It seems like Congress is one step closer to allowing horsemeat for human consumption. In the U.S., it’s illegal to sell or serve meat that hasn’t been inspected by the Department of Agriculture. At the same time, there has been a ban on funding horsemeat inspections, which has effectively shut down the practice of slaughtering horses for consumption.

But last week, the House Appropriations Committee voted down the ban 27-25. Even wild horses could be in danger under the Trump Administration. The budget proposal for 2018 suggested that killing or selling of wild horses should be allowed in order to save money on their care.

Wild horse advocates are concerned that this would end an almost half-century long protection of horses, and said that the president is just giving in to livestock lobbyists.

On Tuesday, the committee will vote on a bill that prohibits government funding for “the destruction of healthy, unadopted wild horses” or selling wild horses if it will lead to “their destruction for processing into commercial products.”

The ban on funds for horsemeat inspection has led to over 100,000 horses being exported annually to Canada or Mexico to be slaughtered. Those in favor of ending the ban said that allowing inspection on horse slaughtering in the U.S. could ensure a more humane treatment of the horses.

Congress is dangerously close to opening the door for horse slaughter to return to the US, take action today: https://t.co/bIYFTMUIHa pic.twitter.com/8zGHbA35qa

— ASPCA (@ASPCA) July 18, 2017

But supporters of the ban said that previous inspections in the U.S. showed the horses were being treated inhumanely, with some even being “conscious during dismemberment.” “We know unequivocally that horse slaughter is not humane and can’t be done humanely because of the unique biology of horses,” said Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard.

Eating horsemeat is controversial in America; most Americans see horses as pets or companions, and Representative Marcy Kaptur pointed out that Americans fought wars and built the country on the backs of horses. The three remaining horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. closed in 2007.

While horsemeat is still seen as a delicacy in some parts of the world, like Japan and Belgium, eating horse is taboo in many Western countries. Four years ago there was a horsemeat scandal in Europe that spread from Ireland across at least 19 countries. Companies like Ikea had to publicly apologize and recall food products after they were found to contain traces of horsemeat.

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 Congress Might Soon Approve of Horsemeat for Dinner appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Representative Martha McSally commented on the Congressional dress code on the House floor on Wednesday. The debate over the dress code, which is not clearly stated and irregularly enforced, was reignited last week after a female reporter was turned away from the Speaker’s Lobby outside of the House chamber. Reporters congregate in that area to grab lawmakers for quick interviews and the dress code rules are stricter there than in other parts of the Capitol Building.

On Wednesday, when speaking on the House floor, McSally ended her speech by saying, “Before I yield back, I want to point out I’m standing here in my professional attire, which happens to be a sleeveless dress and open-toed shoes.”

Here’s @RepMcSally on the House floor wearing a sleeveless dress, which chamber security says violates dress code (rule doesn’t exist). pic.twitter.com/RCjOeYE3wd

— Rebecca Shabad (@RebeccaShabad) July 12, 2017

The dress code is actually not specifically written out, which is why it has been interpreted differently at different times. Right now, women are expected to not wear sleeveless blouses or dresses or shoes with open toes. Men are supposed to wear suit jackets and ties. But the only written specifics are contained in Jefferson’s Manual and Rules of the House of Representatives.

In the 2015 edition of that manual, it says that Tip O’Neill, who was Speaker of the House from 1977 – 1986, thought that proper attire should be “customary and traditional,” and elaborated by saying that meant a coat and tie for men and “appropriate” clothing for women. “Appropriate” is not very specific. The manual then states that the House Speaker should determine what is proper attire. In June, Speaker Paul Ryan reiterated that all House members should wear “appropriate business attire.”

.@SpeakerRyan: “Members should wear appropriate business attire…” pic.twitter.com/a4f1Oy5ifT

— CSPAN (@cspan) June 23, 2017

After the female reporter was turned away, a lot of people reacted to the outdated dress code, especially since it is so irregularly enforced. Moreover, many female lawmakers wear sleeveless clothes, particularly given the oppressively hot weather in Washington D.C. during the summer. And former First Lady Michelle Obama often wore sleeveless dresses in an official capacity.

