The “Selfie Campaign.” Kind of has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it? Well that’s the best way to describe what two sisters from New Hampshire are attempting, after vowing to take a selfie with every 2016 presidential candidate.

Presidential candidates are lining up to take a selfie with these teenage sisters http://t.co/aoux92E1ZL (via Twi… pic.twitter.com/pv3cHIAC0Z

— Joseph Abraham (@kjosephabraham) August 1, 2015

Sisters Addy Nozell, 17, and Emma Nozell, 15, are no strangers to politics and presidential campaigns. In fact, the girls have been taking selfies with politicians before “selfies” were even part of popular culture. Emma recalls being exposed to politics at a young age by their parents saying,

We were always in the parades. We were always making signs. We were always helping them [the candidates] with whatever was needed.

While neither of these girls is old enough to vote in the primaries, they are already making a name for themselves with the candidates. In fact, Donald Trump, the current leader of the Republican polls, was seemingly expecting the girls to approach him at a rally at the Weirs Beach Community Center, telling the girls, “oh, alright let’s get the selfie.”

The “selfie sisters” of New Hampshire can scratch Donald #Trump off the to-do list. #WBZ @PaulaEbbenWBZ @mytv38 pic.twitter.com/HmndYrIkdr

— Liam Martin (@LiamWBZ) July 17, 2015

With a crowded field of 20 plus candidates, the girls’ campaign sounds almost impossible. However, they’ve already managed to snap pics with 17 of the candidates in less than a month since they started their quest on July 2 with New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. The only hopefuls that have yet to “say cheese” with the girls are former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R), former U.S. Senator Jim Webb (D-Virginia), and currents Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Marco Rubio (R- Florida), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont).

Meet Addy and Emma — the “presidential selfie girls” @PrezSelfieGirls http://t.co/ZetxWY3jgW pic.twitter.com/QvVHRdR8MV

— Deena Zeina Zaru (@DeenaZaruCNN) July 13, 2015

More often than not, selfies from teenage girls are duck-faced and distorted, which has led critics of the trend to call the practice superficial and narcissistic. And while for some that may be the case, the Nozell sisters have a different strategy for their “prez pics” at least in part thanks to their mother, Wendy Thomas. The girls practice “selfie etiquette.”  “You can’t stick your tongue out, you have to be respectful,” says Thomas. More importantly, the girls’ mother made it a point that selfie sticks are not permitted. “You gotta go with the old-school selfie and use the arm,” shared Emma.

Addy and Emma’s approach to the “selfie” can be used as a tool for keeping millennials engaged in the presidential race rather than solely for self-promotion. The Nozell sisters are conveying the notion that presidential candidates are generally approachable human beings who can relate to young people, at least when it comes to the preferred method of photo-taking. These girls are becoming increasingly popular and it will be interesting to see if candidates view taking selfies with the girls as a tactful method of gaining publicity among young people.

According to the girls, they have yet to settle on a favorite candidate, but are looking forward to hearing from all of the presidential hopefuls. It’s great to see what started as a fun opportunity morph into an example of youth engagement and educational opportunity–and the sisters show no sign of stopping until they’ve reached their goal.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I Wanna Vote For You, But First Let Me Take A “Selfie” appeared first on Law Street.

With the United States losing to Jamaica in the semifinals of the CONCACAF Gold Cup the final was projected to be Panama vs. Jamaica. The  regional soccer tournament between the countries in Central America, North America, and the Caribbean is held every two years and draws millions of viewers. However, the success of the Gold Cup this year may have been corrupted by the allegations of inappropriate refereeing to ensure that the final game featured Mexico.

The finals were scheduled to be played in Philadelphia, which is home to many Mexicans. For revenue purposes, it would have been ideal to host a final including Mexico rather than  a Panama-Jamaica final. With the U.S. losing in the semifinals, placing at least one soccer power house, most likely Mexico, in the final was imperative for TV viewership as well. It’s within this context that questionable referee calls took place in the quarterfinal against Costa Rica and  the semifinal against Panama which ultimately granted Mexico a spot in the finals. The head referee of the calls in the semifinals, Mark Geiger, along with CONCACAF, are receiving serious backlash, as many critics, soccer players, and countries feel that there were third member parties involved which made it possible for Mexico to win. Although Geiger apologized for his calls, and CONCACAF admitted mistakes were made, an investigation is pending to truly determine what went wrong.

There were two clear instances in which observers are claiming that the calls made on behalf of Mexico were amiss. The Mexican-Costa Rican semifinal game ended with a winning penalty kick for Mexico, yet the nature of the foul that led to the kick was very much disputed. Many feel that Mexico was given a clear advantage in that game and that the actions embodied by the ref showcased an ulterior motive. Then, the Mexico vs. Panama game shocked athletes and fans around the world. Panama lost a man after a foul call, then a second controversial call allowed Mexico to tie up the game. Mexico then moved onto the final game against Jamaica and won the Gold Cup.

In the moments following the Panama game, spectators and members of the Panamanian Soccer Federation alike were quick to accuse Mexico of fixing the game. Allegations were also made about third party members being involved and paying off the referees. Panama’s federation demanded the removal of CONCACAF’s referee selection panel after describing the officiating in the loss as “insulting and embarrassing.” The statement also accused the match officials of favoring Mexico in a “vulgar and shameless way.” While there may not be any clear answers for some time, if there was any cheating involved, it does not appear to involve the Mexican players. “I didn’t celebrate because that penalty call left me with a bad taste,” said Mexican player Andres Guardado after he scored the controversial penalty kick which ultimately propelled them into the final.

