Internet legalities, security, and commerce are confusing. There a lot of gray areas when it comes to what is legal but also, the consequences for internet crimes are clearly lacking as well. If there is no fear of the law, what incentive is there for people to abide by the law? One ubiquitous internet crime is piracy, or the act of obtaining copy written content without paying for it. This type of crime is conducted by a variety of methods; among them are peer to peer downloading and streaming.

Let’s take a look at the history…

Obtaining content online first commenced with downloading information from a single location. Downloading is the process of copying data, usually an entire file from a main source to a peripheral device. The term is often used to describe the process of copying a file from an online service or bulletin board service (BBS) to one’s own computer. During a direct download, you are only downloading the file(s) from an individual server unlike a torrent.

Today, torrenting is much more popular, where users download crowd sourced content. Torrenting is the act of downloading files from a large network in which all of the users are sharing the same file. A torrent allows you to download the file from multiple users, with the capability to also share some of it back. Both the act of downloading and torrenting content violates the Copyright Act of 1976.

While it is evident that downloading/ torrenting is an issue looking at Voltage Pictures Case, the new issue in piracy is streaming. Streaming is simply the method of relaying the data over a computer network as a steady continuous stream, allowing playback to proceed while subsequent data is being receive

It is significantly more difficult to file lawsuits against perpetrators who are streaming; they are not hosting or sharing the file. Likewise, obtaining IP addresses and personal info of people who stream videos is complicated. Torrents are much easier to track due to file sharing during downloading. This in itself, make torrents easier cases to prosecute. For the time being, companies mainly target the low hanging fruit- people who download from torrents.

Most notably, the latest streaming issue is with Aereo. Currently, Aereo batting television providers  in the Supreme Court. They created an antenna that could receive “free” television, and then charged others to view it using the cable from their antenna.

So is streaming content safe and legal?  

Streaming is a slippery slope for prosecutors, as there are no definitive answers to this question. The answer depends on many variables including the site and file type. Due to the lack of any conclusive rulings, the legality of streaming is in a state of limbo. In an attempt to clear the air, the Copyright Office contends there is no violation when a reproduction manifests itself in a fleeting manner that it cannot be copied, perceived or communicated. Though the law is convoluted, it is useful to note that owners, such as the Motion Picture Association of America, rarely go after individuals who watch streaming movies. Illegal or not, it’s costly and difficult to track these users down.

Even if the ruling comes down as piracy, I would compare this activity to jaywalking. Yes, it is considered illegal. Yes, you should not do it. But the fact of the matter is everyone does it.

[Mother Jones] [Aereo]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Streaming become Illegal? appeared first on Law Street.

For those of you who are behind the times, Bitcoin is a unique electronic currency developed five years ago. Among many currencies, Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency, enabling individuals to exchange Bitcoins through the Internet without having to go through a middleman such as a bank. Bitcoins are revolutionizing traditional currencies, as anyone can “mine” the electronic coins. This is a significant reason why Bitcoin is becoming increasingly popular, as anyone can “mine” coins and make money. For a more extensive breakdown of Bitcoin, check out this article.

As Bitcoin emerges into a recognized currency, much of the legality and security of the e-currency has yet to be interpreted and standardized. This poses the complex question of what is needed to create a new currency? Often, the use of the Bitcoin is illegal, though the bitcoin system itself is not. Thus, the issue is not with the currency, but rather with it’s tendency to be prone to illegal activity. Therefore, does Bitcoin enhance criminality?

As Bitcoin is the newest globally recognized currency, agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, Canada Revenue Agency, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are developing new methods of taxing the e-currency. Exclusive to the United States, the Internal Revenue Service affirms the awareness of the potential tax-compliance risks posed by virtual currencies. Consequently, the lacking regulation permits malicious activity detrimental to the states well-being.

Bitcoin incorporates the option of anonymity into every exchange, making it prone to illegal activity. Provided in a case study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, “cyber criminals may increasingly use bitcoins to purchase illegal goods and services and to fund illegal activities.” Specifically, this untraceable digital currency has an inherent proclivity towards criminality. However, if a transaction is not anonymized, a third party can geographically locate the individual. Every Bitcoin transaction is public and documented through archiving its Internet Protocol addresses.