The Speaker’s Lobby has one of the most ridiculous and backwards dress codes around. Did when I covered Congress. Still does. https://t.co/88yv6YSuz1

— Lizzie O’Leary (@lizzieohreally) July 6, 2017

This is not the first time McSally has put her foot down when it comes to men making rules about what women wear. Back in 2002, she sued then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over a military rule that required female soldiers to wear an abaya when off-base in Saudi Arabia.

At the time, McSally was the highest ranking female fighter-pilot in the U.S. She said the rule was unconstitutional, as male soldiers weren’t required to wear any particular clothes when off-base. Women also had to be accompanied by a man at all times when off duty. The rules were changed, and while the military said they had been under review for a while and had nothing to do with the lawsuit, McSally’s tenacity went down in history. And while it’s unclear whether her speech played any role in this decision, Paul Ryan just announced that the dress code will be “modernized.”

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 Republican Congresswoman Argues Against Supposed House Dress Code appeared first on Law Street.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) released a video on Thursday imploring its followers to stock up on firearms and “fight back” against liberals. But many Americans were horrified by the inflammatory message, fearing that it could spark violence.

The lobbying group’s video claims that liberal Americans are indoctrinating children, “assassinating [the] real news,” and using Hollywood celebrities to further their narrative. Titled “The Violence of Lies,” the video claims that when police stop the demonstrators from protesting they will be accused of police brutality.

The spot, which runs a bit over a minute, is narrated by conservative talk show host Dana Loesch, a NRA spokeswoman. Her chilling commentary is paired with haunting black and white stock footage of scenes across America, including various demonstrations.

“The only way we stop this, the only way we save our country, and our freedom, is to fight this violence of lies with the clenched fist of truth,” Loesch says in the video.

The NRA video also claims there has been a surge in left-wing violence, which is false, according to Vox.

The NRA hasn’t released any statement regarding the video, instead simply retweeting Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s claims regarding his interview with Loesch. Loesch defended the ad by telling the New York Times:

I hardly think that condemning violence is inciting violence. I think the ad is very clear — there are excerpts from actual riots that are included in the ad, and that’s exactly what I’m addressing.

The video is another example of the NRA’s habit of using “apocalyptic, paranoid rhetoric” to advance the idea that people must defend their gun rights. One example cited by Vox is a 2013 op-ed by NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre claiming that if liberals succeed in passing gun control then a lawless America would follow.

Soon after the video went public a petition was organized asking Facebook to removed the video from its site.

“The video tries to create an ‘us-vs-them’ narrative and pit Americans against one another,” the petition, which has over 25,000 signatures, said. “It paints liberals as liars and as violent, unruly protesters who law-abiding gun owners need protection from.”

Liberals weren’t alone in criticizing the NRA video–many gun owners were horrified at the provocative advertisement. Multiple Facebook users commented on the post with comments claiming they were cancelling their membership or condemning the veiled encouragement of violence against liberal demonstrators.

Another comment compared the video to George Orwell’s “1984” and Ivan Pavlov’s experiments with salivating dogs, according to Huffington Post.

But still other Facebook comments were grateful for the video “describing 100 percent exactly what happened,” according to Time.

Multiple politicians denounced the NRA video on social media. Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy said he believes the NRA is telling followers to shoot people and that he recommends people cancel their membership. Virginia Lieutenant Governor Ralph Northam said he found the video “dangerous and wholly inappropriate.”

Former television personality Montel Williams also chimed in on Twitter. Williams added his own comment to a tweet from Black Lives Matter activist Deray McKesson who noted that the response would surely be different if a minority made the video.

This ad doesn’t speak for me as a proud, responsible gun owner. I find it disgusting. @Everytown @sandyhook https://t.co/1BDKXLHTym

— Montel Williams (@Montel_Williams) June 29, 2017

There was also criticism from terrorism experts. Ex-CIA intelligence analyst Cynthia Storer, now an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, spent 20 years in the agency focusing on counterterrorism and al-Qaeda specifically, according to Newsweek. “The NRA is feeding an us vs them narrative of the kind that fuels all extremist movements,” Storer tweeted. “Extremism sparks extremism in return. It’s a vicious cycle and the world burns.”