This isn’t the first time CONCACAF has been accused of shady behavior. There was recently a massive investigation which resulted in several lawsuits against individuals working with FIFA and the organization as a whole. Amidst the disaster, two former CONCACAF presidents Jack Warner and Jeffrey Webb were accused of bribery by the United States Justice Department. The United States Department of Justice alleged that for more than two decades, sports-marketing executives paid more than $150-million dollars in kickbacks and bribes to high-ranking soccer officials. The charges are an indication and direct representation of corrupt practices at the highest level of the world’s most popular sport; secret meetings, hidden cash, and bank accounts in Panama and the Cayman Islands were discovered as part of the investigation.

Most recently, CONCACAF acting President Alfredo Hawit announced a review of the refereeing in the Gold Cup. This review will hopefully shed light on the events of the two controversial games. While it may have been more profitable to have Mexico in the finals, it’s important that the integrity of the game remains intact.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Controversial Calls: What Happened at the Gold Cup? appeared first on Law Street.

With Ohio governor John Kasich joining the Republican field for the 2016 presidential election, the numbers have reached an all-time high. Sixteen GOP candidates have now officially declared they’re running for the presidency–the highest number in campaign history. Previous to this year, the all-time high for the GOP as reported by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) was 11 in both 2000 and 2012. What makes 2016 so different than previous years, and why are so many Republicans suddenly running for the nation’s highest office? Surely the chances of winning are slim in such a highly contested field, however it is still early enough that it’s any candidates’ ball game, and there are definitely reasons why so many may have thrown their hats into the ring.

One of the reasons that makes 2016 such a viable year for GOP candidate hopefuls is the mere fact that Republicans no longer want a Democrat running the government.The last Republican president to hold office was George W. Bush and that was back in 2008. Since then it has been a Democratic-run government under President Barack Obama. Now is the best time for Republicans to run granted that there is no incumbent president. As was seen in 2008, Obama ran as one of the younger candidates in history and proved that running at the right time can overcome a lack of experience.

The large number of candidates further demonstrates that there are contributing factors such as the changes to campaign funding policies which further permit individuals running to raise exorbitant amounts of money through fundraising and sponsorship (think Republican Jeb Bush, and Democrat Hillary Clinton.) Although the FEC used to place strict monetary guidelines on candidates, the 2010 SCOTUS ruling on the Citizens United case essentially gutted those stipulations and made it a lot easier for candidates to raise massive sums of cash. Further, the influx of money as a result of the Citizens United ruling may have propelled and incentivized individuals with large personal wealth (think Republicans Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina) to declare their candidacies. CNN recently reported Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders as stating, “We now have a political situation where billionaires are literally able to buy elections and candidates.” Sanders quote is clearly reflected by the latest GOP poll as it shows one of the most famously wealthy men in United States, Donald Trump, leading the pack.

While many refer to the 2008 election as the “Facebook Election,” it appears that the 2016 election is covering a lot more than just one social media platform. In fact most of the top candidates in the GOP field are staying very active on Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat and Periscope. Senator Ted Cruz demonstrated his active social media dedication as he provided a live stream of his first major speech across all mediums of social media on March 23. Although GOP candidates are aware that the competition in their own field alone is very fierce, they also understand that the highly prioritized use of social media in the campaign will allow them many hours in the national spotlight. Many of the candidates may be seeking some sort of business venture, platform, or  political deal as a realistic option from campaigning, and are in a great position with the constant celebrity-like attention they can get through social media.

Having won the previous eight years in the White House, the Democratic party is somewhat unified on its ideals while the Republican party is immensely divided. There are arguably four separate yet equally important constituencies which make up the GOP right now. The four of these are: the libertarians, the Tea Party goers, the social conservatives and the establishment, although of course there’s plenty of overlap as well as other ideologies. With that being said, it is very tough for one candidate to appeal to all four of the subgroups. However, granted that it is still very early on in the race, candidates have time to strategically plan how to reach their respective audiences within the party. Hypothetically speaking, if one candidate can somehow secure the following of all four groups, he or she would skyrocket in the race and have a very high chance of winning.

Whether all 16 candidates are in it to win it or simply for an experience to share some ideas, the fact remains that only one will win the GOP primary and eventually run against the Democratic rival. With that being said there will be 15 qualified (some more than others) and hungry losers looking to further their influence in politics. Candidates who have already lost may join and support a fellow constituent still in the running who shares similar ideals. Losing candidates might also join forces with those still in contention to make it more difficult for the competition to win. It is still early on, however, things are looking rather exciting for the Republican party as the field is stacked and surprises await.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Raining Republicans: Why is the 2016 Field So Crowded? appeared first on Law Street.

Immigration, education, jobs, and disliking Donald Trump–these are issues of great importance for many Hispanic voters in the United States. So it’s no surprise that these were major talking points for the Democratic presidential hopefuls attending the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) Annual Conference on Monday.

The four day event held in the Kansas City Convention Center has long been an opportunity for important figures and community leaders to address concerns specific to the Hispanic community, and form partnerships with Hispanic community-based organizations. Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, and former Secretary of State and 2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton capitalized on the large audience of potential Latino votes by delivering short yet powerful speeches describing their political ideals. What they had to say all fell along similar lines.

