guy who said he wanted to wipe Israel “off the map” and that there were no gay people in Iran. This was not a man who would be willing to negotiate with America. Rouhani, on the other hand, ran as a reformer and campaigned on working with the West to ease the sanctions that devastated Iran’s economy.

The President is not the most powerful actor in Iranian. That distinction goes to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Still, the fact that Khamenei allowed Rouhani to run and win shows that he is willing to negotiate.

What has already been agreed upon?

In November 2013, Iran and six world powers, including the United States, came to an interim agreement. Iran halted parts of its nuclear program and in return Western nations eased some of the sanctions. This was a six-month deal that halted progress at every nuclear facility in Iran, and also prevented the building additional facilities. The idea was that a more comprehensive deal would come about in six months.

Here is an ABC News report on how this deal played out in Iran and the United States:

There is debate over whether or not this deal was a good idea. Watch CNN’s Crossfire discuss the issue. The introduction is obnoxious, but the rhetorical arguments are an accurate representation of both sides of the issue:

Six months will be up on July 20 of this year. That means Iran and the world powers have less than two weeks to come to a comprehensive agreement. While the option to extend the deadline is on the table, American diplomats have stated that they are unlikely to support such an extension.

What is still left to agree upon?

The main sticking point for a comprehensive deal is the number of uranium enrichment centrifuges Iran will be allowed to maintain. Iran currently has 19,000 centrifuges. Western powers would like to see that number reduced to the low thousands, while Iran would like to someday have 50,000 centrifuges.

Centrifuges are not the only problem that negotiators will face over the next two weeks, however. While Iran has accepted tougher inspection requirements and limits on production of enriched uranium, the country does not want its ballistic missile system to be on the table. It also wants more sanctions to be removed and is not interested in dismantling nuclear facilities.

Iran will resume nuclear production and the world powers will resume crippling sanctions if the two sides cannot resolve these differences.

What should the United States do if talks fail?

Continuing sanctions without any chance of an agreement would be foolish. In 2003, Iran approached the Bush administration under crippling sanctions to discuss a deal. Bush passed, believing that the sanctions would just lead to the collapse of the regime. Iran had 164 centrifuges at that time, which has increased by more than 11,000 percent to its current cache of 19,000.

Sanctions alone will not deter Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. If talks do not work, military force seems to be the only option left.

Should the United States bomb Iran?

This debate is best personified by Matthew Kroenig and Colin H. Kahl, two contributors to Foreign Affairs. Watch them debate the issue here:

For those of you who do not have an hour of free time, here is a summary of their arguments:

Advocates of a surgical strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities argue that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable for America and its allies. A nuke would give Iran too much leverage in the region. Worse, Israel and Iran would be at constant odds without the safeguards that prevented nuclear war between the United States and Soviet Union. Kroenig claims that military action in Iran could be contained to just nuclear sites, involve few civilian casualties, and inspire little retaliation. As long as America assures Iran that it is only attacking nuclear facilities, Iran will react calmly.

Kahl argues that a surgical strike would be a disaster and that the United States should merely contain Iran as a nuclear power. Even if the strike succeeds, which is not a given, Kahl envisions a massive retaliation from Iran that includes closing the Strait of Hormuz, attacking American military forces in the Gulf, and providing lethal assistance to terrorist groups that the West is currently fighting throughout the region. Closing the Strait of Hormuz alone would send a shockwave through global markets, but Iranian attacks against American troops would be devastating. Plus, given how unstable the region is, there’s no telling what kind of violence this could cause in other Middle Eastern nations.

Even worse, Kahl does not believe that a military strike would deter Iran from gaining a nuclear weapon. Such a strike would only set the program back by a few years, and has the potential to rally Iranians around rebuilding. It’s not as if America can remove the knowledge of how to build nuclear weapons from the Iranian people.

Conclusion

Iran and the West have until July 20 to come to an agreement. If diplomats fail, Iran will continue to develop its nuclear program and the Western world will continue to cripple the country’s economy with strong sanctions.

UPDATE: July 22, 2014

On July 18, negotiators in Vienna agreed to extend the deadline by four months to November 24, 2014. Negotiators also agreed to extend the terms of the stop-gap agreement. Iran will still halt its nuclear program and the United States will continue to suspend sanctions. Iran and the world powers have made some progress but they are still struggling to agree on how large the country’s nuclear program should be.

Resources

Primary

State Department: Iran Sanctions

Energy Information Administration: Energy Information Administration on the Iranian economy

Additional

Reuters: U.N. Nuclear Watchdog Rebukes Iran

Cold War: CIA Overthrows Iranian Democracy

CNN: Facts About the Iranian Hostage Crisis

NPR: Iran’s Economy Key in Nuclear Deal

Economist: A Red Line and a Reeling Rial

LA Times: U.S. Threatens to End Iran Nuclear Talks

Foreign Affairs: Not Time to Attack Iran

CNN: Final Talks Before Deadline Begin

CNN: What Critics Are Getting Wrong About the Iran Deal

Foreign Affairs: Time to Attack Iran

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iranian Nuclear Talks: Final Deadline Looming appeared first on Law Street.

Car companies rarely make headlines for things that they have done right, and General Motors is no exception. GM has recalled millions of vehicles since February 2014 and has been found responsible for multiple deaths. Read on to learn everything you need to know about why GM waited so long to fix a life-threatening problem, how much GM will pay to fix said problem, and why you might want to get rid of your keychain.

What is General Motors?

General Motors is one of the largest car companies in America. It manufactures and sells ten brands of cars including Chevrolet, Buick, and Cadillac. GM sold more than nine million cars globally last year.

Why did GM issue a massive recall?

A faulty switch on the ignition of some cars would, when pressed, jiggled, or bumped a certain way, turn the key to the “off” position while driving. This would turn off power steering, power brakes, the engine, and all airbags. Drivers would effectively lose control of their vehicles. Even just a heavy keychain could be enough to set off this chain of events.

How bad was this problem?

Really bad. So far, GM has attributed 13 deaths to the faulty switch problem. That’s the largest number of auto deaths related to a recall since 2000. Rep. Diana Degette (D-CO), a ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, believes that there may be as many as 100 deaths associated with the faulty switch.

Sadly, according to the report below from Bloomberg News, many of the victims were teenagers. This might be because the cars impacted were entry level vehicles that parents often buy for their kids.

GM has recalled 25.68 million vehicles this year. This is a massive number of impacted cars. To put that number in perspective, it’s equivalent to two years of the company’s output and it surpasses the average total recalls for all car companies per year.

How long has GM known?

This is the truly weird part of the story. General Motors has known that the problem existed in at least one of its cars since 2001. During pre-production of the Saturn Ion, engineers noticed the ignition problem and fixed it; however, the problem popped up again in 2004, this time in the Chevrolet Cobalt. This time GM did not fix the problem, saying the solution was too expensive. Instead, GM sent a memo to dealerships warning them of the problem and telling them to advise customers to remove heavy keychains. GM did not recall these vehicles or inform owners of the problem until 2014.

Watch Consumer Reports explain why this is such a big deal and why GM should have recalled the vehicles ten years ago.

An internal report shows that in 2006 a solution was proposed that cost nothing. The ignition switches would merely be replaced with a stronger spring that would be more difficult to accidentally turn. It’s unclear why GM did not make this change. Other reports state that the fix would have cost less than a dollar per car. Total retooling costs would have been $400,000. Apparently this was too much money for GM to spend.

GM not only knew that this problem existed, but the company also knew that people were dying as a result. The first death linked to the faulty switch took place in 2005. Sixteen year old Amber Rose died when the airbags did not deploy in her Chevy Cobalt.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is also reporting that GM withheld information that may have allowed the agency to investigate and discover the problem earlier.

How do I know if my car has been affected?

GM has been sending notifications in the mail to every GM owner, but you can also check this website.

Still, you should be wary even if the model you own has not yet been recalled. GM did not recall every broken car at once. Instead, the recalls have been coming out gradually since February as the company figures out which cars are impacted. You should remove anything heavy from your keychain if you own a GM car.

How much will this cost GM?

It has already been very costly. The huge number of recalls will absolutely result in a steep loss. GM has also announced that it will compensate victims and their families. Families will receive a minimum of $1 million, plus $300,000 for every surviving spouse and dependent.

Watch Kenneth Feinberg, Administrator of GM Compensation, explain how the company will distribute these funds:

In addition, GM has paid a $35 million civil penalty, the maximum for such a penalty, to the NHTSA for failing to quickly respond to the problem.

There are also bizarre stories developing about different incidents caused by these faulty ignition switches that GM will have to pay for. For example, a Texas woman who pleaded guilty to negligent homicide in 2004 after she crashed her Saturn Ion and killed her fiance, is now suing GM. NHTSA recently confirmed that the accident was caused by the faulty switch, and not by the driver’s negligence. GM could be in serious trouble if people who have been convicted of felonies can prove that the auto company was actually at fault. Expect similar lawsuits to pop up.

There is a loophole, however, that would allow GM to avoid liability for these accidents. You may remember that GM was bailed out by the federal government in 2009. What you may not know is that this bailout created two companies: old GM and new GM. New GM took the best assets from old GM and left the bad ones behind. This could mean that new GM would not be liable for any accident taking place before the new company was formed. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber will decide whether or not new GM is responsible for the mistakes of old GM.

In addition to recalls, how else has GM responded?

Mary Barra, who became CEO a month before this scandal broke out, has fired 15 employees over the recall failure.

Barra also publicly apologized multiple times. She has apologized at Congressional hearings, in press releases, and in a video produced by GM.

