The U.S. just became the third country, joining Syria and Nicaragua, that cannot be counted as part of the Paris Climate Accords. The 195-nation agreement set goals for reducing greenhouse gas pollution for developed and developing nations alike. President Donald Trump, in a speech at the White House Rose Garden, made the announcement, saying:

In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.

Trump said he will try to negotiate a deal that is “fair,” adding: “If we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s fine.” According to the Associated Press, however, a number of European nations will not be open to the U.S. renegotiating the deal:

BREAKING: France, Germany, Italy issue joint statement saying Paris climate accord can’t be renegotiated.

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 1, 2017

The White House deliberations leading up to Thursday’s announcement were reportedly split between two factions: those who wanted to remain part of the deal and those who wanted to withdraw from it. Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson apparently pushed hard for the president to remain, while EPA Chief Scott Pruitt and Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon lobbied him to exit the pact.

Stating his rationale for removing the U.S., the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter behind China, from the accord, Trump said it hurt the U.S. economy and transferred coal jobs overseas. Vice President Mike Pence, introducing Trump at Thursday’s announcement, echoed that reasoning: “Our president is choosing to put American jobs and American consumers first,” he said. “Our president is choosing to put American energy and American industry first. And by his action today, President Trump is choosing to put the forgotten men and women first.”

But many of the leaders in the industries Trump said are harmed by the deal–like ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP–supported the climate agreement, and lobbied Trump to stay in. Environmental groups, Democrats, and dozens of congressional Republicans backed the deal as well. In the end, however, Bannon, Pruitt, and others, won the president over. Soon after Trump’s announcement, Jim Immelt, the CEO of General Electric tweeted:

Disappointed with today’s decision on the Paris Agreement. Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government.

— Jeff Immelt (@JeffImmelt) June 1, 2017

The Paris deal, a non-binding agreement signed in December 2015, was an international framework to set the world on the path toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The goal was to keep the average global temperature from rising more than two degrees celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. The private sector, as well as some states and cities, have already taken steps to reduce emissions and invest in clean energy. Despite Trump’s decision, the U.S. will technically remain part of the pact until November 4, 2020, a day after the next presidential election.

Former President Barack Obama, who was a central architect in the Paris agreement, issued a statement after Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the accord. He said:

The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack. But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Three Countries Not Invested in Paris Climate Deal: Syria, Nicaragua…and the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

After serving seven years behind bars, Chelsea Manning walked out of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas today a free woman.

Manning, 29, was sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking hundreds of thousands of secret government files to Wikileaks. The leaked military archives contained files such as diplomatic cables, videos, and PowerPoint presentations, and is considered to be one of the largest leaks of classified information in history.

President Barack Obama commuted the bulk of her remaining sentence–all but four months to be exact–in January, as one of his final acts in office.

Manning, who already has a Twitter account that she updated regularly while in prison, quickly acclimated herself to new forms of social media upon her release. She commemorated her “first steps of freedom” on her newly acquired Instagram account–the app was created in 2010, the same year she went to prison.

First steps of freedom!! . . #chelseaisfree

A post shared by Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea87) on May 17, 2017 at 6:39am PDT

She even went as far to celebrate her first post-prison meal, a greasy slice of pepperoni pizza.

So, im already enjoying my first hot, greasy pizza

A post shared by Chelsea E. Manning (@xychelsea87) on May 17, 2017 at 9:34am PDT

Over the years, Manning, who has had a Twitter account since 2013, has remained vocal about her imprisonment, transition, and politics.

In a short statement Wednesday, Manning said:

After another anxious four months of waiting, the day has finally arrived. I am looking forward to so much! Whatever is ahead of me is far more important than the past. I’m figuring things out right now — which is exciting, awkward, fun, and all new for me.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chelsea Manning is a Free Woman appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday that could scrap former President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan. What does it mean for the future of U.S. environmental policy?

What is the Clean Power Plan?

In 2015, Obama introduced the Clean Power Plan (CPP) as an effort to cut down on carbon dioxide emissions. It gave each state a different quota for reducing its emissions, allowing states the independence to develop their own plans to meet these requirements. States would have had to submit their ideas by 2016, or 2018 if an extended deadline had been approved. If a state failed to do so, then the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would implement its own plan in that state. States would have had until the year 2022 to actually put their plans in action.

What will happen to the Paris climate agreement?

The Obama Administration’s goal was to bring emission levels to at least 26 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. It was announced prior to the 2015 Paris climate talks to show the U.S. commitment to lowering emissions. Following the conference, the U.S. joined almost 200 other involved countries in a pledge to prevent the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Trump’s order gives the EPA the authority to rework the previous plan. But without the previous administration’s policy in place, the United States may not be able to carry out its end of the agreement reached in Paris. Though the White House hasn’t taken an official position on the Paris climate agreement, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently called it a “bad deal” and Trump has considered removing the U.S. from the agreement over doubts about the existence of climate change. If Trump follows through with exiting the agreement, the U.S. could end up setting a precedent for other countries to back out of their pledges.

According to the New York Times, Trump’s inner circle is divided over whether or not to remain in the agreement. Trump’s daughter Ivanka and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are reportedly concerned that withdrawing could damage the U.S.’s relationship with the other countries involved, but senior adviser Steve Bannon wants out.

Will the new policy bring back jobs?

The CPP was not popular with everyone. Two dozen states sued the Obama Administration over concerns that the policy would hurt their coal industries, because it urged states to transition from relying on fossil fuels to relying on natural gas and renewable energy. But Trump’s move won’t necessarily restore many of the jobs lost by coal miners; the mining industry has been on the decline for several years, and humans are being replaced by technology. While Trump’s executive order makes good on many of his campaign promises, it may not garner its intended results.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs Executive Order to Get Rid of Obama’s Clean Power Plan appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Tough Week Ahead For Donald Trump?

It’s going to be an important and busy week for President Donald Trump. This morning at 10 a.m., the hearing on Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election began. FBI Director James Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee and acknowledged that there is an ongoing investigation into the matter. The FBI leader also disclosed that there’s an investigation into any collusion between Trump aides and Russians officials. Comey also said he has “no evidence” of Trump’s claims that President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower. This morning, seemingly to divert attention, Trump went on a tweet storm and claimed that the Russia story is fake news.

The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

Trump also claimed that there has been contact between Russia and the Clinton campaign, a claim for which there is seemingly no evidence.

What about all of the contact with the Clinton campaign and the Russians? Also, is it true that the DNC would not let the FBI in to look?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 20, 2017

Today is also the first day of confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s SCOTUS nominee. And on Thursday, the House will vote on the new health care plan. NBC reports that at least 17 Republican House members do not approve of the plan, so it could be a close and interesting vote.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Many of us miss President Barack Obama in the White House, so much so that when he was recently spotted out and about spectators erupted in roaring applause. At the end of February, the former president had dinner at Emilio’s Ballato in Soho with his daughter Malia, who has an internship in New York. They later took pictures with the staff of the restaurant.

Barack Obama & Malia Obama out & about in NYC. The father-daughter dinner date is really cute. pic.twitter.com/AVnaENi1W2

— nañi (@pettyblackgirI) February 24, 2017

The next day, Obama was seen getting coffee at a Starbucks in downtown New York City. The word spread fast and when he exited a building on Fifth Avenue people on the streets behaved like it was Beatles in the 1960s.

Obama just left a meeting off 5th Ave. Hundred outside cheering. pic.twitter.com/6oPC3yCEEX

— Alex Heath (@alexeheath) February 24, 2017

Some commented on his post-White House glow, which probably comes from his vacation in the Caribbean with Michelle and their friend Richard Branson, who taught Obama to kitesurf.

He’s rested & has a glow about him. The man is back. pic.twitter.com/EGyrjSn8EY

— deray mckesson (@deray) February 24, 2017

Later that evening, Obama went to Broadway to see Arthur Miller’s “The Price.” Classy as he is, he didn’t make a big fuss about it, but snuck in with Malia and his former adviser Valerie Jarrett after the lights went out. Apparently someone used a flashlight to show the trio to their seats, which even annoyed some visitors. “Who is so rude to come in after the show starts with the flashlights and everything?” Theater visitor Laralyn Mowers recalls thinking. But when her friend told her who it was, Mowers said that her day, which up until then had been really bad, definitely changed for the better.

Okay, so it’s intermission. Obama and Malia came in and left when the lights were down. The crowd didn’t notice. Nice job, Secret Service.

— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) February 25, 2017

The Obamas left right after the show ended–but not before giving the cast a standing ovation–and went backstage to snap some pictures with the actors Danny DeVito, Mark Ruffalo, Jessica Hecht, and Tony Shalhoub.

Barack Obama has a sweet father-daughter date night with Malia at Broadway’s #ThePrice. https://t.co/b49OsTatAr pic.twitter.com/iPumQ8OF5L

— EntertainmentTonight (@etnow) February 25, 2017

Obama exited the theater quietly, but his fans still found him and cheered him on, with an applause. As always, he took some time to give a little wave.

Former President Obama, daughter Malia leave theater after watching “The Price” on Broadway https://t.co/tzKPwwakn3 pic.twitter.com/rhZOVzLpKn

— NBC New York (@NBCNewYork) February 25, 2017

On Monday, Obama and Michelle popped into the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. and as they left the building, a crowd of people once again applauded and cheered the former presidential couple. NBC reporter Benjy Sarlin happened to be there and speculated that breaking out in applause when spotting Obama now seems to be the new norm.

Crowd as President Obama leaves the National Gallery pic.twitter.com/lqPSSNrKg9

— Benjy Sarlin (@BenjySarlin) March 5, 2017

This was the first time the Obamas were seen publicly since Donald Trump made his claims that he believes Obama wiretapped his phones in Trump Tower before the election. Trump has not offered any evidence for his controversial claims, and Obama’s spokesperson has denied that any such thing happened. Luckily it seems like the Obamas didn’t take the accusations too hard, and they got to enjoy an afternoon at the museum.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post People Keep Bursting into Applause When they See Obama on the Street appeared first on Law Street.

In the very early hours of Saturday, President Donald Trump went on one of his characteristic Twitter rants. He accused former President Barack Obama, seemingly without providing any evidence, of wire-tapping him during the 2016 presidential election.

Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my “wires tapped” in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 4, 2017

Why Does Trump Think Obama Has Wiretapped His Phones?

Well, no one is really sure. So far, POTUS has been very vague about any evidence he has for these claims. We know a Breitbart article was released on Friday that made allegations to that effect and some have hypothesized that Trump made his statements based on that article. The Breitbart piece appears to take at least some of its information from a separate Heat Street article; Heat Street is another conservative outlet. That article states that there are two separate sources confirming that the FBI got a FISA warrant granted in October, to examine the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia.

It’s unclear if Trump got that information from anywhere other than media reports. Jake Tapper tweeted:

WH officials with whom I spoke said POTUS got the info about wiretap from media – Breitbart, Levin – not from govt sources.

— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) March 5, 2017

So, What’s a FISA Warrant?

FISA refers to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. It’s a “secret” tribunal that can grant warrants to monitor people related to terrorism or counter-intelligence investigations. Until 2013, FISA warrants weren’t really in the common American vernacular, but after Edward Snowden leaked classified info in 2013, the court was thrust into the national media. It was a FISA warrant that authorized the collection of information that Snowden eventually leaked.

But, it’s unclear whether the FISA warrant reported by Heat Street and Breitbart was ever actually issued. And even if it was, there’s no evidence to suggest that Obama would have been in any way behind it. Likely, it would have been the FBI or another intelligence agency that put in the request.

How Has Everyone Responded?

It’s been a bit of a mixed bag. An Obama spokesman, as well as the former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper have categorically denied the accusations. Clapper told Chuck Todd “there was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president, the president-elect at the time, or as a candidate, or against his campaign.” But he did also acknowledge that he can’t speak for “other authorized entities in the government or a state or local entity.” FBI Director James Comey also asked the Justice Department to publicly reject Trump’s allegations about the wiretap this afternoon.

Largely, reactions from other politicians have included confusion. Some Republicans have even expressed as much, making it clear that they don’t know where Trump’s claims have come from. For example, Senator Marco Rubio expressed seemingly shaky confidence that more information will become clear when he appeared on “Meet the Press,” saying:

I’d imagine the President and the White House in the days to come will outline further what was behind that accusation. The President put that out there, and now the White House will have to answer as to exactly what he was referring to.

Senator Ben Sasse stated:

The president today made some very serious allegations, and the informed citizens that a republic requires deserve more information. If without [an authorization], the President should explain what sort of wiretap it was and how he knows this. It is possible that he was illegally tapped.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The answer to that question is also very unclear. Presumably, Trump isn’t going to back off. In fact, Trump has doubled down on the allegations. Today, he called for a Congressional inquiry into the claims. So, this isn’t going to die anytime soon. Hopefully we’ll have answers soon.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About Donald Trump’s Wiretap Allegations appeared first on Law Street.

In an interview on “Fox and Friends” on Tuesday, President Donald Trump accused former President Barack Obama of being the brain behind recent protests against Trump, and leaks from the White House. In the segment, Trump was asked whether he believed Obama was behind the incidents, including the rowdy town halls that many Republican lawmakers have recently faced.

“I think he is behind it. I also think it’s politics,” Trump answered. He has previously tweeted that “the so-called angry crowds in home districts of some Republicans are actually, in numerous cases, planned out by liberal activists.” On Tuesday he added that he thinks Obama’s “people are certainly behind it,” and also responsible for leaks from the government that “are really very serious leaks, because they’re very bad in terms of national security.” He didn’t explain how or why Obama would be leaking information from the White House, but people on Twitter had some theories.

Yes, Obama is behind all the leaks, which he saw in visions of the future before leaving, and left on post-it notes for WH staff to find.

— Kris Colvin (@KrisColvin) February 19, 2017

Trump says “Obama’s behind leaks & protests.”
And by “Obama” he means “his people.”
And by “his people” he means “the majority of US voters”

— John Fugelsang (@JohnFugelsang) February 28, 2017

Others simply wanted an explanation.

Can someone explain how Obama is behind townhall attendance/leaks? If Trump can’t explain he needs to be removed for mental health issues.

— IMPEACH OrangeJulius (@puppymnkey) February 28, 2017

But it seems like Obama has an alibi.

Trump on WH leaks: “I think that President Obama’s behind it because his people are certainly behind it.”

Obama: pic.twitter.com/q25XVeRo9c

— Nick Jack Pappas (@Pappiness) February 28, 2017

In the Fox interview, Trump also touched on his budget plan, which proposes a big increase in spending on the military but significant cuts in other areas, like EPA funding. He said it would be financed through a “revved-up economy” that is supposedly forthcoming. Also, he said the U.S. will “do things with other countries” and later ask for reimbursement, like assisting with military services.

Trump has decided not to attend the annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner, since members of the media just “make stories up.” It would be inappropriate for him to go to the dinner “in light of the fact of fake news,” he said. The “Fox and Friends” hosts even asked the president to give himself a grade based on his performance so far. He gave himself an A for achievement, but only a C for his ability to get his message out to the people.

Trump will address Congress for the first time on Tuesday night, and at least one Democrat has said he will not greet Trump when he enters the House floor. Representative Eliot L. Engel has shaken the president’s hand at every presidential address to Congress for almost 30 years, but said he will not do so this year, citing policy differences.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Believes Obama is Behind the Protests and White House Leaks appeared first on Law Street.

Tom Perez, the former Secretary of Labor, was elected the Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman today, beating Representative Keith Ellison in a second round of run off voting. In that second round, Perez garnered 235 votes to Ellison’s 200 to win.

Perez is the first Hispanic chair of the DNC, and was a speculated pick for Hillary Clinton’s Vice Presidential nominee. In addition to Perez and Ellison, contenders included Jehmu Greene (a Democratic strategist from Texas), Jamie Harrison (chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party), Sally Boynton Brown (president of the Association of State Democratic Party Executive Directors and Idaho Democratic Party Executive Director), Peter Peckarsky (a Wisconsin lawyer), and Samuel Ronan (a 2016 candidate for the Ohio State House of Representatives). Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, dropped out before the voting began.

After Perez won, he appointed Ellison as his deputy during his acceptance speech, saying: “I would like to begin by making a motion, it is a motion that I have discussed with a good friend, and his name is Keith Ellison.” While the role is largely symbolic, it represented a nod to the close race between the two leaders.

Some saw the competition between Perez and Ellison as symbolic of the party’s internal struggle after losing the 2016 general election. The contentious primary battle between Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders left a sour taste in many Democrats’ mouths. In this DNC race, Perez represented the establishment. In contrast, Ellison represented the more left-wing side inspired by Sanders.

But, it’s important to note that Perez and Ellison were largely complimentary of each other in most public appearances, and stayed away from anything petty. And they made sure to note that they were friends–including when they got together for dinner 10 days before the vote.

We’re friends. It’s ok. https://t.co/xdllbgFN9S

— Rep. Keith Ellison (@keithellison) February 16, 2017

Perez now has a hefty task before him–especially given the criticism and resignation of former DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz during the 2016 primaries. As protests and activism against President Donald Trump’s rule continue to grow, Perez will be in charge of, at least in part, leading the Democratic Party forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tom Perez Elected DNC Chair Over Keith Ellison appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Wednesday–it’s the middle of the week! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Republicans Silence Elizabeth Warren for Reading Letter by Coretta Scott King

Last night, Senator Elizabeth Warren protested Senator Jeff Sessions, who is expected to be confirmed as the U.S. Attorney General today. When she started reading a letter written by Martin Luther King Jr.’s wife, Coretta Scott King, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell abruptly interrupted her and said that it “impugned the motives and conduct” of Sessions. McConnell invoked rule XIX, which prohibits senators from implying that another senator could be unworthy of his post. The incident ended with 49 Republican senators voting to prohibit Warren from talking about Sessions until his nomination process is done.

.@SenWarren cut off as @SenateMajLdr says she “impugned the motives” of Jeff Sessions by quoting Coretta Scott King https://t.co/UHcNv2eia8 pic.twitter.com/tntBWZ4oxc

— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) February 8, 2017

King wrote the letter opposing Sessions when he was nominated for a federal judgeship in the 1980s. Part of it reads, “Mr. Sessions has used the awesome powers of his office in a shabby attempt to intimidate and frighten elderly black voters.” But McConnell’s silencing of Warren seems to have inspired many–the hashtag #ShePersisted began trending to praise Warren.

Attention Women! Please Share! #RESIST #PERSIST #ShePersisted pic.twitter.com/OzO5o2D6LB

— Liz Thurmond (@countmystars) February 8, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

There’s no doubt that there are a lot of celebrities who are missing President Barack Obama: his effortless cool drew big names to the White House during his 8-year tenure. Now Chance the Rapper, the 23-year old hip-hop star, has taken his Obama appreciation to the next level, modeling for a new fashion line  named “Thank You Obama.”

I’m a model now. #ThankUObama droppin in like 15 minutes. ThankUObama.us pic.twitter.com/Y7jOHKzRam

— Lil Chano From 79th (@chancetherapper) February 2, 2017

The line, from Chicago designer Joe Freshgoods, includes hoodies and tees showing appreciation for the Obama family. In addition to “Thank You Obama” and “Thank You Michelle” clothing, the line also includes a “Malia” t-shirt that includes the message “We all smoke, it’s OK” (a reference to a video of the Obama daughter that sparked some controversy).

Freshgoods wrote about his motivation to start the line on the site:

With this project I wanted to timestamp a period in my life where I felt like I can do whatever I wanted to do and be whatever I wanted to be. The night Obama won his first term gave me so much hope, especially & most importantly as a black man. I decided to make a collection saying “thank you” and give me something to smile at every now and then when I look in the closet.

The ties between Chance and the former president run pretty deep: Chance’s father, Ken Williams-Bennett, served as Obama’s state director when he was a senator. And it appears Obama is a fan, as he cited Chance as one of the “top rappers in the game” in an interview last October. The fellow Chicago native was also tapped to perform at the White House Tree Lighting Ceremony this past December, and was an attendee at Obama’s goodbye party.

Look up Kensli, say cheese!

A photo posted by Chance The Rapper (@chancetherapper) on Dec 31, 2016 at 4:11pm PST

If you’re looking for a fashionable way to show off your gratitude to the former First Family, you can check out the line at thankuobama.us.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Chance the Rapper Models a New Line of Obama Appreciation Gear appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: today marks the beginning of #BlackHistoryMonth. Twitter created a special bot to highlight the occasion, where you learn facts, see content from black creators, and learn about events near you. Check it out, and then read on for today’s rants!

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump’s Pick For the Supreme Court: Neil Gorsuch

President Donald Trump’s choice for the vacant Supreme Court seat is Judge Neil Gorsuch, a conservative who has similar views to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Gorsuch, 49, has clerked for two Supreme Court Justices and spent time in D.C. when he was younger; his mother was a high-level official under President Ronald Reagan. He began his legal career by practicing law in D.C. for a decade. Gorsuch is an originalist, which essentially means he believes in interpreting the Constitution as its words were originally understood.

President Trump picks Antonin Scalia 2.0 https://t.co/9MTVuUZtV2 pic.twitter.com/cu1mGkPWAJ

— POLITICO (@politico) February 1, 2017

Now, Republicans are very happy to potentially gain a new conservative justice. But it is likely that Senate Democrats will filibuster, as the Republicans refused to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, for the position for almost a year. Cue more drama.

via GIPHY

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 1, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Today is inauguration day, and Donald Trump is officially our president. But that doesn’t mean that everyone is on board–Trump remains divisive on many issues, including climate change. Now that it’s official that 2016 was the warmest year on record, hopefully Trump and company will start listening to the scientists on this one. Read on for the last rants of the week!

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Today’s the Day…

Today is the presidential inauguration of Donald J. Trump. Almost 1 million people are there to witness the transfer of power and there have already been clashes between protesters and supporters. Last night police had to use pepper spray to keep protesters at bay as they filled up the area outside the National Press Club, where the pre-inaugural ball, nicknamed the “DeploraBall,” took place. There were at least four fights between protesters and guests attending the ball and people threw water bottles and debris.

Powerful Movement for Black Lives has kept this #inauguration access checkpoint shut down for hours. pic.twitter.com/7FvsAu3u9u

— #DisruptJ20 (@DisruptJ20) January 20, 2017

Trump spent the night in the Blair House, located across the street from the White House, and went to church in the morning for a short prayer service. The inaugural program started at 11 a.m. At 3 p.m. the inauguration parade will begin, which is expected to last for about 90 minutes, making it the shortest one on record. Overall, the affair may end up being notably low key. Trump has had a hard time finding artists to perform at the ceremony itself, and Trump’s team has aimed to keep the prices of inaugural ball tickets low so that they’re accessible to working class people.

It all begins today! I will see you at 11:00 A.M. for the swearing-in. THE MOVEMENT CONTINUES – THE WORK BEGINS!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 20, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

There’s only one day left before the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump. The other day it was confirmed that the Girl Scouts will be there and the announcement led to some backlash for the group. But hopefully, things will run smoothly.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Obama’s Last Press Conference

Yesterday, President Barack Obama held his last White House press conference as POTUS. He said that he’s willing to openly oppose Donald Trump if there is any “systematic discrimination,” and he’ll speak up if he feels that America’s core values are at stake. Obama also defended his decision to commute Chelsea Manning’s sentence and said he’s proud to have contributed to advances in LGBT rights. He elected not to comment on the Democratic politicians who are boycotting Trump’s inauguration.

Obama spoke about diversity and said he thinks the U.S. will see more presidents of color, as well as a female president, Latino president, Jewish president, Hindu president, you name it. “Who knows who we are going to have. I suspect we will have a whole bunch of mixed up presidents at some point that nobody really knows what to call them,” he said.

“You’re not supposed to be sycophants — you’re supposed to be skeptics,” said Obama https://t.co/B1of0UBbGP

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) January 18, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Uh oh, today is Friday the 13th. Enjoy the end of your week, but if you’re superstitious, be careful! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Samantha Bee Takes on Bo Bice’s Popeyes Drama

Samantha Bee introduced a new phenomenon to her viewers on Wednesday night: apparently a lot of white men in the U.S. are now experiencing “racism” and “harassment.” One example is former American Idol contestant Bo Bice, who was called a “racial slur” when he recently ordered some fried chicken at a Popeyes in an Atlanta airport. Bee hypothesized about what he could have been called, but it turns out he was just called “white boy” by one employee. Bice took this incident so personally that he broke down in tears during a Fox News segment. He also wrote an excessively long Facebook status in which he called the incident “racist behavior,” threatened legal action, tagged the local TV news station, and managed to get the young girl who worked at Popeye’s suspended from work. And in the interview with Fox News he said, “America, you should be ashamed!” Well Bo, here’s Bee’s full rant in response:

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 13, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Last night, Obama gave his last speech as POTUS, and today, Trump held his first news conference in 167 days. Read on to find out what they said! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Obama’s Moving Farewell Speech

Last night, President Barack Obama gave his last speech before leaving the White House, and it’s safe to say that there was not a dry eye in the place. Though he admitted that his job hasn’t been easy, and that he’s seen a lot of setbacks, he hasn’t lost hope. Obama urged his supporters to not give in to fear, guard their values, and be open-minded. The crowd cheered loudly enough to drown out his words, and when he paid tribute to Michelle, many people stood up. “You took on a role you didn’t ask for and made it your own with grace and grit and style and good humor,” he said, wiping his eyes. And of course he mentioned his BFF, VP Joe Biden, and said, “You were the first decision I made as a nominee, and it was the best, not just because you have been a great Vice President, but because in the bargain I gained a brother.”

But where was his youngest daughter, Sasha, during all of this? It turns out that she missed the speech because it was a school night and she had a test in the morning. Now that’s discipline!

#WhereIsSasha Hopefully blocking the driveway to the White House pic.twitter.com/NodjX8x4tB

— Sabra Berger (@SabraBerger) January 11, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 11, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Christmas Prison Break: Six Inmates Escape Through the Toilet

Early Christmas morning, six inmates at a Tennessee jail made a run for it and escaped through a broken toilet. Police captured five of them pretty quickly, but one is still on the loose. David Wayne Frazier is considered the most dangerous escapee and was imprisoned for aggravated robbery and possession of a weapon.

The unusual escape was made possible by a water leak behind a toilet that had damaged the surrounding concrete wall and bolts. The men were able to simply remove the toilet and crawl out through the hole in the wall, according to the Cocke County Sheriff’s office. At least the men got a little bit of freedom on Christmas.

They were able to unscrew and remove the toilet’s bolts, exposing a hole big enough for them to wiggle through https://t.co/oiK4LzvgoA

— New York Post (@nypost) December 26, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 27, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

American intelligence officials say that they have concluded that “Russia acted covertly in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton’s chances and promote Donald J. Trump.”