Senator Bernie Sanders spoke first, choosing to focus most of his speech on racial equality and comprehensive immigration reform in the United States. He addressed the vibrant morning crowd by saying that immigration reform is, “one critical piece that must be talked about,” and that “without these folks it is likely that our agricultural system would collapse,” when referring to immigrants. He also spoke about the need for equality–on both racial and economic levels.

Governor Martin O’ Malley delivered a luncheon keynote address. Using powerful words and clear diction, O’Malley expressed his intent to make the United States a place more welcoming for immigrants. “We are, and always have been, a nation of immigrants…The enduring symbol of America is not the barbed-wire fence. It is the Statue of Liberty,” he stated as he referred to the GOP priority of securing the border with a fence, a tactic already proved too costly and unnecessary.

Similarly, the frontrunner in the Democratic polls, Hillary Clinton, has previously not had as much success with the Latino community as her opponents. However, her speech Monday may have helped her cause. Along with O’Malley and Sanders, Clinton spoke about immigration reform and racial equality. She also incorporated feminist ideals and expressed the following:  “Just ask yourself this: How can it be that, on average, Latinas still make just 56 cents on the dollar compared to white men? And then do the math. All this lost money adds up. For some women, thousands of dollars every year.” Furthermore Hillary made a reference to GOP candidate Jeb Bush’s comment about Americans having to work longer hours and tied it into the hard work immigrants often have to undertake, arguing against Bush’s sentiments.

While each politician explained some laudable goals, it wasn’t just their policies that got the crowd excited. One of the consistent highlights was the candidates’ shared disdain toward GOP candidate Donald Trump. O’Malley, Clinton, and Sanders all shared their insights on Trump with the hopes of further marginalizing not only him as a candidate, but as a foil for the Republican party as a whole.

Although Sanders declined  to answer the question of whether or not Donald Trump is a racist, he described Trump’s comments and behavior as an “outrage” and “totally unacceptable.” O’Malley took it a notch higher as he shared his “disgust”  by calling Trump “a hate-spewing character running for president,” and further distanced the Republican party by saying “the problem is that it’s so hard to tell him apart from the other candidates.” Hillary Clinton did not hold back when it was her turn to share her thoughts on Donald Trump. “Basta, Enough!” stated Clinton as she called Trump’s immigration bashing comments “shameful.” Clinton added that she, as well as everyone else in the room, knew an illegal immigrant and calling them drug dealers and rapists was “appalling.” She further added to the notion of Trump representing the entire Republican party as she called out the other GOP candidates for remaining silent on Trump’s statements and not speaking out for weeks after the foul comments were made.

After Monday’s Democratic speeches at the National Latino Council of La Raza, attendees appeared hopeful and satisfied. “I really like that as a Latino I found out we have a lot of support and that was wonderful. I feel very happy,” shared event attendee Maria Arguello. Voters seemed to like that all three candidates gave genuine attention to the issues most pertinent to the Hispanic community but it was also important for them to know the candidates’ unified stance against Trump and the comments he made.  While the Democratic candidates shared a brief moment while fighting for the Hispanic vote, the competition is about to become a lot tougher as all share similar insights.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democratic Candidates Go After Trump for Anti-Immigration Statements appeared first on Law Street.

While law degrees are usually associated with stern, hardworking, white-collar professionals, there are other J.D. holding candidates who portray a different image. In fact many of us look up to these people without even knowing it, as they resemble some of today’s hottest celebrities and athletes.

Check out the slideshow below to learn which of your favorite celebs happen to hold law degrees.

Image courtesy of ljzerman via Flickr

Law School Attended: Leiden University
Graduated: 2003

If you’ve ever listened to the music genre EDM, you know the name Armin van Buuren; however, electronic fans would be surprised to learn that the Dutch DJ, radio host, and music producer also happens to have an accredited law degree.

Not only does this worldwide celebrity’s career span a staggering 15 years, but his singles have topped DJ Mag’s Top 100 poll on five different occasions. Van Buuren has also performed at every major music festival including EDC, Ultra Music Festival, Tomorrow World, and Tomorrow Land, just to name a few.

But in the early days, van Buuren attended Leiden University in the Netherlands and studied law. After three sporadic years, he finally completed his J.D. in 2003.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 7 Celebrities You Didn’t Know Had Law Degrees appeared first on Law Street.

Real estate mogul Donald Trump has recently become one of the most talked-about people on the internet. Trump has a long history of making highly arrogant, conceited, and disparaging comments on pretty much any topic. But, Trump is faring fairly well in some presidential primary polls–second only to Governor Jeb Bush. While candidates saying stupid things is not a new trend,  some of Trump’s recent statements stand out as remarkably incorrect and foolish.

Check out some of the best Donald Trump quotes of the cycle so far, debunked:

When speaking about the “Great Wall of Mexico” he intends to build, Trump stated: “I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me–believe me–and I’ll build them very inexpensively. I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.”

It appears that Trump has visions of making a small scale “Great Wall of China” to be placed at the Mexico-U.S. border. Although the concept of a fence between the U.S. and Mexico isn’t a new idea–a 700 mile long one was attempted a decade ago–it hasn’t proved cost effective enough for the U.S. According to Former Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Ralph Basham, that’s because fencing in poor soil, flood plains, or sand dunes has proven to be more expensive than effective. As a result of these terrain challenges, in some places the government would have to spend more than $6 million per mile for specialized fencing. In those areas, the government has opted for more agents and technology to better secure the border. Basham further elaborates that there are plenty of paved roads where agents have time to respond to incursions or where there are natural obstacles like mountains and water that already slow, deter, or reroute traffic. These obstacles make the installation of a barrier unnecessary. There is clear evidence that agents on ground would not only be a more cost effective solution but also more successful at keeping illegal immigrants from crossing the border.