If the NRA was seeking publicity, then the group hit a home run. But if the organization wanted to start a dialogue or help fix a fractured America, this is a failure. It isn’t the first politically hyperbolic video, and it won’t be the last, but in this case the impact could be conflict and a widening of the gap in an already polarized American public.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NRA Video Sparks Reactions from Both Supporters and Opponents appeared first on Law Street.

The House Armed Services Committee drafted bipartisan legislation on Tuesday to create a “Space Corps” within the Air Force by January 1, 2019.

The strategic forces subcommittee–which is in charge of space military matters–added the legislation to the National Defense Authorization Act. The Space Corps would act “as a separate military service within the Department of the Air Force and under the civilian leadership of the Secretary of the Air Force,” according to a joint statement from the subcommittee’s top legislators Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN).

The Space Corps would have its own chief, who would sit on the Joint Chiefs of Staff with a six-year term, a position equal to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. The position would answer to the Secretary of the Air Force, according to the legislation.

If you were excited about the prospect of Congress growing the military to be more prepared for space battles against invading aliens, then get ready to be disappointed. Lawmakers believe this legislation would be a proactive measure against the country’s current inability to defend from a space attack from our international enemies.

“There is bipartisan acknowledgement that the strategic advantages we derive from our national security space systems are eroding,” Rogers and Cooper said in a prepared statement. “We are convinced that the Department of Defense is unable to take the measures necessary to address these challenges effectively and decisively, or even recognize the nature and scale of its problems.”

As space infrastructure from countries around the world begin to populate the planet’s immediate orbit, U.S. leaders worry that an adversary–like China or Russia–could gain a strategic edge over the U.S. By establishing military capability in space first, U.S. adversaries could cripple satellites that help with communications and surveillance systems the military depends on.

It wouldn’t be a military space bill without some underlying fear of the Russians.

A surprising critic of this bill has been the current Air Force leadership. Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee in May and said that the bill would distract from the current goals of the service.

“I don’t support it at this time,” the general said. “Right now, to get focused on a large organizational change would actually slow us down…Whether there’s a time in our future where we want to take a look at this again, I would say that we keep that dialogue open, but right now I think it would actually move us backwards.”

The introduction of the Space Corps provision is only the beginning. The entire House Armed Services Committee will need to vote on the bill before it can be debated on the House floor, which is not expected to vote on the NDAA until after July 4. The Senate is working on its own version of a similar bill. If the Space Corps legislation in the NDAA garners enough votes from the House and Senate, then it will finally be sent to the White House to be signed into law.

Regardless of what happens to this legislation, government and military officials will continue to discuss the best way to provide for defense in orbit and beyond. It’s the way of the future that might eventually lead to the sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Committee Wants to Include a Space Corps in New Defense Bill appeared first on Law Street.

As Republican Senators prepared to release a version of their new health care legislation on Thursday, a group of protesters gathered outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office. But many of them were eventually physically removed from the scene.

The rally was organized by ADAPT, a national disability rights organization, according to CNN. In their statement, the protesters said that they are “demanding [McConnell] bring an end to attacks on disabled people’s freedom which are expected in the bill.”

So, the majority of protesters were either advocates for those with disabilities or those directly impacted by a handicap, according to USA Today. Instead of calling their protest a “sit-in” they referred to it as a “die-in,” demonstrating their belief that the GOP health care bill would put many Americans in grave danger without dependable health care.

ADAPT’s statement also noted that the protest took place on the 18th anniversary of Olmstead v. L.C. – the Supreme Court decision that recognized disabled people’s right to live in communities rather than institutions.

After President Donald Trump took office and vowed to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Republicans have been trying to craft their own version of the bill. They faced harsh criticism from both sides of the aisle for their secrecy regarding the bill’s contents before unveiling it on Thursday.

Citizens nationwide were offended by both the process surrounding the creation of the bill and the contents of the bill itself. So, the protesters felt it was incumbent to voice their concerns to one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress.