There’s still a lot that is unclear about the hacks. According to the same senior officials, Russians also hacked into the RNC, in addition to the DNC, but apparently never released any information they found there. The intelligence officials also have said that many of the hacked documents were given to WikiLeaks for dissemination. According to the Washington Post:

The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now ‘quite clear’ that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

This is all concerning news, but what may be most concerning is that President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t seem to care. Trump slammed the CIA over these reports, saying:

These are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. The election ended a long time ago in one of the biggest Electoral College victories in history. It’s now time to move on and ‘Make America Great Again.’

It’s important to note that Trump’s assertion is not exactly true–most of the officials that claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction are long gone. And Trump continues to deny that Russia could have been involved in his win.

Putin got just what he wanted: Trump as POTUS and America turning against itself over this intrusion rather than standing together vs Russia

— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) December 10, 2016

Obama ordered an investigation into Russian involvement in the general election, and Russia denies any wrongdoing. Hopefully further investigations will answer some of these questions.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Intelligence Officials Say Russia Worked to Help Trump Win the Election appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Hillary Is Disappointed, and So Are We

Last night Hillary Clinton spoke publicly for the first time since losing the election to Donald Trump. She has stayed out of the public eye since last Tuesday but speaking at a Children’s Defense Fund event in Washington, she said “I know many of you are deeply disappointed about the results of the election. I am, too–more than I can ever express.”

Just watched Hillary Clinton’s speech at the Children’s Defense Fund’s awards ceremony. Oh America. You made a monumental mistake.

— kc wildmoon (@wildmoon) November 17, 2016

“There have been a few times this past week when all I wanted to do was just to curl up with a good book or our dogs, and never leave the house again,” she said. We feel the same, Hillz.

via GIPHY

But she ended on a positive note, saying that America is still the greatest country in the world, and: “This is still the place where anyone can beat the odds. It’s up to each and every one of us to keep working to make America better and stronger and fairer.”

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 17, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Obama’s European Trip is all About Trump

This morning, Obama arrived in Europe for his last visit as president. And he has a tough job while he’s there—-to try to convince European politicians that Trump isn’t as bad as everyone thinks. Many leaders in European countries are very worried about what could happen during a Trump presidency, especially since nationalist movements using similar language have gained ground in a few different countries.

We warmly welcome in Athens @POTUS Barack Obama. A meeting of great importance for our country and Europe. pic.twitter.com/M0pe0sPr3O

— Alexis Tsipras (@tsipras_eu) November 15, 2016

Obama is starting off in Greece today and will head to Germany tomorrow. “I believe that European integration is one of the greatest political and economic achievements of modern times, with benefits for EU members, the United States and the entire world,” he said to a Greek newspaper.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 15, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

After last week’s poll-defying election results, half of Americans were left stunned and feeling a bit like they’d just been cast in a Doomsday movie. Luckily meme connoisseur Josh Billinson, was there to deliver some much needed comedic relief.

Billinson, who goes by the handle @jbillinson on Twitter, created a series of viral memes with a hilarious take on Vice President Joe Biden’s response to a Trump presidency. In them Biden comes up with some pretty devious plans to prank President-elect Donald Trump before he moves into the White House, while President Obama does his best to stop him.  Pretty soon other users began creating their own takes on the trend, resulting in some of the best internet memes, ever!

So if you need a political pick-me-up or are feeling nostalgic over the end of America’s favorite bromance, then check out a collection of the best Biden/Obama memes below:

Obama: “They just called it for Trump, he won”
Biden: “Well I’m not going to call him President, ever! Not even if there’s a fire!” pic.twitter.com/eeRIMuHyEO

— Josh (@jbillinson) November 10, 2016

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Memes of Biden Trolling Trump Are Helping Us Laugh Away Our Tears appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

You Guys Ok?: Republicans Are Flipping Out

With one week to go until the election, team Trump is finding new ways to provoke people. On Monday night the hashtag #HillaryForPrision trended among people who want to see Hillary locked up. The word “prison” was misspelled to avoid detection by Twitter’s “censors”–the users employing the hashtag claim Twitter is trying to silence their opinions. Smart move, Republicans?

#HillaryForPrison Has been blocked by Twitter, so use the hashtag #HillaryForPrision!

— Democrats for Trump (@YoungDems4Trump) October 31, 2016

Please tell me again HOW she’s still allowed to run for President? 2 FBI criminal investigations? Seriously? #HillaryForPrision

— Heather Ross (@RealHeatherRoss) October 31, 2016

Also, during a rally in Las Vegas on Sunday, Trump supporter Wayne Allyn Root basically wished for the deaths of Clinton and Huma Abedin by comparing them with the movie characters Thelma and Louise. Hint: the movie ends with them driving their car off a cliff.

via GIPHY

And lastly, someone dumped a huge truckload of cow poop outside the Democratic Party headquarters in Lebanon, Ohio on Saturday. Can this election get any crappier?

Pile of manure dumped in front of Warren County Democratic Party HQ early today https://t.co/3QOOjyrfpV pic.twitter.com/MvwZwZwpzK

— Ohio_Politics (@Ohio_Politics) October 29, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 1, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

By the year 2040, whites will most likely no longer occupy the largest share of the American population. That is, 2040 is the year some demographers are pointing to as the year the longstanding majority will become the minority. Though that day is still decades away, it looms over the 2016 election like a slowly approaching tidal wave, its implications, for some at least, clear and discomforting.

2016 and Changing Demographics

The presidential candidates from both major parties, Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton, have addressed America’s changing demographics in different ways. Clinton has pointedly targeted the communities that will make up the bulk of the U.S. electorate during the second half of the 21st century, the communities that carried her then-opponent Barack Obama to victory in 2008. Trump has taken a different tactic, by vilifying minority communities, or largely ignoring them, and squaring his message at working-class whites, the largest share of the electorate in 2016.

It’s no secret that the top two options on the ballot hardly stir the passions of Americans. Both have record-low favorability ratings. For some minority communities, Trump’s scathing rhetoric might push them to vote against him. For others, long memories of Clinton (and her husband, President Bill Clinton) could sap any motivation to vote for either candidate, especially in black communities.

Black Voters

“There is a sense of ambivalence and agitation in many parts of the black community,” Michael Fauntroy, associate professor of political science at Howard University said at a Brookings Institute event on Wednesday. “Some are still angry at Clinton over [the 2008 election], and upset at President [Bill] Clinton over welfare reform or the crime bill.”

But hesitating to vote for the Democratic nominee–since 1936, black voters have overwhelmingly voted Democratic–does not mean they’ll flip to the Republican side. According to Fauntroy, who wrote a book called “Republicans and the Black Vote,” Barry Goldwater, the divisive Republican nominee in 1964, netted 6 percent of the black vote. Trump is currently polling at 2 percent.

Fauntroy repeated a question Trump himself has asked the black community: what do you have to lose? “African Americans have quite a bit to lose depending on the outcome of this election,” Fauntroy said, ticking off the potential losses that could accompany a Trump presidency: health coverage, access to unemployment benefits, and quality education.

Hispanic Voters

The reality in Hispanic communities is a bit different. Trump has aimed his ire directly at those communities, calling Mexicans “rapists” and pledging to build a “big, beautiful wall” along the U.S.-Mexico border. His tough rhetoric on deporting illegal immigrants has left a mark as well. “Parents are sending me emails about children coming home crying because classmates are telling them they’ll get deported when Donald Trump is president,” Maria Teresa Kumar, CEO of Voto Latino, said at the Brookings event. “The problem is that 99 percent of these kids are American born.”

Hispanic communities also don’t have the same history with the Clintons as black communities. Kumar noted how the 1990s were a largely prosperous time for Latinos. In 2012, 71 percent of hispanics voted for Obama. But since then, the crop of eligible Latino voters has grown, as those of voting age increases, and will continue to in the coming decades. At the moment, there are 27 million Latinos eligible to vote. That number is expected to grow by 17 million by 2032.

Challenges for the GOP

For Republicans, the voting trends are troubling. In 2012, at least 70 percent of African-Americans (93), Hispanics (71), and Asians (73) voted for Obama. With the 2016 electorate on track to be the most diverse ever–and future electorates are sure to be even more diverse–the GOP needs to prove it is the party for all communities–not just white ones.

“How do you make meaningful inroads in communities of color?” said Ron Christie, a special assistant to George W. Bush said at the Brookings event. A “conservative Republican,” Christie admonished Trump’s attempt at capturing the black vote by showing up at a church in Detroit: “Last time I checked, not all black folks go to church, and not all black folks show up in Detroit,” he said.

Christie pointed to John Kasich, who he worked for as a senior advisor in the nineties, as a successful example of Republican black outreach. Kasich carried 27 percent of the black vote during his successful bid for Governor of Ohio in 2010, Christie said. How? “John Kasich doesn’t talk to black people like they’re black people,” he said. “[Kasich] didn’t just focus on crime, welfare, and job training. It’s the soft bigotry of low expectations that President George W. Bush famously talked about that John Kasich has done so well in.”

Instead, Christie said, Kasich focused on the issues that matter to all Americans, regardless of their race: safe schools, safe communities, and well-paying jobs. “There is no monolithic entity as the African-American community. We’re all individuals,” Christie said.

Asian-American Voters

In the midst of America’s evolving racial make-up is its fastest growing community: Asian-Americans. A diverse constituency made up of dozens of nationalities, languages, and cultures, Asian-Americans have been largely ignored by both parties. “We’re not usually counted in exit polls, political parties don’t make any investment in terms of outreach to us,” Deepa Iyer, a South Asian American activist, writer, and lawyer, said at Brookings. “This needs to change because we are flexing our political muscle.”

There are currently 18 million Asian-Americans of voting age, Iyer said. Asian-Americans–with roots from the Middle East, from the Far East, from Southeast Asia, from India–are different than other minority communities in that they have not been historically tied to one party or the other. In the nineties, they leaned Republican, today, they tend to vote Democratic.

Iyer sees 2016 as a unique moment in American history, one in which the very question of what being an American means is at stake. “It is fundamentally a struggle about justice, equity, and belonging,” she said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Changing America: What Role Will Minority Voters Play in 2016 and Beyond? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Gas Station-Country Club…Oxymoron?

Ah yes. You know what’s missing from your life? A luxury gas station outfitted with a waterpark, steakhouse, and designer clothing boutique, of course! In the high society town of Greenwich, Connecticut plans are being made to build a convenience store for the super rich. If your household net worth is $50 million or more, you can sign up for this country club-bodega fusion that features sleeping suites, a medical clinic, and gas pumps to fuel your equally expensive vehicle.

Not surprisingly, this move has caused left some people with a bad taste in their mouths:

@deep_beige what a coincidence, luxury gas house is what i call my asshole

— Davis (@alienjello) September 13, 2016

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 14, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

A recently discovered parasite that lives in turtles’ blood has been named after our president–as an honor. Baracktrema obamai is the official name of this thin two-inch parasitic flatworm that was discovered and named by biology professor Thomas Platt. And his explanation as to why he picked the name is the best part of the whole story: “It’s long. It’s thin. And it’s cool as hell.”

Platt, who is actually a fifth cousin of Obama, just retired from Saint Mary’s College in Indiana so this is his last scientific achievement. He has previously found more than 30 species, and named most of them after people he respects and wants to honor.

Obama is now officially a parasite (it’s an honor) as biologists name worm after POTUS: https://t.co/E2U4NjurIF pic.twitter.com/IseWTD74gw

— AP Politics (@AP_Politics) September 8, 2016

Platt says Baracktrema obamai “are phenomenally incredibly resilient organisms. I hold them in awe and with phenomenal respect.”

The little creature is 30 to 50 times longer than it is wide and has “post-cecal terminal genitalia.” The turtles that host it live in Southeast Asia, where Obama wrapped up a visit on Thursday.

Obama also has a hairworm, a spider, a lichen, a fish, and an extinct lizard named after him.

Biologist Michael Sukhedo, editor of the journal where Platt’s study appears, told the AP: “Parasites are cool, crucial to life and all around us.” Although most of them are named as an honor to someone, sometimes they’ve been named for revenge. Sukhedo said that one biologist named a whole category of parasites after her ex-husband: microphallus.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Newly Discovered Parasite Named After Obama, Since It’s “Cool As Hell” appeared first on Law Street.

Rudy Giuliani set Twitter aflame on Monday when, speaking at a Donald Trump event in Ohio, he said: “Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States.” Attempting to contrast terrorism in America under Obama and Bush, Giuliani instead left people confused and angry–obviously, the famed 9/11 attacks happened before Obama’s presidency, during Bush’s time in office.

But let’s assume Giuliani did not mean exactly what he said. Not only was he the mayor of New York City at the time of 9/11, but he also spent a good portion of his speech on Monday discussing 9/11. It’s fairly obvious he didn’t simply forget about that gruesome day. So then, in light of Giuliani’s remarks, we decided to take a look at how terrorism has changed from the Bush years to the Obama years. Have there been more or fewer attacks? More fatalities? Injuries? Apart from omitting 9/11, was Giuliani really that far off the mark?

Rudy Giuliani is under fire for his terror comments https://t.co/bhPwVFWWTl https://t.co/FVi8coPezm

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) August 16, 2016

Number of Attacks

First of all, let’s define terrorism. The Global Terrorism Database (GTD) compiles statistical information regarding global terrorist attacks since 1970. GTD defines a terrorist attack as “the threatened or actual use of illegal force and violence by a non‐state actor to attain a political, economic, religious, or social goal through fear, coercion, or intimidation.”

According to the database, from 2001 to 2008, when Bush held the White House, there were 168 total terrorist attacks in the United States. From 2009 to 2015 (the database does not include data for 2016), under Obama, there were 137 total terrorist attacks. Of course, that figure does not include 2016 attacks, so it’s unclear if by the end of 2016 the number of attacks under Obama will be higher than those that took place under Bush.

Severity of Attacks

Four attacks happened on September 11, 2001 that resulted in more fatalities and injuries than all other terrorist attacks in U.S. history combined: the two World Trade Center buildings in New York City were taken down by hijacked airplanes, killing 2,764 people and injuring scores more; another hijacked airplane hit the Pentagon, killing 189 and injuring 106; a fourth airplane was taken down in a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing all 44 passengers onboard. All of this happened under President Bush, a point Giuliani did not mention when he said “we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States” before Obama.

Due to the 9/11 attacks, the total number of casualties and injuries under Bush are much, much higher than those under Obama and every other U.S. president combined. According to GTD, 37 of the 137 terrorist attacks during Obama’s presidency resulted in at least one death, with 114 fatalities overall. Thirty-three of the 137 attacks resulted in at least one injury, with 546 people injured overall. Under Bush, 13 of the 168 attacks resulted in at least one death (including the four 9/11 attacks), and 17 of 168 attacks resulted in at least one injury.

So to recap: fatal terrorist attacks have been more frequent under Obama than Bush, but the 9/11 attacks resulted in heavy casualties, by far the most in U.S. history, under Bush’s or anyone else’s administration.

Motivation Behind Attacks

With the spread of the Islamic State and its ideology, attacks inspired by “radical Islam” dominate our definition of what a terrorist attack means. Giuliani–and Trump, who gave a speech on foreign policy following Giuliani’s remarks–mentioned “radical Islamic terrorism” time and time again. But even considering Islamic-inspired attacks other than 9/11–which was masterminded and executed by al-Qaeda operatives–Giuliani’s statement is not exactly accurate, though it is close.

The most striking example of “radical Islamic terrorism” under Bush, other than 9/11, came in March 2006, when a man drove his SUV through the University of North Carolina’s Chapel Hill campus. There were no casualties, but nine people were injured. In a letter written by attacker Mohammed Taheri-Azar, he stated his motive as avenging the deaths of Muslims around the world. He listed a 9/11 hijacker as one of his heroes. Another prominent attack motivated by radical Islam came in December 2001, when Richard Reid, or the “shoe bomber” boarded a plane in Miami with explosives in his shoe. The bomb failed to detonate, so nobody was hurt.

this fire truck in nyc must have melted itself, according to rudy giuliani pic.twitter.com/2BZrG84k9Z

— Oliver Willis (@owillis) August 15, 2016

By contrast, when Obama took office in 2009, the United States was entrenched in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. His withdrawal from those wars, coupled with the Arab Spring protests that deposed strongmen in Egypt and Tunisia, led to power vacuums in many corners of the Middle East. Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and Yemen are currently in turmoil, overrun with extremist groups: ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, al-Shabaab, and others. Since 2014, ISIS has been the  number one exporter of worldwide terror. Its soldiers have directly attacked cities in Europe–including Nice and Paris in France; Brussels, Belgium; and four cities in Germany a few weeks ago. Meanwhile, U.S. citizens inspired by ISIS’s radical ideology have hit cities across America–Orlando, Florida; San Bernardino, California; the Fort Hood military post in Killeen, Texas.

All told, the context with which Obama’s administration has operated in is vastly different than the period between 2001 and 2008 when Bush was in the White House. The threats Bush faced and those Obama currently faces are vastly different. When Giuliani said “under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States,” on Monday, he was wrong. Not just because he neglected to include 9/11, the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history by far. But also because there were other terrorist attacks under Bush’s watch, even a few that were carried out under a “radical Islamic” ideology. However, terrorist acts committed under the auspices of Islamic radicalism are on the rise and are certainly more prevalent in the Obama years.

2015 and 2016 were outliers in the last three to four decades in terrorism-caused deaths in America and elsewhere in the West. According to a New York Times analysis of GTD data since 1970, terrorism in the West was worse in the 1970s and 80s than it is today, though it is on the rise. Terrorism remains a greater source of deaths in the Middle East and Africa, however, though that number has been decreasing in recent years.

Rudy Giuliani, mayor of NYC during 9/11, said there were no successful terror attacks before Obama got in office.

Son, he is out his mind.

— brandon jenkins (@Jersey_Jinx) August 16, 2016

And in an interview with the New York Daily News on Tuesday, Giuliani blamed his omission of 9/11 on “abbreviated language.” He vowed to continue his shorthand way, saying, “will I again say things in the future that can be taken out of context or misinterpreted? Of course I will.” He added, “I didn’t forget 9/11. I hardly would. I almost died in it.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fact-checking Rudy Giuliani: U.S. Terrorism Under Obama and Bush appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump is now trying to take back his repeated claims that President Obama “founded ISIS” by calling it sarcasm, which only proves he doesn’t even know what sarcasm means. On Friday he tweeted:

Ratings challenged @CNN reports so seriously that I call President Obama (and Clinton) “the founder” of ISIS, & MVP. THEY DON’T GET SARCASM?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 12, 2016

This comes after his statement at a rally on Wednesday saying Obama was the founder of ISIS. On Thursday, radio show host Hugh Hewitt tried to clarify what Trump meant by asking if he simply meant that the Obama administration created the vacuum where ISIS could thrive. But he doubled down on his conclusion that Obama founded ISIS.

When Hewitt kept questioning him, saying that Obama is actually fighting ISIS, Trump’s clever answer was “I don’t care. He was the founder.”

The journalist Christopher Hayes joked on Twitter about Trump’s insistence.

INTERVIEWER: You mean, metaphoric–
TRUMP: No literally
INTERVIEWER: But, he didn’t *actually*–
TRUMP: No, actually. Obama is Baghdadi

— Christopher Hayes (@chrislhayes) August 11, 2016

Trump went on to say that Hillary Clinton also was an important player in the creation of ISIS, which caused her to react on Twitter, saying:

It can be difficult to muster outrage as frequently as Donald Trump should cause it, but his smear against President Obama requires it.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) August 11, 2016

She also tweeted, “Anyone willing to sink so low, so often, should never be allowed to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.”

But what Trump is now criticizing Obama for is actually what he himself wanted. He claimed Obama caused ISIS to flourish by withdrawing American troops from Iraq in 2011. But he didn’t mention that he also wanted to get out of Iraq as early as in 2007.

In an interview with CNN that year he said, “There’s nothing that we’re going to be able to do with a civil war. They are in a major civil war.” Trump has actually expressed this view several times on the record, statements he seems to have forgotten about.

Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski captured it like this:

Trump Iraq timeline:
2002: Supports the war
2004: Against the war
2008: Withdraw the troops
2016: Obama founded ISIS when he withdrew troops

— andrew kaczynski (@BuzzFeedAndrew) August 11, 2016

Trump’s latest utterance caused a lot of reactions on social media, particularly as this mini-scandal follows a remarkably familiar pattern.

THE WEEK IN TRUMP

Tues: Kill Hillary, please.
Wed: LOL, JK
Thurs: Obama founded an anti-American terrorist group, literally.
Fri: LOL, JK

— Heather Hogan (@hhoagie) August 12, 2016

A lot of people are saying Trump literally doesn’t know what day it is. A lot of people are saying. I don’t know. You tell me.

— Ana Marie Cox (@anamariecox) August 11, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Claims Calling Obama the Founder of ISIS was Sarcasm appeared first on Law Street.

This year, Law Street Media is attending both the RNC and DNC conventions, and bringing Law Street readers the inside scoop. We’ll be doing day-by-day rundowns and exclusive features. Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and Snapchat for even more content.

Here’s a look at the third day of the festivities, courtesy of Law Street reporters Alexis Evans and Anneliese Mahoney:

Big Tech Presence at DNC

Several tech companies, including Facebook, Twitter, and Microsoft, set up shop inside the Wells Fargo Center for the Democratic National Convention. The arena quickly turned into an analytics lover’s paradise, as each company seemingly competed for the award for biggest data tech screen.

Microsoft Station Courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

#TweetShop Courtesy of Alexis Evans for Law Street Media

Pokémon Go Break

In between speeches I had time to quickly catch a cp 36 Rattata that was hiding in a camera guys lap. Hey, Ash told me I “gotta catch em’ all” right?

Image Courtesy of Alexis Evans for Law Street Media

Bernie Protesters Take Over the Media Tent…Again

For the second night in a row, protesters took over the media tent. They were protesting the fact that Nina Turner, a Sanders’ delegate and backer, was allegedly blocked from being one of Sanders’ nominators.

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

A few celebrities even joined the protest, including Danny Glover, Susan Sarandon, and Rosario Dawson.

Image courtesy of Anneliese Mahoney for Law Street Media

Gun Violence Theme

There was a strong gun violence theme day three at the convention. Democrats called upon the mother of one of the Pulse nightclub victims in Orlando, the daughter of  the slain Sandy Hook Elementary principal, two of the three survivors from the Mother Emanuel Church shooting in Charleston, SC, and Gabby Giffords to rally support against the gun lobby.

Watch Christine Leinonen, mother of Pulse victim Christopher “Drew” Leinonen, give an emotional plea for gun control below:

Christine Leinonen’s son died in the Orlando shooting; she made an emotional plea about gun control at the @DNCinPHLhttps://t.co/OzFmhuMCWR

— Business Insider (@businessinsider) July 28, 2016

Joe Biden Loves the Word Malarkey

Biden made a clear case against Donald Trump last night, calling out the Republican nominee’s “malarkey” and “you’re fired” catchphrase.

VP Joe Biden calls out Donald Trump’s ‘malarkey,’ says he ‘has no clue.’ https://t.co/ZlJFcMn4hn #DemConvention https://t.co/CaVzWLXtob

— ABC News (@ABC) July 28, 2016

Tim Kaine Became the DNC’s Dad

When Hillary’s VP first stepped onto the DNC stage Wednesday night, he was still a relatively unknown senator from Virginia to many Americans. But thanks to some smooth Spanish, hilarious “believe me” Trump impersonations, and corny Dad jokes, Tim Kaine quickly won over the crowd–becoming the DNC’s newly appointed dad. Here are some of Twitter’s best dad jokes during Kaine’s speech:

Tim Kaine absolutely SCOURED Consumer Reports to get the BEST car seat for his kid

— Charlie Warzel (@cwarzel) July 28, 2016

Tim Kaine is your friend’s dad who catches you smoking weed at a sleepover and doesn’t rat you out but talks to you about brain development

— PJ Vogt (@PJVogt) July 28, 2016

Tim Kaine just wants one word alone with your prom date.

— Jordan Weissmann (@JHWeissmann) July 28, 2016

Tim Kaine really wants you to have a good time at this party but would ask that you just remember to use a coaster!!!!!!

— Kevin O’Keeffe (@kevinpokeeffe) July 28, 2016

Tim Kaine comes off as that super goofy high school teacher who always made terrible jokes and is also the reason you got to go to college.

— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) July 28, 2016

Obama and Hillary Hug

Unlike Monday and Tuesday, every seat in the stadium was filled in anticipation for the president’s speech Wednesday night–and he sure delivered. Obama warned the American public against electing Trump, declaring “America is already great!” Obama stated,”Our power doesn’t come from some self-declared savior promising that he alone can restore order. We don’t look to be ruled.” 

Obama then gave a strong endorsement of his formal rival saying,

I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman–not me, not Bill, nobody–more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as President of the United States of America.

At the conclusion of Obama’s speech, Hillary surprised the audience by joining him onstage for a warm embrace. Looks like some rivals can truly become friends.

Hillary Clinton joins President Obama on DNC stage after his speech #DemsInPhilly pic.twitter.com/fQOhrPd2aT

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) July 28, 2016

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s up at the DNC?: Law Street’s Day 3 Coverage appeared first on Law Street.

After FBI director James Comey announced that the FBI would not recommend charges against Hillary Clinton for her private email use, the former Secretary of State took the stage in Charlotte, North Carolina with President Obama. Obama announced his endorsement of Secretary Clinton shortly before she secured the Democratic nomination. Tuesday’s appearance was the first time the two Democrats campaigned together, and President Obama has already managed to breathe some much  needed life back into Clinton’s campaign.

Hillary sells herself as a savvy politician with practical solutions for the country–which can often translate onstage as being a little too analytical. In other words, Hillary majorly lacks the fun factor. That’s where our beatboxing, b-balling, belting, boogie-busting Barack-in-Chief comes in.

Obama’s infectious energy and smoothness help round out Hillary’s campaign. It’s kinda like when your mom tricks you into eating your vegetables by disguising them as fun shapes–or when “Blackfish” got a little boring so they threw in some cool animations to explain just how depressed orcas are.

President Obama was able to provide the yin to Clinton’s yang. Clinton’s speech was full of tongue-in-cheek remarks about how the two politicians were fierce primary rivals eight years ago, including strange anecdotes about their diplomatic travels during Obama’s first term.

When Obama took the stage, the energy in the room built to a fever pitch. Obama chanted “Hill-a-ry! Hill-a-ry!” with the crowd. Like a deft stand up comedian, Obama cracked some jokes about North Carolina food, hospitality, and had a back-and-fourth with the audience comparing basketball teams.

Much like DJ Khaled at the beginning of a Beyoncé concert, Obama did some call-and-response chants to feed the energy of the crowd. “Hillary got me fired up,” he kept repeating. Then he laid out his case for Hillary. Even though almost every word that he said was about Secretary Clinton, from the moment he stepped into the convention center, it was the Obama show.