Also the illegal and ridiculous notion that he wants Mexico to pay for it would technically give that nation the rights to the wall, so it would have to be renamed “The Great Wall of Mexico.” It is safe to say Mr. Trump would not be too pleased with that name.

When asked about ISIS, Trump responded by saying he would: “Bomb the oil fields in Iraq.” Furthermore he augmented on his point by saying: “I don’t care about the government of Iraq.”

It seems that Mr. Trump is slightly confused when it comes to Middle Eastern geography and history. If he ever were to become president, he would benefit greatly from a class or two on Middle Eastern Affairs or International Relations at an accredited institution. Just to be clear, the actual Iraqi government is entirely independent of ISIL and is constantly fighting the terrorist group. In fact the United States Army trains the Iraqi military, which would make things not only messy but rather awkward if the U.S. took Trump’s advice to bomb the oil fields. Moreover, bombing an entire oil field to “end ISI[L]’s funding source,” would not only affect oil prices dramatically, but our current diplomatic relationship with Iraq would be hurt.

When asked about why he is running for president, Trump goes on a tangent in which he states: “We’ve lost our jobs, we’ve lost our money. We’re a third world nation and we’re a debtor nation at the same time.”

Effectively, the United States isn’t what it used to be. In many instances jobs have become more difficult to come by and the economy has struggled. However, to call the United States a “third world nation,” is not just a politically outdated statement but also flat out wrong. Statistics provided by Forbes show that the entire country is relatively rich. In fact, America’s bottom twenty percent is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants.

When asked about abortion, Trump stated, “In terms of polling, the pro-choice (support) is going down a little bit.”

Referencing national statistics in a speech is a great way for presidential candidates to appear caring and knowledgeable about hot domestic issues. It is even more impressive when the statistics are actually accurate. Donald Trump has made it very clear that he is socially conservative–that extends to his personal views on abortion. Needless to say however, he makes an interesting claim regarding pro choice support when compared to recent polls.. A survey conducted by the Gallup in May of 2015 showed that 50 percent of Americans identify as pro-choice; an obvious 9 percent increase from 2012 when the same question found 41 percent Americans identified as pro-choice. Furthermore, according to the 2015 survey, 44 percent of Americans identified as pro-life which effectively contradicts Trump’s statement.

So, Trump has certainly had some doozies lately. But be sure to check back next week to see which political figure  makes an appearance on Law Street Media’s page of outrageous comments.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump’s Top 4 Outrageous Comments So Far in the Presidential Race appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton currently leads the Democratic polls for the presidential nomination. Although still early, Clinton appears confident and poised, and there is no denying that she is one of the strongest Democratic candidates. However recently there has been a lot of coverage focused on her remarks. For example last Tuesday, the Democratic candidate made a very controversial remark in an all-black church in Florissant, MO. Her comments are currently receiving significant backlash and add to the repertoire of outlandish and uneducated claims she has made in recent years. So, does Hillary Clinton need to watch what she says?

Let’s start with the incident in the Florissant church, where Clinton stated, ““All Lives Matter.” While the statement was made in the context of an anecdote Clinton was sharing about her mother, some observers seemed to disregard that notion and interpreted the comment as racist. The phrase “All Lives Matter” has been controversially used in contrast to the phrase “Black Lives Matter,” which gained particular popularity after the  shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO, just a few miles south of where the service was taking place. As a result, many were outraged that Clinton would use such a loaded phrase.

Hillary Clinton, in a Black church, just said “All lives matter.” Fam…

— Pousbaé (@yoauntielikeit) June 23, 2015

Hillary Clinton really and truly said “All lives Matter” OMG SHE HAS TO BE ONE OF THE DUMBEST POLITICIANS THIS NATION HAS EVER PRODUCED — Nostradeptus (@adept2u) June 23, 2015

All lives matter? Hillary…sit down now. You’re embarrassing us. #BlackLivesMatter pic.twitter.com/IawPcGo7gO

— Citizen B (@Citizen__B) June 23, 2015

Hillary Clinton has attempted to be a much more empathetic and relatable candidate than during the 2008 primaries, and has sought to address racial issues in a more direct manner. But the middle of a presidential campaign is not a smart time for Clinton to try and compare her white mother and a black community that has recently faced an unspeakable tragedy.

The tweets and statements she made Friday morning when same-sex marriage was legalized also provide an example of Clinton’s hypocrisy. Have her supporters forgotten her original stance on the issue? In 2004 Hillary Clinton stated the following: “I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” In 1996, she stood next to Bill Clinton as he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which essentially made same-sex marriage at the federal level illegal. It doesn’t really matter whether or not she’s in favor of same-sex marriage, but rather her consistent habit of talking her way out of an issue and the hypocrisy she illustrates.