Conclusion

GM was at best negligent and and worst greedy when the company waited more than a decade to address this fatal flaw in its cars. Congress will investigate to see how this situation could be prevented in the future. In the mean time, check the recall list to see if your vehicle is affected.

Resources

Primary

General Motors: Internal Investigation

Additional

General Motors: GM Delivered 9.7 Million Vehicles Globally in 2013

The New York Times: 13 Deaths, Untold Heartache, From G.M. Defect

Politico: GM Will Compensate for Ignition Switch Deaths Starting at $1 Million

CNN: GM CEO Barra: ‘I Am Deeply Sorry’

Wall Street Journal: GM Fires 15 Employees Over Recall Failures

General Motors: Ignition Recall Safety Information

NPR: Timeline: A History of GM’s Ignition Switch Defect

CBS: Why Didn’t GM Fix Faulty Switches? A Per-Car Cost of Less Than $1

Wall Street Journal: GM Says it Has a Shield From Some Liability

Motor Trend: The GM Recall Crisis–A Matter of Confidence

U.S. News & World Report: Where Were GM’s Ethics?

Fortune: GM’s Recall Scandal: A Scorecard on CEO Mary Barra

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know Now About the GM Recall appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an all too familiar occurrence: violence has broken out between Israelis and Palestinians. This time, the fighting is over the murder of three Israeli boys and the apparent subsequent revenge killing of one Palestinian boy. Read on to learn more about the latest chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

UPDATE: July 9, 2014

Why is there tension between Israelis and Palestinians?

Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting for nearly a century over the rights to the land known today as Israel. Like many contemporary Middle Eastern conflicts, Britain shoulders some of the blame.

It all started in 1916 when Britain convinced the Arab people to turn against the Ottoman Empire during World War I by promising them an independent Arab state, including Palestine. One year later, however, British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour declared that Britain supported a Jewish state in the land of Palestine. These contradictory promises laid the groundwork for the current fighting. The two have fought violent battles ever since the United Nations gave Israel the majority of land in 1947, and Israel has gradually gained more land through these wars.

For a full recap and explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, click here, or watch the video below.

Today, Israelis and Palestinians fight over a variety of issues. Palestinians argue that the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are a violation of human rights, and that Jewish settlements in these lands are illegal acts by Israel to gain more land from the Palestinian people. Israelis argue that they live under constant fear from Hamas rocket strikes and terrorist attacks from Gaza and the West Bank, and that these occupations are meant to protect themselves.

Who are the major players in this conflict?

There are three major organizations interacting with each other in this story.

First is the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has control over the Jewish portions of Israel.

Second is Fatah, also known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This is the largest political party in the Palestinian regions of Israel, mainly the West Bank. The West Bank is land east of Israel that belongs to the Palestinian people. Jewish people have routinely settled in the West Bank. The legality of these settlements often come under question and are a major sticking point in peace negotiations

Third is Hamas, which took large control over the Gaza Strip after intense fighting with Fatah. Gaza is a small strip of land on the Western border of Israel. Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization by many governments across the globe and is responsible for rockets fired from the Gaza border into Israel.

Recently, Fatah and Hamas created a unity government to more effectively branch the West Bank and Gaza together. This has infuriated Netanyahu, who was previously working with Fatah to try to maintain peace.

What happened to these three Israeli boys?

On June 12, 2014, Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Frenkel went missing in the West Bank. A massive search ensued to find the boys. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which led the search, detained 400 Palestinians suspected of terror activities in the process.

The boys were found buried in shallow graves on June 30 in the West Bank city of Hebron, apparent victims of an execution.

One of the teenagers made an emergency phone call shortly before he was killed. You can listen to parts of that call here:

Who kidnapped and killed them?

Israel has identified Marwan Qawasmeh and Amer Abu Eisheh, two members of Hamas, as primary suspects. The two have since fled and are being searched for by Israeli and Palestinian forces. For a good profile on the family deemed responsible for this tragedy, click here.

Hamas has denied responsibility for the attacks and is claiming that the two men acted alone, not as representatives of the organization.

How has Israel’s government responded?

The Israeli government does not believe Hamas’ claim distancing itself from the killing. Netanyahu has said that Hamas will pay and referred to the killers as “beasts.” Watch his full statement below:

Hours after the boys’ bodies were found, Israel launched air strikes on the Gaza Strip. Israel says that these are retaliation for both the murder of the three Israeli boys and for the resumption of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. The homes of the suspects were also destroyed.

Israel has moved ground troops to the Gaza border, but claims it is not seeking escalation, but rather that this is a defensive tactic.

How have the Israeli people responded?

The majority of Israelis and Palestinians have not reacted to this tragedy with racism and violence; however, those who have reacted this way are threatening to ratchet up tension and violence in a country that already has high levels of both.

On July 2, 2014, 16-year-old Palestinian boy Mohammad Abu Khieder was found murdered and badly burned in a forest section of Jerusalem. Authorities in the area have concluded that Kheider was most likely killed by Jews in an act of revenge.

Many Israelis have come out strongly against the killing, including family members of the Israeli victims. The Frenkel family released a statement that said, in part, “There is no differentiating between blood and blood, murder is murder, whatever the nationality or age.”

Shelly Yachimovich, an Israeli politician, referred to the killing as “a barbaric challenge to the sovereignty of the state, to the army, the police, the courts, and the government.”

This revenge killing is not the only example of a visceral reaction from Israeli citizens. Watch this rally of mourners turn into an angry protest. The protesters are screaming “death to Arabs.”

Thousands of Israelis have posted on a Facebook group calling for vengeance over the death of Israelis. The moderators of the group claim that they are not calling for the murder of innocents, but for the murderers of the three boys to be brought to justice. Some comments, however, appear to support the revenge killing of Khieder.

This, along with reports of random attacks against Palestinians by Israelis, has created a very tense environment.

How are Palestinians responding?

Palestinians are outraged over the revenge killing of Khieder, and the protests are already getting violent. Some have responded by clashing with Israeli security forces. Protesters have been throwing molotov cocktails and stones at security, who have been responding in kind with tear gas and stun grenades.

Watch this Associated Press report about the clashes:

There are also reports that hundreds of Palestinians lit train stations on fire in east Jerusalem.

Hamas has stated that they are also uninterested in escalating the conflict, but are having trouble convincing rogue militants to hold their fire.

Conclusion

The execution of three Israeli children, the revenge killing of a Palestinian boy, and the return of Gaza rockets are all dangerous developments for Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides need to exercise caution and restraint in order to spare more lives.

UPDATE: July 9, 2014

On July 8, Israel began Operation Protective Edge, a military offensive that has attacked more than 450 targets in Gaza. Different sources report different casualty numbers, but according to public health officials in Gaza, 35 people have been killed by these attacks, including 16 children.

This operation is a response to a massive number of rocket attacks on Israel coming from Hamas in Gaza. Hamas has fired more than 160 rockets at Israel in the past week. These rockets are reaching further into Israeli land than they ever have before. Warning sirens have sent Israelis running for bomb shelters, and many schools have canceled classes.

All observers agree that this is the worst violence the region has seen since 2012. The Israeli military has called up 40,000 reserve troops, 10,000 more than were called up in 2012. With Netanyahu’s supporters pressuring him to use ground troops and Hamas trying to prove they can stand up to Israel, the death toll and number of rocket strikes are likely to rise.

Resources

Primary

Jewish Virtual Library: The British Palestine Mandate

Additional

Global Issues: The Middle East Conflict: a Brief Background

Guardian: Air Strikes Hit Gaza as Israel Blames Hamas

Breaking Israel News: Bodies of Three Kidnapped Teens Found by IDF

Buzzfeed: Who Are the Kidnappers?

The New York Times: Deeply Divided Israel Unites in Grief

The New York Times: Israel Mobilizing Forces Around Gaza

Jerusalem Post: US Says Hamas Involved in Death of Three Boys

Yahoo: Hamas Member Killed After Death of Three Boys

The New York Times: US Envoy Blames Distrust for Problems

The New York Times: Arab Boy’s Death Escalates Clashes

Buzzfeed: Revenge Attack on a Palestinian

Fox News: Palestinians Clash With Israeli Police

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kidnapping and Revenge: The Latest Chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict appeared first on Law Street.

It’s all anyone watching the World Cup can talk about. Luis Suarez, star striker for Uruguay and Liverpool FC, bit someone again.

FIFA dropped the hammer on him, banning him from nine international matches and four months of all soccer activity. This is being interpreted by the soccer world as a harsh punishment. Even the guy he bit, Italian defender Girogio Chiellini, thinks it is excessive. However, for those of us who live in the real world, it feels like Suarez got off a little easy for basically assaulting somebody. That got me to thinking, how would Suarez fair in front of an American court if Chiellini decided to press charges against him?

First, we must figure out what crime Suarez committed. He obviously assaulted Chielini, but assault is a broad legal term. Which kind of assault did Suarez commit?

The Legal Information Institute defines assault as “intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.” Suarez’s chomp definitely fits that description. There is no doubt that biting another person’s shoulder is offensive. I would certainly be offended if someone started trying to eat me.

The next question that needs to be asked is whether this was an aggravated assault or a simple assault. Aggravated assault needs to have an aggravating factor, “such as the intent to inflict serious bodily injury or the use of a dangerous weapon.” Suarez’s teeth are definitely not a dangerous weapon, and I don’t think any reasonable court would count these bite marks as “serious bodily injury.”

As you can see, Suarez barely broke the skin. It’s not like he went full Tyson on the guy and took off a part of his body.

Suarez’s bite would most likely fall under simple assault, an assault that lacks an aggravating factor. Since there was no weapon or fear of serious harm, Suarez’s assault would be classified as a misdemeanor in most states. This means he could receive a jail sentence from six months to a full year depending on the state in which the assault was committed.