As bitcoin technology increasingly becomes popular, criminals develop intricate methods to create an incognito transaction. An example of this illicit method is using a third party eWallet, attempting to consolidate Internet Protocol addresses. Research from the Federal Bureau of Investigation further concludes, “some third-party services offer the option of creating an eWallet that allows users to consolidate many bitcoin address and store and easily access their bitcoins from any device”

Bitcoin is the currency of choice–it has been used on many sites including the late Silk Road. An electronic market to buy potentially illegal goods, the hidden site was seized by the FBI in conjunction with the IRS Criminal Investigation Division, ICE Homeland Security Investigations, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. Prior to the injunction, private brownish markets were prone to criminal activity. The Silk Road allowed “parties to communicate anonymously for the purchase and sale of illegal goods, including the purchase of illegal narcotics, in addition to using Bitcoin.” Prior to the implementation of Bitcoin, Silk Road received very little traffic. Currently, hundred of thousands of transactions have been made through Silk Road and the newest platform, Silk Road 2 via Bitcoin. Such illicit websites cause for questioning the integrity of Bitcoin around the world.

What about this…

Although regulative agencies spanning across the world have yet to concretely define the boundaries, actions against criminality have been taken. On January 27, 2014 Charlie Shrem was arrested for engaging in currency laundering–directly connected to the Silk Road. Regarding the innovative currencies connections to criminal activity, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara stated, “truly innovative business models don’t need to resort to old-fashioned lawbreaking, and when bitcoins, like any traditional currency, are laundered and used to fuel criminal activity, law enforcement has no choice but to act.”

Bitcoin is highly susceptible to theft. Thieves intending on stealing bitcoins target and exploit third-party Bitcoin services “because there is no central Bitcoin server to compromise.” Malicious actors can steal user “mined” bitcoins by exploiting “the way bitcoins are generated by compromising victim’s computers.” Accomplished by installing malware on a victim’s computer, criminals can then use the compromised computers to generate bitcoins. The evolution of Bitcoin towards a more sustainable and legal future exemplifies the nature of an ever-changing currency. Yet the activity associated with Bitcoin can destroy the currency ad infinitum.

 [Business Insider] [Federal Bureau of Investigation]

—

Zachary Schneider

Feature image courtesy of [Antana via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bitcoin: Why is it Prone to Criminal Activity? appeared first on Law Street.

Robots are the future- and they are already here. Although, the average “joe” may not interact with these human replacements, military personnel, across seas, encounter robots on a daily basis.

 Today, there is a powerful shift in robotic technology for domestic use. In fact, just last Monday, Amazon strategically released their drone delivery concept. Robotic machinery is blending into the average citizens’ everyday life. So should we be worried?

Well that depends…

A company, Knightscope, in California has recently developed a robot called K5 Autonomous Data Machine (this machine is quite remarkable).

Within months of its debut, this security robot has already created quite a ruckus — “R2D2’s evil twin,” to be exact according to Marc Rotenberg, the director of the Electronic Privacy and Information Center, in Washington, DC.

What makes this robot truly evil? Well…

 The first point is obvious. This device is the NSA’s fantasy; a harmless looking device that collects images and records sound 24/7.

Now, some may say this is awfully Orwellian. Yes, that may be so, but the intentions are good. William Santana Li,  co-founder of the technology company that created K5 Autonomous Data Machine claims that they created this robot “after what happened at Sandy Hook”, based on their assertion that “[we] are never going to have an armed officer in every school”.

School shootings have become more prevalent in the United States over the past few years. There have been 34 shooting events in 1990’s contrasting with 86 shooting events between 2000-2013, according to the American Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Consequently, K5 Autonomous Data Machine was developed to ensure the safety and security of schools, and possibly an alternative to human guards.

But did you catch that second detriment? No? Human Security will be rendered pointless. Is our world becoming so efficient that it is destroying the working middle class?

Yeah, robots are efficient. Yeah, it’s cheap. Yeah, it’s cool and futuristic, and it feels like you are living on Tatooine.

 But this could drastically hurt our economy, on such a large economic scale proving esteemed economist, David Author, from Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s theory that technology decimates the working class.

In the United States, the Federal minimum wage in $7.25 an hour, while the implementation of K5 would short the American middle class by an entire dollar at a mere $6.25 an hour reported by the Department of Labor.