Not only are some of her recent comments questionable, but actions taken by her in the past also pose a threat to her run for the presidency, as the same recurring theme of hypocrisy ensues. Hillary Clinton’s claims about her “humble financial roots,” illustrate another attempt to relate to the average American, however her comments and actions create an absolute double standard. Clinton has repeatedly stressed that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke,” when they left the White House. But in 2000, months before leaving the presidential palace, the Clintons bought a seven bedroom home in Washington D.C.’s Embassy Row neighborhood for 2.85 million dollars. They paid $855,000 in cash and were approved for the remainder in a loan–that’s a far cry from “dead broke.”

Today, the Clintons’ combined net worth has risen to a staggering $55 million and their Clinton Global Initiative Foundation is valued at a humble $98.2 billion. Clinton’s campaign insiders have been quoted saying that Hillary will raise an “insane amount of money,” and furthermore will “dwarf anything seen in the history of presidential politics;” clearly something that the average American wouldn’t be able to do.

Although Clinton is making attempts to renew her image and make herself more approachable and relatable, Tuesday’s comment only added fuel to the fire and further pushed the notion of her being a humble candidate further from many voters’ minds. It is likely that her comment was not intentionally racist by nature, however it may have cost her a large group of voters. Moreover, Friday’s statements clearly indicate that her actions and words are not consistent, and it’s only a matter of time before people start to notice the recurring theme of hypocrisy associated with her political campaign.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary Clinton: A History of Hypocrisy? appeared first on Law Street.

Today’s growing field of law school graduates and young attorneys seeking jobs is making the legal career field more competitive than ever. In an effort to differentiate themselves from the pack, many graduates have begun seeking further legal education–such as the LL.M–in specialized fields; however, this trend just received a makeover.

On Monday, Fordham University School of Law announced it will be the first to offer degrees in fashion law effective Fall 2015. Students will be able to choose between two degrees: a Master of Laws (LLM) in Fashion Law for those who’ve already completed a J.D. degree, and a Master in the Study of Law (MSL) for business professionals interested in fashion law.

As one of the first law schools in the world and certainly the United States propelling such a distinct institution, the announcement comes at the perfect time. Not only does the LLM offer J.D. graduates interested in fashion an opportunity to further enhance their legal education, but it also provides a niche industry resource to fashion and clothing lines tackling intellectual property, copyright infringement, and counterfeiting lawsuits.

Like many of its other LLM programs, students who wish to study fashion law have the option to do so as full or part-time students and in the traditional LLM approach of two semesters. Copyright, IP, and counterfeit charges pertaining to fashion law are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the program. Students will further be exposed to and taught how to deal with employee issues when dealing with talent and models, regulating claims related to sustainability and data privacy concerns linked to e-commerce and social media.

Traditionally a the LLM has been a tool utilized by international students wishing to gain global credentials, and for J.D. graduates who desire advanced legal study. Although having an LLM does make an attorney stand out due to their specified area of expertise studied, the degree is not required in the United States since a J.D. is sufficient for both taking the bar exam and employment.

Statistics and trends provided by the American Bar Association, however, show that there are more attorneys today than ever. As of last year there were 1,281,432 practicing attorneys, a staggering 21 percent increase from the year 2000. These statistics clearly indicate the exponential growth of attorneys in the United States. They also make clear why students must seek something to set themselves apart from the competition; and for those interested in fashion, Fordham Law School has just made history.

According to attorney and founder of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham Professor Susan Scafidi, “legal savvy, like business expertise, has always been an important component in building a successful fashion house or design career–it just hasn’t yet been recognized to the same degree…Would we have Tom Ford without Domenico De Sole, or at least a significant degree of legal knowledge?”

Scafidi’s statement further justifies the notion that narrowly tailored institutions such as Fordham’s approach to the legal aspects of the fashion world open up new opportunities for job-seeking J.D. graduates with an interest in fashion. With the ever-growing competition of attorneys in the United States, Fordham’s LLM in fashion law will be beneficial for companies seeking to hire legal advisers with this specific expertise amid the growth of lawsuits and disputes pertinent to the market of fashion.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fordham Law Makes Big Fashion Statement appeared first on Law Street.

Former Governor Jeb Bush has a notorious reputation that stems from years prior to his intentions of running for president. There’s his grandfather, Prescott Bush, a U.S. senator who allegedly collaborated with Nazis during WWII; his father, President George H.W. Bush, who was accused of formerly working with Osama Bin Laden; and his own brother, President George W. Bush, who is blamed for the War on Terror that cost our nation up to $1.7 trillion dollars. So in order to run a successful campaign, Jeb Bush will need a lot more than money and his last name. In fact, those very things might be putting him at a disadvantage, and motivating his strategically designed campaign to avoid his inheritance. Here are four of the most recent instances that show Jeb Bush’s very cleverly marketed campaign strategy:

Distancing Himself from the Bush Name

Despite years of a political presence, it seems that Jeb Bush is trying to distance himself from the “political dynasty” the Bushes are linked to. On Monday June 15, Bush formally declared that he was running for president of the United States. His announcement was accompanied by signs which read “Jeb!” but there were no mentions of his last name anywhere. Insisting that his family name gave him no unique claim to the Oval Office, Bush explained that he is not entitled to the position but rather wants voters to view him as an executive animated by big ideas and uniquely capable of carrying them out. He made reference to his record in Florida of  expanding charter schools, introducing a taxpayer-financed school voucher program, reducing the size of the state government by thousands of workers, and cutting taxes by billions. Bush further added to his individualistic approach toward the candidacy by saying: “Not one of us deserves the job by right of resume party, seniority, family or family narrative… It’s nobody’s turn. It’s everybody’s test.”