Most judges would probably let him serve out his sentence on probation. This could include community service, educational programs, or house arrest.

But wait! This is not the first time Suarez has bitten someone on the field. He bit Ottman Bakkal while playing for Ajax in 2010.

He also bit Branislav Ivanovic while playing for Liverpool in 2013.

This makes Suarez a repeat offender, which would probably result in stricter punishment. For example, if the crime took place in Texas, a repeat offense would land Suarez with a fine of up to $2,000 and automatic jail time of up to 180 days.

Suarez could be in real trouble if his crime took place in California, which has a Three-Strikes law, which forces a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life for anyone who has committed three felonies, or two felonies and a misdemeanor. If Suarez were particularly unlucky and had two of his cases heard by judges who believed his bites were aggravated assaults, Suarez could land himself a serious prison sentence.

Of course, Suarez is a professional athlete, which means that he will never serve any jail time or legally binding punishment for what he has done. Instead, he just won’t be allowed to play with the other athletes for a little while. You know, like a time out.

Welcome to the world of sports. A place where you are legally allowed to do things like this:

And this:

And this:

So, the next time you decide to bite someone, elbow someone in the face, or just knock someone out, ask yourself this important question: am I paid millions of dollars to play a game? If the answer is no, you should probably refrain from any violent activity. If the answer is yes, go for it! What’s the worst that could happen?

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [George via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The People vs. Luis Suarez appeared first on Law Street.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed in 1984, is turning 30 this year. The law, meant to curb teen drunk driving, has been the topic of debate since it was passed. Read on to learn more about what inspired the law, whether or not it works, and a few unintended consequences.

What is the National Minimum Drinking Age Act

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 set the drinking age of every state at 21.

Well, not exactly– congress is not allowed to tell states that they have to make their drinking age a certain number. However, Congress does have power to control spending, including the allocations of funds to states. That’s why this act threatened to cut ten percent of federal highway funding to any state that did not change their drinking age to 21. By 1988, every state had changed their drinking age to 21.

Critics of the law had two main arguments. Some complained that the law was was an intrusion on states’ rights. Others argued that it was not fair that the federal government could call 18 year olds adults when they fight for their country, but not when they want a beer.

Watch the late Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), author of the National Minimum Wage Drinking Age Act Late, respond to these criticisms on PBS NewsHour.

Why was it passed?

This bill was the end result of a massive campaign by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) to lower the drinking age.

MADD was started in 1980 by Candy Lightner when her daughter was killed by a repeat drunk driver. The group aggressively lobbied President Reagan and Congress to combat the issue of drunk driving, in part by increasing the drinking age to 21. The problem, in MADD’s eyes, had started a decade earlier. In the 1970s, as a result of the Vietnam War drafting 18-year-olds, some states decided to lower their drinking ages to 18. It only seemed fair; if you could be forced to fight, you should be allowed to drink. However, this led to a sharp spike in drunk driving fatalities.

One major cause was the phenomenon of “blood borders.” These were the borders between states with high drinking ages and states with low drinking ages. Historically, 18 years olds would drive to neighboring states to drink, then while driving back, crash and die. The hope was that raising the drinking age to 21 would lower drunk driving rates.

Has it worked?

Sort of — a Boston University study has shown that, since the drinking age was raised, there have been significantly fewer drunk driving accidents, and a strong majority, 89 percent, of drunk drivers today are between the ages of 21 and 44.

But, lower drunk driving rates are not just limited to those who are banned from drinking. Drunk driving in general has reduced across almost every age group.

Courtesy of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism

As you can see, the most dramatic drop was in the 21-29 age group. The minimum drinking age did not impact them. Admittedly, there was also a notable drop in the 16-20 age group.

This decrease in drunk driving rates for all ages could still be the result of a lower drinking age if young people had stopped drinking. However, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), 39 percent of high school students still say they drink. The statistics from the National Institute of Health are even more eye-opening. It states 72 percent of 12 graders have tried alcohol and 85 percent of college students drink, even though they are not 21.

So, if young people are still drinking, why did drunk driving decrease so dramatically? Choose Responsibly, an organization that sparks debate about alcohol laws and supports lowering the drinking age, argues that a mix of seatbelt laws, a lower legal BAC, and public awareness all explain the drop in drunk driving fatalities. They also argue that the drop in alcohol-related fatalities actually started in the 1970s, well before the drinking age was raised to 21.

Have there been any unintended consequences?

Different sources have come to different conclusions. While some say that the higher drinking age has definitely saved lives, others argue that unintended consequences have led to a binge drinking crisis.

According to the earlier mentioned NIH report, “underage drinkers consume, on average, four to five drinks per occasion about five times a month. By comparison, drinkers age 26 and older consume two to three drinks per occasion, about nine times a month.” So, while an adult might have a couple glasses of wine a few times a week, a young person will instead have double that amount once a week. Young people are drinking more alcohol in a shorter timeframe.

Watch this clip to learn about why this trend is so dangerous:

Binge drinking can also indirectly cause dangerous behavior in college students. This includes violence, unprotected sex, and even sexual assault. Choose Responsibly argues that this is a consequence of a high drinking age. If these young people were allowed to drink with adult supervision, they would learn how to drink safely and responsibly. Since drinking is illegal, they have been pushed into the shadows. It’s a lot easier to get dangerously drunk in your friend’s basement than it is at a bar.

The binge drinking trend has led some to call for a repeal, or at least a discussion, of the minimum drinking age. A 137 college presidents are signatories on a statement from the Amethyst Initiative, a group dedicated to lowering the drinking age. The presidents argue that they have seen the negative impact of a high drinking age on their own campuses, including high amount of binge drinking amongst their students.

On this point, the presidents are wrong and right. For one, Americans are binge drinking less than they used to as a whole. However, college students are the only group of Americans that are binge drinking as much as they used to. With this in mind, it makes sense the college presidents would be so concerned about this issue. Their point of view is shaped by their experience with a group that represents an outlier in drinking attitudes nationwide. College students are still binge drinking at higher rates than the rest of the country, but raising the drinking age to 21 seems to have lowered the amount of binge drinking amongst young people who are not in college.

Still, Amethyst presidents are concerned about a culture where college drinkers move from bars, where someone can cut them off, to basements and pre-games that are unregulated and unchecked.

Signatories to the Amethyst Initiative have other reasons to lower the drinking age, mostly philosophical. For one, they believe that forcing young people to drink in secret and violate the law fosters a disrespect for all laws. They also believe that a person who can vote, smoke, marry, and fight for their country should be given all of the responsibilities of adulthood, including drinking.

Conclusion

It’s been 30 years since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act became a law, and it is still hard to measure the act’s impact. It’s difficult to tell how many lives it saved from drunk driving accidents because there are so many other factors. It’s also challenging to figure out if it has really curbed underage and binge drinking. More research needs to be done on the issue before the act can be defined as a success or failure.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984

Additional

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Impaired Driving: Get the Facts

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Epidemiology and Consequences of Drinking and Driving

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: No More Victims

Fox News: When Drunk Driving Deterrence Becomes Neo-Prohibition

Mental Floss: Why is the Drinking Age 21?

CNN: Drinking Age of 21 Does Not Work

Amethyst Initative: Rethink the Drinking Age

Washington Post: Drinking Age Paradox

Washington University in St. Louis: Higher Drinking Age Linked to Less Binge Drinking…Except in College Students

Boston University: New Report on Minimum Drinking Age Makes Strong Case for Existing Laws

National Institutes of Health: Underage Drinking Fact Sheet

Choose Responibility: Those Who Choose to Drink Are Drinking More

Center for Disease Control and Prevention: Binge Drinking Fact Sheet

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Turn Down for What: Does the Minimum Drinking Age Act Work? appeared first on Law Street.

Since President Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, there has been a debate on how to best give the poorest Americans a chance at a prosperous life. Federal assistance programs have come and gone with plenty of critics, but what if the solution was as simple as giving every American a check? Read on to learn about the plan that’s uniting liberals and conservatives.

What is a basic income?

A basic income is just what it sounds like: the government gives every citizen enough money to survive. This check would replace food stamps, unemployment insurance, and most of our welfare system. Most American proposals for a basic income provide for $1,000 a month, or roughly how much someone earning the federal minimum wage, $7.25 per hour, makes.

Why replace our current welfare system? If it ain’t broke…

It’s broken, very broken. This is partly because the term “welfare system” does not refer to one system. It is multiple social programs managed by different government bureaucracies. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, Temporary Assistance For Needy Families (TANF), and Child Nutrition programs (CHIP) are all examples of social programs that are broadly referred to as welfare. According to the Cato Institute, there are 126 different federal assistance programs. Anyone trying to receive government assistance has to apply to all of these separate programs which carry their own paperwork and contradictory requirements.

There is also the problem known as the “poverty trap.” This is when those receiving assistance risk losing money by taking a higher paying job. It sounds contradictory, but this anecdote from Harvard Professor Jeff Liebman explains the problem.

The woman in his story, let us call her Mary, moves from a job that pays $25,000 to a job that pays $35,000. This is great for her, except for the fact that she relies on government benefits. With this new job, she earns enough so that she no longer qualifies for many of the social programs she depends on. She no longer can get free health insurance, she has lost title eight housing benefits, she lost her child care voucher, she lost her EITC benefits, and she is now paying payroll tax. Added all up, Mary is actually making less money with a higher paying job. When welfare recipients are discouraged from taking higher jobs, they are discouraged from improving their lives to the point where they will no longer need welfare.

A basic income would get rid of the poverty trap. Mary could quit her lower salary job and even take her time to find a job that is right for her without having to worry about losing her support system.