Watch President Obama and Secretary Clinton’s remarks below:

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama the Hype Man: Bringing the “Fun Factor” to Clinton’s Campaign appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to the RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through the top five controversial and crazy stories in the world of law and policy each day. So who is ranting and who is raving today? Check it out below:

President Obama Schools Us On The Term “Populism”

At a press conference last night involving Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, President Enrique Pena Nieto, and our president, Obama went on quite the tangent. He was barely able to contain his frustration with the common perception that Trump is a populist.

Get ready to get schooled with a little lesson in populism, courtesy of Obama:

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 30, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In the same city where 20,000 tons of explosives rained down from American planes during Christmas 1972–killing more than 1,000 civilians–President Barack Obama stood in front of giant American and Vietnamese flags on Monday to announce the severing of a Cold War-era arms embargo between the U.S. and Vietnam. This is Obama’s first visit to the country, and the first leg of a trip in the Pacific.

At a news conference in Hanoi–the communist country’s northern capital on the banks of the Red River–Obama continued his pattern of deepening ties with longstanding U.S. adversaries, and of thawing relations with largely isolated communist regimes such as Cuba and Myanmar.

“The United States is fully lifting the ban on the sale of military equipment to Vietnam that has been in place for some 50 years,” Obama said to a gaggle of Vietnamese and foreign press as he insisted the ban had nothing to do with China. “It was based on our desire to complete what has been a lengthy process of moving toward normalization with Vietnam.”

Critics of the announcement however, namely human rights organizations that view Vietnam as a brutal regime with a horrendous human rights record, contend the move will cede leverage in negotiating with the Vietnamese to reel back their abuses: including jailing journalists, beating dissidents, and maintaining over 100 known political prisoners (Human Rights Watch counts 104, though it acknowledges there are most likely many more).

“The only people who would be happy [with the lifting of the ban] is the Vietnamese government, because [Obama] didn’t address human rights except in a boiler plate paragraph with no names, places or dates, no people, no sense of urgency,” said Brad Adams, Asia Director at Human Rights Watch (HRW) in an interview with Law Street.

According to Adams, the speech occurred on a day that served as a microcosm of Vietnam’s concerning behavior: parliamentary elections (“a rubber stamp affair,” Adams called them) were held as dissidents were rounded up. Obama did not address either in his announcement.

The full lifting of the embargo–which was partially lifted in 2014–is the final step in normalizing relations with the Southeast Asian nation, and in removing a “lingering vestige of the Cold War,” said Obama. Earlier in the trip, Obama made other moves to strengthen ties between his government and that of Tran Dai Quang, Vietnam’s president. Visa restrictions for travelers to either country will be eased, the Peace Corps will station volunteers in the country to teach English, and both Obama and Quang reiterated their commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, or TPP, which is currently stalled in Congress and has failed to obtain the concrete support of any of the three remaining presidential nominees.

Obama’s stated goal in easing arms sales to Vietnam is to allow the country to defend itself amid increasingly volatile times in the region. Its powerful neighbor to the north–China–has shown signs of aggression in a territorial dispute in the South China Sea, where Vietnam, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines jostle over who has the right to the Spratly Islands. In recent months, China has intensified its naval force in the region and has been hard at work in building an island in the hopes of legitimizing its claim.

Disputes over territory in the South China Sea has led to increased tension between China and much of Southeast Asia. Image courtesy of [deedavee easyflow via Flickr]

Though China is publicly supportive of the dissolution of the half century old embargo (officials reportedly hope it will lead to “normal and friendly” relations), a commentary published in the state-run Xinhua News Agency on Sunday hinted at what is perhaps its unofficial, internal view of U.S.-Vietnam relations.

“As a habitual wave-maker in the Asia-Pacific, the United States has shown no restraint in meddling in regional situation, which is evidenced by its relentless moves to disturb peace in the South China Sea,” wrote Xinhua contributor Sun Ding. On the potential embargo lift, which at the time of publishing had not been announced: “The calculating move will serve only Washington’s own strategic purposes as the United States seeks a rebalance in the Asia-Pacific.”

The White House and Vietnam’s government released a joint statement Monday afternoon in regards to the partnership between the two countries, with a section highlighting “promoting human rights and legal reform”:

The United States welcomed Vietnam’s ongoing efforts in improving its legal system and undertaking legal reform in order to better guarantee the human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone in accordance with the 2013 Constitution.

But Adams isn’t convinced that Vietnam is doing anything concrete in regards to safeguarding human rights. Even if the Vietnamese government enacts law changes, it does so to benefit those in power, he said, not for the good of the people. He’s seen mixed reactions from the blogosphere in Vietnam–human rights organizations’ window into the country because they are not allowed on the ground–in regards to Obama’s speech.

Nationalist fervor is gripping Vietnam at the moment, Adams said, and so the people who are focused on the alleged threat from China are happy the embargo was lifted, and progressive liberals in the country are happy with the move as well. Others, he said, think it should have been lifted but with concessions. And while he noted this episode as being entirely about the perceived threat from China, Adams was disappointed in what he saw as a blown opportunity.

“When you have leverage, to just throw it away is unacceptable,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Despite Human Rights Disagreements, Obama Lifts Arms Embargo with Vietnam appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a piece of legislation that would open up the possibility for victims of 9/11 to sue the Saudi government for its alleged involvement in the attacks.

The bill must still be voted on by the House before it is enacted, but the development spells disappointment for the Obama administration. The President expressed his disapproval with the bill last month, saying that allowing lawsuits against other countries was against U.S. policy and could open up the U.S. government to similar claims. The debate has also raised questions about how such lawsuits could impact U.S.-Saudi relations, as the country has already threatened to sell billions of dollars in U.S. assets if the bill goes through.

This isn’t the first time that JASTA has made it to this point; the bill was passed last year by the Senate but was not voted on by the House. It was reintroduced this past September and came to the forefront of the public’s attention last month, after a “60 Minutes” episode looked into potential ties between the 9/11 hijackers and the Saudi government. This scrutiny could potentially offer a better chance for the bill to move forward this year.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who sponsored the bill along with Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), expressed satisfaction with the Senate’s vote. Schumer issued a series of tweets commending the vote for helping bring justice to the victims of the 9/11 attacks and their families.

Today, @JohnCornyn & I are proud to announce we’re one step closer to justice for the victims of the 9/11 terror attacks.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

In their pursuit of justice, 9/11 families were told American law prevented them from pursuing justice against those who funded the attacks.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

These court rulings were backward, illogical, and wrong & now our JASTA bill has passed with unanimous consent from the Senate.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

JASTA will help the 9/11 families seek justice & also serve as a deterrent to other nations who’d assist in terror attacks against Americans

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

Today is a big step forward, but there is work to be done. I urge the House leadership to put JASTA on the floor for a vote immediately.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) May 17, 2016

Schumer denied criticisms that the bill could force the U.S. to face similar lawsuits, telling the Associated Press, “We’re not busy training people to blow up buildings and kill innocent civilians in other countries.”

Despite Schumer’s reassurances, it’s hard to imagine that there won’t ultimately be some blowback from one of our closest allies if the bill does end up becoming a law. It’s just another test for the already-rocky relationship that is the U.S.-Saudi alliance.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Senate Approves Bill To Allow People to Sue Saudi Arabia for 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

After the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, President Obama announced that he would nominate an “indisputably qualified” candidate to take Scalia’s place. Apparently to many House republicans, “indisputable” is indeed, disputable. And while it’s all well and good to take your time evaluating the credentials of a person who could feasibly be making important decisions for the country for the next forty-plus years, refusing outright to look at any nominees is obstructionist nonsense. As with most political nonsense, members of Congress are finding excuses for their actions. Here are a few of their “reasons” behind that un-constitutional garbage, each dumber than the last:

1. The Thurmond Rule

Several GOP candidates have cited “The Thurmond Rule” as a reason to avoid appointing a new justice in an election year. For the unfamiliar, here’s a recap on the person behind The Thurmond rule:

Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina senator, was one of the most aggressive segregationists in modern American history. This is a man who never fully renounced his belief in segregation all the way to his death in 2003. That’s right, iPods existed, and this influential man still didn’t dial back his position that black people and white people should use separate bathrooms. This is a man who impregnated his family’s sixteen year-old black maid, fathered an illegitimate mixed-race daughter, and secretly paid for her schooling while railing against her right to share a bus seat with a white person.  This is a man who makes George Wallace look like Beyoncé Knowles.

So now that we’ve gotten a quick re-cap on the historically heinous opinions of Mr. Thurmond, we can understand just how much weight we should give his opinion on Supreme Court Nominations. And while people refer to Thurmond’s argument as a “rule,” it’s really just one guy’s suggestion. That suggestion is that the Senate should not nominate a Supreme Court justice. And even if we were to take this rule of thumb as the letter of the law, we’d need to look at Thurmond’s exact quote. In a moment where he wasn’t disparaging ethnic minorities, he said: “No lifetime judicial appointments should move in the last six months or so of a lame-duck presidency.”

Barack Obama has over eleven months left in his presidency, and nine months until the presidential election. By any measure, that’s more than six months, and this rule of thumb shouldn’t apply.

2. “Conflict of Interest”

In a cart-before-the-horse argument, Rand Paul said that Obama should not be allowed to appoint a justice, because potential nominees would support the Presidents’ own issues facing the Supreme Court, such as his executive actions concerning immigration, and his climate change regulations.

There will always be a potential for a president to choose a nominee who supports the same interpretation of the law as they do. In fact, the court’s more conservatives justices; Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and formerly Scalia, were all appointed by Republican presidents. The more liberal justices, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer were all appointed by Democratic presidents. That’s kind of just how it works. Obviously it works in the President’s own favor to elect a similarly-minded justice. That’s why we democratically elect a president whose political ideologies align best with the majority of Americans–so that his political decisions won’t be subject to an arbitrary whim.

Here’s the thing: if Obama picks a strongly biased or crony nominee, that person won’t make it through the Senate’s approval. That’s the check on Obama’s power that already exists, and which should be used regardless of political affiliation to make sure that the person nominated is qualified, and not unduly biased.

Thankfully, Paul qualified his argument to be less resolute “It’s going to be very, very, very difficult to get me to vote for a presidential nomination from this president,” he said. “I will look at it if it comes down, but my threshold for voting for somebody is going to be very, very high.” I’d hope that his threshold would he high regardless, and not exceptionally high simply because a Democrat is in office. We’ll have to see how he ends up voting.

3. We Owe It To Scalia / There’s No Precedent

We’ve heard a lot from GOP presidential candidates about honoring Justice Scalia’s legacy, How do you best honor the passing of a strict originalist? By ignoring the text of the constitution, of course.

Senate Majority Leader and alleged turtle Mitch McConnell responded to Scalia’s death by saying “This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” But Scalia was known for his very literal reading of the constitution.

If Scalia had been asked about the nomination for his successor, he’d pull out his pocket-sized (but never abridged) copy of the Constitution, and zero-in on article II, Section 2. That section says “[The president] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.” Then Justice Scalia could slap Mitch McConnell across the face with that Constitution for misrepresenting the founders’ original intent.

Unfortunately in his absence, we have candidates decrying that there’s no precedent for a Supreme Court appointment in an election year, and that there’s no time for a candidate to be vetted. The only trouble with those arguments are that they are just not true. For one, there have indeed been Supreme Court appointments during an election year, as NPR explains brilliantly in its rundown of SCOTUS history.

And the notion that there’s no time is also unfounded. The longest Supreme Court Justice nomination took 125 days, after Louis D. Brandeis was confirmed in 1916. Actually, if the Senate waited until our 45th president nominated a Supreme Court Justice, the country would endure the longest vacancy on the court in the last thirty years: well above the earlier record of 237 days.

No matter how you slice it, President Obama is well within his constitutional rights to appoint a Supreme Court Justice of his choosing, so long as the Senate fulfills its constitutional obligation to fairly assess and vet the nominee. All of the reasons presented by these legislators are simply excuses for being deliberately obstructive to the legal procedure mandated by the Constitution.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The 3 Dumbest Reasons To Block Obama’s SCOTUS Pick appeared first on Law Street.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead at 79 today at Cibolo Creek Ranch, in Texas. A conservative fixture on the court since he was appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986, Scalia’s death leaves a hole in the bench–filling it already promises to be contentious in today’s hostile political environment.

According to sources, Scalia was in Texas at a resort this weekend. He complained that he did not feel well last night, went to bed, and didn’t show up for breakfast this morning, so his hunting party left without him. He was later found to have passed away in his sleep, from natural causes.

His colleagues, as well as other top political voices, mourned his passing. Chief Justice John Roberts stated:

He was an extraordinary individual and jurist, admired and treasured by his colleagues. His passing is a great loss to the Court and the country he so loyally served. We extend our deepest condolences to his wife Maureen and his family.

Additionally, 2016 candidates weighed in on Scalia’s legacy:

My thoughts and prayers are with Justice Scalia’s family and his colleagues on the court who mourn his passing. pic.twitter.com/Y51xUMMEId

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 13, 2016

The totally unexpected loss of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a massive setback for the Conservative movement and our COUNTRY! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 13, 2016

Statement on the passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia: pic.twitter.com/xazj9dDd5c

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) February 14, 2016

Justice Scalia was an American hero. We owe it to him, & the Nation, for the Senate to ensure that the next President names his replacement. — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) February 13, 2016

Jeanette & I mourn the loss of Justice Scalia, and our thoughts & prayers are with his wife Maureen & his family. pic.twitter.com/e03KRZRM6q

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) February 13, 2016

President Barack Obama stated:

Obviously, today is a time to remember Justice Scalia’s legacy. I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time. These are responsibilities I take seriously, as should everyone.

However, the arguably most controversial statement came from Senator Mitch McConnell, who stated: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Given President Obama’s sitting duck status, the fight to replace Scalia will probably be incredibly controversial, especially given McConnell’s fighting words. But for now, the United States mourns a leading legal mind.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Found Dead appeared first on Law Street.

Today, Wayne LaPierre, the CEO and Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, released a video in which he challenged President Barack Obama to a debate. This comes on the heels of executive orders released by Obama in which the president expanded background checks, emphasized that anyone who sells guns needs a license, and called for a beefing of up gun law enforcements, among other facets. After releasing information about the executive order, Obama participated in a town hall on guns with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, and criticized the NRA for not attending, saying: “And by the way, there’s a reason why the NRA is not here. They’re just down the street. And since this is the main reason they exist, you’d think they’d be prepared to have a debate with…a president.” Today’s video from LaPierre appears to be in response to both that comment and the executive orders; watch it for yourself:

In the video, LaPierre invites Obama to join him in a one-on-one, one-hour debate, with a moderator that they have both agreed upon, and without any “pre-screened questions”–the NRA alleges that CNN only offered them pre-screened questions for the town hall with Obama, and that’s why it chose not to participate.

I get that Obama basically invited a debate with LaPierre when he called the NRA out for not attending the CNN town hall, but I don’t think he should take LaPierre up on this offer, and here’s why: the NRA does not deserve that kind of respect, particularly not after this video.

The NRA has relatively high levels of support, that’s for sure. In a Gallup poll conducted in October 2015, the NRA was viewed as favorable by 58 percent of Americans. The NRA sees particularly high favorability among gun owners, with 78 percent viewing the NRA favorably. While it’s unclear how high gun ownership is in the United States–a recent National Opinion Research Center (NORC) poll puts the percentage of American households that have a gun at 31 percent–it’s clear that guns are, for many, a part of daily American life.

Yet despite the fact that the NRA has relatively high levels of support, so do the kinds of actions Obama is advocating for in the executive orders. For example, 85 percent of Americans are in favor of conducting background checks on those buying guns. Another 79 percent want laws that prevent people who are deemed mentally ill from buying guns, and 70 percent want a database that tracks gun sales. The things that Obama is advocating can’t be considered extreme unless you want to say that 85 percent of Americans are extreme–yet the NRA goes so far as to make claims that Obama “wants to destroy the NRA before the election, so that Hillary can destroy the Second Amendment after it.” The NRA is clearly using fear-mongering to rally support.

Part of me would love to see a showdown between LaPierre and Obama. But at the same time, LaPierre should not be given the national platform to have that conversation unless he’s willing to use facts instead of scare tactics–and this video makes me doubt that.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Shouldn’t Debate Wayne LaPierre: Here’s Why appeared first on Law Street.

Are you both a Wes Anderson fan, and a political junkie? Well in that case, I have something for you: a short version of the State of the Union if it were directed by Wes Anderson, courtesy of CNN.

Wes Anderson is a very decorated director, who directed movies such as “The Royal Tenenbaums,” “Moonrise Kingdom,” and “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” His style is distinctive–his movies feature saturated colors, symmetrical scenes, silly dialogue delivered in a straight manner, a narrator, handwritten notes–among many other markers. In fact, it’s distinctive enough that it lends itself to parody quite well–for example, here’s SNL’s take on his directing style, but applied to a horror film.

So in terms of paying homage to/parodying Anderson’s style, CNN hit the nail on the head. I do have to say, sometimes it does seem as though CNN has a little too much fun with the technology that it has at its disposal. Remember the time that it brought a hologram of will.i.am to the 2008 election day results coverage? Or the time that it took an utterly unnecessary approach to explaining how the Iowa caucus works, and even Anderson Cooper realized how ridiculous the entire thing was?

But this take on the State of the Union–tonight will be Obama’s last–was a fun way to generate some buzz before the big event. CNN explained its motivations on Youtube, saying that “With all the tradition, pomp and quirks, the State of the Union Address is straight out of a Wes Anderson movie.” Additionally, an article that accompanied the video explained:

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CNN Remakes the SOTU as a Wes Anderson Film appeared first on Law Street.

Joe Biden announced in a press conference in the White House’s Rose Garden today that he won’t seek the presidency. Flanked by President Obama and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, he announced that the door has closed for him to mount a successful campaign for President.

He pointed out that he won’t just be a quiet spectator however–he plans on weighing in on various national conversations as they unfold in the Democratic primary and general election.

“Unfortunately, I believe we’re out of time.” @VP Joe Biden won’t run for president https://t.co/Z8PnoAJ2Hn pic.twitter.com/rXnNv8eOYS

— The Boston Globe (@BostonGlobe) October 21, 2015

In his announcement, Biden spoke strongly about Obama’s legacy, of which he said he was proud to be a part, but also emphasized that he didn’t want anyone to back away from that legacy–clearly a shot at any Democrats who seek to distinguish themselves from Obama in a negative way.

Biden also highlighted many issues that the Democrats need to focus on moving forward. The bevy of issues he chose to highlight included a need to focus on helping the middle class, combatting the influx of money in politics, the need for affordable college education, upping the childcare tax credit, raising taxes on the very rich, accepting that we can’t be the world’s police, compromising with the Republican party, and seeking equality for different communities such as immigrants, women, minorities, and those who identify as LGBTQ. He also spoke about an issue incredibly close to his heart–increasing funding for cancer and other medical research–a very understandable sentiment given the recent death of his son, Beau Biden, due to brain cancer.

Overall, the announcement focused more on Biden’s hopes and attempts to provide inspiration, rather than his choice not to join the race. He spoke of the central American belief of “possibilities,” and reaffirmed his focuses for the next 15 months he will remain in office.

This announcement comes as a huge surprise after political gossip earlier this week indicated that Biden was going to throw his hat into the ring. Top political reporters and news outlets, including Fox News’ Ed Henry who broke that story, reported that he’d be announcing his candidacy in the next couple days. Others, including freshman Congressman Brendan Boyle, echoed that sentiment. However, Biden’s decision not to run appears to be absolute.

The Democratic field will remain decidedly un-crowded, with the race appearing to boil down to frontrunner Hillary Clinton and her top challenger Bernie Sanders. While Biden may have a voice moving forward, he has spoken, and that word is final: he will not be running for President of the United States.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Just In: Joe Biden Won’t Be Joining the Presidential Race appeared first on Law Street.

The gridlock over American gun laws may actually be worse than the arguments over American healthcare. Whenever there is a mass shooting (defined in this post as four or more people killed), there are calls for stricter gun control, but those calls are never answered because an agreement on what to do is never reached. The voices against gun control are so loud and so rooted in paranoia in organizations like the National Rifle Association, that a meaningful solution seems impossible. We hear the same arguments over and over again, and over and over again, yet nothing is done and another act of gun violence occurs.

What people so adamant about the need for guns may not understand is that gun control–in all likelihood–will not take all the guns away. Instead, it will make the ability to obtain firearms much more difficult, and as we can see by looking at other countries who have successfully enforced such laws, the number of gun crimes will go down as a result.

“But we’re not like those countries!” Gun enthusiasts will say. “We’re America!”

Of course, they’re right. We aren’t like those countries. We’re larger, we have more guns per person, and damn it, our right to bear arms is right in our Constitution!

But when it comes to issues like this, when people are consistently losing their lives to gun-related crimes and accidents, the definition of insanity applies: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is ridiculous. It clearly isn’t working, so is it so insane to want to change something?

When faced with such a massively divisive issue, I find it helpful to go straight to the facts. In his speech acknowledging the most recent mass shooting in Oregon, President Obama implored news organizations to focus on the numbers. Many have done just that.

According to the above video, since 1997, the United States of America has had 51 mass killings. 51.

This is unacceptable.

Now is the time that the anti-gun control camp will chime in with this solution: more guns will make us safer.

If more #sane #people were #armed #crazy #people would get off #fewer #shots #LetsGetWordy http://t.co/g5f2HAvQkM pic.twitter.com/Ay1HO0Fd70

— Pete Thompson (@earningamotorcy) August 15, 2014

Well wait a second, didn’t we just learn that there are over 88 guns to every 100 people in the U.S.? Is that not enough guns to, supposedly, be protected? And even if someone with a gun were on the premises of every mass shooting, the one doing the shooting initially has the advantage, and people will probably still die. Instead of encouraging more gun sales, maybe we encourage better gun safety: background checks into those wanting to buy firearms, mandatory registration for every firearm owned by a United States resident, and a more developed process for obtaining concealed-carry licenses in each state.

But the Second Amendment says “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Isn’t a firearm registration system and stricter rules for obtaining guns infringement?

Here we find ourselves in a problem that applies to laws other than gun control: are the rules our founding fathers established still relevant in today’s society? In the case of owning a gun, not really.

You have to force yourself to think about society during America’s development: we were in the midst of a revolution, we had a much smaller population, and we were exploring new land to the west, so owning a gun to hunt for food and to protect yourself against enemy soldiers made sense. But what about now–in 2015? Gun control laws won’t take away your hobbies: heading to the gun range for target practice, or going quail hunting during its season. You will still be able to keep a gun locked up in your home for “protection,” so really, is the Second Amendment changing much? And if it did, would it really be a bad thing?

More than any other argument used to dismiss gun control, the one most often cited is “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” That’s right: people wielding guns kill people. We do indeed have a mental health crisis in this country, but it is not necessarily related to the number of mass shootings. If asked to characterize a mass murderer, what would the identifiers be? Crazy? Mentally unbalanced? Maybe, but how can we possibly tell that ahead of time? The obvious answer to this is a mental health evaluation before being allowed to purchase a firearm. Even then, not all mass murderers are obviously unwell.

In fact, as John Oliver points out in the video below, fewer than five percent of gun-related killings are performed by mentally unwell people.

So what do we do about the gun problem we so obviously have in our country? It won’t be a simple solution, but at this point, any solution is better than nothing.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time to Debunk Arguments Against Gun Control appeared first on Law Street.

Monday, President Obama announced what he has noted as the “biggest, most important step we’ve ever taken” in the fight against climate change. He introduced America’s Clean Power Plan, aimed toward a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s coal-burning power plants.

Obama said Monday from the White House:

Today after working with states and cities and power companies, the EPA is setting the first ever nationwide standards to end the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from power plants…Washington is starting to catch up with the vision of the rest of the country. 

Essentially, America’s Clean Power Plan is a set of environmental rules and regulations that will focus on pollution from the nation’s power plants, setting limits on power-plant carbon emissions for the first time. The goal of the revised Clean Power Plan is to cut greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power stations by nearly a third within 15 years. The measures will place significant emphasis on wind and solar power with other renewable energy sources, transforming America’s electricity industry. Obama said on Monday: “we’re the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.”

The most aggressive of the regulations require existing power plants to cut emissions 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, an increase from the 30 percent target proposed in the draft regulation. The new rule also demands that power plants use more renewable sources of energy like wind and solar power. Under the plan, the administration will require states to meet specific carbon emission reduction standards, based on their individual energy consumption. The plan also includes an incentive program for states to get a head start on meeting standards with early deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency. Obama said in the video:

Power plants are the single biggest source of harmful carbon pollution that contributes to climate change. Until now, there have been no federal limits to the amount of carbon pollution plants dump in the air.

President Obama also claims that the plans will lead to lower energy bills in the future for Americans, create jobs in the renewable energy sector, and ensure more reliable energy services.  Power plants account for roughly 40 percent of U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide–the most common greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Regardless of these benefits, there are still many critics that are opposed to this new plan. 

Many Republican opponents dispute the existence of global warming, questioning whether or not humans are to blame for the issue. Critics also claim that the plan will bring an unwelcome increase in electricity prices. Opponents in the energy industry believe that president Obama has declared a “war on coal.” Power plants powered by coal provide more than one third of the U.S. electricity supply. Many states plan to fight the new regulations, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell urging states not to comply with the plan in a letter to all fifty governors. Vice President of  Communications for the National Mining Association Luke Popovich stated: 

This plan is all pain and no gain. That’s why state leaders across the country are coming to the same conclusion — that we should not sacrifice our power system to an unworkable plan built on a faulty interpretation of the law.

However those that are arguing against the new plan appear to be overlooking the benefits it can bring. According to the World Health Organization, research in Italy suggests that 4.7 percent total of mortality, or 3,500 deaths annually in a population of 11 million, are caused through cancer and respiratory and cardiovascular diseases attributed to air pollution. Many argue that reducing green house gas emissions doesn’t hurt the economy, but can in fact benefit the economy by saving businesses and consumers money, as well as improving public health.

It is unclear how this new plan will develop during President Obama’s remaining time in office, as well as the presence it may or may not have as campaigns begin to really take off. But, it’s certainly a big move in the right direction.

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama Makes Historic Move to Combat Climate Change appeared first on Law Street.

America is dealing with a hacking crisis. It seems that every other day we are bombarded with the latest hacking stories from both the private and public sectors. We are told to be cautious with all of our online activity and to remember all uploaded material remains in cyberspace forever. Almost all of us personally know someone who has dealt with identity theft and all the hassles that ensue. Some of the biggest companies in the world with the means to access the most anti-hacking software available aren’t immune to the problem. Even the national government recently made headlines concerning Chinese cyber attacks. So what can be done? In his 2015 State of the Union, President Obama addressed cybercrime. The Obama administration proposed new legislation and amendments to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Will these proposals better protect Americans from hackers?