A Liberal Approach to Immigration

Unlike his brother, father, and most Republicans, Bush has a very large Hispanic following. It’s true he has family connections–his wife Columba is Mexican–but his stance on immigration is a larger contributor to this following. Bush takes a relatively liberal approach toward the way future America ought to handle the immigration issue. Bush has been cited as “empathetic” toward illegal immigrants, and has referred to their actions as an “act of love” rather than a crime. In his book “Immigration Wars,” Bush actually makes the claim that immigrants are vital to the United States, and that we are not bringing in enough highly skilled immigrants to meet our needs and to maximize future American prosperity. Although highly controversial in the conservative community, Bush has stood by this position. Furthermore, Bush is a strong advocate for granting illegal immigrants a pathway to a legalized status rather than sending them back over the border. So it’s no surprise that Bush has secured relatively strong Hispanic support.

Six Months of Informal Campaigning

Bush clearly understands the campaign steps he must follow in order to win. Despite his prolonged decision and extended time–almost six months–of unofficial “campaigning” Bush now has a clear idea of what he must do to make this race exciting. Rather than quickly appearing in the spotlight like his Republican competitors Texas Senator Ted Cruz, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Bush took the strategic approach of what could be called hypothetical campaigning. His unofficial campaigning not only permitted him more time to travel to different towns and listen to individuals requests, it allowed him to spend more money on his unofficial campaign than his competition. What many deemed as “illegal campaigning,” is actually entirely legal given that he technically was not an official candidate for the presidency until Monday. Bush was strategic about his approach to the campaign, seemingly knowing that his Super PAC, Right to Rise, was legally allowed to continue raising money without becoming subject to campaign finance laws so long as Bush did not officially acknowledge himself as a candidate. Super PACs are not subject to donation limits, while candidates can only accept $2,700 per donor per election. Had Bush decided to declare his candidacy six months ago when he started his hypothetical campaign efforts, any Super PAC bearing his name would have been limited to accepting less. Critics have argued that Bush’s tactics were illegal,  however the various rules in place indicate that’s probably not the case.

His Venue Choice and Spanish Skills

Of all places to announce his presidential campaign, Bush chose the Miami Dade College campus. MDC is comprised of a large community of Hispanic students and workers. Bush reportedly gave parts of his speech in Spanish, proving his fluency in the language and further appealing to minority voters–something not seen from his Republican competition. It’s no surprise that the Hispanic showing at Monday’s event was paramount. Many of the official campaign signs seen in the crowd portrayed an upside down exclamation mark preceding the letter J in Jeb (a grammar reference in the Spanish language) which is once again a very strong indication of just how much Hispanic support was concentrated inside the mid-sized auditorium on Monday evening.

Whether Jeb is the ideal candidate for the presidency or not is yet to be seen. However one thing is certain–Jeb is a political genius when it comes to campaigning. Whether it be distancing himself from the family name, addressing the immigration issue in a positive manner, or even the smaller things such as his campaign choice and location preference, Jeb Bush is carefully planning an elaborate campaign which will make for a very interesting race.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Four Ways Jeb Bush Is Setting Himself Apart From the Republican Competition appeared first on Law Street.

After 13 years, the Supreme Court has reversed a controversial law passed by Congress back in 2002.  The issue with the law is that it gave American citizens born in Jerusalem the option to list Israel as their official country of birth on their American passports and birth certificates. Seeing that the recognition of foreign nations is entirely a political policy condition, the Supreme Court has decided that Congress should never have had the authority to make a law of recognition as they did in 2002 and therefore have struck it down, leaving powers of recognition to the president.

The outdated law previously stipulated that:

For purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen’s legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel.

The law reversal stems from the prominent Zivotofsky v. Kerry case. More than a decade ago, the Zivotofsky family filed suit against the ­­­­­­State Department after they were denied the option to list Jerusalem, Israel as the place of birth for their newborn son.

While under the separation of powers Congress does indeed play a vital component in making laws, major decisions on  nation recognition has historically been left to the Executive branch. Looking back at  precedent, it should be noted that the Supreme Court has allocated the power and exclusivity of recognizing a nation as being a privilege exclusively for the President.

The president has taken those absolute measures as a result of Congress accepting the recognition of power as exclusive of his office, and at times even defending the President’s constitutional prerogative. Additionally, the Executive branch often has access to confidential information that the legislative branch does not.

Foreign sovereignty expert Juan Basombrio, who is the Co-Chair of Dorsey & Whitney’s International Law Group, commented on the Supreme Court’s decision in a press release saying:

Expressly recognizing that the status of Jerusalem is ‘a delicate subject,’ the Supreme Court has relied on Separation of Powers principles to strike-down a United States statute, enacted by Congress in 2002, which conflicted with State Department policy.  The Supreme Court has held that the question of who has sovereignty over Jerusalem must not be decided by the Congress or the Courts, but is within the purview of the Executive Branch, which has indicated that this is a matter to be resolved ‘not unilaterally but in consultation with all concerned.’  Today’s decision confirms former President George W. Bush’s statement, at the time of enactment of the referenced statute, that ‘U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem has not changed.’

Monday’s decision marks the end of an era of uncertainty over the loophole in the conflicting law that enabled American citizens born abroad to claim Israel as their country of identity. Basombrio makes a valid claim as he states that the decision should not involve American courts or Congress, granted that there are other political actors and nations involved; therefore the argument and decision should always remain with the Executive branch.