For being such a failure, the current welfare system is also really expensive. America spends approximately $1 trillion on the welfare system. That’s $14,848 per person. This graph from The Heritage Foundation gives an idea of how that is split up between programs.

Basic income would also be expensive, but it would provide recipients the freedom they need to find good work.

Wouldn’t everyone just stop working?

It’s possible. While proponents of a basic income argue that removing the poverty gap is a huge incentive to work, critics argue that an unconditional check in the mail will disincentivize work. Belgian philosopher Philippe Van Parijs, describes the basic income as giving impoverished people “the real freedom to pursue the realization of one’s conception of the good life.” The good life in one person’s eyes could be having a lucrative job. In another’s eyes, it could be living off of the government dime and doing nothing. Proponents of the basic income, like US Basic Income Guarantee Network Board Member Alan Sheahen, believe that most people want to work:

This is a problem that nearly every welfare plan has to grapple with. Requiring work puts people in a poverty trap. Unconditional benefits allow them to coast without work.

Does any country do this?

There is no country that has replaced their welfare system with a guaranteed basic income. However, there are countries that give their citizens unconditional money and there are countries that have proposed this plan.

The best example would be in India, where a pilot program was implemented in 2011. This pilot program included an urban program, whose recipients were given 1000 rupees a month, a rural program, whose recipients were given 200 rupees a month, and a control group, whose participants received no basic income.

What happened next was amazing: Participants in the program spent more on healthy food than they did when they received subsidized food. These groups also spent more on medical services, and housing. The most impressive result was that these families spent significantly more on school supplies than the control group. As a result, school attendance in the participating villages increased to three times the level of the control villages.

Switzerland might become the first country to implement a basic income nationwide. They will soon vote on a referendum to their constitution guaranteeing the right of a basic income to all. However, it is unclear how a Swiss basic income would be implemented, if it were to even pass. There have been no studies in Switzerland, and only one advocacy group has been pushing the issue. Switzerland’s form of democracy requires only 100,000 signatures to get any issue on the ballot as a referendum, so the plan might not even have broad public support.

Has this ever been proposed in the United States?

The closest proposal to a guaranteed income in the United States was President Richard Nixon’s Family Assistance Plan (FAP). FAP was not a basic income for all, but it was similar. Any family with children where one of the parents worked or were registered with the United States Employment services was eligible for a minimum stipend. Once again, it was not a check in the mail for every American, but it was and still is the closest proposal to basic income this country has ever seen.

So, what happened? It passed the House of Representatives, but died in a Senate committee. Conservatives thought the idea of free money was too far to the left and Democrats thought the work requirement placed it too far to the right.

Here’s Nixon’s indictment of the welfare system and presentation of FAP, courtesy of the Richard Nixon Foundation:

In modern America, the closest example of a basic income is in Alaska, where the state unconditionally gives a portion of their oil revenues to their citizens. The payout varies depending on oil sales, so it is not a dependable source of income, but it is still significant.

Is this a liberal or conservative idea?

Actually, it is both. Liberals and conservatives have both embraced a guaranteed basic income.

Milton Friedman, one of the most influential conservative economists ever, proposed replacing the welfare system with a “negative income tax.” Every citizen would get a tax transfer, and would then be taxed on that transfer based on how much money they earned. Friedmann, like other prominent conservatives, supported the basic income because it took power away from the federal government and the many bureaucracies that managed the welfare state.

Liberals like the basic income because it works to reduce inequality. It also has the added benefit of giving workers the ability to demand better work conditions from employers without fearing a loss of financial security.

Since this is so bipartisan, is it going to happen?

Unlikely. Americans are not the biggest fans of redistribution, and a basic income is redistribution at its purest form. In a nation where 60 percent of the citizenry believe that the poor can become rich by trying harder, it is unlikely that a basic income will gain broad public support.

Watch this report from PBS to learn about the broad support basic income has amongst liberal and conservative thinkers, the movements in Europe to enact similar plans, and the opposition it faces at home.

Conclusion

While support for a basic income reaches across the aisle, it is too untested to be implemented in a country as large as the United States and it goes against the American ideal of earning every dollar made. Keep an eye on countries like Switzerland and India to see if this really is the solution to poverty that the world has been looking for.

Resources

Primary

Basic Income News: Indian: Basic Income Pilot Project Finds Results of India’s pilot program

Additional

PBS Newshour: Will a Guaranteed Income Ever Come to America?

City Journal: Why Not a Negative Income Tax?

Adam Smith Institute: The Ideal Welfare System is a Basic Income

Slate: EITC Isn’t the Alternative to a Minimum Wage, This is

Economist: The Cheque is in the Mail

Carnegie Mellon University: Truth in Giving: Experimental Evidence on the Welfare Effects of Informed Giving to the Poor

Harvard University: Fairness and Redistribution

Economist: Taxing Hard-Up Americans at 95 Percent

Cato Institute: The American Welfare State: How We Spend Nearly $1 Trillion a Year Fighting Poverty–and Fail

Washington Post: Thinking Utopian: How About a Universal Basic Income?

Bloomberg: The Swiss Join the Fight Against Inequality

Basic Income Earth Network: Quarterly Newsletter

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No Strings Attached: Replacing Welfare With a Guaranteed Income appeared first on Law Street.

America is supposed to be the world’s greatest democracy, but can it possibly live up to that promise if its people don’t vote? This article attempts to explain which Americans vote, which don’t, how Congress can fix the issue, and why they probably won’t anytime soon.

Who votes?

If you are rich, old, white, have a college degree, and go to church often, you probably vote. This is the demographic that is most likely to turn up to the polls on Tuesday. According to the Pew Research Center, whites are disproportionately represented at the polls: 37 percent of white people are voters, as opposed to only 29 percent of non-whites. Forty-two percent of those who are over the age of 50 vote, while only 22 percent of those between 18-29 regularly vote. Almost half of all college degree holders vote, while those without degrees turn out at a measly 28 percent. Strangely enough, attending church makes you eight percent more likely to vote.

While the youth vote is low, it has been on the rise recently. Forty-four percent of young people voted in the 2008 election, the highest turnout since 1972. While that number did go down slightly in 2012, it was a still a higher turnout than 2000.

Find more information about who votes from this infographic couresty of Takepart.com.

Via: TakePart.com

How many Americans vote overall?

Not that many– in the 2012 election, only 58.2 percent of the nation voted for President. To put that in perspective, the turnout in the most recent Afghani election was about the same. Even though, the Taliban was threatening to blow up polling stations and conducted suicide bombings two months before Election Day.

In the 2010 midterm elections, it was even worse with only 41 percent of voter turnout. Less than a majority of American citizens voted for their representation in Congress in 2010.

The United States is one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to voter turnout. Between 1945 and 2001, American voter turnout averaged at 66.5 percent. This means we ranked 120 out of 169 countries. The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Hungary all had higher voter turnouts than United States.

More embarrassingly, as this video points out, America has the lowest voter turnout amongst developed nations:

Why don’t more people vote?

A plurality of non-voters cite apathy as the main cause. According to the Census Bureau, 26.4 percent of those who did not vote in 2008 chose not to exercise this right because they were uninterested in either candidate. This means that four million registered voters were not going to the polls no matter how easy it was to vote.

However, a significant number of registered voters did not make it to a polling station even though they wanted to vote. Almost 18 percent of registered voters did not cast a ballot because they were too busy, most likely because they were at work that Tuesday.

Why does the Constitution require Election Day to be on a Tuesday?

A video from the appropriately named organization “Why Tuesday” explains this odd rule:

It all goes back to the days of horse and buggy. There was no national electoral date until 1845, when Congress passed a law making it Tuesday. You see, Election Day could not be on Monday, because that would require voters to travel to the polls on horse and buggy on Sunday, which was the Sabbath day. And since Wednesdays were Market Days for farmers, Tuesday was the date that made the most sense.

There have been efforts to change the date, however, there has not been enough support. Rep. Steve Israel (NY-D) has introduced the Weekend Voting Act in multiple Congresses. In the 113th Congress (the current Congress), there has been no meaningful action on the bill and it only has four cosponsors.

So why are no leaders supporting a change? There is a policy explanation and a political explanation.

The policy explanation comes in the form of a study that shows that a change to weekend elections does not significantly improve voter turnout. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), early voting would, at most, improve voter turnout by only four percent. The GAO admitted that reporting on potential benefits and downsides of weekend voting was difficult since there was no American case to study, but they did go over 24 independent studies on the topic.

The report also included quotes from state and local officials expressing concern that they might not be able to find volunteers to work the polls if they have to compete with fun weekend activities.

Of course, like all things in Washington, there is a political aspect to this issue.

Weekend voting would disproportionately help the poor get to the polls. Single parents and those who work multiple would benefit from the move to the weekend. So, what’s wrong with that? Well, poor people tend to vote for the Democratic Party, making Republicans unlikely to pass any legislation that would make it easier for them to vote.

If we can’t change the date of Election Day, how else can we boost turnout?

Make Election Day a holiday

Instead of moving Election Day to the weekend, Congress could just declare Election Day a federal holiday, giving everyone the day off of work so that they can vote.

Rainn Wilson from The Office supports that idea in this weird video featuring a 19th century sharecropper voting in modern day America

On the flip side, making Election Day a federally recognized holiday solves none of the problems associated with moving Election Day to a weekend (makes it difficult to attract poll workers, doesn’t guarantee turnout), and it creates the problem of losing a workday in the middle of the week.

Mandate Voting

Congress could also use its taxing power to mandate voting. Australia, the country that boasts the highest voter turnouts, fines anyone who does not go to the polls. While the fine is only A$20 ($18), that is still enough to convince most people to go to the polls.