Case Study: Ashley Madison

Just last week, a new team of hackers were at it again. People are already discreet about dating websites and apps. A level of anonymity is essential for a high volume of users. This is even truer when a dating website revolves around married men and women cheating. Ashley Madison’s slogan is “Life is short. Have an affair.” Some may chalk it up to karma, but the invasion of privacy for these members is real.

The hackers call themselves “The Impact Team.” According to Brian Krebs, the blogger who initially reported the hack, they threatened to release stolen information unless the website shut down entirely. Apparently, the team gathered users’ nude photos, sexual fantasies, names, and credit card information. It also claims to have addresses from credit card transactions.

Members of the website can post basic information and use limited features without charge. The company rakes in money when members exchange messages, photographs, and gifts. The website even offers a feature to “collect gifts” for women to send and men to pay for later. The website also has a $19 deactivation fee. This happens to be one of the major qualms of the hacker team, who claim that information is never truly deleted from the website. The hackers’ manifesto published by Krebs stated, “Full Delete netted $1.7 million in revenue in 2014. It’s also a complete lie…Users almost always pay with credit card; their purchase details are not removed as promised, and include real names and address, which is of course the most important information the users want removed.”

Ashley Madison boasts over 37 million members, making it the second largest dating website in the world, second to Match.com. Ashley Madison’s parent company, Avid Life Media, values itself at $1 billion and was looking to go public on the London market this year. Ashley Madison has done away with the deactivation fee, but has yet to comment on whether or not it will shut down.

Although the majority of people aren’t online dating in order to have an affair, the hack embodies everything scary about online interactions. Personal information and discreet activities on websites or social media applications can be made public in the blink of an eye. Just this past March, 3.5 million AdultFriendFinder users were hacked. The hackers exposed email addresses, usernames and passwords, birthdays, zip codes, and sexual preferences. Overall, the trend doesn’t look good.

Hacking Statistics

Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report

Verizon conducts an annual Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR). The latest report shows that 96 percent of online security incidents fall into nine patterns: “miscellaneous errors, such as sending an email to the wrong person; crimeware (various malware aimed at gaining control of systems); insider/privilege misuse; physical theft/loss; web app attacks; denial-of-service attacks; cyberespionage; point-of-sale intrusions; and payment card skimmers.” The 2015 report investigates more than 2,100 data breaches and roughly 80,000 reported security incidents. Over 70 organizations around the world help contribute to the report.

The 2015 DBIA reports a $400 million loss from approximately 700 million compromised records in 61 countries. The report shows that in 70 percent of the cases where the hacker’s motivation is known, there is a secondary victim. This is exemplified in the Ashley Madison case. Although the hackers are targeting the owners of the company, the users are violated as well. And in 60 percent of cases, hackers are able to infiltrate a company in a matter of minutes. The time of discovery falls significantly below that level.

The method of tricking people into divulging their information, like credit card numbers, is still around but is a much less effective method. Now, phishing campaigns are a primary source of attacks. A hacker usually phishes by sending an email with malware, usually included as an attachment. Today 23 percent of recipients open these types of email and 11 percent open the attachments. For over two years, more than two-thirds of cyber-espionage included phishing.

In more uplifting news, malware on cellphones doesn’t even account for 1 percent of the problem. Mobile devices are not the preferred medium for data breaches. Only about 0.03 percent of cell phones contained malicious materials.

U.S. Companies Hacked

According to a study conducted by the Ponemon Institute, the financial loss by cybercrime doubled from 2013 to 2014. Retailers lost approximately $8.6 billion in 2014 due to cyber crime. Furthermore, successful cyber attacks resulted in a $20.8 million loss in financial services, $14.5 million loss in the technology sector, and $12.7 million loss in the communications industries.

Last year was plagued by cyber attacks. In January, Target announced 70 million customers had contact information compromised, while 40 million customers had credit and debit card information compromised. In the same month, Neiman Marcus announced that 350,000 customers had credit card information stolen, resulting in fraudulent charges on 9,000 customers’ credits cards. In April, an AT&T worker hacked the system for two weeks and accessed personal information including social security numbers. In May, EBay asked all its customers to switch their passwords after a cyber attack accessed over 233 million EBay customers’ personal information. In August, over 60 UPS stores around the country were hacked, compromising financial data. The list continues…

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

In order to combat these cyber attacks, Congress passed the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The act made accessing a protected computer a federal crime. Although it was initially established to protect government organizations and a few financial institutions, over the course of time, it eventually broadened. It was first amended in 1994 to allow private citizens to file civil suits against cyber attacks that resulted in loss or damages. It was again broadened in 1996 to encompass any computer used in interstate commerce. After 9/11, the Patriot Act amended the CFAA to permit the search and seizure of records from any Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Later in 2008, the CFAA was again amended to allow companies to file suits when the loss and/or damages did not surpass $5,000.

The CFAA has been subject to its fair share of criticism. Many believe the act to be too broad in scope. Opponents argue that computer policies are often “vague, confusing and arbitrary,” and breaking these policies shouldn’t be a federal violation. Institutions, like the Center for Democracy & Technology, Americans for Tax Reform, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the American Civil Liberties Union all have advocate against the CFFA.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. In a 2012 case, United States vs. Nosal, the court ruled that “a person who violates an employer’s computer use policy is not criminally liable for federal penalties under the Act.” The court argued that the law was not enacted to federally punish smaller crimes. However, a strong dissent left the issue controversial, if not unresolved. The definition of “exceeds authorized access” left ample room for a Supreme Court review. The crime only becomes a felony if it is executed for profit, the gained information is worth over $5,000, and/or the act is committed to further a state or federal crime.

The White House’s New Proposals

The Cyber Security Legislative Proposals aim to enhance cybersecurity information sharing between the private sector and government, modernize law enforcement authorities to combat cyber crime with the appropriate tools and training, and streamline national data breach reporting requirements. Last December President Obama announced,

In this interconnected, digital world, there are going to be opportunities for hackers to engage in cyber assaults both in the private sector and the public sector. Now, our first order of business is making sure that we do everything to harden sites and prevent those kinds of attacks from taking place…But even as we get better, the hackers are going to get better, too. Some of them are going to be state actors; some of them are going to be non-state actors. All of them are going to be sophisticated and many of them can do some damage.

A main target of the proposal is a number of amendments to the already-controversial CFAA. First, the proposal would increase the penalty for “circumventing technical access barriers,” i.e. hacking into a computer by sidestepping security or guessing another’s password. Violators under the current law risk a misdemeanor to a three-year felony. The proposal advocates punishment to start as a three-year felony and maximize as a ten-year felony.

Second, for contract-based crimes, the proposal would officially end the aforementioned circuit split. It states that breaking written policies would be a federal crime and officially defines “exceeds authorized access.” A person would exceed authorized access if he or she accesses information “for a purpose that the accesser knows is not authorized by the computer owner.” Technically, this would include using a work computer for personal activities like Facebook; however, the government would limit criminal liability by requiring the violation fall under one of three conditions: the breach happened on a government computer, the breach results in over $5,000 worth of information, or “if the user violated the written condition in furtherance of a state or federal felony crime.” These changes, along with a variety of others, make up the administration’s proposal.

Conclusion

Whether these proposals will pass through Congress remains to be seen. Broadening the scope of hacking to allow more crimes to fall under federal jurisdiction has traditionally lacked support from the body. The proposals are controversial, with a lot of personal information and accessibility at stake. It will be interesting to see the reaction from the public if these proposals are enacted. Cyber crime is an ongoing problem that affects all citizens, regardless of demographics, and only seems to be exploding. If this isn’t the answer, then what is?

Resources

Primary

White House: Updated Administration Proposal

Additional

Verizon: The 2015 DBIR

CNN Money: Hackers threaten to release names from adultery website

The Heritage Foundation: Cyber Attacks on U.S. Companies in 2014

Jolt Digest: United States vs. Nosal

Tech Target: What is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?

The Washington Post: Obama’s proposed changes to the computer hacking statute

The White House: Securing Cyberspace

Verizon: Verizon 2015 Data Breach Investigations Report Finds Cyberthreats Are Increasing in Sophistication

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Combatting Cyber Attacks: Will Congress Adopt Obama’s Plans? appeared first on Law Street.

Long-term healthcare institutions for the elderly are now more common than ever in America. There are thousands of nursing homes and residential-care facilities dispersed across the country. As a society, we rely on and trust these establishments to medically treat and handle with care our aging loved ones. Even though these places are instrumental to our healthcare system, nursing home regulations haven’t been widely updated in more than 30 years. That is until this month. The Obama Administration has set out to reform the rules required of nursing homes to qualify for Medicare and Medicaid. As they stand today, the rules aren’t up to speed with the innovative scientific advances and administration of health care. There are also alarming reports of abuse and neglect inside the system. But with promising new laws on the horizon, nursing home healthcare may be getting a makeover.

History of Nursing Homes in the United States

The normalization of nursing homes is a relatively recent development. Demographic and political shifts have created a standard use of these facilities. For many years, elderly citizens turned to almshouses, charitable housing for the sick, impoverished, inebriated, mentally ill, and homeless. The elderly lived in almshouses for a variety of reasons including poverty, disability, sickness, and/or separation from families. The Industrial Revolution started to bring more people into the cities and spread families apart. Many singles no longer had extended families to rely on for support.

At the turn of the nineteenth century, women’s and religious groups started to create specific housing for the elderly. Boston’s Home for Aged Women was created in 1850. Institutions like this generally required substantial entrance fees and certificates of good character. They were a marked upgrade and alternative to the almshouses. Many of these women were widowed or single, and had lived their lived as upstanding citizens. These requirements limited shelter to a small population; the impoverished still mostly resided in almshouses.

As time continued, almshouses started to exclusively aid the elderly. Younger people were removed and sent to specific-needs organizations like orphanages, hospitals, or insane asylums. In 1880, 33 percent of almshouse residents were elderly. By 1923, that number soared to 67 percent.

The almshouses were not places of luxury, but rather were found in extremely poor conditions. In 1992, Abraham Epstein, advocating for pensions, wrote that the almshouse “stands as a threatening symbol of the deepest humiliation and degradation before all wage-earners after the prime of life.” The enactment of the 1935 Social Security Act was in large a movement to remove almshouses altogether; however, elderly residents weren’t solely there due to poverty. Others required daily nursing and medical attention. The money received through pensions was often used to gain access to independent facilities that could provide medical care; however, conditions were not necessarily improved.

In 1955, the Medical Facilities Survey and Construction Act allowed federal support to those in public facilities. Both private and public nursing home residents received federal support. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid was established, furthering the growth of nursing home facilities. Between 1960 and 1976, nursing homes grew by 140 percent, with 79 percent still private institutions. Through investigations conducted through the 1970s, it was concluded that the conditions were still subpar and not far enough removed from the stigma of historic almshouses.

The 1970s saw the first real regulations for nursing homes. The Office of Nursing Homes Affairs was established in 1971 and authorized to administer nursing home standards. Social Security reforms in 1972 “established a single set of requirements for facilities supported by Medicare and for skilled-nursing homes that received Medicaid.” A plethora of amendments to older acts were enacted as well.

By 2000, nursing home care became a $100 billion industry. Although the standard of care has dramatically increased since the days of the almshouse, it is time for a new round of regulations. The video below, created by the Common Wealth Fund, joins in the effort to improve nursing home quality care.

Nursing Home Care Today

Statistics

There are five, main long-term healthcare services: home health agencies, nursing homes, hospices, residential care communities, and adult day service centers. Approximately 8,357,100 people receive support from these services annually. Nursing homes alone account for 1,383, 700  people in the group, and 63 percent of those are age 65 and older. In 2000, 15 million people required long-term care. Due to Baby Boomers, that number is projected to rise to 27 million in 2050.

For those that reach the age of 65, 69 percent will acquire a disability before they die. And 35 percent will enter a nursing home at some point. One in every eight people over the age of 85 resides in an institution.

Financial Stats

A 2013 report estimates that between $210 and $306 billion is spent on long-term care per year. Most pay a majority out of pocket for assisted living, while Medicaid pays a majority for long-term nursing care and Medicaid pays for a majority of hospice care and short-term skilled nursing facilities. Almost one-fifth of the elderly community will pay more than $25,000 in out-of-pocket costs before they die. And in 2012, 14.8 percent of those over 65 were reported below the poverty line. This is even more significant as the private-pay prices for a private or semiprivate room in a nursing home grew by four percent in 2002. It grew another 4.5 percent in 2012. Lastly, Medicaid spent $83.8 billion on long-term care services in 2003, amounting to approximately one third of all Medicaid expenditures.

Proposed Regulation

There are a host of reasons why the Obama Administration has decided to tackle nursing home care regulations. First and foremost, current regulations don’t consider the advances in science and health care for the elderly. As previously stated, long-term care regulations haven’t been updated in nearly 30 years–consolidated Medicare and Medicaid requirements for long-term care facilities were set in 1989, and haven’t been updated since 1991. Science has seen invaluable progress since then. New proposals are also significant in light of reports over the last decade finding varying degrees of neglect and abuse among nursing care facilities. At the core of it all, current regulations aren’t up to par.

Highlights

The proposal bans facilities from hiring any personnel with a record of abuse and/or neglect, and develops policies that target abuse and/or neglect. Nurses would be trained in preventing elder abuse. Although there isn’t an assigned patient-to-nurse ratio, facilities will have to report staffing levels to Medicare officials for review. Low staffing is a common reason stated by those in the field why patients with dementia are given inappropriate and potentially dangerous antipsychotic drugs. The regulations would also limit the amount of antibiotic and antipsychotic drugs administered, toughen infection control, and reduce hospital readmissions.

It also suggests a baseline care program: a comprehensive plan for each resident created within 48 hours of a patient’s arrival. In addition, a nurse aide, a member of the food and nutrition services staff, and a social worker would be added to those involved in the development of the care plan. The proposal also covers “electronic health records and measures to better ensure that patients or their families are involved in care planning and in the discharge process.”

There are a number of revisions directed toward the personal happiness of the residents. The proposal includes open visitation (similar to hospital regulations) and the ability for residents to choose roommates as these facilities often double as homes. It also mandates the availability of “suitable and nourishing alternative meals and snacks” for residents who would like to eat outside the scheduled meal times. These types of policies create a more comfortable and home-like atmosphere.

A major concern in the long-term care community is enforcement. Toby Edelman, a senior policy attorney at the Center for Medicare Advocacy, states that “the biggest problem is that the rules we have now are not enforced. We have a very weak and timid enforcement system that does everything it can to cajole facilities into compliance instead of imposing penalties for noncompliance.” The proposed rules should allow violations to be more easily detected.

Conclusion

As the proposal states, “many of the revisions are aimed at aligning requirements with current clinical practice standards to improve resident safety along with the quality and effectiveness of care and services delivered to residents.” This is a way to ensure that every facility across the nation is legally required to provide equal quality of care to every patient. It is alarming that a comprehensive update to modernize the nursing home care system hasn’t been done in so many years. Residents want to feel safe and happy in their environment, and their families want to feel that their aging elders are healthy and receiving the best care possible.

Resources

Primary

Federal Register: Medicare and Medicaid Programs

Additional

CDC: Long-Term Care Services in the United States

Family Caregiver Alliance: Selected Long-Term Care Statistics

Kaiser Health News: New Regulations Would Require Modernizing Nursing Home Care

Net Industries: Nursing Homes

U.S. Legal: The History of Nursing Homes

White House: Administration Announces New Executive Actions to Improve Quality of Care for Medicare Beneficiaries

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Proposes New Nursing Home Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

Executive control over declaring war or starting military missions has long been a controversial topic. According to the U.S. Constitution, only the legislative branch can order military attacks. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, sometimes called the War Powers Clause, declares that Congress has the power “to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Despite Congress having authorization authority, many presidents have used their executive powers to send soldiers into battle without an official declaration of war. This has been done in order to quickly activate military forces until Congress has time to pass funding and other approval measures. One might think that this violates the Constitution and has the president undermining Congress. So what powers does the president have in commanding military operations?

A Complicated History

Due to the process of checks and balances, Congress and the president both have roles in military actions. Congressional approval is needed to declare war, fund armed missions, and make laws that shape the execution of the mission. The president has the power to sign off on or veto the declaration of war, just like on other congressional bills. The president is also the Commander-in-Chief and oversees the mission once Congress has declared war. So in short, if the president vetoes a congressional declaration of war, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, and still force the president to control military action he does not support.

For more than 200 years presidents have asked Congress for approval of war, but many presidents have wanted to bypass Congress to put their own military operations into place. It wasn’t until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 that Congress passed the War Powers Act of 1941, which gave the executive branch more power over military interventions and homeland protection, including ordering war participation from independent government agencies, and expurgating communications with foreign countries. These powers lasted until six months after the military operation. The Second War Powers Act was passed the following year, which gave the executive branch more authority overseeing War World II operations. It was this act that allowed the U.S. to relocate and incarcerate more than 100,000 Japanese Americans.

Presidents used the War Powers Act numerous times over the next 20 years. Neither the Korean or Vietnam Wars were technically wars, but were military interventions in intense foreign conflicts because neither of them were passed as a declaration of war. This angered legislators who believed the president had too much control of the military. In response, they passed the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which President Richard Nixon vetoed arguing that it undermined his role as Commander-in-Chief; however, his veto was overridden by Congress.

What does the Resolution do?

The resolution extends the president’s power by allowing him to conduct military operations without congressional approval, but there are limits. The War Powers Resolution allows the president to send armed forces without congressional approval only if there is an attack on American soil or its territories; otherwise the military intervention would require congressional approval. It also forces the president to notify Congress within the first 48 hours of the mission and forbids armed forces from intervening longer than 60 days, with an additional 30 days to withdraw.

Has the War Powers Resolution been violated?

Since the beginning of the resolution, numerous presidents have put military actions into play without congressional support, sometimes well past the 60-day window. In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton continued the assault on Kosovo past the deadline. In this case, Congress did not directly approve the missions, but approved funding for them.

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress overwhelming passed a law permitting President George W. Bush to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Support for the invasion of several Middle Eastern countries was high at first, but after years of fighting with no end in sight, approval for the “War on Terror” fell and so did public opinion of Bush’s handling of the war.

In 2011, President Barack Obama faced backlash from Congress and voters who claimed his use of executive powers as Commander-in-Chief were being stretched and that his actions overreached his authority. When the Libyan army started to kill its own citizens for protesting their government, Obama and leaders from several European countries decided to aid the Libyan civilian rebels by enforcing no-fly zones and providing aid for the cause. Because the president put into place a military action on his own, congressional Republicans called foul, saying he overstepped his boundaries by not first getting Congressional approval. The president defended his actions saying that U.S. military involvement did not meet the constitutional definition of a war and that it was not the U.S. that was leading the mission, but the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Despite his assertion, in a letter addressed to President Obama, Speaker John Boehner demanded that the president withdraw troops; ten lawmakers from both sides of the aisle filed a lawsuit against the President for not getting congressional approval for the intervention.

Fighting ended on October 31 and NATO ended its operations following the death of Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi. The suit, along with ideas for other potential legal actions, then ceased for the most part, due to dismissal precedent of similar cases.

How do voters feel about President Obama’s intervention?

At its beginning, most Americans were supportive of the president’s intervention in Libya. In March 2011, a Washington Post-ABC poll found that 56 percent of those polled were in favor of the U.S. implementing a no-fly zone across the region in order to protect Libyan rebels from government attacks. While the support for assistance was very high, Americans overwhelming believed that activating troops on the ground was too much, with polls showing disapproval around 90 percent.

Support for the military action was strong in the first weeks, with about 60 percent of Americans supporting the president’s initiatives, but as time marched on without any end in sight, support began to wane. By early June, only 26 percent of those surveyed believed the U.S. should continue the mission, according to a Rasmussen Report poll.

These polls seem to show that Americans don’t like unchecked military actions that go on too long. Does that mean the War Powers Act should be replaced with something that better balances executive actions and congressional approval?

Is repeal of the resolution on the horizon?

Congress has not officially declared war since June 1942 during World War II when it unanimously voted for war against the Axis countries of Bulgaria, Hungry, and Romania. Many lawmakers think that because the U.S. response to foreign conflicts has become quicker due to improvements in technology and intergovernmental military alliances–like NATO–that the War Powers Resolution is no longer needed.

Several members of Congress have suggested the repeal of the War Powers Resolution entirely, or replacing it with a measure that gives the president diminished power. In January 2014, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) revealed a piece of legislation, the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014, that would replace the resolution and restrict the president’s military power. It would require the president to consult with Congress before using military forces in foreign conflicts and require the president to consult Congress within three days of deployment. It also sought to create a Joint Congressional Consultation Committee that would enforce a dialog between the executive and legislative branches. The act would not apply to humanitarian or covert missions. After the Libyan conflict ended in a substantial NATO victory in October 2011, support for reform fell until military intervention in Syria in 2014.

Conclusion

The definition of war makes it difficult to effectively apply the War Powers Resolution. Does war mean boots on the ground, weaponry assistance, or no-fly zones? This question is hard to answer and is debated with almost every military intervention.

Americans tend to support giving an incumbent president more power over military decisions when citizens are attacked on U.S. soil, and during the early part of missions. Once the mission seems to be dragging on, support and morale fall, and so does congressional support. If a president wants to go rogue on his own, he has to get the job done fast or the missions might fail to maintain support. The War Powers Resolution has helped the U.S. respond to foreign conflicts quickly and without that power many missions may never have been started.

Resources

Primary

Library of Congress: The War Powers Act

Additional

Washington Post: Conditional Support For Libya No-Fly Zone

IBT: Majority of Americans Against Sending Ground Troops to Libya

Washington Post: White House Should be Moderately Worried on Libya

U.S. Senate: Official Declarations of War by Congress

Senator Tim Kaine: Kaine, McCain Introduce Bill to Reform War Powers Resolution

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post War Powers Act: Has it Outlasted Its Usefulness? appeared first on Law Street.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leads the United States environmental community’s fight against power plant emissions. Its main priority? To reduce carbon pollution, which, among other greenhouse gas pollutants, is detrimental to the Earth’s climate and the health of every global citizen. In recent years, the EPA has taken strides like never before to combat unchecked power plants across the country that produce harmful gases into the atmosphere. With the backing of the Obama Administration, environmental efforts are at the forefront of America’s priorities.

 The EPA and Carbon Pollution

What is the EPA?

The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing U.S. regulations based on environmental laws passed by Congress. Nearly half of the EPA budget is directed to grants for state environmental programs, non-profits, educational institutions, and other entities that align with its mission. The EPA also conducts and shares its own scientific studies, sponsors partnerships within the environmental community, and educates the public.

What are carbon pollutants?

According to environmental scientists, carbon pollution is the primary contributor to long-lasting climate disruption. Carbon pollutants and other greenhouse gas pollutants (gases that trap heat in the atmosphere) exacerbate natural weather conditions like floods, wildfires, and droughts and negatively impact human health. Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) makes up nearly three quarters of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and accounts for 84 percent in the United States. Other greenhouse gases include Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and synthetic fluorinated gases. The severity of damage these pollutants cause to climate depends on the abundance and strength of the gas and duration its duration in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide is by far the most abundant and therefore the most dangerous.

CO₂ passes into the atmosphere through “burning fossil fuel (coal, natural gas, and oil), solid waste, trees, and wood products, and also as a result of certain chemical reactions (e.g. manufacture of cement.)” In the natural carbon cycle, CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere through plant absorption. Carbon pollutants alter the natural balance; carbon dioxide is entering the atmosphere at a higher rate than it is leaving.

CO₂ emissions have been on the rise since the Industrial Revolution, but between 1990 and 2013, CO₂ emission increased by seven percent due to energy use and transportation emissions. NASA’s video below shows a visual simulation of CO₂ emissions.

Main Source of Carbon Pollution

Human reliance on electricity is to blame for an estimated 37 percent of CO₂ emissions. Transportation and industry account for most of the rest. The combustion of fossil fuel to create energy is the primary source of carbon emissions. The burning of coal, in particular, emits the most CO₂ compared to oil and gas. Therefore, coal-burning power plants are the leading cause of carbon emissions in the United States.

Coal-fired power plants first burn coal to create extremely fine talcum powder, which is blown into the firebox of the boiler with hot air. The burning coal and air combination creates “the most complete combustion and maximum heat possible.” Water, pumped through the pipes inside the boiler, turns into steam, which can reach 1,000 degrees F and has a pressure of up to 3,500 pounds per square inch. At this point, the steam is piped to the turbine generator where the pressure turns the turbine blades, therefore turning the turbine shaft connected to the generator. Inside the generator, “magnets spin within coils to produce electricity.” Lastly, steam turns back into water inside a condenser.

In a given year, an average 500 megawatt coal-fired electricity plant emits 3.7 million tons of CO₂, 220 tons of hydrocarbons (which creates smog), and 720 tons of poisonous carbon monoxide. This results from burning 1,430,000 tons of coal a year. Aside from carbon emissions, the plant will also release 10,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, 10,200 tons of nitrogen oxide, 125,000 tons of ash, and 225 pounds of arsenic.

Negative Impacts of Carbon Pollutants

According to the EPA, carbon pollution causes rising global temperatures, rising sea level, changes in weather and precipitation patterns, and changes in ecosystems, habitats, and species diversity. High levels of CO₂ can cause an increase or decrease in rainfall depending on location. Rainfall influences agriculture crop yields, water supplies, energy resources, and forest and other ecosystems across the globe.

Carbon pollution causes an increase in heat waves, drought, and smog (ground-level ozone pollution). It can lead to increasing intensity of extreme events, i.e. hurricanes, precipitation, and flooding. It can also increase the “range of ticks and mosquitoes, which can spread disease such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus.” Younger children, those with heart or lung diseases, and people living in poverty could be at risk the most for feeling the effects of climate change.

Laws and Proposed Regulations

The Clean Air Act

One of the first pieces of hard-hitting environmental legislation was the Clean Air Act of 1970, which was most recently revised in 1990. The Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to establish and enforce National Ambient Quality Standards. The 1990 amendments, led by the Bush Administration, specifically aimed to fight acid rain, urban air pollution, and toxic air emissions. It defines major sources of air pollutants “as a stationary source or group of stationary sources that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of a hazardous air pollutant or 25 tons per year or more of a combination of hazardous air pollutants,” and requires technology-based standards. These standards are referred to as “maximum achievable control technology.

President Obama’s Climate Action Plan

On June 25, 2013, President Obama announced a plan through executive orders to reduce carbon emissions. The President created a list of carbon-reduction targets on the path of decreasing U.S. carbon emissions, preparing and adapting for climate change, and leading the global effort to address the issue. On the domestic front, Obama ordered the EPA to finalize its standards for greenhouse emissions from new and old coal-burning power plants. Although, industry heads have threatened suits if old plants are required to limit emissions.