While the protests remained mostly peaceful, Capitol Police were called in at some point and began to forcefully remove protesters despite their constitutional right to protest the government.

Capitol Police are physically removing protesters who are staging a “die-in” in front of McConnell’s office pic.twitter.com/8BU0dW63VI

— Andrew Desiderio (@desiderioDC) June 22, 2017

The police force ultimately arrested around 20 people, many of whom were either on respirators or confined to wheelchairs, according to the Huffington Post. Custodians also had to be sent to the hallway in order to clean up blood, according to Daily Beast reporter Andrew Desiderio.

The group took particular exception to the proposed cuts to Medicaid. At one point the crowd began chanting: “No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty!”

“No cuts to Medicaid, save our liberty.” Group chants in front of @SenateMajLdr‘s office. pic.twitter.com/fVJpufMDgC

— Jessica Smith (@JessicaASmith8) June 22, 2017

The health care bill has to be voted on by the Senate and go back to the House, so it will likely be modified. But the violence that these protesters faced at the hands of Capitol Police is upsetting. Instead of having their voices heard, they had their free speech stymied and were physically injured.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters Physically Removed from Outside Mitch McConnell’s Office appeared first on Law Street.

Two congresswomen from New York have introduced bills that could establish greater transparency in the ways menstrual product companies label ingredients and assess the health risks of products.

Rep. Grace Meng introduced the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act of 2017, which would require companies to include a list of ingredients on the label of menstrual products, such as menstrual cups, menstrual pads, tampons, and therapeutic vaginal douche apparatuses.

She’s joined by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney, who reintroduced a bill that would amend the Public Health Service Act to establish a research program to determine whether chemicals in feminine hygiene products present any health risks. The bill, titled the Robin Danielson Feminine Hygiene Product Safety Act of 2017, was named after a 44-year-old woman who died of toxic shock syndrome from a tampon in 1998.

According to the Maloney’s bill, the average person who menstruates “may use as many as 16,800 tampons” in their lifetime.” Tampons can contain trace amounts of dioxin, which the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization have both concluded can cause cancer.

Aside from dioxin, Maloney’s bill would also instruct the National Institutes of Health to research the presence of synthetic fibers, chlorine, fragrances, dyes, preservatives, and other components in tampons and other feminine hygiene products.

“It is astounding that manufacturers of tampons, pads, menstrual cups and other menstrual hygiene products are not required to disclose the ingredients of these products,” Meng said in a statement on her website. “We can easily see the ingredients used in the shampoo we put in our hair—why doesn’t this apply to products that touch, or are inserted into, sensitive female anatomy?  Consumers are being denied access to crucial information, which affects their safety and impacts their ability to make informed choices. My bill, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act, would finally change that.”

Activists took to D.C. in May in support of the bills.

Thank you to Rep. Grace Meng for introducing legislation on the right to know what’s in our menstrual products! #ComeClean #FemCarerally pic.twitter.com/6An6yA3rGl

— COLOR (@colorlatina) May 23, 2017

Thrilled to join @colorlatina to urge Congress and companies to care about feminine care! #FemCarerally #comeclean #detoxthebox pic.twitter.com/0fKr9jjFDz

— Morgan MenesesSheets (@morgmeneshets) May 23, 2017

Activism surrounding menstrual products is nothing new for Meng. In February, she introduced a “menstrual equity” bill to increase the availability and affordabillity of menstrual hygiene products.

The congresswomen’s bills are still in the early phases of the legislative process, but they highlight a need for transparency in menstrual health.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bills Push to Make Menstrual Product Ingredients More Transparent appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the Senate overwhelmingly backed a bill that would impose additional sanctions on Iran and Russia. The Senate’s move sent a clear signal to the White House that any conciliatory actions toward the Kremlin would have to go through Congress.