This decision is important because it demonstrates to the citizens of Jerusalem, as well as the rest of the world, that the U.S. will not be dragged into the identity crisis. Whereas the U.S. is often known for mediating terms between other nations, this time that is not the case. In reversing a 13-year clause, the Supreme Court has sent a message to Israel that the U.S. has no interest in intervening until the nations involved in the identity dispute resolve their issue.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Born in Israel? Not on Your American Passport appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday marked an important day for the Arizona State University community; particularly those associated with ASU’s Law School. Since its inception in 1965, the Sandra Day O’ Connor College of Law has remained where ASU’s main campus is, in Tempe, Arizona. However the construction of the new $129 million law school building in downtown Phoenix has been underway since July 2014. On June 9, the final beam was hoisted atop a six-story building under construction, attesting to the fact that the initial plans for the building’s completion by 2016 are still very alive.

Dozens of residents, council members, community leaders, law school faculty, and many more crowded at the foundation of the structure on Tuesday. One by one they signed their names and the date on a large piece of steel meant to complete the final piece of the foundation. The crowd cheered away as if at a Cardinals vs. Seahawks game as the massive section was hoisted up by crane and carried to its place six stories up.

Located in downtown Phoenix, the new location of the law school could not be more ideal. With more than 12 major law firms located within walking distance of the new campus, students will have even more networking and job opportunities than ever before. In a press release, the school’s president, Michael M. Crow, stated the following:

Having the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law in downtown Phoenix fits perfectly with ASU’s mission of building strong learning and career connections with media, health care, corporate and government organizations for the more than 11,500 students at the downtown campus.

The new location is set to have high-tech equipment and state-of-the-art facilities with the goal of taking teaching and learning to a new level. Amid the 280,000 square foot structure, students can expect a brand new Ross Blakely Law Library, two think tanks, multiple centers with cross-disciplinary focus, and also the new ASU Alumni Law Group, the first teaching law firm associated with a law school. The new law school will also feature one large lecture hall for undergraduate students, as well as cafes and restaurants on the first floor.

Funding for the new law school comes from a combination of donors and alumni, as well as $12 million and land from the city of Phoenix. Local Phoenix attorney Leo Beus and his wife Annette donated $10 million to the effort.

As witnessed Tuesday on site, the majority of the ASU community is thrilled about the new location for the Sandra Day O’ Connor Law School. Despite having established a well known presence and fostered a home within the learning environment for thousands of students throughout its 50 years at Tempe, those affiliated with the school view the construction as a positive change. Many alumni expressed that as long as the College of Law maintains the same standards and ensures that the Armstrong name is honored–the current law school sits in Armstrong Hall– the new location for the law school is a big leap forward.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arizona State’s Sandra Day O’Connor Law School Finds New Home in Phoenix appeared first on Law Street.

Beaches, sun, internships, and vacations; these are some of the highlights associated with Summer. That’s not the case though for thousands of 19 and 20 year olds frantically preparing for arguably one of the most overrated exams looming in the second week of June: the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). By now, every college sophomore and junior has probably heard that getting into law school  is “easier” than ever due to the decline in the applicant pool. Is it really though? Moreover, what does this notion entail once graduating seniors actually commit to their respective law schools? It seems that what used to be a competitive challenge for those truly passionate about law and policy has become an option for the thousands of students wanting to avoid “funemployment” and who are unsure of their post-graduation plans.

Millennials are being victimized by the fallacy that a law degree from a middle-top tier institution will provide stable employment upon graduation. Many refer to the phenomenon of the smallest applicant pool in 30 years as a “buyers market,”  wherein students are sold the idea that applying to law school now is a good idea because they will have a higher chance of attending a top Law School, thus potentially being scouted by a top law firm and earning a six-figure starting salary. Although this sounds very appealing, the “buyers market” leaves out a minor detail–law firms are placing little emphasis on the small applicant pools given the excess law graduates from years past and job demand finally stabilizing.  

Last year saw the smallest class of incoming law students at 38,000–a 37 percent decline from 2010. There is no denying that the smaller applicant pool and decreased percentage of high-test scorers contributes to the evidence that admission into tougher law schools is in fact a more viable option.  Furthermore, these numbers indeed provide an incentive for thousands of students who, prior to the applicant decline, would never have considered taking the LSAT. The formerly serious and competitive reputation of the LSAT, wherein students would prepare months in advance for the arduous five-hour assessment, has become arguably as common as taking the SAT.  The increase in under-prepared students taking the exam is shown by studies conducted on the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) data. Statistics disclose that the number of applicants with higher LSAT scores (above 170) has declined exponentially more than the number of applicants with lower scores, advocating that some students with high LSAT scores do not apply to law school at all while students with lower scores continue to apply.

Moreover, statistics demonstrate that companies are not hiring more lawyers than they were in 2010. Top law firms not only continue to scout and favor aspiring attorneys from top-ten schools, but now have the luxury of choosing from a much wider pool of applicants than just students who have just graduated.

According to the American Bar Association,  in 2013 only 57 percent of all law school graduates found full-time work, meaning the job lasted one year or more and was either a clerkship or mandated bar passage. It is important to note that 4,714 of the jobs reported were in fields that technically did not require law degrees, but rather employers preferred to hire Juris Doctorates (i.e. congressional staffers, labor organizers, or NGO workers etc). An additional 1,724 jobs were completely unrelated to law.