The executive orders also called for strict standards in fuel efficiency for heavy-duty vehicles after 2018 to minimize greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. In order to prepare for climate change, Obama’s plan involves federal, state, and local governments working together in order to “increase investments in protective infrastructure.” Weather disasters accumulated $100 billion worth of damages in 2012. Internationally, Obama’s plan includes promoting “the development of a global market for natural gas and continued use of nuclear power.” The plan also calls for the Obama Administration to work with U.S. trading partners to discuss negotiations at the World Trade Organization to advocate free trade in environmental goods/services and cleaner energy technologies.

Clean Power Plan

The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, released in June 2014, sets state-by-state carbon emissions rate-reduction targets. The plan calls for a 30 percent reduction of 2005 carbon emission levels by 2030. The plan provides alternative plans called “building blocks” to cut carbon emissions. Some of these building blocks include: renewable energy sources, nuclear power, efficiency improvements at individual fossil fuel plants, shifting generation from coal to natural gas, and greater energy efficiency in buildings and industries. Targets per state range due to individual states’ “mix of electricity-generation resources…technological feasibilities, costs, and emissions reduction potentials of each building block.”

After comments and revisions, the plan is expected to be finalized in August 2015. The EPA anticipates a long run of legal challenges to the Clean Power Plan from coal-producing industry heads. The Obama Administration and EPA saw its first legal win last week on June 9. The suit was brought by some of the nation’s largest coal companies and 14 coal-producing states claiming the plan would jeopardize future construction of coal plants and slow U.S. coal demand. One of the lawyers leading the suit is Lawrence H. Tribe, a Harvard University constitutional law scholar and former law school mentor to President Obama. The courts, for now, have dismissed the case as premature. As Judge Brett Kavanaugh explained in the opinion, “They want us to do something that they candidly acknowledge we have never done before: review the legality of a proposed rule.” Although delayed, opposition will fight another day.

Conclusion

The future holds the final decisions from the courts regarding the Clean Power Plan. Some challenges will more than likely make their way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It will be a tough battle for the environmental community, but it is one for the health of our Earth and everyone on it. The negative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions, especially Carbon Dioxide, aren’t theories. They are facts and we have to face reality. Although no plan can reverse the damage that has already been done, we can prevent future damage from taking place. It is truly an international issue that needs international cooperation, but it starts domestically, and hopefully the United States will be the leader it needs to be in environmental conservation.

Resources

Primary

EPA: Carbon Dioxide Emissions

EPA: 1990 Clean Air Act Amendment Summary 

EPA: Summary of the Clean Air Act

Additional

CFC: Obama Vows to Finalize Carbon Standards, Other Safeguards in Climate Change Plan

DESMOG: Facts on the Pollution Caused by the U.S. Coal Industry

Duke Energy: How do Power Plants Work?

EPA: Learn About Carbon Pollution From Power Plants

EPA: Our Mission and What We Do

EPA: Overview of Greenhouse Gases

The New York Times: Court Gives Obama a Climate Change Win

Union of Concerned Scientists: The Clean Power Plan

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Power Plants and Carbon Pollution: What Can the EPA Do? appeared first on Law Street.

One of the markers of the current political climate is the animosity between President Obama and Congress. One of the manifestations of this climate can be seen in the fact that Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General has continued to languish in the halls of the Senate. If his remarks at a recent press conference are any indication, President Obama has had enough.

Loretta Lynch was nominated for the position of Attorney General nearly six months ago on November 8, 2014, but her nomination has been held up in the Senate since that point. There aren’t really any substantive reasons though, as no one seems to have any objections to Lynch’s qualifications for the job. While there are some concerns over her opinions on President Obama’s immigration reform, it seems like she’ll eventually be confirmed. It’s just a matter of when at this point.

The when is difficult though, as her nomination is being held up until a bill on human trafficking is settled, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Democrats, however, object to the bill because it contains a provision that prevents any money from the crime victims’ compensation fund from being spent on abortion services. Not only do many Senate Democrats object to the provision on moral grounds, they also claim that the Republicans surprised them by adding that provision to the bill without consulting them. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated,

I don’t know how that happened or who was the author of it. But the fact is, the bill that is on the floor today has a provision in it that we were told would not be included.

However, until this matter is solved, McConnell has said that they won’t vote on Lynch’s nomination. He’s framed it as a matter of priority–it’s important to finish a bill that will help trafficking victims before moving on to Lynch’s nomination. But it’s become a game of political chicken, and her nomination is caught right in the middle.

A sense of frustration and exasperation is exactly what the President expressed in a press conference Froday when speaking about the hold ups to the Lynch nomination. He emphatically stated,

Enough. Enough. Call Loretta Lynch for a vote, get her confirmed, let her do her job. This is embarrassing. There are times where the dysfunction in the Senate just goes too far. This is an example of it.

Regardless of Obama’s impassioned statements, it’s highly doubtful that his remarks will have any effect on the GOP Senators’ actions. Especially after the fights over the Iran deal and Obama’s immigration reform, there’s no real lost love between the executive and legislative branches. Lynch’s nomination will probably remain in limbo, at least for now.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Lashes Out at Senate Over Loretta Lynch Confirmation Hold Up appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most hazardous locations for one’s lungs is Texas. A site of many refineries and factories, the state already presents itself as a major emitter; but its activity exceeds the second ranking states by a wide margin. For example, nitrogen oxide emissions from smoke stacks and vents surpass number two ranking Pennsylvania by more than 60 percent, and tonnage of volatile organic compounds eclipse number two Colorado by more than 44 percent. If this is not enough, many state officials are siding with the industries themselves in an attempt to combat the implementation of tighter emissions regulations. Their testimonies argue that toughening up the standards will be too expensive and not necessarily beneficial to public health.

This conflict extends far beyond the Lone Star State. The Supreme Court itself is locked in a debate as to what measures are necessary and how much they will cost. Dissenters argue that the Obama Administration’s latest initiatives via the Environmental Protection Agency do not contain a cost-benefit analysis. The argument leans on wording in the Clean Air Act, which stipulates that regulations be “appropriate and necessary.” But who has the right to unilaterally determine what is appropriate and necessary? A rough estimate at a “quantifiable” benefit estimates that 11,000 unnecessary deaths can be prevented each year. Calculations diverge as to the monetary expenses and savings; one concludes that $9.6 billion in expenses will result in $6 billion in savings, while another maintains that those same costs can result in up to $30-90 billion in savings. These numbers should not be the focus of the decision, though. If thousands of people might live on who would otherwise die, this should be justification enough to implement the necessary measures.

Henan Province, China. Courtesy of V.T. Polywoda via Flickr.

Ozone and air contamination are a widely pervasive problem; the lives that potentially could be saved are not just in urban areas. Gases and ozone emissions are not stagnant; many studies and measurements have found excessively high air contaminants in rural and wide-open areas such as the Colorado mountains and the Native American reservations in Utah. In addition to the problem of poor restrictions on emission, the standards as to what technically constitutes contamination or poor air quality are too lax. For this reason, non-emitting areas are facing health risks that are not legally deemed as such.

Air pollution is a perfectly remediable problem. In the early 1900s, the great steel city of Pittsburgh rivaled Victorian London for poor air quality. But a series of laws and regulations and more efficient use of fuel led the city to be declared one of the most livable by the 1980s; the characteristic smoke and pollution cleared away almost entirely. A more poignant example is Japan. A system of local governments responding to local concerns but acting seamlessly with national and international-level reform efforts enabled the country to curb pollution without derailing economic growth. In fact, considering the incentives to invest in research and new technologies, the formulation of new overseeing agencies and subsequent job creation, by 1980 air pollution control became a profitable industry itself!

This is perhaps one of the most frustrating aspects of the debates in the Supreme Court right now; all the concerns about cost effectiveness and damage to industry and the economy are based on perceptions of the status quo. People seem to be under the impression that the objective is simply to cap emissions while maintaining all the other aspects of day-to-day life and commercial activity. Rather, as demonstrated by the multi-layered action of Japan, it is a complicated process that requires commitment by many parties, but ultimately a worthwhile one because it is clearly doable and benefits not just the health of the people but can be financially desirable, as well.

This past November, an interesting thing occurred in Beijing. In anticipation of the arrival of many world leaders for an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting, the government mandated a six-day vacation for urban residents, which included traffic restrictions and the closure of factories in an attempt to clear the smog. It was a monumental success; in less than a week, what came to be labeled as “APEC Blue” dominated the skies. The striking effects of this action has galvanized progressive voices and demonstrated to the nation and world that there is a plethora of options from which we can draw that quite effectively address the problem.

Courtesy of Nicolo Lazzati via Flickr.

Air pollution is one of the most visible and widespread consequences of industrialization, rampant consumption, and natural resource use. It may not have as immediate or drastic consequences as some other environmentally related challenges, but it certainly is dangerous. Most importantly, there are so many things that we can do to address it, which may be surprisingly effective and rapid in doing so, while at the same time improving our own habits and ways of life.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beijing Knows How to Curb Its Air Pollution, So Why Doesn’t Texas? appeared first on Law Street.

In 1858, then-Senator Abraham Lincoln made one of his most famous speeches. In this particular speech he referenced the bible in stating, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” At that time, of course, Lincoln was referring to the schism that divided the nation, namely should we be a free country or a slave-owning country? While the slavery question has been answered, the idea of a divided nation has continued and seemingly grown as time passed. The problem now is not over any singular issue, but the conduct of various branches of the government. In short, what effect does public disagreement over foreign policy issues have on the United States in presenting a unified front when trying to implement some type of cohesive strategy?

History of Disagreement

With the two most recent high-profile episodes of dissension in federal government–the Senate Republicans’ letter to Iran and the House Republicans’ invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress without executive consent–it may appear as though these events were particularly egregious; however, disagreement between members of the government is certainly not something new. For that matter, this level of disagreement is not even that extraordinary. In fact, at various times throughout the nation’s history members or former members of the government have engaged in literal duels where one of the parties was actually killed. Of course those are the extreem examples of disagreement, but they are part of our history nonetheless.

The 1980s seemed like an especially appropriate time to publicly undermine the president and his foreign policy, as evidenced by two specific events. In 1983, Senator Ted Kennedy allegedly secretly conspired with the then-premier of the USSR to help him defeat Ronald Reagan and win the presidency. Just a year later, in 1984, Democrats wrote a letter to the leader of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua that was critical of the president and forgave the rebel regime’s many atrocities.

Another episode occurred in 1990 when former president Jimmy Carter wrote to the members of the United Nations Security Council denouncing President Bush’s efforts to authorize the Gulf War. In 2002, several democratic senators went to Iraq on a trip financed by late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and actually actively campaigned for his government. This was also aimed at undermining support for the second president Bush’s Iraq War. And the most recent example came in 2007 when newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Basher Assad. Even before he had launched a civil war on his own people, Assad had already made enemies of the Bush Administration by supporting insurgents in Iraq.

This is the context in which Congress’ most recent acts of defiance should be considered. When Speaker John Boehner invited Netanyahu to speak to congress without the consent of the president, he knew perfectly well that Netanyahu would come to urge the use of force in preventing a nuclear armed Iran. This strategy is the complete opposite of the one pursued by the Obama Administration, which has centered on negotiation, give and take. The video below explains why this invitation was so controversial.

The second most recent act of dissent also comes in relation to a nuclear deal with Iran. In this case, 47 senators signed a letter to Iran stating that any agreement between President Obama and the Ayatollah will be considered as an executive agreement only and subject to being overturned when a new president is elected. The video below explores the ramifications of the letter.

Taken alone these efforts by Republicans appear outrageous and indeed even treasonous. But they are actually just two more in a series of moves from both parties to undermine the other. The main difference this time is that it was the Republicans doing the undermining of a Democratic President.

Roles in Foreign policy for Each Branch of the Government

The three branches of the government–the judicial, legislative, and executive branches–each play a role in determining foreign policy. While the courts are instrumental in determining the constitutionality, and therefore legality, of agreements, the legislative and executive branches are the real driving forces behind United States’ foreign policy. So what then are their roles?

Executive

As the saying goes, on paper the President’s foreign policy powers seem limited. According to the Constitution, he is limited to his role as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and nominating and appointing officials. However, the president has several unofficial powers that are more encompassing. First is the executive agreement, which basically allows the president to make an accord without the consent of Congress. This is what Obama did, for example, in relation to immigration in Fall 2014, as well as the situation to which Republicans referred in their letter to Iran.

This power is perhaps the most important as the president is able to pursue his agenda without needing Congressional support, which is often hostile to his ambitions. Along this same track, the president has the ability to determine the foreign policy agenda, and by doing so making it the agenda for the entire nation.

The executive branch also controls the means to carry out foreign policy through its various agencies. Of particular importance are the Department of State, which handles foreign affairs, and the Department of Defense, which is in charge of military operations. The intelligence community is also a key cog in this branch of government.

Legislative

The role of this branch has traditionally been three-fold: advising the president, approving/disapproving the president’s foreign policy agreements, and confirming appointments to the State Department. Recently these powers have come under challenge as Obama himself has conducted military actions in Libya without getting war powers consent from Congress first.

Like everything else, the roles taken on by the particular branches with regard to foreign policy have expanded far beyond those originally outlined in the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the president, as mentioned previously, serves as both the face of policy and its catalyst, it is generally assumed that he will take the lead in those matters. However, a certain gray area still exists as to specifically who has the right to do what. This role was supposed to be more clearly defined through legislation, namely the Logan Act; however, perpetually changing circumstances, such as the role of the media, have continued to make the boundaries for conduct less clear.

What Happens Next

So what is to be done about these quarrelsome representatives and senators? When Pelosi made her infamous trip to visit Assad in 2007, the Bush Administration was extremely angry and reacted accordingly, deeming her actions as criminal and possibly treasonous. If this rhetoric sounds familiar that is because these are the same types of phrases being hurled at the Congresspeople who invited Netanyahu to speak and condemned Iran with their signatures.

The Logan Act

The real issue here is with who is conducting foreign policy as opposed to who is supposed to, according to the Logan Act. The act was passed in 1799 in response to its namesake’s efforts to single-handedly end the quasi-war with the French by engaging in a solo journey to the country. The basic outline of the act is that no unauthorized person is allowed to negotiate on behalf of the United States with a foreign government during a dispute. Thus, while in theory this was meant to resolve the issue as to who was qualified to represent U.S. foreign policy, the video below explains that is far from what actually occurred.

Along with the damning words being thrown about, critics of the Republican actions also call for their prosecution under this relatively obscure law; however, no such indictments are likely to take place as no one has even been charged under it, not even the man for whom it was named. In addition, the language itself is unclear. For example, wouldn’t congresspeople be considered authorized persons? These threats of prosecution, along with the strong language being thrown about hide another important factor in this whole mess: the role of the media.

Media’s Role

In the tumult following the Iranian letter, a somewhat important piece of evidence has been overlooked. While the senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, indeed signed a letter, the letter was not actually sent anywhere. In fact, after getting 46 other senators to sign the letter, Senator Cotton posted it to his own website and social media accounts. Similarly with the Netanyahu speech, while it is odd for a foreign leader to speak to Congress without approval of the president, the significance of the whole thing can be attributed as much to the stage it was broadcast on as its peculiarity.

There is a history of government officials undermining the White House’s foreign policy. However, in 2015 there are so many avenues to openly and very publicly express dissent that when it does occur it is a bigger deal now than ever. Information is so accessible now, thus when someone posts something to social media anyone all over the world can see it. This is different than if something were broadcast 20 years ago on network news.

Conclusion

In 1951, President Truman removed General MacArthur from command in the Korean War. While MacArthur was one of the most renowned war heroes of WWII, his threats to invade China and expand the war undermined Truman’s efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict. While Truman was able to dismiss MacArthur, this is not true for the current case of branches of government undermining others.Unlike MacArthur who was a general and beholden to the president, these representatives and senators are beholden to the people and cannot be as easily removed. Nor should they, not only because the precedent for this type of disagreement has been set, but also because the president should not have the ability to dismiss everyone who disagrees with him. People voicing their opinions after all, is the whole idea behind representative government.

While recent Republican actions can certainly be termed at least as ill-advised, the question of illegality is much less clear. The Iranians for their part took the letter as well as can be expected, acknowledging its obvious political nature.

Sources

Washington Examiner: 5 Times Democrats Undermined Republican Presidents With Foreign Governments

Foreign Policy Association: How Foreign Policy is Made.

Politico: John Boehner’s Bibi Invite Sets Up Showdown With White House

Intercept: The Parties Role Reversal on Interfering With the Commander-in-Chief’s Foreign Policy

Politico: Iran, Tom Cotton and the Bizarre History of the Logan Act

National Review: The Cotton Letter Was Not Sent Anywhere, Especially Not to Iran

LA Times: Netanyahu’s Speech to Congress Has Politics Written All Over it

The New York Times: Iranian Officials Ask Kerry about Republicans’ Letter

CNN: Did 47 Republican Senators Break the Law in Plain Sight?

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The U.S. Government: A House Divided on Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

Since his first presidential campaign, President Obama has advocated for immigration reform, and his administration has experienced its share of successes and failures. Notably, it failed to accomplish its goal to see through the passage of the Dream Act, legislation that would allow unauthorized immigrant students without a criminal background to apply for temporary legal status and eventually earn U.S. citizenship if they attended college or enlisted in the U.S. military. Immigration reform seemed to truly pick up steam, however, during Obama’s second term. In 2013, he proposed earned citizenship for unauthorized immigrants. But what exactly is earned citizenship?

Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S.

An undocumented immigrant is a foreigner who enters the U.S. without an entry or immigrant visa, often by crossing the border to avoid inspection, or someone who overstays the period of time allowed as a visitor, tourist, or businessperson. According to the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics, 11.4 million undocumented immigrants lived in the United States as of 2012. The combined number of undocumented immigrants living in California, Texas, New York, and Florida accounted for 55 percent of that figure.

More than eight million, or 71 percent of all undocumented immigrants, were from Central American countries in 2008-12. Asia accounted for 13 percent; South America for seven percent; Europe, Canada, and Oceania for four percent; Africa for three percent; and the Caribbean for two percent. The top five countries of birth included: Mexico (58 percent), Guatemala (six percent), El Salvador (three percent), Honduras (two percent), and China (two percent).

In the U.S., 61 percent of unauthorized immigrants are between the ages 25-44 and 53 percent are male. Interestingly, 57 percent of unauthorized immigrants over the age of 45 are female.

What is Obama’s Earned Citizenship Proposal?

In 2013, Obama called for earned citizenship in an attempt to fix what he calls a broken system. It is an alternative to deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S illegally that allows a legal path for them to earn citizenship. In this proposal, unauthorized immigrants must submit to national security and criminal background checks, pay taxes and a penalty, wait a specific amount of time, and learn English in order to earn citizenship. If the eligibility requirements are met, citizenship is guaranteed. Lastly, young immigrants would be able to fast track citizenship through military service or higher education pursuit.

Provisional Legal Status

Unauthorized immigrants must first register, submit biometric data, pass both national security and background checks, and pay penalties/fees in order to be eligible for provisional legal status. Before applying for legal permanent status–a green card–and eventually U.S. citizenship, they must wait until current legal immigration backlogs are cleared. A provisional legal status will not allow federal benefits. Lawful permanent resident status eligibility will require stricter requirements than the provisional legal status, and applicants must pay their taxes, pass further background and national security tests, register for Selective Service if applicable, pay additional fees and penalties, and learn English and U.S. Civics. In accordance with today’s law, applicants must wait five years after receiving a green card to apply for U.S. citizenship.

DREAMers and AgJOBS

This proposal includes the voted-down Dream Act. Innocent unauthorized immigrant children brought to the U.S. by their parents can earn expedited citizenship through higher education or military service. Agricultural workers can fast track legal provisional status as well in a program called AgJOBS. This a measure to specifically fight against employers taking advantage of unauthorized farmers who will work for the bare minimum.

Combatting Fraud

The proposal allocates funding to DHS, the Department of State, and other relevant federal agencies to create fraud prevention programs that will “provide training for adjudicators, allow regular audits of applications to identify patterns of fraud and abuse, and incorporate other proven fraud prevention measures.” These programs will help ensure a fair and honest path to earned citizenship.

2013 Immigration Reform Bill

Much of Obama’s proposal for earned citizenship came to life in the Senate’s 2013 Immigration Reform Bill. “Nobody got everything they wanted. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not me,” the President said, “but the Senate bill is consistent with the key principles for commonsense reform.” The bill was a heavily bipartisan effort, written by a group of four Republicans and four Democrats called the Gang of Eight. The bill would have provided $46.3 million in funding for its implementation. Immigrants could start applying for a lawful permanent residence when specific goals and timelines of the bill are reached.

Border Security

The bill mandated a variety of border security measures, including the following: the training and addition of 19,200 full-time border agents amassing to 38,405 in total; activation of an electronic exit system at every Customs and Border Control outlet; constructions of 700 miles of fencing; increased surveillance 24 hours a day on the border region; and some specific technology measures including ground sensors, fiber-optic tank inspection scopes, portable contraband detectors, and radiation isotope identification devices. The bill also mandated more unauthorized immigration prosecution, including the hiring of additional prosecutors, judges, and relevant staff. Interior Enforcement would be required to increase its efforts against visa overstay, including a pilot program to notify people of an upcoming visa expiration. And finally, a bipartisan Southern Border Security Commission to make recommendations and allocating funds when appropriate.

Immigrant Visas

Registered Provisional Immigrants’ (RPI) status would be granted on a six-year basis. Unauthorized immigrants would be eligible for application if they have been in the U.S. since December 31, 2011, paid their appropriate taxes as well as a $1,000 penalty. Applicants would need a relatively clean criminal background, although the bill allowed judges more leniency in determining the severity of a person’s criminal background. After ten years of living in the U.S. with continuous employment (or proof of living above the poverty line), the payment of additional fees, and additional background checks, those with RPI status could apply for legal permanent residence. Naturalized citizenship could be applied for after three years of legal permanent residence.

Between 120,000 and 250,000 visas would be handed out each year based on a two-tier point system. Tier one visas would be designated for higher-skilled immigrants with advanced educational credentials and experience, and tier two visas would be reserved for less-skilled immigrants. The top 50 percent that accrued the most points in each tier would be granted visas, and points would be based on a combination of factors including: education, employment, occupation, civic involvement, English language proficiency, family ties, age, and nationality.

Interior Enforcement

Essentially, this provision mandated the use of E-verify, which is “an internet-based system that allows businesses to determine the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States by comparing information from an employee’s Employment Eligibility Verification Form I-9 to data from U.S. government records.” E-verify, in use now on a limited basis, would be mandated for all employers in the time span of five years. Employers would be required to register newly hired employees with E-verify within three days, and regular assessments would take place to ensure that E-verify isn’t used for discriminatory purposes.

Watch the video below for more information on the Immigration Reform Bill.

Stopped in the House

The Senate passed the bill with overwhelming support in a 68-32 vote. Both sides were highly pleased with the bipartisan teamwork the bill produced. “The strong bipartisan vote we took is going to send a message across the country,” said Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-NY). “It’s going to send a message to the other end of the Capitol as well.” When the bill was finalized, the group broke into a “Yes, we can!” chant.

Devastatingly, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) refused to even allow the bill to come to a vote after previously claiming that something needed to be done about immigration reform. He said:

The idea that we’re going to take up a 1,300-page bill that no one had ever read, which is what the Senate did, is not going to happen in the House. And frankly, I’ll make clear that we have no intention of ever going to conference on the Senate bill.

No room was allowed for comprise or debate on potential house legislation.

Obama’s Immigration Accountability Executive Actions

President Obama’s immigration reform executive actions, announced in November 2014, focus on three items: cracking down on illegal immigration at the border, deporting felons instead of families, and accountability. Basically, these encompass a minor segment of the immigration reform he was trying to pass all along. People attempting to cross the border illegally will have a greater chance of failure. Border security command-and-control will be centralized. Deportation will focus on those who threaten security and national safety. Temporary legal status will be issued in three-year increments for unauthorized immigrants who register, pass background checks, and pay appropriate taxes. It will protect up to five million unauthorized immigrants from deportation.

The executive actions established Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). While DACA protects immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, DAPA provides temporary relief from deportation for eligible parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

 Are the Executive Actions legal?

These executive actions saw immediate backlash. House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) responded, “The president’s decision to recklessly forge ahead with a plan to unilaterally change our immigration laws ignores the will of the American people and flouts the Constitution.” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) moved for the House to sue the president.

On Feburary 16, 2015, conservative Texas district court judge Andrew Hanen ruled in favor of Texas and 25 other states to overturn Obama’s action as unconstitutional. Hanen  ruled that the executive actions would cause these states “irreparable harm.”

The matter will now be appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Obama’s actions are blocked indefinitely. Until then, a number of states including New York, California, and New Mexico, have asked for a lift of the ban for their states. They await a ruling.

 Conclusion

Immigration has been the center of heated debate for years. The closest our government came to finally passing a bill that would aid the problem of illegal immigration didn’t even come to a vote in the House. So President Obama decided to take the matter into his own hands. Whether forcing states to participate in his immigration reform is constitutional or not will be a decision left to the courts. Obama’s proposal for earned citizenship started a snowball effect of immigration policy that will likely end in a showdown at the Supreme Court.

Resources

Primary

White House: Earned Citizenship

White House: Immigration

Additional

Immigration Policy Center: A Guide to S.744

Immigration Policy Center: The Dream Act

Politico: Immigration Reform Bill 2013: Senate Passes Legislation 68-32

U.S. News & World Report: Is Obama’s Immigration Executive Order Legal?

Washington Post: Boehner Closes Door on House-Senate Immigration Panel

Washington Post: A Dozen States Will CAll for Courts to Allow Obama’s Executive Actions to Proceed

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Immigration Reform: Earned Citizenship and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United States Congress today. The speech was much anticipated after weeks of political back and forth regarding the invitation extended to Netanyahu by Speaker of the House John Boehner; however, Netanyahu did end up giving his speech as planned, and it focused heavily on Iran and the ongoing American-Iranian talks over nuclear power. That being said, in some ways the speech is less interesting from an international politics standpoint as it is from a domestic policy window.

The controversy leading up to the speech was, to put it bluntly, a total mess. It all started with House Speaker John Boehner extending an invitation to Netanyahu to speak in front of Congress. However, the White House was not consulted in this matter. Democrats called that a slap in the face to President Obama, given that it’s highly unusual for the legislative branch of one nation to interact with the head of state of another. Democrats argue that it undermines the President’s autonomy when it comes for foreign policy decisions.

The Obama Administration–including Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and President Obama himself–refused to meet with Netanyahu. The official reason given centered on a concern that Obama didn’t want to interfere with Israeli politics in the period of time leading up to the imminent Israeli elections.