This also brings up the recurring argument of privacy vs. security. How much is the common citizen going to compromise in order to procure their safety?

However, I am less worried about security than I am more concerned about the dying off of the middle class. At what point do you draw the line? Case and point, robots don’t need to worry about feeding a family.

 At the end of the day, people are going to complain about both sides. Either, there is not enough protection, or it is too invasive. Myself personally? I’m conflicted. As of now, I want to see more of Evil R2D2.

[NY Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [littlelostrobot via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Inventions, Privacy, and Economics Intersect: R2D2’s Evil Twin appeared first on Law Street.

You may think that technological advances ensure a more secure future but think again, as technology evolves, ability to organize cyber attacks evolves in tandem.

This is most notably seen in the Visa & Mastercard Heist  in which people hacked both Visa and Mastercard, stealing 45 million dollars remotely in only hours.This cyber attacked happened around the world, all by the hands of computer criminals manipulating financial information. In turn, this information was used to loot the automated teller machines in major cities such as New York.

But as horrible as this may be, technology offers the ability to ensure security and privacy (If only phone providers could get behind the idea).

It may have not happened to you personally, but over the fiscal year of 2012, over 1.6 million smart phones were stolen. 

District attorney, George Gascón of San Francisco wants to fix this. In fact, phone manufacturers want to solve this problem as well. Unfortunately, cellular providers do not.

Gascón hopes to fix this rampant problem by implementing a kill switch into smart phones. This would be accomplished through a “kill switch” that would terminate smart phones if they were reported as stolen. Gascón is suspicious of the wireless carriers’ motives for rejecting the kill switch, claiming “there were email conversations between Samsung and the kill-switch developer, saying that the carriers were concerned about losing business”.

 Currently, many smart phones enable the option to wipe the memory of the phone if a perpetrator attempts to enter the phone. Unfortunately, without the backing of major cellular providers, these phones are still operable.This brings up the question—should cellular providers offer the option of a kill switch.

Yeah, why not? As technology becomes more penetrable, counter tactics must be implemented to secure the consumers regardless of economic motive. This leads to the follow up question—why don’t cellular companies implement the kill switch?

Although, there has not been an official reason, its pretty obvious why– its a terminate button. What business model would intentional provide consumers an option to terminate their service?  Providers say they will look into it but I wouldn’t get too excited. Either way, I wouldn’t expect a kill switch unless you work for the NSA.

In fact, the kill switch option may generate more revenue for some companies who take the initial step.

Bottom line, as privacy becomes persistently limited, cellular providers eventually should change their policies to appease the consumers.

[Huffingtonpost] [NY Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Stahlkocher via Wikipedia]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Kill the “Kill Switch” appeared first on Law Street.

It seems as if Google is always caught in the midst of a lawsuit. This time, has Google gone too far? Judge Denny Chin doesn’t think so.

Over the past eight years, Google has been in constant conflict with the Authors Guild, the not-for-profit American organization of and for authors, arguing the legality of Google Books.

Google Books, formally known as Google Print, is a revolutionary technology, initially introduced at the Frankfurt Book Fair in October 2004, that compiles millions of full-text books and magazines for public use.

Since the inception of Google Books, not much has changed. The documents continue to be scanned and converted into text through a process called optical character recognition where they are finally stored in a digital public database for users all around the world to use.

This has been an excessively drawn out copyright fight between juggernaut Google and the Authors Guild. And now, it is finally over, as Judge Denny Chin ruled in favor of fair use as it is something that benefits the masses. So as long as it benefits the masses, should it be partially free? (Healthcare anyone?) 

John Locke is probably turning in his grave right this instant.

John Locke, an english philosopher and physician, unequivocally believed in the idea of private property. If you create it, you claim that territory, conceive an idea, it is all yours—a sacred western value that the United States treats very seriously.

The ruling on Google Books completely turns this idea on its head. Furthermore, this is a landmark case because it could create a precedent for future court cases when it comes to copyright law.

Judge Chin’s overarching argument is that Google allows readers to discover books, therefore it will bring new income to the readers.

Judge Denny Chin made the ruling based on the fact that Google’s digitization of the source material is “highly transformative” and won’t interfere with the original market.