Mandated voting could also have the added benefit of forcing candidates to run towards the center of American politics as opposed to attracting radicals. If everyone is voting, it makes little sense to try and appeal to people on the far end of the political spectrum. This phenomenon is explained in this video:

Of course, the American people aren’t the biggest fans of mandates recently, so it is unlikely that this will ever happen.

What other challenges do voters face at the polls?

Speaking of voting not being easy, it has actually become more difficult to vote in just the past few years. Here are a few ways that politicians and judges have curtailed access to the polls.

The Gutting of the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to ensure the right to vote for all Americans. The law outlawed poll taxes and literacy tests, but, most importantly, it places the election laws of specific states and counties under the purview of the federal government. A list of these jurisdictions can be found here. That means that, if any of those states or counties passes a law altering their election format, the Department of Justice has the ability to step in and overturn the law if it is found to be discriminatory.

Well, it used to have this ability. In June 2013, the Supreme Court overturned section four of the law, which determined which states and counties had to get their laws approved by the federal government. The majority opinion stated that the country has changed dramatically since 1965 and that racism in election laws is basically over.

As a result, those jurisdictions are now allowed to make their own election laws without the review of the Department of Justice.

This report from SCOTUSblog shows what happened in Pasadena, Texas after this ruling took place.

Voter ID Laws

As a reaction to this ruling, literally days after it was passed down, states across the country started passing and implementing voter ID laws. These are laws that require voters to present a photo ID before casting a ballot.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has put together an interactive map that shows which states now require or request a photo ID at the polling booth.

Supporters claim that these laws are necessary in order to fight voter fraud. The problem? A News21 analysis shows that there have only been 10 cases of voter impersonation since 2000. That’s one out-of-fifteen million voters during that time period. This form of vote tampering has impacted exactly zero elections.

Opponents argue that these laws are thinly veiled attempts to stop poor people and minorities from voting. 11 percent of US citizens do not have a photo ID, and 25 percent of African Americans do not have voter ID. Since photo ID requires a purchase in most states, the new law prevents poor voters from voting.

Why is it important to get more people to vote?

I’ll let P. Diddy and then-Senate candidate Barack Obama from 2004 take this one:

Conclusion

Americans currently face many obstacles at the polls, and Congress seems to have little interest or stake in solving them. As long as Election Day is still a workday and states pass restrictive voting laws, voter turnout will remain low.

Resources

Primary

Census: Voting and Registration Information From the Census Bureau in 2008

Congress: The Weekend Voting Act

GAO: Improving Voter Turnout

Additional

Pew: Who Votes and Who Doesn’t?

Child Trends: Trends in Young Vote

IDEA: Voter Turnout Rates From a Comparative Perspective

Washington Post: Census Bureau Findings

NPR: Why Do We Vote on Tuesday?

ABC: Democrats Eye a New Election Day

CNN: Election Day Should be a Federal Holiday

BBC: How Australia’s Voting Mandate Works

Guardian: The Supreme Court Guts the VRA…Since Racism is Over

NCSL: Map of States That Have Voter ID Laws

ACLU: Voter ID Laws

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Elections: Americans Don’t Rock the Vote and Here’s Why appeared first on Law Street.

Iraq, the country America spent over eight and a half years nation building, is in a state of chaos, and a group called ISIS is responsible. Here’s everything you need to know about the sources of conflict in Iraq, who is to blame, and what America can do about it.

Update: June 19, 2014

What is ISIS?

ISIS stands for Islamic State In Syria, and is also known as the Islamic State In Iraq and Levant. It is a Jihadist militant group that lays claim to land in Syria and is rapidly gaining territory in Iraq. Their stated goal is to create an Caliphate (Islamic state) ruled by a caliph (successor to Muhammad) that includes large regions of Syria and Iraq.

The group has taken advantage of the chaos of the countries they operate in to become one of the most powerful and well-financed militant organizations in the world.

ISIS used to be Al Qaeda’s branch in Syria and Iraq, but Al Qaeda disavowed the group this past February after months of feuding.

They are now fighting with the Iraqi government for control over many key cities.

What is ISIS’s problem with the current Iraqi government?

Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq, is a member of the Shia branch of Islam. He has been accused by his critics of exacerbating tensions between Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds by appointing hardline Shiites to government positions.

What’s the difference between Sunnis and Shiites?

Sunni and Shia are two separate branches of the Islamic faith. After the Prophet Muhammad died in the year 632, Sunnis believed that the next leader of the Islamic world should be decided based on merit, whereas Shiites believed that the next leader of the Islamic world should be a descendant of Muhammad. The two branches split and there has been tension as well as bloodshed between the two ever since.

This is a very simple explanation of the divide. A whole article would be necessary to accurately explain why these two groups are still causing so much violence in the world today.

Iraq is home to three major ethnic groups: the Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds. None of these groups like each other, and that tension has been the cause of sectarian violence ever since the United States invaded in 2003.

Who is winning?

ISIS, by a long shot.

They have complete control over Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, and ISIS is already fighting over Baghdad, the nation’s capital.

Iraqi soldiers have been dropping their weapons and fleeing from ISIS, and the ones who have not run away have been brutally executed (WARNING: Graphic images).

What impact is this having on the region?

This is pretty much the worst case scenario for a post-U.S. invasion Iraq. The Iraqi government is collapsing quickly. Iraqis have lost confidence in their government and have joined militias to protect themselves. A top Shiite cleric has called upon all Iraqi Shiites to take up arms and repel the Sunni militants. This combination of a power vacuum and ethnic tension has all of the makings of a major ethnic conflict and, if ISIS is that powerful and brutal, a genocide.

Ethnic violence has reached the point of a humanitarian crisis. On June 15, ISIS claimed to have executed 1,700 Iraqi soldiers and posted gruesome photos to their social media profiles. Government forces shot 44 Sunni prisoners in their cells on June 16. That same day, a suicide bombing killed 16 Shiites.

The fact that Saudi Arabia is known to back ISIS has created even further tension throughout the region. Saudi Arabia and Iran hate each other, and a Sunni militant organization taking so much land near the Shia Iranian border does not make the Iranian government feel safe. Things are so upside down that Iran, who often refers to America as the “Great Satan,” has spoken with American diplomats about working together to stabilize the crisis.

This tweet from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani seems to say that Iran will not wait if the United States does not respond. Iran is ready to “protect” holy Shiite sites in Iraq, most likely with force.

Iranian nation will protect #Iraq's holy shrines & they aren't alone. Iraq's Sunnis, Shias & Kurds all ready to defeat terrorism #solidarity

— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) June 18, 2014

Meanwhile, the Kurdish population in the Northern regions of Iraq have taken advantage of the chaos by strengthening their hold over their land. While this region has always been somewhat autonomous, Kurds believe they have a real chance to take this land away from Iraq entirely and claim it for themselves. Of course, there are disputes over which lands are Kurdish, which are Sunni, and which are Shiite, so this independence will not take place peacefully. Kurds have already started a militia called the Peshmerga to claim and protect these territories. Here is a Vice News report about the Peshmerga, ISIS, and their respective strategies:

The impact on Iraq’s oil exports could send shockwaves through the global economy. While most of the ports in Iraq are safe in the Southern region of the nation, there have already been clashes over the nation’s largest refinery. An oil conflict in OPEC’s second largest exporter could have a major impact on the market as a whole.

Who is to blame for this mess?

It’s Britain and France’s Fault

At this point you are probably asking yourself, “what idiot drew the borders of Iraq to include three ethnic groups that despise each other to the point of taking up arms?” The answer to that question lies in your high school history curriculum, all the way back to World War I. In 1916, both Britain and France signed the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which split the Ottoman Empire between the two powers after they won the war. This map ignored tribal lines and instead drew borders that would benefit the imperial powers.

There is no footage of this agreement being drawn out, but The Daily Show gives us a pretty good idea of how it probably went down.

These borders have stayed roughly the same, until now. ISIS is ripping apart the Sykes-Picot map in favor of their own borders. The problem is that Sunnis and Shiites do not live in different parts of Iraq. They are a heterogeneous population. If ISIS wants a Sunni-only population, they will have to kill or force the migration of a lot of people.

It’s Obama’s Fault

President Obama withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq in 2011 after a war that had lasted almost nine years. Despite multiple debates with Maliki, Obama was unable to secure a deal that would leave a small number of troops in Iraq that would help keep order and train the military. It is this lack of any residual forces that the Republican party is blaming for the current unrest. In their eyes, Iraq was in a good spot before the United States withdrew. Crime was down, elections were taking place, and insurgents were effectively counterbalanced by U.S. forces.

Obama made the political choice to withdraw from Iraq without thinking about the consequences or planning for an Iraq in a post-war environment.

Obama’s decision to stay out of Syria has also been criticized, as this allowed groups like ISIS to form in the jihadist hotbed.

The GOP has been hammering Obama on Sunday talk shows and in newspaper columns over this mess. Even former Bush Administration officials, most notably Vice President Dick Cheney, have piled on in the past week.

It’s Bush’s Fault

Democrats, on the other hand, believe that Bush Administration officials have some serious nerve blaming Obama for a problem they created. These are the same people that got us into Iraq (under false pretenses) in the first place. They removed Saddam Hussein from power, destabilized the country, and spent almost nine years, billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives trying to hold the place together.

Liberals have been heavily critical of those who they believe were wrong about Iraq in the first place. This quote from a Paul Waldman column in the Washington Post is particularly strong:

They’re the ones who swore that Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, that he had a terrifying arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, that the war would be quick, easy and cheap, that since Iraq was a largely secular country we wouldn’t have to worry about sectarian conflict, and that democracy would spread throughout the region in short order, bringing peace and prosperity along with it.