For a very long time, Israel has been one of the few bipartisan issues in the United States. Almost ever politician, regardless of party, has at some point declared his or her commitment to Israel. Americans in general have a consistent history of supporting the country. We as a nation have given Israel more than $121 billion in foreign aid since 1948. A Gallup poll found a plurality–42 percent of Americans–thought Israeli actions against Hamas were justified this summer. Moreover, 62 percent of Americans sympathized with the Israelis. The United States and Israel have long had a close relationship, regardless of which American political party is holding office.

That being said, in today’s toxic political environment, no issue can every really truly be bipartisan. The scuffle over Netanyahu’s appearance today shows that. Obama refusing to meet with Netanyahu was just the beginning–many other prominent Democrats who are actually members of Congress refused to attend the speech as well. Seven senators, all Democrats (with the exception of Senator Bernie Sanders, an Independent), sat out the speech. A pretty long list of House members, again all Democrats, didn’t attend either.

In addition, Obama spoke about what Netanyahu said. While he didn’t necessarily criticize it, he basically lamented “same old, same old” about Netanyahu’s concerns over the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks. According to NPR:

Obama, speaking at the White House, said, ‘as far as I can tell, there was nothing new’ in Netanyahu’s speech, adding, ‘the prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives.’ He said he didn’t watch the speech because it coincided with a video conference with European leaders.

Other Democrats had more overt reactions. Representative Nancy Pelosi stated:

I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech—saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.

I think what we saw today can be best described as a low-key game of political chicken. Republicans took one of the few sort of bipartisan issues and made Obama pick a political side. Had he gone along with the Republican Congress’ power play he would have kowtowed to his political rivals. Yet openly slamming them or Netanyahu could anger an American populace that has consistently supported a friendly relationship with Israel. In a lot of ways, it was a lose-lose situation. While Obama has said that he’s more than willing to keep working with Netanyahu if he wins the upcoming Israeli elections, the relationship may be more frayed moving forward.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Netanyahu’s Speech Shows Israel Isn’t Always a Bipartisan Issue appeared first on Law Street.

In light of recent high profile police killings such as those of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri last August, Eric Garner in Staten Island, and 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, a national discussion has developed about the force used by police officers against American citizens. In the most recent development in that discussion, President Obama called for all police shootings to be reported to the federal government so that kind of information is readily available and transparent.

This call comes after Obama’s December 2014 recommendation to establish the “Task Force on 21st Century Policing.” According to the White House,

The task force will examine how to strengthen public trust and foster strong relationships between local law enforcement and the communities that they protect, while also promoting effective crime reduction.

The task force will engage with federal, state, tribal, and local officials; technical advisors; young leaders; and nongovernmental organizations to provide a transparent process to engage with the public.

The task force is chaired by Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles H. Ramsey and Laurie Robinson, a criminology professor at George Mason University who was formerly an Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ office of Justice Programs.

That task force has now come back to the President with its recommendations–the suggestion that police forces be required to report their shootings is just one of them. This comes after multiple high profile officials had made similar statements about the necessity of recording the incidences of police shootings. Attorney General Eric Holder expressed a similar sentiment in mid January when he stated in a speech,

I’ve heard from a number of people who have called on policymakers to ensure better record-keeping on injuries and deaths that occur at the hands of police. I’ve also spoken with law enforcement leaders — including the leadership of the Fraternal Order of Police — who have urged elected officials to consider strategies for collecting better data on officer fatalities. Today, my response to these legitimate concerns is simple: We need to do both.

FBI head James Comey made similar statements in a speech at Georgetown University a few weeks ago when he stated, “It’s ridiculous that I can’t tell you how many people were shot by the police in this country last week, last year, the last decade – it’s ridiculous.”

There isn’t any information yet about how the reporting of police shootings and force will be handled–whether it will go through the FBI or some other agency is yet to be seen.

This recommendation from the task force comes as that conversation about police shootings continues in the U.S. Last night, a video of a Los Angeles Police Department officer fatally shooting a homeless man went viral.

Here’s the video, although fair warning–it’s pretty brutal and graphic:

Officers claim that it was a struggle over one of the cop’s guns, and it very well may have been, but either way it’s a disturbing video in which deadly force is used very quickly. The conversation about police shootings in the United States is very far from over–a database may be able to be used to help make that conversation even more productive.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Task Force Calls for Police Shootings to be Reported to Federal Government appeared first on Law Street.

There’s a very pointless fight going on in the world of American politics right now. It’s over whether or not President Obama “loves” America. See? It really is as stupid as it sounds.

It seemingly started a few days ago when Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, made statements speculating about how President Obama feels about America. He stated on Wednesday:

I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the president loves America … He wasn’t brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.

When accused of being racist, Giuliani got even weirder, saying:

Some people thought it was racist — I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people.

He also blamed America’s supposed antipathy to America on socialism. Overall, it was a weird, yet not entirely unexpected outburst. After all, in the almost ten years since Obama has been on the national stage, there’s been plenty of speculation about his beliefs, ideologies, and thoughts.

It hasn’t just stayed with Giuliani though, because now possible Republican 2016 Presidential candidate, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has jumped into the discussion. He essentially said that he didn’t know how Obama feels about America, and also doesn’t know if Obama’s Christian, because he’s never asked him.

Walker has now run in circles around those comments, saying

I assume most people in this country love America. And to me I don’t think it’s worth getting into the battle over whether he does or he doesn’t. He can handle that himself. I know I do.

And his spokesman stated:

Of course the governor thinks the president is a Christian. He thinks these kinds of gotcha questions distract from what he’s doing as governor of Wisconsin to make the state better and make life better for people in his state.

The entire thing is such a bizarre and pointless debate. First of all, any discussion of Obama’s religion again, is exhausting. Walker saying that he’s not sure what Obama’s religion is because he hasn’t asked him is ridiculous, especially after the continuous media coverage and Obama’s constant reaffirmation of his beliefs in 2008. The fact that Walker is feeding into that speculation is just as bad–remember when McCain at least corrected that one insane lady at his event who thought that Obama was Muslim?

The debate over whether or not Obama “loves America” is equally exhausting. It’s polarizing, it’s pointless, and it’s ridiculous. First of all, why does it matter that much? Should we follow this implication through and assume that if Obama doesn’t “love” America, he’s currently attempting to destroy it? That’s insane and beyond paranoid.

What it really is is a way to call Obama elitist, and different than the American ideal of country above self. It’s a debate that we’ve been having for years now, and it’s silly. I hope that in 2016, everyone will focus on getting the best person for the job, and not just silly paranoid speculation.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GOP Candidates Speculate Whether Obama “Loves” America appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama has officially asked Congress to authorize military force to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS). The request was sent in the form of a three-page legislation draft, as well as a letter to the members of Congress. It would create a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The force that Obama requested would be “limited”–although that term is obviously very vague. Essentially, what the Obama Administration is looking for is a three-year long military campaign against ISIS. There wouldn’t be a mass invasion, but rather air force and limited ground support. Particularly, Obama mentioned that U.S. forces would be used for matters “such as rescue operations” or “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” Obama also acknowledged that the emphasis should be on supporting local forces, not sending in American troops, saying, “local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations.”

It’s important to note that American forces have been present in the fight against ISIS for a long time now. Obama had previously justified those actions based on the authorizations of force granted to President George W. Bush after 9/11. This new authorization would provide an update, and serve as a political point for Obama. As he puts in the letter:

Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF. Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF.

Essentially what that means is that Obama still wants to curtail that original 2001 AUMF, which has been decried by many as being too broad, but still be able to use force against ISIS.

The president explained in the letter that the motive behind asking for this authorization to act against ISIS is based on the threat that the group poses to the region, and by extension, the world. He also brought up the actions that ISIS has taken against Americans–particularly the executions of American citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller, all taken as ISIS hostages. Foley and Sotloff were both journalists; Kassig and Mueller were humanitarians and aid workers. News of Mueller’s death came just a few days ago, although unlike the male American hostages, a video was not released of her execution.

So far, political responses to Obama’s request seem tepid at best from Republicans and Democrats alike. Many are aware of the incredible unpopularity of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars at this point. Obama has, at various points, been criticized for being too hesitant and too active in the fight against ISIS. Speaker of the House John Boehner said about the request:

Any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people. While I believe an A.U.M.F. against ISIL is important, I have concerns that the president’s request does not meet this standard.

Many Democrats were also less than enthused by the request, many of whom appear to think that it’s still too broad. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) stated: “Part of the feedback they’re getting from some members will be unless that is further defined, that might be seen as too big a statement to ultimately embrace.”

There’s a twofold need to balance here. First of all, it’s not surprising that within this hot-blooded, acrimonious political environment disagreements would be obvious. The politics here don’t surprise me. But what’s important to remember is that while Democrats and Republicans, and everyone in between, may fight about what to do against ISIS, no one really has an answer. We haven’t quite figured out how to fight terrorist groups yet; honestly the only thing that can be said with certainty is that they’re not like conventional conflicts. It’s hard to determine whether Obama’s action is right or wrong, and it’s just as difficult to determine which of his critics are right. That being said, what almost certainly won’t work against ISIS is doing nothing–a step toward action is probably a step in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Asks Congress for Authorization to Fight ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama gave his second-to-last State of the Union address last night, and it’s being lauded as a great one. He laid out a long to-do list, including addressing net neutrality, his education plan, a minimum wage hike, a tax code overhaul, and a fight against ISIS, despite the fact that he enters this year having to stand against a Republican-controlled Congress. In fact, much of the speech seemed like a challenge to a Congress made up of the very people who have consistently tried to stall Obama’s polices for the last seven years. Whether or not they decide to play nice will be up to the Republicans.

The Republican response to the speech, of course, was rather negative. The main criticism seemed to be that Obama didn’t focus enough on the middle class. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), who actually gave the Republican response to last year’s SOTU, commented:

You know, I was disappointed. I was disappointed that I didn’t hear more from the president as far as how we were going to help those middle-class families. I thought he painted a little rosy picture of how things are, at a time when people continue to see their wages actually shrink, take-home pay shrinking. Job opportunities are not enough.

That quote from McMorris Rodgers is pretty consistent with a lot of GOP responses to Obama’s SOTU speech last night–that he doesn’t understand the middle class and do enough to help the citizens who fall into that bracket. Most Democrats are insisting that the plans that Obama laid out–particularly those to give middle class families a tax break, as well as help ease the burden of college payments, are going to be great for these segment of the country.

As I sat here trying to work my way through all of the plans, all of the political rhetoric, all of the buzzwords that got thrown around last night, I had a realization. It’s not just that Democrats and Republicans can’t seem to agree on how to help the middle class. It might be that we can’t agree on what the “middle class” is. 

It sounds silly–we all know what the middle class is, right? It must be that chunk of the population between those in poverty, and those who live in mansions. Is it blue-collar workers, or white-collar workers, or a little bit of both? Or is it more of a heritage–are we middle class because of the values that are instilled in us? I honestly don’t know anymore.

What I do know is that pretty much everyone thinks they’re middle class. In a 2012 Gallup Poll, 42 percent of respondents said they were middle class. Another 13 percent said they were upper-middle class. Then another 31 percent said they were “working class,” which makes this entire thing even less clear, given that working class is sometimes viewed as middle class. Most importantly, there were a plurality of people in every income bracket from $30,000-$100,000 who defined themselves as “middle class.”

The concept of the middle class has long been hailed as a bedrock of American society, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing. But I think it does make it incredibly difficult to design policies for the “middle class” because when you’re talking about well over half the population, one size doesn’t even fit most. What I, as a 20-something living in Washington D.C., need, is significantly different than what a family in Iowa needs, which is different than someone about to retire in California needs, even if we all make about the same amount and identify as “middle class.”

To bring this back to last night’s speech, it’s that very definition problem that makes it easy for both the Democrats and the Republicans to point to their plans and say “look, it’s for the middle class.” For example, Obama’s statement last night:

That’s why this Congress still needs to pass a law that makes sure a woman is paid the same as a man for doing the same work. Really. It’s 2015. It’s time.

To me, that sounds like a tangible thing that would help the middle class. Given that it’s now pretty close to the norm for both men and women, even those married and/or with families, to work, ensuring that they both get fair pay seems like it would help the middle class to me. But then the Republicans see that Obama is also proposing a tax hike on the richest Americans, and will argue that that’s going to slow job growth, so paying men and women equally isn’t helpful if neither of them can find a job. It’s a messy, cyclical argument that’s more about politics than actually trying to help the middle class, no matter who we may be. And that’s a shame.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SOTU All About the Middle Class, But Who Exactly is That? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s no secret that college costs have gone up. Way up. Bloomberg estimated that the cost of college had gone up 1,120 percent since 1978. While inflation over time is obviously normal, that’s a huge jump. Compare it to the fact that over the same time period, the price of food has only risen 244 percent. Going to college now requires that many students take out loans, and then struggle to pay those loans off for years to come. President Obama and other politicians have been saying that something needs to be done for a while, and he recently floated a plan to help ease college costs for some students: two years of free community college for students who are willing to work for it.

Obama gave a speech at Pellissippi State Community College in Tennessee about his new plan. At its core, it’s a simple enough idea. Students who maintain a GPA over 2.5, attend at least half time, and make steady progress toward completing their degree will be eligible for the tuition elimination. The schools are going to be held to high standards as well:

Community colleges will be expected to offer programs that either (1) are academic programs that fully transfer to local public four-year colleges and universities, giving students a chance to earn half of the credit they need for a four-year degree, or (2) are occupational training programs with high graduation rates and that lead to degrees and certificates that are in demand among employers.

The reasoning behind providing those first two years free is to train students for more high-skilled jobs. While our unemployment numbers are looking better than they have in years–under six percent as of December 2014–there are still plenty of Americans who are unemployed and underemployed. Despite this nearly five million jobs remain unfilled in areas that require specialized training, such as healthcare work or technology. This plan will attempt to fill that gap by providing workers with skills that can be used in those jobs. As jobs that require a college degree increase–by 2020 it’s estimated that 33 percent of all job openings will require post-high school education–it makes sense to make it as easy as possible for people to get those degrees.

It’s estimated that this will cost about $3,800 per student, and that nine million students will take advantage of the program. That all adds up to a pretty hefty price tag, roughly $60 billion over ten years, which begs the question: how is the Federal government going to pay for this all? The details don’t appear to be fully formed yet, but advocates argue that it’s an investment in the economy. Until our work force is at its most productive, we’re not going to be able to get much done.

Despite the fact that this plan is more bipartisan than most undertaken by the government these days–Republican Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker attended the speech in Tennessee–there are plenty of lawmakers who disagree with the plan. Detractors point to the high price tag as an unnecessary expense. There are also concerns that community colleges aren’t necessarily that successful–only 30 percent of students entering community college graduate within three years.

While there are both positives and negatives to the plan, it’s an early step of what needs to be a much larger solution to the huge problem of college costs and student debt as a whole.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post College Tuition Elimination Plan Aims to Fill Skilled Jobs Mismatch appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: Press Secretary Admits that Administration should have sent higher ranking official to rally.

Less than a week after the attack at magazine Charlie Hebdo, France is still dealing with the aftermath, but Paris has showed that its people are nothing if not resilient. As an act of memorial for the slain Charlie Hebdo staff, as well as the hostages killed at a Kosher market in Paris on Friday, there was a gigantic march in the city yesterday. The rally also served as a show of unity against terrorism. It was a huge, notable world event with a ton of support from around the world. But where was the United States?

Chanting & applause in Paris as huge crowds begin unity march against terror attacks http://t.co/VeXcJu1QK6pic.twitter.com/gC9Ca8HGR0

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) January 11, 2015

It’s estimated that about 1.6 million people took part. To us Americans, that doesn’t sound like that much, but you have to remember that France is roughly one-fifth of the size of the United States. So, comparably, that would mean around 8 million people marching here. That’s massive, and incredibly moving.

It wasn’t just Paris either. Marches took place around the world. In the French city of Lyon, roughly one-fourth of the population marched.

Of course, not everyone involved in the march was French either. Other word leaders, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, EU President Donald Tusk, and Jordan’s King Abdullah II, came as well.

Photo shows a very different perspective on world leaders at the #ParisMarchhttp://t.co/pxZoV21ZKCpic.twitter.com/VyJk1iOrxN

— The Independent (@Independent) January 12, 2015

But there was one thing notably missing from the rally: the presence of a high profile official from the United States.

There was no President Barack Obama. No Vice President Joe Biden. No Secretary of State John Kerry. The U.S. was represented by Jane Hartley, the American Ambassador to France, and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. No offense to Ambassador Hartley or Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, but they’re both a noticeable pay grade below the 40-plus heads of state who attended. Merkel and Cameron are two of the most prominent figures in the Western world. For god’s sake, the respective leaders of Israel and Palestine both showed up in a mini-act of solidarity in their own right, despite reports that they were asked not to. But the United States sent mostly unrecognizable figures, one of whom who was probably there anyway.

If you’re looking for a truly insipid study into the way that conspiracy theorists’ minds work, a look at the hashtag #ReasonsObamaMissedFranceRally might be in order. Theories range from Obama secretly being racist to Obama being Muslim (seriously, we’re still on that?). These are stupid theories.

But the hashtag does get one teeny, tiny thing right. The absence was not only noticeable, it was incredibly embarrassing. The White House is scrambling to come up with reasons why Obama didn’t attend, including citing his participation in a few interviews yesterday, and mentioning concerns that the security at the event would be difficult to manage. Obama has put out statements showing his support for France, but his absence from the event still looks pretty bad. Now there’s news that Secretary of State Kerry will be visiting France this week, possibly in an attempt to placate critics.

Honestly, I highly doubt there was some weird alternative motive here, but mostly just an incredibly bad PR move. Maybe the White House thought that Americans are self-absorbed enough to not really care what was happening in Paris. Or maybe Obama didn’t want to take such an overtly political stance. Or maybe Obama didn’t attend out of fear of drawing attention from ISIS, which still holds some Western hostages like John Cantlie, after all.

I honestly don’t know what it was that motivated not only President Obama to skip the rally, but also not to send a high profile emissary in his place. Sure, he’s made some heartening statements in support of France in the last few days, but he should know by now that actions speak louder than words. His actions yesterday signaled a massive underestimation of the power of solidarity, and a complete lack of foresight.

UPDATE: Press Secretary Admits that Administration should have sent higher ranking official to rally.: The White House clarified Obama’s absence from the rally on Sunday during a press conference this afternoon. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted, “I think it’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there.” He also cited security concerns as the reason that Obama himself didn’t attend.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Absence From France Unity Rally Was a Massive PR Failure appeared first on Law Street.

A major hacking scandal at the entertainment company Sony has escalated quickly over the last few weeks. It started with leaked information, and has now led to full on terror threats against theaters that show the movie The Interview, a comedy that centers around the premise of killing North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. The release has since been cancelled. The hacker group responsible called themselves “Guardians of the Peace.” This morning, the FBI put out a statement that included the following:

As a result of our investigation, and in close collaboration with other U.S. government departments and agencies, the FBI now has enough information to conclude that the North Korean government is responsible for these actions.

Just before 2:00 PM today, President Barack Obama held a news conference to address the Sony issue, among other things. It is his final press conference of 2014.

The first question of the day was, as expected, about the Sony hack.

A Politico reporter asked whether or not Sony made the best choice pulling The Interview. Obama was clear: he thinks that Sony made a mistake. He talked about the need to be able to resist cyber attacks, saying “we’re not even close to where we need to be.” He also emphasized the need for strong cyber security laws that would serve to protect both the public and private sectors. He then made an excellent argument for why Sony’s decision was wrong, saying:

We cannot have a society in which some dictator someplace can start imposing censorship in the United States. Because if someone is able to intimidate folks out of releasing a satirical movie, imagine what they start doing when they see a documentary they don’t like, or news reports they don’t like. Or even worse, imagine if producers and distributors and others start engaging in self censorship because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of someone whose sensibilities need to be affected. That’s not who we are. That’s not what America’s about.

He continued to emphasize the need to stand against terrorist demands, because of the slippery slope to which it could lead, specifically referencing North Korea in this case–not a surprising move given that the FBI had already done so. He said there would be a response, but he wasn’t going to go into detail today, emphasizing the need for international cooperation on the issue of cyber security. Later, in response to another question, he pointed out that despite the international aspect, there’s no evidence to indicate that North Korea was working with any other country.

It’s been a long few weeks for Sony, and the idea that a foreign government could use cyber-terrorism to intimidate an American company is concerning. But President Obama was right–negotiating and giving in to terrorists may be even more dangerous down the road. While his plan about how to respond to North Korea was, completely understandably, very vague, I have a feeling the White House may need to take tough actions here to mitigate Sony’s caving to the cyberterrorists’ demands.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post President Obama: Sony Made a Mistake Pulling “The Interview” appeared first on Law Street.

It’s been almost 25 years since the end of the Cold War, but still some vestiges remain. One of the most apparent is the relationship between the United States and Cuba. We haven’t had diplomatic relations with Cuba, located not even 100 miles off the coast of Florida, since 1961. That’s a long time–in the name of interesting context, for the entire duration of President Barack Obama’s life, we have not had normalized relations with Cuba. But that began to change yesterday. Those frozen relations are beginning to thaw. Diplomatic relations are being opened back up, prisoners are being released, and both travel and trade will be expanded, among other steps.

The conversation between Washington and Havana took 18 months, and eventually included both President Barack Obama, and President Raul Castro. Castro has officially been President of Cuba since 2008, although his brother, former President Fidel Castro basically handed over power in 2006. There was also a third major player–Pope Francis.

The Pope’s role does make sense. After all, he’s the first pope to hail from Latin America, and Cuba is heavily Catholic. Although exact statistics are difficult to obtain, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops estimates that a little over 50 percent of Cubans are Catholic. Since President Raul Castro took power, he’s been more flexible about allowing the Catholic Church to operate in Cuba than his brother. Pope Francis’s motives seem clear–he believed that improving relations between the United States and Cuba would help both Catholics and non-Catholics alike in the two nations.

There’s a fourth player to consider though, although maybe calling him a non-player would be more accurate. This whole conversation sends an interesting message to Russian President Vladmir Putin, who most definitely wasn’t invited to the party. During the Cold War, Cuba was one of Russia’s bargaining chips. That’s pretty much what the entire Cuban Missile Crisis was about. Since the Cold War ended, Russia and Cuba have remained pretty close.

However, Russia isn’t nearly as good of a benefactor or friend as they used to be. They’ve had a rough time of it lately. Russia received quite a bit of international ire for its meddling in Ukraine; the U.S. Congress just passed new sanctions against Russia in response to the Ukraine situation. In addition, the Russian economy is very much struggling. The Russian unit of currency–the ruble–has fallen to a historic low. Putin has attempted to comfort his people, basically claiming that the Russian economy will bounce back within two years, which seems more like a bandaid than a promise. Putin also partly blamed the rough economic conditions in Russia on Western interference. Put simply, Putin is both in trouble, and pretty annoyed with the U.S. right now.

So, it becomes clear that the move to improve relations with Cuba can be seen as a diplomatic victory for the U.S.. Our relationship with Cuba will probably undermine Russia’s, and will be a symbol of Russia’s seemingly wavering international influence. Given that Russia and the U.S. haven’t been particularly friendly lately–the whole Ukraine debacle is a major reason why–it makes sense why the U.S. might want to take away some of Russia’s friends. It’s not going to majorly affect the Russian economy, or anything of the sort, but it looks really bad. It may take a lot of straws to break a camel’s back, but there’s no reason not to add straws when you can.

There were many reasons that the U.S. and Cuba took such a historic step this week–moral, diplomatic, and economic, just to name a few. Whatever reasons ended up being the most convincing, one thing is certain. It’s definitely a new era in American and Cuban relations.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Russia Left Out: United States and Cuba Thaw Relations appeared first on Law Street.

Net Neutrality has been the center of an important political and technological debate for a while now. Law Street has covered the different developments extensively. This week, President Obama released a statement affirming the need for net neutrality, and it was a strong one.

If you don’t want to watch the entire statement, here are the sparknotes. Obama affirmed the concept of net neutrality and stated his plan moving forward: he wants the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) to reclassify the internet and protect net neutrality. As he put it in his statement:

To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

Essentially, Obama wants to prevent Internet Service Providers (ISPs) from changing or altering the speeds at which they provide service to various sites or users. He wants to prevent what’s called “internet fast lanes,” because they mean that ISPs would have control over how fast particular sites load. Fast lanes stifle creativity, equality, and would give a ton of power and money to ISPs such as the much-maligned Comcast.

Of course, Obama can’t support anything without there being a very good chance that the other side of the aisle will get up in arms about it, and that’s exactly what happened here. Rising Republican star Ted Cruz tweeted the following:

"Net Neutrality" is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) November 10, 2014

There are so many things wrong with this statement, I’m not even entirely sure where to start. It’s almost like Cruz created this tweet during a game of petty political Mad Libs–the prompt would have been “fill in a controversial program that will make people angry with the President without explaining the context, giving a comparison, or even trying to justify it.”

First of all, this shows that Cruz fundamentally does not understand what net neutrality is. Luckily, the very denizens of the internet whom net neutrality would hurt had a nice response for Ted Cruz–my favorite was the one by the Oatmeal, a humorous web comic. In addition to being a great take down of Cruz, it is also a pretty good explanation of net neutrality for the uninitiated. Take a look:

Dear @SenTedCruz, I’m going to explain to you how Net Neutrality ACTUALLY works http://t.co/rQWMlmJTmY pic.twitter.com/dvxQGDZMBF

— Matthew Inman (@Oatmeal) November 10, 2014

The Oatmeal’s point is simple–Cruz takes money from the very same ISPs that want to be able to charge people more for their services. And then he turns around and posts something on Twitter that’s not just horribly inaccurate but clearly inflammatory. Because he most likely does not understand net neutrality.

But Cruz and the people who work for him know how to score political points. And comparing anything to Obamacare is going to be a winning metaphor among those who have decided that Obamacare is the devil incarnate.

The fact that Cruz is against net neutrality is a bit upsetting though. It stands directly in contrast to the principles he purports to support. Cruz’s website focuses heavily on the idea of small business success, and working hard to achieve your goals.

Those principles–economic success through small business growth, pulling oneself up by the bootstraps–of Republican theory have been made so much easier by the advent of the internet. Now an entrepreneur can start a small business and use the resources provided by global connectivity to reach customers all over the world. A student who doesn’t have access to very good educational resources can use the internet to learn, for free.

But Ted Cruz would rather compare the internet to Obamacare because it’s easy.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ted Cruz Doesn’t Know or Care What Net Neutrality Is appeared first on Law Street.