Now, this case is much bigger than it actually seems. On the surface, Judge Denny Chin’s decision seems great, enabling the world access to more than 20 million books. Unfortunately, this ruling utterly decimates the idea of copyright.

Copyright is a legal concept that gives the creator exclusive rights and protection over original works of authorship, ranging from literary artistic, and musical intellectual works. The author alone has the right to replicate, distribute, perform or display copies of his or her work.

This court case may be appealed as the judge basically ruled that as long as it benefits the masses, copyright really isn’t much of an issue. It renders everything copyright stands for utterly useless.

Will this court case be appealed? Probably. As of now, this “essential research tool” is available for everyone to use.

[Business Insider] [Gigagom]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Lin Kristensen via Wikipedia]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google vs. Authors Guild: The Fight is Finally Over appeared first on Law Street.

Mass media essentially dropped it, yet it still affects millions of people around the word. The issue? You guessed it! Immigration.

President Barack Obama’s days are numbered. In a little less than two years, he will be irrelevant, a lame duck. Anything our president has to say about domestic policy will fall on deaf ears.

Obama told a Los Angeles affiliate of Spanish-language television network, Univision that after the government shutdown ends, “the day after, I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform.”

It is great to see that immigration is back on the table, after the immigration legislation was derailed because of rampant gun violence pulsating throughout the nation.

What is important to note about immigration is not so much the changing regulations, but the legislation and politics behind it all.

The demographics in the United States are changing. The new wave of immigrants yields immense amounts of power.

Although this power is not immediately evident, in years to come, immigrants will have a huge impact on voting outcomes. The electorate will encounter new voters of different background, consequently pandering to the emerging majority

Like wise, public policy will have to account for demographic shift. As a result, policy decisions will evolve drastically.

In the most recent elections, immigrant votes were a major deciding factor in deterring which candidate would win a position, whether that be between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney running for presidency or Cory Booker and Steve Lonegan for a senate position.

And President Obama is thinking for his party as well. Immigrants have a significant impact on voter demographics. Immigration is affecting EVERYTHING around us including significant changes in demographics and cultures.

Most importantly, it is changing legislation as well as politics. Demographics are constantly changing.

[Reuters] [InternationalBusinessTimes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Icars via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Immigration: The Journey is Just Beginning… appeared first on Law Street.

The double standard of a generation. The ultimate oxymoron.

Each year major companies including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Google, constantly revise their terms and conditions—making it even harder for users to monitor and control who is able to view their content.

It may come as a surprise to many, but these companies OWN everything you post. That’s right, what is yours, is theirs. Just recently, Google announced a change in privacy, allowing them to access Google+ profile pictures and comments as a mean of advertising. Likewise, Facebook announced this Wednesday that  content posted by teenagers, individuals ages 13-17, are now not only accessible to people who know their friends, but anyone who types in the right keywords.

This forbidding future allots cyber bullying, moreover the increased accessibility to child pornography, elicit content, and internet stalking.

The Internet is evolving. Privacy used to have some standards. Now it’s a savage free for all, even children are subject to.

All of this brings up a pressing question: If random people on the Internet have access to private user generate content, can the government?

Yes. No question. In fact, this has been happening prior to the current revisions in dot-com privacy policies.

In Policy Mic’s article, PRISM: The 8 Tech Companies Who Gave Your Data to the Government Have This to Say About the Scandal, Google states, “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to governments in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘backdoor’ into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access user data.”

To break this quote down, Google basically said, “We do not hand your content to the government on a golden platter. They have to ask nicely, and then, only then, will give it to them what they want in a paper lunch bag—not gold”.

Different phrasing, same idea. This brings up the much-needed talk about legislation to protect the user. Congress needs to look into these corporations’ exploitation of user content.

This is unlike anything we have seen before, and there are relatively no laws protecting the users. Should there be? Absolutely. But that may result in a much different Internet, an Internet where you pay to use websites. One way or another you are paying, it just depends if you want to pay with your identity.

[NewYorkTimes] [PolicyMic]

—

Featured image courtesy of [g4II4is via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Privacy or the Internet: Choose One appeared first on Law Street.

The United States of America. Land of the free, home of the brave. Doesn’t that have a nice ring to it?