The employment numbers are not expected to differ much for the Class of 2016. There are 36,000 students predicted to graduate in 2016, as opposed to 46,776 in 2013. The ABA further projects that there will be 19,650 jobs available for those graduates. While these numbers convey that fewer people will graduate unemployed, the previously mentioned values do not take into account individual student qualifications and readiness, which prominent law firms rely heavily on before offering employment.

So while at face value the numerical indicators provide an optimistic view for undergraduate students banking on attending a higher-ranked law school, confounding variables such as fierce competition among peers and lack of preparedness factor into the discussion. As Slate’s senior business and economics correspondent puts it:

Most people should not attend law school. Specifically, you shouldn’t attend law school unless: a) you have an overwhelming compulsion to actually become a lawyer and b) you understand exactly what becoming a lawyer entails.

Although not the worst time to apply to law school, do your homework. Completely disregarding the average $122,158 debt law students graduate with–because that is an entirely different topic on its own–undergraduates who are not 100 percent convinced about law and policy might want to think twice about applying to law school. What momentarily may seem like a fantastic educational opportunity to attend a slightly better law school than what would’ve been the case a few years ago could end up being a curse in disguise; a detrimental and slipshod attempt at a legal career.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are You Sure Now’s a Good Time to Go to Law School? appeared first on Law Street.

There are two primary lens through which the American public views lobbying. On one side you have those who favor lobbying and believe that a lobbyist’s expertise might grant a policymaker a different outlook on an issue. However, there also exists a group who views lobbying as unethical, and believes the pressure exerted by interest groups on politicians is enough to gain votes in favor of their corporate interests. This could create an issue granted that the interest group may not be lined up with constituents’ viewpoints. Moreover, lobbyists are often accused of using bribery and monetary threats to guide government actions. However a larger issue is imminent–many Americans are unaware of the full scope of these back room practices.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC for short, is a non-profit organization founded in 1973 under close scrutiny not only by the IRS, but by the American public. ALEC identifies itself as a group of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives that draft and share model state-level legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States. As noted by the company’s mission statement, ALEC “works to advance limited government, free markets, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public.” While non-profit organizations such as the ACLU generally use their revenue to further enhance their mission or purpose with the benefit of not being federally taxed, ALEC has been accused by the IRS of taking advantage and abusing its tax-exempt status.

In April of 2012, Common Cause accused ALEC of being a lobbying organization, while objecting to ALEC’s tax status as a nonprofit organization, alleging that lobbying accounted for more than 60 percent of its expenditures.

Although ALEC formally denied lobbying, previous ALEC chairwoman Dolores Mertz expressed in the Daily Beast that  she was “concerned about the lobbying that’s going on, especially with [ALEC’s] 501(c)3 status.” Former Republican state senator and current vice chairman of the New Jersey Ethics Commission William Schluter, has also criticized ALEC in the past for its lobbying practices, telling nj.com,

When you get right down to it, this is not different from lobbying. It is lobbying… Any kind of large organization that adds to public policy or has initiatives involving public policy should be disclosed—not only their name, but who is backing them.

In fact, 2012 was not the only year ALEC was accused of taking advantage of its non-profit status. Most recently the organization has been discovered collecting money from lobbyists and corporations, and using the capital to subsidize costs for legislators to attend private “educational” meetings. Media Matters produced a video exposé on ALEC’s back room dealings and its results were truly outstanding. Not only did they find that legislators are wined, dined, and taken on golf outings; they are also given substantial wads of cash for miscellaneous purposes. What’s even more shocking are the decisions being made in the closed rooms, which the general public is denied access to.

During its investigation, Media Matters interviewed Georgia Senator Nan Orrock, a former ALEC member, who called ALEC a “corporate bill mill which cranks out legislation.” Moreover she divulged alarming information on the proceedings of the meetings wherein corporations and legislators have equal say on a piece of legislation.

The investigation  also uncovered that there are bills which need only initials by legislators and have been entirely drafted by corporations. One example is the Asbestos Claim Priority Act, which prevents asbestos victims from suing corporations. Noteworthy is the fact that although the bill passed in Georgia’s capital, it was first approved in Las Vegas, according to the video. Media Matters uncovered records indicating that three Georgia senators who sponsored the bill received over $22,000 in the year before, during, and after the bill was passed in “scholarship money” to attend resort meetings by ALEC.

For more detailed information on ALEC conferences please refer to this video.

In this context, the question arises of whether ALEC is complying with legal standards or not. Certainly the notion of filtering money between corporations and legislators through ALEC is not ethical, however do they breach any sort of law? It is tough to say granted that each state differs in terms of ethical rules and laws. Some states such as Wisconsin require legislators to fund their own trips to events. Other states, however, permit organizations such as ALEC to sponsor or grant “scholarships,” to legislators for said trips.

Regardless of whether any actual laws are being violated or not is yet to be determined, however it is clear that the operating system of the supposed NPO is being further observed not only by the general public concerned with fair legislative practices, but also larger actors. Mega corporations who once played a prominent role in ALEC, such as Coca-Cola, are showing their concern with the way ALEC handles legislative practices, as seen by Coca-Cola’s recent disaffiliation from the organization. It is only a matter of time before the continued allegations turn into large disputes, potentially leading to a landmark legal case.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ALEC: The True Indicator of Legislative Decisions? appeared first on Law Street.