The 2014 Midterms just wrapped up, so of course the 2016 presidential race contenders have not even crossed the starting line. Or, have they? In my oh-so-humble opinion, the race hasn’t just begun — it’s already over. The cheering fans watching the contestants have already gone home and are reminiscing about the day’s excitement over a nice dinner. And which runner dashed first through the tape held taut across the finish line? Hillary Clinton, of course. Her win seems already a guarantee. Why? For the following reasons, which all happen to conveniently start with the letter F. Just like on Sesame Street, today’s episode is brought to you by the letter F.

1. Feminism

This is the word of the moment, especially after Emma Watson gave her speech on the topic at a recent United Nations event causing people to swoon over her more than usual. We had our first African-American president, so now it’s time for a lady to step up to the plate. And in Hilary’s case, a pretty bad-ass lady.

2. Foreign Policy

Love him or hate him, it’s pretty undeniable that Obama’s foreign policy leaves much to be desired. That’s where Hilary steps in. She traveled to 112 countries while serving as Secretary of State – the most of anyone in that position throughout history. That kind of indicates she knows her shit.

3. Family Dynasties

The Bush family. The Kennedy family. The Clinton family. What do they have in common? Their members were and are political big wigs and small wigs (maybe a wig for a baby or a gnome?). It must be some sort of requirement that as they are raised, members are brainwashed to some extent to acquire and live out lofty political aspirations.

4. Facial Expressions

Okay, okay — perhaps facial expressions alone are not exactly a qualification for making someone a good president. But you have to admit that her facial expressions to suit varying social situations are pretty on the ball. She’s not afraid to let those emotions show, and we need some honest people in politics.

PHOTOS: @HillaryClinton‘s Best Facial Expressions http://t.co/FXcUqu7me8

— Mstars News (@MstarsNews) June 19, 2014

All you naysayers out there (and not just horses) are probably pointing out that after the scandal caused by Bill Clinton and a certain Ms. Lewinsky with whom he DID, indeed, have sexual relations, we don’t need another Clinton in the White house. But look at it this way: with all of that crap Hilary had to put up with from her husband, she deserves to get what she wants and be president. Furthermore, she has already lived in the White house and can therefore just pick up where she left off there and doesn’t need an adjustment period. So, get ready for Hillary to step up to the presidential podium: our first woman president. Brace yourself, nation!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Just Get Ready For It: Another Clinton in the White House appeared first on Law Street.

By now you’ve probably gathered how important I think it is for a person of power to present themselves as far as their sartorial choices go; however, that doesn’t mean I don’t see the inherent double standard in society’s speculation over what women in power wear. From first ladies to political candidates, the public loves to ask a woman about what she wears and why she wears it. In fact, it was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself who once shot down an interviewer’s inquiry about what designers she likes to wear with the now-famous retort, “Would you ever ask a man that question?” Personally my answer would be yes, but I’m fully aware that I’m in the minority here.

The recently-opened exhibit at the Design Museum in London titled “Women Fashion Power” says a lot about how society tends to care more about how female politicians dress than it does about males. While sometimes there’s a correlation between a politician’s confidence and his appearance — a la Obama’s tan suit — clothes shouldn’t affect voters’ opinions on how well a person can lead, especially women.

While men may appear to have fewer options outside of the accepted black suit as formal and professional attire, tailoring is always key. If his jacket is too big, then the suit will end up wearing him as opposed to the other way around. People don’t want to vote for a walking suit, they want to vote for a powerful and trustworthy man — or woman.

“We want you to see firsthand that a solid education and the willingness to work hard is really at the core of what it’s going to take to achieve your goals: education and hard work.” —The First Lady to #FashionEdu Thank you to all the leaders in the fashion industry who encouraged the students at today’s Fashion Education Workshop to #ReachHigher in their education.

A photo posted by First Lady Michelle Obama (@michelleobama) on Oct 10, 2014 at 6:07pm PDT

Yet from Wendy Davis’ famous sneaker-and-skirt-suit ensemble to Hilary Clinton’s rainbow of pantsuits, voters love to refer to a woman of power by her clothing choices. First Ladies like Michelle Obama and Jacqueline Kennedy are constantly scrutinized, or lauded, for what they wear to every single appearance they make. The press couldn’t stop talking about the fact that Mrs. Obama finally wore American couturier Oscar de la Renta to her fashion education panel just days before the designer’s passing. The first lady has expressed her disinterest in fashion in the past, so why is she trying to fit into the fashion crowd now? Is this the only way for her to solidify her position of power? The exhibit in London even starts with fashions of ancient Egyptian leaders like queen Hatshepsut, but surely ancient male leaders dressed just as ornately. Yet we only ever talk about King Tut’s naked corpse.

Clothes definitely play an important role in any public figure’s reputation. But why does the public care so much more about what a “woman of power” wears than they do about the president’s and other male politicians’ clothes? All I know is that when I go to the ballot box next Tuesday, any women I happen to vote for will be because I trust in their ability to lead based on their policies and past actions. The fact that they dress cute is merely an added bonus.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Fashion Such an Important Issue for Women in Power? appeared first on Law Street.

A few weeks ago the White House began what it calls the It’s On Us campaign to end campus sexual assault. This campaign is a direct result of last April’s Title IX developments to try and change the way we look at consent and rape. As Vice President Joe Biden so sagely put it: “Violence against women is not a women’s issue alone, it’s a men’s issue.”

Last week the It’s On Us campaign continued its onslaught on campus sexual violence by releasing guidance to draft sexual assault guidelines, handle reports of assault, promote prevention, and outline exactly what “consent” means.

It is a little early to tell whether or not these guidelines and the new focus on changing college rape culture will have a noticeable effect, but since every education institution in the U.S. is legally obligated to follow Title IX policies, I’d say change is in the air.

This is only the beginning, though. While sexual assault on college campuses is more common and also more ignored than elsewhere in society, it is by no means the only place rape culture runs rampant.

But what exactly is rape culture? It’s where rape is widely recognized and accepted as a normal part of society. Where, instead of trying to prevent rape, victims are blamed. Rape, unfortunately, has become normalized in American society. The word “rape” can be heard to describe anything but the act itself, and there has been more than one occurrence of assault recorded and uploaded to the internet. As if showing themselves raping someone will give the uploader fame.

No, college is definitely not the only place rape culture needs to disappear. It is also not the only place that things like the Title IX developments may not be taken seriously.

By the time kids get to college, they have had at least seventeen years of rape culture exposure. They grew up in gender roles that encouraged male dominance and female submissiveness. They grew up being told that a girl who dresses in a short dress is “slutty” or “asking for it.” They watched movies like The Hangover where being roofied was turned into a comedy. When they finally set foot on a college campus for the first time, they had years of societal expectations ingrained into their heads.

Now, while many college students are eager to have their minds opened and changed by their chosen institution, not all are willing to let go of the beliefs they got from their parents and relatives. “It’s On Us” will no doubt have some positive effects on the number of sexual assault cases on campuses, and it is a sure sign that rape culture can be changed, but it is just one of the steps that needs to be taken.

It should also be noted that, along with rape culture existing outside the college campus, women are by no means the only ones who suffer sexual assaults. It is a truth that is not widely acknowledged that men get raped too. But, as I said before, men are brought up to be dominant and therefore are too afraid to admit a woman assaulted them. When we, in the words of Emma Watson, “see gender as a spectrum, rather than two sets of opposing ideals,” assault initiated by both genders, and the rape culture in which those assaults are normalized, will end.

If you would like more information on Title IX and its guidelines, go here.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rape Culture Can (And Must) Be Changed appeared first on Law Street.

The Social Security program was enacted in 1935 to provide post-retirement income security for workers and their families. Since then, it has grown to become the world’s largest government program with a total expenditure of $768 billion in fiscal year 2012. Americans are seriously concerned about the sustainability of Social Security, which has led to questions about whether privatizing the system could be wise. Read on to learn about Social Security privatization efforts, and the arguments for and against such a move.

The Current Status of Social Security

Social Security isn’t in great shape right now. Various reports have estimated different dates at which the entitlement program may have difficulty paying out full benefits to those who should receive them, but the current most cited year is 2033. One of the big reasons for why Social Security is in big trouble is because of our changing demographics and health statistics. When Social Security was first introduced pre-World War II, people did not live nearly as long as they do today. In addition, the post-World War II Baby Boom led to a glut in our population size. Social Security’s forecasting methods weren’t able to accurately predict the situation we’re in now, where there are many healthy people retiring who will live longer than ever before. To put this into context, in 1960, there were about 5.1 workers paying into the system for every retiree; now the ratio has shifted to under 3:1.

What does “privatizing” Social Security mean?

Given Social Security’s current state, there have been solutions suggested to try to fix it. One of the most popular is privatizing the system. That would most likely mean creating individual private accounts for the workers. Those private accounts will be subject to more control by those who are paying in, and would be able to interact with the private market. The funds could be invested in things like private stocks, which advocates point out would boost workers’ rate of return.

The proposition of its privatization came into the limelight when George W. Bush proposed the Growing Real Ownership of Workers Act of 2005. The bill aimed at replacing the mandatory payouts from workers’ checks with voluntary personal retirement accounts. In 2010, Paul Ryan, a major supporter of privatization, attempted unsuccessfully to reignite interest in the idea in his Roadmap for America’s Future budget plan.

What are the arguments for privatization?

Proponents of privatization argue that the current program significantly burdens fiscal debt and will lead to increased debt and taxes for future generations. They claim that privatizing it will keep the program from collapsing in the future. It would actually lead to higher post-retirement earnings for workers or, at the very least, keep earnings at a relatively stable rate. Additionally, it would empower workers to be responsible for their own future.

Advocates for privatizing social security also point out that in the past, funds in Social Security have been diverted to pay for other things the government has needed to pay for, and then replaced in time. If Social Security was privatized into individual accounts, the government wouldn’t be able to take such actions. According those who want to privatize Social Security, doing so would also help minimize the bureaucracy involved in the process.

Case Study: Chile

Chile’s post-privatization success is used as an example that the United States can learn from. Chile transferred to a new program in which  workers put 10-20 percent of their incomes into private pension funds. When the worker retires, an insurance company gets involved to help with the dispensation of money, but even at that step the Chilean worker has a lot of choice and flexibility. Although long term effects of the plan have yet to be discovered, the short term effects are positive.

What’s the argument against privatizing the Social Security system?

Opponents worry that privatizing social security will lead to risk and instability in post-retirement earnings and cause significant reductions in the same. They argue that privatization can also potentially place minorities at a disadvantage, as well as anyone who doesn’t have the time, knowledge, or desire to effectively manage their account. Many also claim that the media has exaggerated the program’s financial demise and that its balance is currently in surplus with most Baby Boomers currently in the workforce.

Those who argue against Social Security privatization have also expressed concern about the financial and logistical resources that would be needed to start a privatized Social Security program. They also believe that a move toward privatization would create more, not less bureaucracy, because of the complexity of private markets. Several groups and individuals, such as the Center for American Progress and economist Robert Barro oppose the idea.

Conclusion

It’s no secret that Social Security is currently struggling, and if something is not done, it will continue only get worse. There’s no easy answer, but privatization is one frequently suggested option in the public debate. Exactly how privatization would occur, what its benefits and downsides would be, and its overall effectiveness are still up for debate, but for now it’s definitely an idea that we can expect to see on the list of possible solutions for the foreseeable future.

Resources

Primary 

Social Security Administration: A Program and Policy History

Social Security Administration: The Social Security Act of 1935

Social Security Administration: Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2012

Social Security Administration: The 2013 Annual Report of the Broad of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds

Social Security Association: Privatizing Social Security: The Chilean Experience

Additional 

Daily Signal: Social Security’s Unfunded Obligation Rises by $1 Trillion

CATO: Still a Better Deal: Private Investment vs. Social Security

Safe Haven: Privatize Social Security Before I Spend Your Pension

Sun Sentinal: Privatization Would Help But Liberals Resist Changes

Independent: Privatizing Social Security the Right Way

Freedom Works: Chilean Model of Social Security

NCPSSM: The Truth About Privatization and Social Security

Economic Policy Institute Report: Saving Social Security With Stocks: The Promises Don’t Add Up

Fortune: Privatizing Social Security: Still a Dumb Idea

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: What the 2013 Trustees’ Report Shows About Social Security

CATO: Speaking the Truth About Social Security Reform

AARP: In Brief: Social Security Privatization Around the World

National Bureau of Economic Research: Social Security Privatization: A Structure for Analysis

NEA: Social Security Privatization: A Bad Deal for Women

Salome Vakharia

Salome Vakharia is a Mumbai native who now calls New York and New Jersey her home. She attended New York School of Law, and she is a founding member of Law Street Media. Contact Salome at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Social Security Privatization Debate appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week President of the United States Barack Obama made a fatal error. He drank a cup of coffee and saluted our troops…with the same hand. This incited media coverage somewhere on par with a natural disaster, or maybe an assassination attempt. In fact, some members of the media covered what has now been dubbed the “latte salute” scandal as though it actually was an assassination — namely the assassination of American patriotism.

Jon Stewart’s takedown of Fox News’ coverage of the “latte salute” was pretty epic:

Stewart is 100 percent on point. But I think we can take this one step further. You see, this near- 24/7 news coverage of our President is relatively new. For hundreds of years, we didn’t have that kind of access, ability to record actions, or quite frankly, the desire to compulsively stalk our commander-in-chief, waiting for him to do something as innocuous as juggle a cup of coffee while saluting. The fact that we cover every moment of what the President does is literally insane. No one can hold up to those standards.

So what about some of our older Presidents? Did they ever do anything that was weird, or disrespectful, or embarrassing? Well, yes. A lot. So in honor of the “latte salute” headlines, I’m going to go over some of our past presidents’ indiscretions. And for some good measure, I’ll juxtapose those facts with some real headlines about Obama. This is going to be fun guys. And by fun, I of course mean infuriatingly depressing.

Courtesy of Rembrandt Peale via WikiMedia

Who: Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. He must have been the epitome of patriotism, right?

What he did: He almost sparked an international incident by not dressing up enough to greet the British Ambassador. He wore old clothes, and carpet slippers.

And a Real Fox News Headline: Obama Insults Britain Again with a shameless nomination of top donor as US Ambassador to London.

Same thing, right?

Courtesy of Ralph Eleaser Whiteside Earl via Wikimedia

Who: Andrew Jackson, a.k.a. Old Hickory. Military vet and arguably one of our most bad-ass Presidents.

What he did: Before becoming President, Andrew Jackson took part in a duel and killed a man named Charles Dickinson (not the author). Dickinson had accused him of cheating on a horse racing bet and insulted his wife. During this duel, he apparently acted with very little honor, shooting Dickinson in what was a violation of dueling rules. This had almost no effect on his campaign for President.

And a Real Brietbart Headline: Ayers and Obama: What the Media Hid. Because a potential relationship with a bad guy is so much worse than killing someone during a duel.

Historical Bonus Fact: Our former Vice President, Aaron Burr, actually killed someone in a duel too. The man he killed was Alexander Hamilton, one of our founding fathers. And Burr was Vice President at the time.

Courtesy of David Hume Kenerly via Wikipedia.

Who: President Gerald Ford, Republican replacement for President Nixon.

What he did: President Ford was an avid swimmer. He used to conduct press conferences while swimming laps.

Actual Fox News Headline: Obama’s golf trip after Foley press conference seems ‘disconnected,’ says loved ones.

My point here isn’t to bash Fox News and conservative media, it really isn’t. If there were a Republican in the Oval Office right now, MSNBC and other liberal media sources would probably be doing very similar coverage. And it’s not even that all conservative media does this — Bill O’Reilly actually defended Obama’s latte-burdened salute. My point is that the Latte Salute is ridiculous. It’s a symptom of a disease in this country. That disease is our obsession with analyzing every single thing that our President does. The man has to deal with international crises in the form of ISIS, Ebola, and the Ukraine. That’s on top of our epidemic of school shootings, a useless Congress, and everything else that’s happening right here in the U.S. But we’re fixated on the fact that he held a cup of coffee over his head once while saluting. Come on people, get a damn hobby.

And for the record, I wrote most of this post holding a cup of coffee.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Latte Salute” is a Latte of Crap appeared first on Law Street.

No one knows what happens when we die, and we never will. Some believe in an afterlife, some think death is just eternal darkness, and some believe that our spirits reincarnate into another body. We have no idea what belief is right, but I think we can all agree that death is terrifying. Which is why I would never wish it on anyone.

Earlier this week, actress and comedian Joan Rivers passed away at the age of 81. Thousands have voiced their opinions on the late comedian, calling her a “trailblazer,” “one of a kind,” and a “mentor.” While all these might well be true, let’s not forget that Joan Rivers was also a bitch.

Before she died, Joan Rivers was recorded on camera saying that Palestinians “deserved to die,” because they elected Hamas into power. In her short rant she manages to degrade a whole society by stating “they were told to get out, you don’t get out then you know you’re an idiot. And at least the ones that were killed were the ones with very low IQs.” Watch the statement below.

It’s one thing to be open and frank, but it’s another to be rude and offensive. When you’re as big of a star as Joan Rivers was you have to realize that your voice reaches the masses. You have to realize that you have a duty to be vigilant about what you say and when you say it. Because for some reason Joan, people looked up to you. And contrary to what you might think, innocent people who refuse to leave a place that they call home, do not deserve to die.

Apart from Gaza, the late actress managed to offend the President of the United States and the First Lady by calling President Obama “gay,” and the First Lady a “tranny.” She offended Heidi Klum, Germans, and Jews with her concentration camp joke. She attacked celebrity baby North West saying she was in need of a waxing, and British singer Adele with the tweet below.

Congratulations to Adele on the birth of her 68 pound 8 ounces bouncing baby boy.

— Joan Rivers (@Joan_Rivers) October 22, 2012

Yes, Rivers had her funny moments. Yes, she had an illustrious career in television and comedy. Yes, she helped pave the way for women in media. But I personally think that her disregard for people, her outlandish statements, and her brute stubbornness overshadows all of that.

We tend to hold celebrities in a higher regard than we should. If Joan Rivers was your teacher, would you respect her? If she called your baby fat or ugly, would you still adore her? If she called your husband gay or your wife a tranny, would you still think she was funny? I refuse to let her off the hook just because she was famous. I refuse to respect anyone who says innocent people deserve to die. I refuse to like celebrities just because they are celebrities. I am sorry that she died, and my condolences go out to her family. But let’s not act like we lost Mother Teresa.

Mic Drop

—

Trevor Smith (@TSmith1211) is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time.

 Featured image courtesy of [Steve Rhodes via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop Glorifying Undeserving Celebrities Like Joan Rivers When They Die appeared first on Law Street.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was caught in the middle of a tug-of-war between Christians and atheists this summer. The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) sued the IRS for allowing a church to preach about political issues during services. As religious organizations like churches can have tax-exempt status, they are forbidden from making recommendations about political candidates. While the atheists’ suit was settled, the debate remains far from over. The intersection of American religion and politics is complicated to say the least. From personal appeals to Supreme Court cases, it is hard to find more controversial issues than those involving both church and state. But we should not ignore the topic; rather, it should be tackled head on.

Anti-religious sentiment, or at least sentiment against religion in the public sphere, is alive and virulent. David Silverman, the President of the American Atheists, said that the American “political system is rife with religion and it depends too much on religion and not enough on substance. Religion is silly and religion has components that are inherently divisive. …There is no place for any of that in the political system.”

The American Atheists are at least 4,000 members strong; the FFRF has over 19,000 members who subscribe to the belief that “[t]he history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.” Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, Betty Friedan, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. may disagree. American slavery was countered by devout abolitionists like Sojourner Truth. The movement would not have been the same had it not been for those leaders who saw slavery as simply not Christian. The British colonies in America partially owe their origins to the religious movement of the day. People “free from religion” cannot be called superior in Western progressive movements.

Atheism itself is not the issue. But claiming a moral superiority over religious people based solely on their religiousness is a mistake. This extends to the political sphere. Not because any nation should necessarily adopt theocratic tendencies, but because we should treat religion as a social institution rather than a political taboo. Marriage, education, families, and the economy are each social institutions brought up frequently in political discussions. Beyond that, some of the most popular rhetoric connects different institutions to one another; the White House website says that “President Obama is committed to creating jobs and economic opportunities for families across America.” Republican Marco Rubio’s website claims that “Senator Rubio believes there are simple ideas that Washington should pursue in order to improve education in America and prepare our children for the jobs of tomorrow.” Families, jobs, children, and education are all important in American society. They can also be highly personal and emotional when included in our political discourse; what really makes them so different from religion as a social institution?

To the liberals, even if you don’t buy into the idea that religion is an equally important social institution to others, you cannot deny that it shapes America’s politics, and therefore it deserves discussion. Every American president has been Christian and male, but could any liberal be taken seriously while arguing that we can’t talk about gender discrimination in our politics? Barack Obama is the only Black president of America’s forty four, but what Democrat could claim that we can’t talk about race in our politics? In this way, there is a deep hypocrisy in the liberal canon. Further, if religion in politics is shunned by everyone except for Christian conservatives, then the conversation will be dominated by them alone.

To the conservatives, look at the statistics. The Pew Research center shows that people who fall under the group “Protestant/Other Christian” (distinguished by Pew from Catholics and Mormons) voted for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama at a rate of 57 percent to 42 percent. This disparity is actually wider than it was during the 2008 election in which John McCain received 54 percent of the same group to Obama’s 45 percent. Jews in 2012 voted for Obama over Romney at a rate of 69 percent to 30 percent. The widest gaps are those within the groups “Religiously unaffiliated” and “Other faiths” who voted for Obama-Romney at rates of 70 percent – 26 percent and 74 percent – 23 percent, respectively. Reaching out to Latinos and Blacks is proving to be difficult, but there are plenty of non-Christian groups that the Republican party has largely overlooked.

Religion isn’t entirely absent from the political conversation, but where it is present, its place is static and stale. MSNBC will face off right-wing Christians who lambaste abortion and gay marriage against level-headed leftists. FOX News will pit religious people claiming family values against out-of-touch academics. When liberals eschew religious political discussion and conservatives only make room for their Christian constituents, the discussion doesn’t move anywhere. There is not only a need to have bring religion into the rest of our political discussion — to have faith in politics –but to remove it from its stereotypical and often misrepresentative position. Freedom of speech and religious freedom should flourish together with a substantial discussion that allows America to have faith in our politics.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Having Faith in Politics appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/faith-politics/feed/ 4 23714 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/boehners-lawsuit-politically-genius/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/boehners-lawsuit-politically-genius/#comments Fri, 01 Aug 2014 15:55:38 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=22194

John Boehner says the House of Representatives is suing President Obama for not faithfully executing the laws he has sworn to uphold. But this might not be Boehner’s only motive to sue. It sounds a bit implausible considering Boehner has no love for the President, but he may be suing Obama to avoid impeaching him. And if that's the case, it's a downright genius move.

The post Politically Genius: Boehner’s Suit Against Obama appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

John Boehner says the House of Representatives is suing President Obama for not faithfully executing the laws he has sworn to uphold. The suit claims that when Obama delayed the employer mandate for ObamaCare, he changed the law, something which can only be done by Congress. But this might not be Boehner’s only motive to sue. It sounds a bit implausible, considering Boehner has no love for the President, but he may be suing Obama to avoid impeaching him. And if that’s the case, it’s a downright genius move.

Boehner himself has said impeachment is not being considered, but he needs to silence the calls from other Congressman and noisy pundits in his party. Impeachment is a bad option for the Republicans for a few reasons. One is that Boehner knows that even if the House did impeach Obama, the Senate would never go along with it. Also, as unpopular as Obama is, he’s still more popular than the House of Representatives. The same thing happened the last time Republicans impeached a president–President Bill Clinton. The whole ordeal led to the Speaker of the House having to resign and Republicans losing the midterm elections. Boehner seems to know that it is a terrible political move to impeach the president.

But perhaps the biggest reason Boehner wants to silence the calls for impeachment is that the Democrats are using impeachment speculation to fuel their fundraising efforts. It’s an election year where the left’s base did not have much to be excited about, but the impeachment talks have riled them up. For example, you’d think that FOX news would be very excited about Obama impeachment rumors, and would be covering the issue far more than any other news organization. In fact, they have mentioned impeachment a respectable 95 times so far this month. But MSNBC, the liberal bastion, has mentioned impeachment a whopping 448 times. Both organizations claim to deliver unbiased news, but I think we all know that FOX and MSNBC are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, and the fact that the liberal news station mentions impeachment so much more shows how they want to get their base riled up. Boehner knows every time a Republican calls for impeachment on TV, it becomes a sound bite at the next Democratic Party fundraiser.

The lawsuit is also largely symbolic. It is doubtful that a court will say the House has standing to sue, and even if the House somehow wins the suit, the result would just be that Obama would immediately have to enforce the employer mandate. But odds are the case wouldn’t be decided until after the mandate begins enforcement in 2015 anyways.

There’s nothing for Boehner to gain legally, but there’s a lot to gain politically. This allows him to show he is doing something for those calling for impeachment. It allows conservative representatives to go back to their districts and tell their constituents that they have taken action against Obama. It is a symbolic gesture against Obama that will come to nothing in the long run–exactly what Boehner needs right now. This move also buys Boehner precious time. He can argue that impeachment would be pointless before the court makes it ruling. He’d be able to stretch out that excuse until the 2016 elections, at which point the whole impeachment argument would become null and void anyways.

Boehner has let the conservative end of his party control him before. For example, he could not get them in line nine moths ago, leading to a government shutdown. This lawsuit is his way of asserting control as the Speaker of the House. While the Democrats will still be able to fundraise by slamming the lawsuit, it gives substance to Boehner’s claim that impeachment is not being considered. The media will also focus on the lawsuit instead of impeachment rumors. This lawsuit has allowed Boehner to appease his conservative base, while limiting Democratic fundraising talking points. He found the narrowest of lines and is balancing on it beautifully. It will only take a slight breeze from his right to knock him off, but until that happens, this is an excellent move on Boehner’s part.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Speaker John Boehner via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Politically Genius: Boehner’s Suit Against Obama appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/boehners-lawsuit-politically-genius/feed/ 2 22194 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/issues/education/student-loans-burden-generation/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/issues/education/student-loans-burden-generation/#comments Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:20:46 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=20756

The Class of 2018 is having an exciting summer. They get to figure out which dorms they will live in, which intro classes they will take, and, most importantly, which loans they will take out to pay for the next four years. Meanwhile, the Class of 2014 is experiencing some discomfort as they figure out how exactly to pay for those loans they took out four summers ago. Student loans burden a reported 37 million Americans. Read on to learn all about how these people and their finances are impacted by politics.

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

]]>

Image courtesy of [401(K) 2012 via Flickr]

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

---

What is a student loan?

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

---

Who provides these student loans?

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

---

What are some problems with the student loan system?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PBS NewsHour has more on that issue here:

---

What assistance is available to those with student loan debt?