Anyone from anywhere, regardless of socioeconomic class, religion, or culture can come and make a name for themselves in the United States. We believe in “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, set your mind on the prize, and go claim what is yours.

Yet each year the range in wealth disparity increases, rendering it more difficult–to a point where it is impossible to succeed economically.

In the United States, there is an immense wealth disparity. The vast majority of capital is owned by the top 5%, leaving 95% with huge levels of wealth disparity.

As the standard of living increases, the federal minimum wage should increases respectively.

A step forward in the right direction was the Minimum Wage Act of 2012, specifying that the federal minimum wage would be increased to $9.80 by 2014.

The question is often asked, why raise minimum wage? This video explains why.

Minimum wage is a mechanism the protects the Average Joe, the working class. The issue is that the “Average Joe” ten years ago is nothing like “Joe” in the status quo. The cost of living has increased exponentially, so much that individuals paid at a minimum wage can barely support themselves, let alone a family.  Often times, families have to rely on food stamps and governments subsidies on a daily basis just to survive.

With an increased minimum wage, the government will be inherently be removed from the lives of Americans across the country and a free market will be able to flourish.

With an increased minimum wage, the gap in wealth subsequently decreases. Individuals, along side their families, have more money to spend and invest. Not only does this end the cyclical process of poverty and create a stronger middle class, but it provides for a stronger economy.

The United States should want to encourage these people to move up to the higher echelons in society, not keep them in the current cycle of cyclical poverty. If we increased the minimum wage, we would inherently have less people on food stamps and government programs, thus more people would be supporting the free market.

By increasing the minimum wage, not only with the United States shrink its ever growing wealth gap, but it will improve the lives of millions of Americans.

[BusinessWeek] [DepartmentofLabor]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Fibonacci Blue via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wealth Disparity in the United States: Minimum Wage appeared first on Law Street.

It should go without saying that shutting down the government is not a good idea. It’s not good for the people of the United States, nor is it good internationally. Capital is stagnant, as seen with the plummeting stock market; and the idea that it is acceptable to stop something if you don’t like it is not only repulsive but is inherently being instilled in the minds of American citizens. As a functional citizen in the United States it is imperative to rethink government shutdowns.

 It is inevitable that the government was built to shut down because Congress can bring such a conversation to the table regarding the looming debt ceiling, and in this particular situation, Affordable Care Act. If a provision like this exists, it will unfortunately be used, often for the wrong reason. The trending question across the United States, and even the world is, “Why did the Government shutdown?” I have the answer.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly gave Congress one key responsibility, the power of the purse. This is the concept that provides Congress with the power to pass bills to fund the government. When they do not pass these bills, the government cannot run.

What is interesting, is that some services in the government are still funded. These are deemed as necessary expenses such as Social Security and Air Traffic Control. These are obviously viewed as essential expenditures.

What is also viewed as a necessary expenditure is that both Congress and the President still are paid—which is outrageous. Essentially, congressmen do not have to work and will be paid for just sitting around.

Members of the House came together in a moment of rare bipartisanship to pass a bill, by a vote of 407 to 0, approving back pay for furloughed government workers. It is funny how easy it is pass such legislation.

It is blatantly clear that this system is wrong. We should care that the system is broken because our government is inactive while we, the taxpayers, are still paying for our government.

It is necessary for the United States to have a checks and balance system in order to maintain a stable democracy—the power of the purse is one of those institutions. But the method in which essential expenditures are determined must be reviewed.

[CNN] [Washingtonpost] [Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Rich Renomeron via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Shutdown Woes: Rethinking a Broken System appeared first on Law Street.

In a recent speech at the Center for American Progress, Senator Harry Reid shared his belief that the use of the filibuster has become an abused and exploited status quo in the Senate. He stated, “I love the Senate. But right now, the Senate is broken and needs to be fixed.”

The reason is simple: since the mid 1900s, the filibuster has been abused as a powerful tool to halt legislation. Essentially, if a Senator does not like the legislation, the wrath of the filibuster is relinquished.

Just look at Congress’s approval ratings. You know there is problem when the so-called “Do Little Congress” of 1947-1948 passed more legislation than 112th & 113th Congresses. While some blame this on party polarization, which is partly true, it really boils down to is the abusive nature of the filibuster.