Bush, much like the British and French of the World War I era, ignored centuries of ethnic conflict in the Middle East, opened a huge power vacuum, and assumed that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds would just work it out peacefully.

From a liberal point of view, Cheney giving fault to Obama for the current crisis in Iraq is blame avoidance at its worst.

It’s Maliki’s Fault

Observers of Iraq argue that this is not the fault of Obama or Bush, but a political failure on the part of Maliki. During his tenure as Prime Minister he has stifled Sunni protests, refused economic concessions to Kurdish regions, and generally ignored a large plurality of the population. ISIS is gaining influence not because of their radical Islamist views but because they provide an opposition to Maliki that is powerful. Those who are fighting are not necessarily joining ISIS but are merely battling alongside them against a common enemy. Obama and Iran have been trying to get Maliki to start discussions with Sunni and Kurdish leaders, but it might be too little, too late. There is no good will between himself and Sunnis for Maliki to use as a way to get anyone to the table. A moderator of any diplomatic settlement would have to be an outsider, and a precondition to talks would most likely be Maliki’s resignation.

What can the United States do?

The United States has already sent 275 troops back to Iraq, but they are only there to protect the U.S. Embassy. They will not be fighting for the Iraqi government.

However, there are ways that Obama could assist Maliki in repelling this militant invasion. The New York Times is reporting that he is considering selective airstrikes on the militant groups using drones.

Beyond that, few people have any concrete ideas about what the United States should be doing to solve the crisis. Some in Congress are arguing that the United States should do “something,” but will not specify what that “something” is.

Retired Marines Lt. Col. Oliver North seems to be one of the few people arguing for sending troops to Iraq to fight ISIS.

Should the United States do anything?

If you ask the American people, the answer is no. According to a recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling, 74 percent of Americans oppose sending troops to Iraq. 46 percent of Americans in a Rasmussen poll support air strikes, but that is still not a large mandate.

Lawmakers are unsure about whether or not they support any military action in Iraq. Congressmen who supported the war 12 years ago are suddenly unsure about even using air strikes.

These signs point to a public and a government that is wary of war in the Middle East. The wounds of the Iraq War are too fresh to reopen.

“After a decade of war, we’ve all had enough,” said Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

The last time Obama considered military action that the public opposed and Congress was unsure of was in Syria. He ended up not bombing Assad’s regime.

An airstrike would give Obama one benefit: If it succeeded, and helped Maliki conduct a successful counterattack, it would give him the leverage he needs to negotiate a peace deal and make his government more inclusive.

However, without spotters on the ground, it is difficult to accurately strike the right target and not strike any civilians. Effective air strikes would require at least some troops in Iraq.

As General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it at a recent Senate panel, “it’s not as easy as looking at an iPhone video of a convoy and then striking it […]These forces are very intermingled.”

Conclusion

Iraq is falling, and there is not much that the United States can do about it. Centuries of sectarian conflict, a decade of U.S. occupancy, and incompetent Iraqi leadership have all led to this moment. ISIS is on the verge of tearing apart the Sykes-Picot borders and establishing a caliphate in the Middle East. The inevitably bloody upcoming civil war between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds might bring about the end of Iraq as we know it.

Update: On June 19, Obama announced that 300 military advisers would be sent to Iraq. Obama will also provide Iraq with counterterrorism equipment and two joint operations centers to give Iraqi forces the intelligence they need to fight ISIS. However, in the same announcement, Obama made two things clear: these military advisors will not engage in direct combat and that United States will not provide support to one Islamic sect at the expense of another. He still insisted that ground troops would not be sent to the conflict.

American combat troops are not going to be fighting in Iraq again,” Obama said. “We do not have the ability to simply solve this problem by sending in thousands of troops and committing the kind of blood and treasure that has already been expended.

Obama also mentioned that other military options were still on the table, and pressured Maliki to create a new, more inclusive government.

 Resources

Primary

Yale Law SchoolThe Sykes-Picot Agreement

Additional

BBC: Profile: Islamic State In Iraq and Levant

Merced Sun-Star: Congress lacks consensus on Iraq

The New York Times: US and Iran signaling new joint effort in Iraq Crisis

The New York TImes: Obama considering selective airstrikes

The New York Times: Massacre claim shakes Iraq

News 4: Oliver North: Boots on the ground only viable option

Hill: American troops in Iraq might be inevitable

CBS News: GOP: Iraq disintegrating because of Obama’s withdrawal

Foreign Policy: Who lost Iraq?

Atlantic: Let’s not ignore those who got Iraq wrong

Reuters: Timeline of the Iraq War

LA Times: Kurds see historic opportunity in Northern Iraq

Foreign Policy: How does ISIS fund their operations?

Foreign Policy: Three major worries about Iraq

Mediaite: Is Iraq more or less stable without Hussein?

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Crisis Hits Iraq: The Rise of ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

Are you a frat bro who misses the days when Four Loko had all the fun stuff in it? Blame Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Are you a Brooklynite who can suddenly no longer get unlabeled alcoholic slushies delivered to your door, no questions asked? Blame Schumer. And, are you still waiting for your pre-order of powdered alcohol to come in the mail? Once again, blame Schumer.

Yes, Schumer is directly responsible for blocking every single innovation in the alcohol industry from coming to market over the past half-decade. That brings the obvious question to mind: why is Schumer such a buzzkill? He insists that it’s all in defense of America’s youth, and in most cases he is probably right.

For example, Phrosties, which Schumer was partly responsible for making disappear, was a delivery service in New York City whose primary product was unmarked opaque bottles of mystery alcoholic slushies in the same colors as the lights at an Avicii show.

Imagine this in alcohol form.

These were obviously marketed toward children. The only way to order them was through Instagram and they resembled Hawaiian Punch more than an adult drink. One reviewer even stated that they tasted “like teenage regret.”

We think that sounds gross, too.

Admittedly, Schumer also had a pretty good point when it came to Four Loko.  For those of you who don’t remember 2010 (maybe you drank too much Four Loko), Four Loko was a canned beverage that mixed alcohol and caffeine. College students colloquially referred to it as “blackout in a can.” The caffeine would prevent drinkers from knowing when they were drunk, tricking them into drinking even more until they got dangerously sick.

Like this, but with a trip to the hospital.

The craziest part? One Four Loko had the alcoholic equivalent of five beers. Chuck Schumer, along with attorney generals from multiple states, quickly pressured the FDA to ban the beverage. It is now sold in a much less lethal form.

But, Schumer is plain wrong when it comes to powdered alcohol. Calling it the “Kool-Aid of teenage binge drinking,” Schumer recently demanded that the FDA halt the approval process for Palcohol, the company that makes powdered alcohol. Schumer claims that powdered alcohol can be easily concealed by kids at school dances, mixed in someone’s drink without his or her knowledge, and even snorted.

This video from Mark Phillips, founder of Palcohol, succinctly rebuts all of Schumer’s claims.

As you can see, the packaging for powdered alcohol is as big as four travel-sized bottles of vodka, so it is not any easier to conceal. It takes at least a minute to dissolve, so it is not a good way to spike somebody’s drink. And, unless you’re using your own homemade formula like this idiot at Vice.com, it would take an hour to snort one shot’s worth of powdered vodka. It would be painful and it wouldn’t get you drunk.

Regardless, powdered alcohol appears to be dead. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) rescinded its approval of the product and the New York State Senate just passed a bill banning powdered alcohol from being sold.

The faces of fans of weird alcohol everywhere.

Schumer’s crusade against powdered alcohol has ruined what could have been a world changing invention. For consumers and businesses alike, the beverage and industrial formulations of powdered alcohol could have improved the way we live. Since powdered alcohol is lighter than liquid alcohol, shipping costs would be lowered, and the price would be cheaper. Airplanes could serve it instead of liquid alcohol, and maybe pass the weight savings on to the consumer in the form of lower ticket prices. It would also make it easier for law-abiding drinkers to travel with a refreshing drink. All of this adds up to fewer carbon emissions used to transport this product.

But, it’s the industrial formula that would really change the world. Phillips claims that multiple companies have requested information about powdered alcohol being used as a lightweight source of fuel, an essential ingredient in windshield wiper fluid, and as an antiseptic in a medical setting. Imagine how easy it would be to ship powdered alcohol to a disaster zone as opposed to having to ship heavy liquid. This invention could save lives.

Politicians are always saying that they want to pass laws that allow Americans to be innovative and entrepreneurial, so why is Schumer blocking Phillips from doing just that? Does Schumer really think the downsides of this product outweigh all of the positives?

I have another theory. You see, while Schumer claims to be leading the charge against the alcohol industry’s assault on our nation’s youth, he’s been taking a lot of donations from the industry’s leading names. According to OpenSecrets.org, Schumer received $155,000 from PACs and individuals associated with alcohol in 2010. That’s the same year he started his fight against Four Loko. Is it really a coincidence that Schumer received so much money from the industry right as he started fighting against a product that threatened to dip into its profits?

The two companies that gave Schumer the most money were SABMiller and Anheuser-Busch InBev. These are the companies that make Miller and Budweiser. They bowed out of the caffeinated alcohol game in 2008, so they had the most market share to lose from Four Loko’s success, and the most to gain from its demise. So, instead of competing fairly, they decided to buy influence in Washington.

Pictured: The CEO of SABMiller

Every mass producer of alcoholic beverages had something to lose from the emergence of powdered alcohol. It threatened to be a cheaper and more convenient option than the products they sold. I’m sure they breathed a sigh of relief when Schumer’s press release shut the product down, and I’m even more sure they will pay Schumer handsomely for his services.

Cha-ching!