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

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

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

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

---

How is President Obama trying to fix student loans?

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

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

---

What does Congress think about these reforms?

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

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

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

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

---

How do Americans feel about student loan reform?

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

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

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

---

Resources

Primary

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

Additional

U.S. Department of Education: FAFSA

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

Forbes: College Costs Out of Control

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

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

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

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

Vox: 2008 Was a Terrible Year to Graduate College

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

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

CBS: Senate Republicans Block Consideration of Student Loan Bill

Eric Essagof

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

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

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/issues/education/student-loans-burden-generation/feed/ 5 20756 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/cantor-defeated-primary-israel-will-just-fine/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/cantor-defeated-primary-israel-will-just-fine/#comments Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:10:39 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=17262

Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor is the last Jewish Republican in Congress, but he was just beaten in the primary by Tea Party candidate Dave Brat. As a result, some Jews (and some Goys) have been schvitzing over the lack of Jewish representation in the GOP. Minority representation in the Republican party is one concern, regardless […]

The post Cantor Defeated in Primary, Israel Will Be Just Fine appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor is the last Jewish Republican in Congress, but he was just beaten in the primary by Tea Party candidate Dave Brat. As a result, some Jews (and some Goys) have been schvitzing over the lack of Jewish representation in the GOP. Minority representation in the Republican party is one concern, regardless of how disingenuous that concern is among Republicans. Another concern that carries some actual weight in the GOP is that American relations with Israel could be strained. The discussion is posed as though Cantor himself is some sort firewall between American support of and disregard for Israel. While I am Jewish and I do care about Israel, I know that Jerusalem isn’t going to be affected by Cantor being gone. At all.

First, the Republican party is going to be just as pro-Israel as it was before. According to the Pew Research Center, 68 percent of Republicans already sympathize more with Israel than with Palestine. Among conservative Republicans, the statistic is even higher at 75 percent. Only seven percent of the GOP would support Palestine over Israel, while the rest said “neither” (nine percent) or “both” (16 percent). Republicans have their reasons for supporting Israel. Well, they have the one reason: the Muslim Middle East is still a bad thing in the eyes of Republicans; as recently as the last midterm election, Pew revealed how Republicans were one of three main groups to view Islam “unfavorably.” The other two groups were the elderly and less-educated people.

It’s not like the GOP is trying to support a demographic in their constituent base. Again, a Pew study shows the political leanings of different Jewish denominations. Only Orthodox Jews have a majority that identifies with the Republican party. All others identify as or at least lean Democratic: Conservative Jews at 64 percent, Reform Jews at 77 percent, and no denomination at 75 percent. On the whole, 70 percent of Jews favor Democrats. Republicans will continue to support Israel fiercely, not because Jews support the GOP, but because of the state’s position as a counterweight against the Muslim Middle East.

When considering the president’s stance, it’s even more evident that Israel’s fate won’t be affected by Cantor’s defeat. In a piece from Bloomberg, Jeffery Goldberg writes about an interview he conducted with Obama. ” Obama will warn Netanyahu that time is running out for Israel as a Jewish-majority democracy…Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I’ve ever heard him.” The president’s policies on Israeli-relations, as detailed by Goldberg, seem to be some of his strongest and most balanced policies ever. Obama is quoted saying, “I’ve said directly to Prime Minister Netanyahu he has an opportunity to solidify, to lock in, a democratic, Jewish state of Israel that is at peace with its neighbors and…has an opportunity also to take advantage of a potential realignment of interests in the region, as many of the Arab countries see a common threat in Iran.” It’s a mitzvah we have someone in office who can deal with the complexities of an alliance, and not be sorry about being straight with our friends.

Constructively criticizing one another is an essential part of friendship. And what does pro-Israel mean, anyway? In the long run, would the state be better off struggling with its own Arab citizens and belligerent neighbors? Or, isn’t it more likely that Israel’s future will be secure if Jerusalem negotiates with Palestinians? The difference between being a mensch and a shmendrick here isn’t about dogmatism and hostility toward Palestine. Being powerful and pro-Israel means looking down the road and understanding that a peaceful compromise is the greatest possible outcome. It would be enough if we had a president who even acknowledged this, but Obama and Kerry have been actively seeking this goal, too. Dayenu, am I right?

With Cantor gone, no, there won’t be any Congressional Republican Jews. But between the conservative funding of everyone’s least favorite chosen person Sheldon Adelson,a Republican party that’s consistently defensive of Israel, and a president who may be taking the most level-headed approach to the matter in U.S. history, our relationship with Jerusalem will remain solid. We’ll remain the shmeer to their bagel, they the capers to our lox. Still, it’s amazing to me that people care so much about the lack of Jews in the Republican party when it seems as though the Republican party cares so little about Jews. The conservative pro-Israel stance is based on defining Jews against the rest of the Middle East. Should I kvetch that American political parties actually bring Jews into the national conversation? Maybe not. But it may be less insulting to ignore Jews than to use us as a means to end. 

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin J. Steinberg via Wikipedia]

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cantor Defeated in Primary, Israel Will Be Just Fine appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/cantor-defeated-primary-israel-will-just-fine/feed/ 3 17262 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/issues/politics/trading-pows-bergdahls-release-mean-american-diplomacy/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/issues/politics/trading-pows-bergdahls-release-mean-american-diplomacy/#respond Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:35:13 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=16922

In recent weeks, the swap of U.S. Prisoner of War Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for Taliban leaders has sparked much criticism and mixed reactions on the United States' policy for dealing with terrorists. So, what does all of this mean? Did President Obama make the right call to bring back Bergdahl, and what are the future implications for American diplomacy?

The post Trading POWs: What Does Bergdahl’s Release Mean for American Diplomacy appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Image courtesy of [Global Panorama via Flickr]

In recent weeks, the swap of Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for Taliban leaders has sparked much criticism and mixed reactions towards the United States’ policy on dealing with terrorists. Congressional leaders are upset that they did not receive notification prior to the prisoners’ exchange. Others are fearful that the deal makes the United States appear to negotiate with terrorists. So, what does all of this mean–did President Obama make the right call to bring back Bergdahl? Most importantly, what are the future implications for American diplomacy? Here is everything you need to know on the Bergdahl’s exchange.

---

Who is Bowe Bergdahl?

Bowe Bergdahl is a soldier in the U.S. Army who was held captive by the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network in Afghanistan from June 2009 to May 31, 2014. Bergdahl was released to the United States in exchange for five senior Taliban members who were held at Guantanamo Bay. The controversy surrounding Bergdahl’s release has made him one of the highest-profile POWs in decades. The exchange itself can be seen in the Taliban video below:

A celebration in Bergdahl’s hometown of Hailey, Idaho was cancelled due to the controversy and Bergdahl’s family has been receiving threats. Bergdahl is currently recovering in Germany, where he is speaking but still has not contacted his family or anyone in the United States. The focus is currently on Bergdahl’s emotional recovery, but officials are hopeful he will soon be able to shed light on his story.

---

How and why was Bergdahl captured?

The circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s capture remain disputed. National Security Advisor Susan Rice claimed on ABC that Bergdahl “served the U.S. with distinction and honor.” However, numerous reports claim Bergdahl to be a deserter who grew increasingly disillusioned with the U.S. effort in Afghanistan. According to first-hand accounts, Bergdahl walked off his post and left behind a note along with his body armor and rifle. An unnamed defense official confirmed that Bergdahl walked off the post without authorization. It is reported that Bergdahl’s desertion led to the death of at least six troops in the search for him, though it is unclear if these deaths were directly related to the search for Bergdahl. According to an essay in the Daily Beast by Nathan Bradley Bethea, a former sergeant in Bergdahl’s battalion, “Every intelligence aircraft available in theater had received new instructions: find Bergdahl.” Troops were concerned Bergdahl may be providing the enemy with information. Bergdahl’s former squad leader, Justin Gerleve, goes so far as to tell CNN that following Bergdahl’s disappearance, “The attacks did get more direct, the IEDs did get more pinpoint to our trucks.” Reports dating to 2009 claim Bergdahl had wandered from his assigned areas before. The U.S. Army, currently investigating the claims made by those who served alongside Bergdahl, has yet to confirm any of these accusations.

---

What led to his release?

A deal involving Bergdahl’s release had been considered for several years but talks had continually broken down. In January 2014, the White House received an emotional video of Bergdahl whose health appeared deteriorated to the point of near death. The Obama administration stated the new health concerns conveyed the need to move quickly to bring Bergdahl home. While Bergdahl is currently listed in good health and reports of his desertion surface, President Obama has defended the decision in claiming the United States cannot qualify the release of a U.S. soldier. Some have praised Obama for his shown commitment to bring back POWs and for refusing to leave a soldier behind as the war ends. Obama defends his actions in the video below:

Relative secrecy of the deal was required as any information leaked from the deal was a clear threat to Bergdahl’s life by the Haqqani. Later, the administration added to its rationale that Bergdahl’s value to his captors was diminishing as negotiations had previously failed and the end of the war in Afghanistan was quickly approaching.

---

What were the arguments against his release?

The problem many have with the deal is that the President Obama failed to follow the requirement that the Defense Secretary notify appropriate Congressional committees at least 30 days prior to the transfer of any prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. The National Defense Authorization Act stipulates the 30-day notification, but Obama did write a signing statement in December 2013 concerning the potential unconstitutionality of this Act. The statement outlines Obama’s concern that the Act could limit his ability to act quickly in conducting negotiations regarding detainee transfers, such as the fast action required to swap for Bergdahl. Still, members of Congress want answers for why they were not briefed. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is to testify in front of the House Armed Services Committee on the release of Bergdahl. The clip below discusses the alleged illegality of the swap:

Other concerns involve what future threats the five detainees involved in the swap may pose to the United States. Negotiations for the deal were made through Qatar, who promised the United States that the former prisoners would stay in Qatar and be prohibited from participation in terrorist activities for one year. The five released were all in their mid-to-late 40s and were the most senior Taliban leaders still in the hands of the United States. Questions surround what will happen when their one year travel ban in Qatar expires and what, if any, other restrictions are in place. Secretary of State John Kerry discusses the release of the Taliban and future U.S. actions below:

Discussion has also arisen regarding Bergdahl’s punishment. If Bergdahl was a deserter, the severe law on wartime desertion could mean Bergdahl would be subject to further punishment even beyond his five years already spent in captivity. Current punishment for military desertion could result in death, though it is highly unlikely Bergdahl would face such an extreme punishment.

---

Is this a new foreign policy stance?

Throughout the War on Terror and especially following the attacks on September 11,  it has been made clear the United States does not negotiate with terrorists. Some argue the prisoner exchange has made the United States appear to negotiate with terrorists, which has fueled fears that more Americans will be captured to be used as a bargaining chip. However, the United States has negotiated in the past to free American hostages, most notably in the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis, in freeing hostages taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon in the 1980s, and even in trading Iraqi militants for the release of British civilian Peter Moore in 2010. It could be argued the country has entered a different era in foreign policy and in dealing with terrorists, but clearly the United States has traded for hostages in previous decades. Listen below  to the discussion of what message is being sent by the swap:

---

Will this have any impact in Afghanistan?

While negotiations were made through a third party of Qatar, the negotiation process has illustrated that it may be possible for the United States and Taliban to find some small area of mutually beneficial common ground. The Taliban showed good faith in the talks and a degree of trust was established. With this prisoner swap as a potential first step, greater talks in the future may come as the war continues to wind down. Some argue the deal conveys American weakness, as statistics from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence show more that 16 percent of detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to terrorist activity, while 12 percent are suspected of having returned to terrorism. One of the released, Noorullah Noori, has reportedly already told relatives he hopes to return to Afghanistan to fight Americans. But as the War in Afghanistan is soon set to end, the United States will have to release its prisoners at Guantanamo Bay if the prisoners are classified as POWs under international law. If the prisoners are to be released anyway, it makes sense to use them as a tool for negotiation rather than setting them free and coming away empty-handed. The real question becomes what will happen when detainees are set to be released and the United States no longer gets something in return. Could the swap have energized the opposition so closing Guantanamo Bay will become even harder?

---

Resources

Primary 

Barack Obama: 876-Statement on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

Additional 

Politico: Rice: ‘Sacred Obligation’ Led to Bergdahl Swap

Weekly Standard: Susan Rice: Bergdahl Served with Honor and Distinction

Washington Post: Obama: No Apologies for Bergdahl Release Deal

USA Today: Bergdahl Trade More About Guantanamo

CNN: Kerry Defends Bergdahl for Taliban Exchange

Daily Beast: We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl

Blaze: We’ve Got Bigger Problems: The Broader Implications of the Bergdahl Release

Wall Street Journal: Trading With the Taliban

CNN: Bergdahl’s Former Squad Leader: He Did Not Serve with Honor and Distinction

CNN: The Six Soldiers at Center of Bowe Bergdahl Debate

Wall Street Journal: Behind Bowe Bergdahl’s Release, a Secret Deal That Took Three Years

MSNBC: Bowe Bergdahl: Deserter or Hero?

CNN: Was Bergdahl Swap Legal? Depends on Who You Ask

USA Today: Army Says it Will Launch a New Review of Bergdahl Capture

Washington Post: The Timeline You Need to Understand the Bowe Bergdahl Story

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trading POWs: What Does Bergdahl’s Release Mean for American Diplomacy appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/issues/politics/trading-pows-bergdahls-release-mean-american-diplomacy/feed/ 0 16922 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/redskins-fans-kind-racist/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/redskins-fans-kind-racist/#comments Thu, 12 Jun 2014 14:38:33 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=17133

The Washington Redskins is a racist name, simple as that, and it's past time for a change. The team, players, NFL, media, and fans are all complicit in this racism. Why are we comfortable with this disrespect of Native Americans? Trevor Smith makes the case for a name change.

The post It’s Past Time to Change the Racist Redskins Name. Why Aren’t You Angry? appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

I’ve had trouble with the Redskins name ever since I was in elementary school. I never understood why the mascot of a professional football team was just a man with some feathers on his head. You would think that if a seven-year-old kid can see the wrong in naming a team “Redskins,” then adults would too. But sadly many of them do not. So to help get my point across, for the rest of this article I will refer to them as the R*dskins.

Daniel Snyder, owner of the R*dskins since 1999, has been pressured to change the name of the team by fans, politicians, and various advocacy groups who feel that the name is derogatory to Native Americans. In May 2013, in response to a question regarding the team’s name, Snyder told USA Today, “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER – you can use caps.”

Seriously?

I get that you’re from Maryland Mr.Snyder, I am too. And I get that you are a die-hard R*dskins fan, though I am not. But can you seriously not see the racism behind the name of your team?

You are literally taking a whole group of people and turning them into caricatures, and when asked to just think about changing the name to something less offensive, your response is always a loud and clear.

Now, my issue with the name of the R*dskins is not just with Daniel Snyder, it goes a lot deeper than that. My issue runs with the players, the fans, the coaches, the media, and the NFL. Any and all these people could take a stand against Snyder and the R*dskins organization and possibly make a change. But who cares about Native Americans right? We only came to their country, took their land, killed their people, and made it ours. Then to rub salt in the wounds we took a stereotypical image of a Native American and made it a mascot alongside the likes of  falcons, jaguars, ravens, bears, rams, and a ton of other animals. Is that what you see Native Americans as, R*dskins fans? Animals?

You should be ashamed

I’ve been having this argument for years and years, and I have heard the same arguments as to why the R*dskins are a nice, genuine, wholesome team who are just misunderstood. I’ve heard the, “It’s been like that for so long, it would be weird to change the name now,” excuse. Well…

Slavery was normal in America for more than 200 years. People thought it would be “weird” if we gave Black people in America the same rights as White people. Laws change, social systems crumble, but universal truths are constant. What is true and right is true and right for all.

So often when I’m having this argument I say, “What if the team was called ‘Washington Blackskins’ with a Black person wearing a do-rag?” The person is often quiet for a very long moment before replying, “It’s not the same.”

How? How is it not the exact same thing? So what is racist for Black people isn’t racist for Native Americans? That in itself sounds racist to me, and whenever someone says that to me I just simply…

spazz out.

What’s funny to me is that most R*dskins fans are Black, and you would think that they would be more sensitive to racial slurs. I am willing to bet all the money in my bank account that if the team were called the “Washington Blackskins,” there would be a march on Washington, Black religious leaders and other Black activist would be holding press conferences, and a social media campaign with a witty hash tag would be in full effect. Since the slur isn’t directed at the Black community, we don’t really seem to care.

whatever right?

To Snyder, the NFL, and all of the team’s fans, the name isn’t racist. They see it as an entity to be proud of. They’ve watched R*dskins “heroes” such as Joe Gibbs, Sean Taylor, Clinton Portis, and many more, give a good chunk of their lives to this organization. Well I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you, R*dskins fans: these guys are not heroes. In fact, they played an essential part in the continuing racism that plagues America today. Also, the original owner of the team, George Marshall, was a loud and proud bigot. He was the last owner in the NFL to integrate his team, and only did so because he was forced to do so by the federal government. “We’ll start signing Negroes, when the Harlem Globetrotters start signing Whites,” Marshall once said. This is the history that makes R*dskins fans proud?

I wish i could roll my eyes further into my head.

Just because you think it isn’t offensive doesn’t mean that it actually isn’t. In fact, many Native Americans do find the name to be incredibly insulting.

• Oneida Nation has encouraged Americans to lobby the NFL in support of the name change at www.changethemascot.org.
• A group of Native Americans sued the team back in 2013 arguing against the team’s trademark rights to the name. Trademarks that are deemed racist are illegal under U.S. federal law.
• The 2,000-man protest at the 1992 Super Bowl consisted of members from various tribes (Chippewa, Sioux, Winnebago, Choctaw).
•  Hundreds protested at the home stadium in Landover, Md. on Thanksgiving day 2013.
• The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) issued a video last year that consists of leaders from seven different tribes calling for the name to be changed, and released a new and even more powerful video showing everything that American Indians are, R*dskin not being one of them.

Thankfully they are not competely alone in their fight to get the R*dskins to change their name. There have been numerous politicians, former athletes, and plain old citizens who have helped in the conflict.

• President Barack Obama said, “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it.”
• DC Mayor Vincent Gray said that if the team wanted to relocate from Maryland to DC they would have to consider changing their name.
• Fifty senators sent a letter to the NFL (really just Roger Goodell) saying that the NFL needs to change the name.

“The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the letter reads. “We urge the NFL to formally support a name change for the Washington football team…We urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports.”

thank you… its about damn time

Native Americans aren’t cartoons. They aren’t caricatures, or mascots. They are people like you and me, and deserve to be treated with a lot more respect than we have given them over the past hundred years. Their voice may be small in America, but it can still be clearly heard, and as long as one Native American is offended by the word, I think it’s worth discussing what can be done to fix that.

So, I’m going to help out you R*dskins fans a little bit since I don’t hold grudges. Instead of the R*dskins, you could call yourselves the Pigskins! The name still has the same syllables as the original name, it’s a lot less racist, and pigs are super cute and super smart. You could even have RG3 race a pig across the field to start every game or something.

HTTP- Hail To The Pigskins!

That was just a suggestion off the top of my head, you could change it to literally anything and it would probably be better than the R*dskins. Just please for the love of god change that racist name.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Past Time to Change the Racist Redskins Name. Why Aren’t You Angry? appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/redskins-fans-kind-racist/feed/ 1 17133 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/obama-administration-struggles-judicial-nominees/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/obama-administration-struggles-judicial-nominees/#comments Tue, 13 May 2014 20:11:38 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=15499

Two big fights are happening between the White House and the Senate over judicial nominees. Well, that’s nothing new, of course, but the two fights are pretty interesting. Want to guess the two sides? Well, if you guessed Democrats vs. Republicans…you’re wrong. The two sides in opposition are the Obama Administration and some Senate Democrats, […]

The post Obama Administration Struggles with Judicial Nominees appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Two big fights are happening between the White House and the Senate over judicial nominees. Well, that’s nothing new, of course, but the two fights are pretty interesting.

Want to guess the two sides?

Well, if you guessed Democrats vs. Republicans…you’re wrong. The two sides in opposition are the Obama Administration and some Senate Democrats, although for very different reasons when it comes to the two nominees.

The first nominee is Michael Boggs. If appointed, he would have a lifetime seat on the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. He’s a pretty conservative man–as a Georgia legislator he voted very much to the right on some contentious issues. These include voting to keep the Confederate symbol on the flag of Georgia, make abortion laws stricter, banning gay marriage, and defending discrimination against gay couples.

So why in the world would President Obama nominate Boggs? Well it’s all part of a deal. Georgia, like much of the United States, has long been plagued with a shortage of judges. There are constantly open seats on every level of the judiciary. Anytime one side nominates someone too controversial, they get bogged down and that seat never gets filled. So Obama made a deal with the two Republican Senators from Georgia–Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. They compromised on seven nominees–four of whom were GOP picks, three are liberal. And the nominees are a package deal, meaning the Senate need to approve all or nothing.

It was a gutsy move on Obama’s part. And it looks like it is really not panning out well at all. They do not appear to have a problem with the other three conservative nominees, but many Democrats say that Boggs is just too much of a compromise.

For example, Human Rights Watch released a statement, saying, “through this clear and unapologetic record Boggs has signaled his hostility towards issues of equality in his home state as an elected official. If confirmed, Boggs’ could entrench these destructive, anti-equality values on the federal bench for generations to come.” The Congressional Black Caucus said they were taken by surprise by the nomination and condemned the nomination. The hearing will be today, and it will be interesting to see if there’s enough opposition for this deal to fall completely apart. 

But Michael Boggs isn’t the only judicial nominee that’s causing problems for the White House. Obama nominated David Barron, a Harvard Law School Professor to a seat on the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike with Boggs, the disagreement isn’t over Barron’s politics–he’s actually pretty liberal. Instead the hesitation comes from his work on a particular case, the killing of an American extremist named Anwar al-Awlaki.

Barron worked on the team that put together the legal justification for the killing of al-Awlaki by American forces. Liberal criticism of Barron includes the fact that they do not believe the White House has released enough information on Barron’s views and involvements on the subject. Prominent liberal lobbying group ACLU, as well as both Democratic and Republican lawmakers have demanded the release of supposed memos detailing that involvement.

All of these judicial nominees hang in the balance, which is sad because the deal would make progress in filling seats, and David Barron himself is supremely qualified. And honestly speaking, I think the problems come from a lack of prudence in the White House and a strange and surprising disconnect between Obama and fellow Democrats. He’s not running for election again, obviously, but that doesn’t mean that Obama can afford to piss off too many of his usual allies. They hold the power to make the last few years of his presidency pretty ineffectual. If they deny these nominees, lots of behind-the-scenes work will be thrown out of the window, leaving behind the problem of empty courts and backed up cases. Obama has a couple choices here: asking for permission or for forgiveness. So far he’s been choosing the latter, but at this point, the former may be better advised.

[Msnbc]
—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Feature image courtesy of [Tim Evanson via Flickr]

 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Administration Struggles with Judicial Nominees appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/obama-administration-struggles-judicial-nominees/feed/ 1 15499 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/everyone-lets-lay-off-the-obamacare-online-marketplace/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/everyone-lets-lay-off-the-obamacare-online-marketplace/#respond Thu, 24 Oct 2013 14:56:28 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=6354

On October 22, 2013, the New York Times ran an article describing the various problems that have accompanied the roll out of a central tenet of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), www.HealthCare.gov.   The gist of the article focuses on the technical issues that the public has encountered when trying to shop the online marketplace for health […]

The post Everyone, Let’s Lay Off the Obamacare Online Marketplace? appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

On October 22, 2013, the New York Times ran an article describing the various problems that have accompanied the roll out of a central tenet of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), www.HealthCare.gov.   The gist of the article focuses on the technical issues that the public has encountered when trying to shop the online marketplace for health insurance.  Essentially, the volume of interested potential buyers has diminished the ease with which the site was to be navigated.

Because of the apparently gargantuan inconvenience of a website loading slowly, there is a large demand for apologies from all levels of the government, starting with President Obama and trickling down to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

Indeed, after our government’s united front in reopening the government (after a shutdown that was their fault) and subsequent dangerous proximity to reaching the debt ceiling, it was shocking that Speaker of the House John Boehner called for the Obama Administration to answer questions related to the flaws in the website’s launch.

That was sarcasm, friends.

Because a glitch in a website visited by thousands of people a day is totally a reason to delay or repeal the availability of health insurance.  That’s also sarcasm.

These problems are called growing pains! Are they annoying? Absolutely.  But they happen- there is no need to make a mountain out of a molehill.  Especially when you consider what Americans stand to gain from the Affordable Care Act.  With health insurance, more people can visit their primary care physicians for routine physicals and for small aches and pains.  It’s often small aches that turn into large medical problems.  Large medical problems lead to large medical bills.  Similarly, there are catastrophic events.  Nobody plans to get hit by a bus on their way to work.  Nobody plans to be in a car accident.  These catastrophes happen, and health insurance provides a buffer of security the necessity of which is not always readily apparent.  When you’re in the thick of medical debt, though, you wind up kicking yourself for not taking advantage of small monthly insurance payments.  The utility of medical insurance, and the costs of that insurance, can be exponentially less than the cost of catastrophic care.  Emergency room visits by the uninsured, for example, have frequently been cited as one of the primary reasons for high costs of healthcare.

 

This all seems unnecessary considering the fact that we’re in the world’s super power, and that there are concrete examples of how a government-mandated expansion of healthcare can thrive (take France or Sweden, for example).

Do you guys know what this is called?  It’s called a stall tactic.  It’s also called a diversion.  This “controversial” roll out of the website is meant to distract you from what’s really going on.

“Well, what’s really going on?”

Oh nothing, just thousands of people being presented with an opportunity to have a primary care physician for the first time.

Just decisions about your health being ripped from the sole decision of a private insurance company that is more concerned with their bottom line than a rash on your arm.

At the end of the day, the website problems are frustrating, but they are not insurmountable.  The failure of a website to run as efficiently as we would prefer is certainly not a reason to engage in protracted political debates, especially after being so closely linked to a sixteen day protracted political debate that left hundreds of thousands of people out of work.  Health care, for now is debatable (it shouldn’t be, but it is).  Two things that are not debatable are the necessity for protections against the unpredictable occurrences in life and the inconvenience of a website that will eventually help thousands of people.

[New York Times]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Everyone, Let’s Lay Off the Obamacare Online Marketplace? appeared first on Law Street.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/everyone-lets-lay-off-the-obamacare-online-marketplace/feed/ 0 6354 https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/immigration-the-journey-is-just-beginning/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/immigration-the-journey-is-just-beginning/#respond Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:53:14 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=6334

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. […]

The post Immigration: The Journey is Just Beginning… 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.

]]> https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/immigration-the-journey-is-just-beginning/feed/ 0 6334