I think it is safe to say that the general public absolutely despises the filibuster. But the filibuster was once a strategic tool that improved the democratic process.

When the filibuster was used in the “unwritten constitution” during the 1850s, it was intended to function as a means to give the minority party a voice. Essentially, a senator would be able to stop a piece of legislation, discuss it, reform it, or get rid of it entirely. From 1800s to the early 1900s the filibuster was rarely used–only utilized in dire situations with significant legislation. One notable use of the filibuster took place in 1841 when Senator William King successfully filibustered Senator Henry Clay’s attempt to recharter the national bank. Yet when looking at the present, it is clear that use of the filibuster has changed significantly since its inception.

In the early 1970’s, the filibuster took a turn for the worst, when Senator Mike Mansfield and Senator Robert Byrd introduced a new legislative process that allowed the Senate to “multi-task” during a filibuster. It was contingent on the ability to work on two tracks: a senator can filibuster legislation on one track, while the Senate as a whole functions as usual on the other track. In theory, this would improve the efficiency of Congress. Instead, the ability to threaten a filibuster, sometimes referred to as a “silent filibuster” was born.

Since that drastic change to the senate legislative process, the filibuster has become a negative trend, resulting in an unproductive congress and a disgruntled American populace. This poses the question; where is the change?

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid expressed the necessity for reform, proposing that the Senate would change the rules to require a simple majority vote to advance executive nominees, contrasting with the current 60-vote threshold. This was expressed in his nuclear option, quoted in Politico. “This is a moment in history when circumstances dictate the need for change” Reid said at the Center for American Progress. Thanks for realizing this Senator Reid. It’s better late than never.

[Huffingtonpost] [Washingtonpost] [Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Martha Soukup via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Filibusters: Past, Present, and Future appeared first on Law Street.

 Since the implementation of the “silent filibuster” (allows Senators to fiat the idea that they would speak for ever), filibusters have become a juggernaut tactic to halt legislation. Now, filibusters are used as jokes.

The reasoning is simple: Filibusters no longer serve as a means of discussing legislation.

 What the hell is our politics coming to when Senators feel it is acceptable to read a child’s book on the floor of the Senate?  The filibuster was once a strategic tool to discuss legislation and improve a proposed bill. Now, we have senators akin to Ted Cruz who find it appropriate to recite Green Eggs and Ham. I am positive Doctor Seuss would be as disgraced with our politicians as many of us our today.

 It is no mystery that the filibuster has lost its intended purpose. From the “Silent Filibuster” to Ted Cruz’s story time readings, the western model of government is losing credibility—it is a joke. But who are we to complain? After all, WE elected them into office (great job, Texas).

 All of the mockery put aside, how is it possible that  something as corrupt as the filibuster is constitutional? This brings up a particular question; is the filibuster even in the constitution?

 Nowhere in the constitution does it explicitly state anything about the filibuster, nor the act of filibustering. So does that mean it is unconstitutional? Aaron Burr, Vice President to John Adams, can be blamed for this confusion. As President of the Senate, Burr removed cloture, deeming it unnecessary, leaving an open spot for the filibuster in the “unwritten constitution”. Although it is not written verbatim in the Constitution, it has been adapted into our structure of government. This can also be seen in the emergence of a two party system as well as the cabinet.

If I recall, the Constitution does not directly include an Air Force, so does that mean the United States Air force is unconstitutional as well? The Founding Fathers were aware of issues like this, which is why Article I, § 8, establishes that Congress has the power to “raise and support Armies”. So the answer is, yeah, the filibuster is constitutional; it’s just being exploited.

And if you think it couldn’t get any more corrupt, it does. In fact, this process was too strenuous; hence the birth of the Silent filibuster. Now, Senators simply fiat the idea of talking for infinity.  The way I see it, they should be required to put in some effort. The notion that one can halt an entire bill because they say they will talk forever is absurd.

Not only is Cruz giving a bad name for himself, he is tarnishing diplomacy, moreover the democratic process our nation prides itself upon. His political stunt is parallel to celebrity Miley Cyrus’s unwarranted gestures—a nation utterly embarrassed.

[ RawStory] [Newsdailynews]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Zennie Abraham via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Filibusters: Political Twerking appeared first on Law Street.