So kids, remember, Chuck Schumer does not want you drinking scary kinds of alcohol. He and his campaign account would prefer if you drank a Bud Light instead.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Senate Democrats via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Schumer’s Crusades Against Weird Alcohol Help Build His War Chest appeared first on Law Street.

Due to lethal injection crisis in America — dwindling access to typical lethal injection drugs — states across the nation now either have to come up with new ways to execute their death row inmates or abandon capital punishment. So far, they have all chosen to continue executing death row inmates. Here is everything you need to know about botched lethal injections, new drugs, and the return of some antiquated methods of execution.

How does lethal injection work?

This video from NextMedia Animation gives a quick overview of how the process works. Do not worry, it is safe for the squeamish:

There are three drugs at play in a traditional lethal injection scenario. The first is Sodium Thiopental, a barbiturate which acts as an anesthetic to make the prisoner unconscious. Second is pancuronium, a muscle relaxant that paralysis the prisoner, which stops his or her lungs from working. The paralyzing effect of this drug is also used so that the viewing audience of the execution does not have to see some of the body movements that might take place during the execution. Finally, potassium chloride is injected into the prisoner. This drug stops the heart from beating. If all goes right, the process should be over in eight and a half minutes, and the prisoner should be too unconscious to feel any pain.

What problems has lethal injection run into recently?

States are having trouble accessing the three drugs necessary to complete a lethal injection. While there is no shortage of the drug, pharmacies and drug manufacturers have stopped selling the drugs to states for the use of lethal injection. Unsurprisingly, companies do not like their products being linked to death. Drug companies want people to connect their brand with saving lives, not ending them. European nations, where most of the pharmacies that make these drugs are located, have banned the export of these drugs as part of an effort to ban capital punishment worldwide.

European nations no longer use the death penalty, and most likely will not return to it in the near future. Watch this British discussion about the death penalty to see how they feel about not having capital punishment. Notice that only one panelist wants to bring the death penalty back, and that the rest of the panel, made up of British politicians and public figures, speaks loudly against her:

Should we continue using lethal injection?

Drug Replacements

It is possible for states to continue using lethal injections, with a few changes. For one, they have to get new drugs from a compound pharmacy. These are pharmacies that, instead of mass-producing drugs, make drugs specifically for one patient. They are expensive, but they are also the only option for states that still want to still use lethal injection.

However, even these small pharmacies do not want to be publicly associated with the death penalty. To sidestep this problem, states have just decided to keep the source of the drugs secret. This has outraged critics of the death penalty, who say that death row inmates deserve to know how they will be killed. A few convicted felons have even sued to try and stay their executions by arguing that this secrecy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Their claim is that, since these drugs have potentially never been tested before, there is no guarantee that their death will be painless.

Questions of Humaneness

Even prior to this access problem, lethal injection was not always painless. While 3 percent of all executions go wrong, lethal injections have the highest rate for error.

According to Professor Robert Johnson, an expert on prisons and the death penalty at American University’s Department of Justice, Law, and Criminology, the new drugs and the pharmacies supplying them might be the cause of even more failed executions.

“The compounding pharmacies are not closely regulated by the FDA,” Johnson said, and continued with, “there are concerns that the drugs they produce might vary in strength. Some of the more recent executions involving these compounding drugs have had more complications.”

Apparently, more people being killed by these compounding drugs are seen gasping for air as a result of the paralyzation of their lungs. They are not supposed to be awake for this.

“It’s likely that if the execution goes wrong that the person will asphyxiate which, without anesthesia, will be very painful,” Johnson said.  “A certain number of these cases are quite likely intensely painful but the person cannot show it because they are paralyzed.”

What’s worse is that the people administering these drugs are not doctors. The American Medical Association (AMA) highly discourages doctors from participating in lethal injections, so the people executing these prisoners are often not medically trained, which makes errors much more likely.

“It’s a pretty risky ordeal,” Johnson said.

The results of a botched lethal injection are not pretty. Let’s take, for example, the case of Clayton D. Lockett’s execution in Oklahoma on April 28, 2014. After the first injection, which is meant to protect the prisoner from feeling any pain, the executioners started injecting the next two drugs. It was at this point that Lockett woke up.

The second and third drugs in lethal injection are incredibly painful without an anesthetic. Imagine your entire body going into paralysis and your heartbeat stopping while you are still awake. This is what Lockett experienced. He tried to sit up and then actually spoke. It took nearly 45 minutes for Lockett to eventually die of a heart attack.

Lockett did not receive the drugs commonly used in a lethal injection. The execution still used potassium chloride to stop the heart, but the sedative and muscle relaxant were replaced with midazolam and vecuronium bromide from a compound pharmacy. Oklahoma refused to disclose why these drugs had been chosen and where they had bought them. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma ordered a stay of his execution, but quickly removed the stay after a state legislator threatened the justices with impeachment.

There is definitely a case to be made that lethal injection is the most humane way for the state to kill someone when done correctly– the operative words. That is why the overwhelming majority of executions today are done this way. However, there are too many disturbing stories about botched injections to argue that it is always humane, and the access issue has made these stories too common.

Watch Dr. Joel Zivot, and anesthesiologist, explain why he does not think that lethal injection is humane on Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s CNN show, “SG|MD”:

Are there options besides lethal injection?

Since Lockett’s execution was botched so badly, other states might be wary to continue using lethal injection, even though multiple state Supreme Courts have ruled that keeping the drugs secret is constitutional. That might be why some states are reverting to older forms of execution.

Return to Electrocutions

Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, there have been 1,379 executions. Only 158 of them have been electrocutions. Yet, Tennessee has, in the wake of a lack of access to lethal injection drugs, recently decided that the electric chair will be their primary form of execution. This is significant for one reason: while there are states that have the option of the electric chair, Tennessee is now the only state that does not give death row inmates an option of another form of execution. While electric chair is a secondary option for prisoners to choose in some states, death row inmates in Tennessee will now be forced to use the electric chair.

This clip from Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer explains how the electric chair works.

Death penalty opponents and death row inmates are expected to challenge this new law in courts. The Supreme Court upheld the electric chair in 1890, but it is possible that they might find it cruel and unusual in a modern setting. To make your own judgement, read this article on Vice.com explaining how the electric chair kills someone.

As you can see, it is not nearly as pleasant as lethal injection. The chair basically cooks whoever is sitting in it. And that is when it goes right. In Florida on July 8, 1999, Allen Davis screamed and bled profusely from his nose during his execution.The chair killed him but he ended up covered in blood and burns. His case led Florida to abandon the electric chair as a method of execution. There are pictures of his body after the execution, but they are VERY graphic.

It is hard to argue that this is the most humane way of killing someone, but that does not mean that states are not allowed to use it as a primary execution form. Because the Supreme Court ruled that the electric chair is not cruel and unusual punishment, states can continue to use it. That is, until somebody challenges them in court. Since the case deeming the chair constitutional was so long ago, there is a chance that the Supreme Court might overturn the ruling. It is not an unrealistic scenario. Nebraska’s Supreme Court ruled that the electric chair was cruel and unusual punishment in 2008.

Return to Firing Squads

A number of states, including Oklahoma, have contemplated returning to the firing squad as their primary form of execution. Oklahoma is currently the only state that allows for death by firing squad, and only as a secondary option.

This news report about the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner in 2010 by firing squad provides an animation that shows how a firing squad works:

As old-fashioned as it sounds, the firing squad actually has some benefits. For example, it is the only form of execution that preserves most of the body’s organs so that they can be donated. Also, when the marksmen are good, it is a quick form of death.

However, a firing squad is expensive. For example, it costed 165,000 to execute Gardner. The majority of this money went to the salaries of the marksmen, but some also went toward the guns and ammunition used, the chair Gardner sat in, and the sedative given to Gardner before the execution began. The cost would probably go down slightly if Utah ever had to do this again, because they now have all of the equipment, but it would still be expensive. It is certainly a far cry from the $1,286.86 spent by Texas to kill Keith Thurmond with a lethal injection in 2012.

Of course, the biggest problem with both the firing squad and the electric chair is that they are violent forms of execution that the American people are potentially not ready to stomach.

“With lethal injection, you could lull yourself into a sense of security that this was a painless procedure,” Johnson said, and continued with, “you could live with that.”

It costs that much to kill someone?

Yes, executions are expensive. It is even more expensive to keep someone on death row. This is because capital punishment cases take significantly longer to resolve and result in more appeals than a life-without-parole case.

“Because someone’s life is at stake, the cases are more contested and likely to have more experts involved,” Johnson said.

Many states also keep death row inmates in expensive high-security confinement. According to a report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, America spent $1.6 billion on capital punishment from the years of 1982-1997.

Should the death penalty be abolished altogether?

That is a complex question, and there is not enough space in this article to answer it. To get an idea of the moral arguments for and against the death penalty, watch this debate between The Nation and National Review Magazine:

In the absence of a new drug discovery, states will either have to prepare for more botched lethal injections or switch to a more violent form of execution. Support for the death penalty has consistently declined in the past two decades, and incidents like the Lockett death might be too much for those that still approve of it.

Resources

Primary

SCOTUS: Majority Opinion in Baze v. Rees

Additional

Hospira: Position on Use of Our Products in Lethal Injections

Death Penalty Information Center: Everything You Need to Know About Compounding Pharmacies

Guardian: Clayton Lockett Writhes on Gurney in Botched Procedure

Slate: Gov. Mary Fallin is Responsible for Clayton Lockett’s Botched Execution

Bloomberg: Teva to Block Drug for U.S. Executions

Bloomberg: Europe Pushes to Keep Lethal Injection Drugs From U.S. Prisons

The New York Times: Outrage Across Ideological Spectrum in Europe Over Botched Execution

Bloomberg: Slow Death in Oklahoma Was Europe’s Doing

Death Penalty Information Center: Descriptions of the Different Execution Methods Used in America

Deseret News: Inmate Threatens to Sue if State Won’t Let Him Die by Firing Squad

Washington Post: The Recent History of States Contemplating Firing Squads and Other Execution Methods

Tennessean: Methodists Want Tennessee to Reconsider Electric Chair Law

MSNBC: Without Lethal Injection, Americans Back Electric Chair, Hanging

Salon: GOP’s Firing Squad Idiocy: The Hypocrisy of ‘Humane Executions’

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lethal Injection Crisis in America: How States Are Solving the Problem appeared first on Law Street.

If you liked the debt ceiling debacle and the government shutdown, you are going to love Congress’s fight over funding the construction and maintenance of our roads and highways. Congress has until the end of August 2014 to find a way to fix the billion dollar shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund or they risk the loss of thousands of construction jobs. Here is everything you need to know about the latest battle in Washington that could have direct consequences for the economy and your commute.

What is the Highway Trust Fund?

The Highway Trust Fund was created in 1956 to fund the building and maintenance of the country’s roads and bridges. The fund currently has three separate accounts: Highway Account, Mass Transit Account, and Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.

How is it funded?

The Highway Trust Fund is currently funded by a federal fuel tax on gasoline. When it was created by the Highway Revenue Act of 1956, it was funded by a three cent per gallon tax on gasoline. The tax was raised to four cents per gallon in 1959 to keep the fund from going bankrupt. In January of 1983, President Ronald Reagan raised the tax to nine cents. President George H.W. Bush raised it to 14 cents in 1990, but diverted some of the funds to deficit reduction. President Clinton raised the gas tax to its current level, 18.4 cents per gallon, in 1993, but diverted all of the new revenue to deficit reduction. An act of Congress reverted the tax revenue to the Highway Trust Fund in 1997. It has remained at this level ever since. There is also a diesel tax, which is 24.4 cents per gallon.

This video provides a great visualization of how the gas tax works:

Why is the fund going bankrupt?

The gas tax has not been raised since 1993, and it is not indexed to inflation. This means that no matter how high the price of gas rises to, the tax will always remain at 18.4 cents per gallon. So, while the gas tax brings in $34 billion per year, it is paying for projects that total close to $50 billion this year. Also, as car companies are starting to comply with President Obama’s MPG requirement, Americans are driving more fuel efficient cars and purchasing less gas. Couple both of those problems with an American public that is driving less (and therefore buying less gas) and you have a recipe for a shortfall. According to the Department of Transportation (DOT), the fund is on track to run out of money by late August or early September 2014. States have already reacted by canceling future projects or pausing projects currently in progress. For example, the Arkansas State Highway Commission has said they might halt work on the Broadway Bridge and that the state is projected to lose 20,000 jobs as a result. Here’s a report from a local news station in Hawaii about how the shortfall will hurt them:

According to Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx, 700,000 jobs are at risk of being lost nationwide. To put that number in perspective, the United States only added 217,000 jobs to the economy last month. And that was a good month.

Why don’t we just raise the gas tax?

Political observers all agree that there is little to no chance of raising the gas tax in this political climate. The UPDATE Act, a bill that would raise the gas tax, was introduced by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) this year. It currently has zero co-sponsors and is stuck in committee. Since taking over the House of Representatives in 2010, Republicans have been aiming to cut taxes, not raise them, and neither party wants to raise taxes right before the midterm elections this November.

It does not help that the media will pounce on anyone that argues for an increase in the tax. Watch Fox News’ Neil Cavuto berate Blumenauer for nine and a half minutes over his proposed 15 cent increase of the gas tax:

If the gas tax does not work, what are other possible solutions?

Whenever the fund has reached insolvency in the past, Congress has usually just diverted money from the General Fund of the US Treasury to make up the difference. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congress has transferred $41 billion to the fund this way since 2008. In fact, that is what Senate Democrats have suggested doing this year. However, House Republicans have a different idea. They are pushing a proposal that would make the fund solvent by making changes to the US Postal Service, including eliminating Saturday mail delivery. Senate Democrats are not fans of this plan, so it looks like it is time to gear up for another Congressional fight that will last until the final hour.

However, these are not the only two options available to Congress. While Congress only seems to be considering temporary solutions, there are other policy long term options that would fix the Highway Trust Fund permanently.

Tax Reform

President Obama and Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) have both proposed using the benefits of tax reform to fix the shortfall. Obama wants to use the revenue from “pro-growth business tax reform to address the funding crisis.” Camp, as House Ways and Means Chairman, believes we should use the revenue from a simplification of the corporate and individual tax codes to increase transportation funding for the next eight years.

Obama’s tax plan, as outlined in his FY 2015 budget proposal, has the following attributes in regards to transportation reform:

• Reduces the amount that the wealthy can save on itemized deductions in their taxes and establishes the Buffet Rule

• Proposes a future cut of the corporate tax rate to 28 percent and to 25 percent for manufacturing.

• Dedicates $150 billion to the Highway Trust Fund

• Increases investment in the fund by $90 billion for the next four years

• Works with Congress to possibly create a National Infrastructure Bank to attract private investment.

Camp’s tax plan is different, with less of a focus on getting the wealthy to pay more taxes and more of a focus on getting everyone to pay a lower tax rate:

• Lowers the corporate tax rate to 25 percent

• Gets rid of the current individual tax brackets and replaces them with two brackets: 10 percent and 25 percent.

• Repeals 220 sections of the tax code

• Puts $126.5 billion in the Highway Trust Fund.

As is clear, both of these plans are polarizing; few things get politicians more worked up than changes to the tax code, and the midterm elections will probably prevent any action on these proposals.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Tax

Congress could replace the gas tax with a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax. Instead of taxing drivers at the pump, this tax would be based on how far each driver travels. The government would install tracking devices in every car and those who add more wear and tear to the nation’s roads would be responsible for paying more. Remember that problem about fuel-efficient cars generating less revenue? This would fix that. Even if a driver uses a car with a high MPG rating, they would still pay more in taxes if they drove long distances.

Here’s our old friend Blumenauer advocating for a VMT tax on the House floor in 2012:

This tax has been given a seal of approval from the CBO, so, in theory, the plan should work. Oregon recently passed their own version of the law after a successful pilot program, so policy makers can watch them to see how effective this plan is in practice.

There are some downsides to the tax. Commuters probably would not be big fans of paying a plurality of the tax just so they can get to work every day. Critics are also angry that truckers and people who drive for a living might suffer as a result of this tax. Watch Cavuto, who we already know is not a fan of the gas tax, criticize the costs of a VMT tax with Representative George Price (R-GA).

Privacy advocates are upset because the plan involves tracking every American’s driving with an in-car device. While supporters insist that the government would only keep track of miles traveled and not the location of every driver, the Snowden scandal has ensured that Americans won’t trust the government with any more information about them for quite some time. There’s so much concern over this issue that this Fox & Friends segment described the VMT tax as “Big Brother In Your Backseat.”

Instead of installing trackers in every car, the government could send inspectors to check odometers at the end of each year, but that would require hiring enough inspectors to look at every single American car.

Wholesale Excise Tax

Congress could also decide to just switch the target of the gas tax. Instead of taxing consumers when they buy gasoline, the tax could be placed on sellers of oil. As proposed by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), a wholesale excise tax would take revenue from the oil refineries that sell gasoline to gas stations. This proposal does not have the implementation problems associated with a VMT tax, and, as opposed to the gas tax, it would keep up with inflation. Since, also unlike the gas tax, it is not a user fee, it should be popular with the public. Raising the gas tax is unpopular because it results in the average American spending more money. Taxes on corporations, especially oil companies, are preferable.

This plan also has drawbacks. Since gas prices are so unpredictable, the amount of revenue collected from this tax would be difficult to calculate. It would be tough to know how much money is available for future projects. It also could be used as an excuse by oil companies to raise the price of gasoline. This would not be the first time that federal policy had that effect.

Conclusion

While all of these plans would solve the crisis, none are likely to be passed in the next two months. Congress has to come up with a quick solution to the latest cliff before they can tackle a long-term funding system that is better than the current gas tax. Otherwise, you can look forward to a bumpier ride to work, if you still even have a job.

Resources

Primary 

DOT: Highway Trust Fund Ticker

House FY 2014 Omnibus: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations

Senate: FY 2015 THUD Subcommittee Markup Bill Summary

Department of Transportation: Secretary Anthony Foxx’s testimony before the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee

Additional

Des Moines Register: Let’s Keep the Highway Fund Strong 

Washington Post: Congress Detours from Common Sense

NPR: 700,000 Jobs Are At Stake If The Highway Trust Fund Goes Broke

Planetizen: Boxer Proposes Wholesale Oil Tax to Replace Fed. Gas Tax

Contra Costa Times: Mileage tax for California drivers proposed in state Senate

Next City: Oregon Phases in Country’s First Pay-Per-Mile Program

Open Congress: Track the bill that would raise the gas tax

CATO Institute: Abolish Federal Gasoline Taxes

CNS News: Former DOT Secretary LaHood: ‘Let’s Raise the Gas Tax’

Forbes: Raise The Federal Gasoline Tax, Yes, But Don’t Then Spend The Cash On The Roads

Wall Street Journal: House GOP Leaders Weigh Tying Highway Trust Fund to Mail-Service Cuts

AHTD: Highway Trust Fund Impasse Could Delay Broadway Bridge Project

Hill: Boxer: Replace gas tax with a wholesale tax on oil to pay for transportation projects

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress’ Next Battle: Financing America’s Dwindling Highway Trust Fund appeared first on Law Street.