The bill, which passed by a vote of 98-2, would ensure that President Donald Trump could not unilaterally lift sanctions against Russia; any attempt to do so would have to be approved by Congress. The legislation is expected to head to the House in the coming weeks. The two Senators that voted “no” were Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement after the vote. He said:

With passage of this legislation, the Senate reasserts congressional authority–while providing the Trump administration appropriate national security flexibility–and sends a clear signal to both Iran and Russia that our country will stand firm in the face of destabilizing behavior and that Congress will play a leading role in protecting our national interests.

The expanded sanctions on Iran were in response to its ballistic missile development, and its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Tehran also aids Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

An amendment was added to the popular Iran sanctions bill to expand existing sanctions to Russia–citing its election meddling, its seizure of Crimea in 2014, and its support of separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia is also the primary backer of Assad.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said that the Russian sanctions stand. Yet in a hearing this week, he said the administration would like “flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation.” Tillerson urged Congress to allow him room to maneuver.

Congressional aides told Reuters that the House will likely pass the bill, and support in both chambers will be strong enough to override a veto if the president takes that route.

In a statement following Thursday’s vote, Sanders said he supports additional sanctions against Russia, but believes tightening sanctions against Iran “could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners, and Iran in 2015.” Sanders added that Iran’s “policies and activities” are deeply concerning.

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 Senate Votes to Make it Harder for Trump to Lift Russia Sanctions appeared first on Law Street.

On Sunday, June 11, Puerto Rico voted in a non-binding referendum to become the 51st U.S. state. While that doesn’t necessarily mean much–it certainly does not in any way guarantee that Puerto Rico will actually become a state–it does fit into the overall conversation about the island’s relationship with the United States. Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory for just over 100 years, and discussions about its relationship with the United States have been constant since then. Read on to learn about Puerto Rico’s potential bid for statehood and what could be next for the territory.

A Brief History of Puerto Rico’s Status

Puerto Rico officially became a territory of the United States on March 2, 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson signed the Jones-Shafroth Act. This act made the people of Puerto Rico citizens of the United States and made Puerto Rico an American territory. The island had been in U.S. possession for about 20 years prior to that point. Spain had ceded the area, as well as Guam and the Phillippines, to the U.S. with the Treaty of Paris that ended the Spanish-American War.

The Jones-Shafroth Act set up a government in Puerto Rico and defined the relationship between the island and the United States. In 1952, Puerto Rico officially became a commonwealth, meaning that it has its own constitution.

But despite such a long history, the relationship has remained contentious. While Puerto Ricans are American citizens, the region doesn’t necessarily enjoy the same privileges as a state. For example, Puerto Ricans don’t have a voting representative in Congress, nor are they able to vote for President (although, interestingly enough, they can vote in primary elections).

Statehood Votes in the Past and Present 

Puerto Rico has voted on the question of statehood four times prior to this weekend’s vote. The first time was in 1967; in that vote, only 39 percent of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood. In 1993, 46 percent voted for statehood. Next, in 1998, 46.5 percent voted in favor of statehood. In 2012, a majority of Puerto Ricans voted for statehood for the first time. At that point, 61 percent of Puerto Ricans said “yes” to the statehood question–although the validity of that number is actually contested.

In the referendum held on June 11, 2017, 97 percent of Puerto Ricans voted in favor of statehood. But it’s important to note that the vote is actually under some criticism. It had a very low turnout–only 23 percent of registered voters participated. That’s the lowest turnout in an election in Puerto Rico since 1967. And that low turnout was largely due to a boycott organized by parties that opposed statehood, which claimed that the vote was “rigged” in favor of statehood. They complained that the ballot question had been phrased in a way that made not voting for statehood seem negative. Although there was a huge majority that voted in favor of statehood, the criticisms of the referendum may mean that it’s not regarded as a legitimate vote.

The video below goes into more detail about the recent vote:

Arguments in Favor and Against Statehood

The debate is complicated–rife with historical, political, and cultural concerns. But here are some of the most popular arguments for and against Puerto Rican statehood.

Arguments in Favor of Statehood 

Those who want to see Puerto Rico become a state claim that it will be better for the area. Currently, the economic situation on the island is dire. Puerto Rico is bankrupt, and as a result, the government has had to implement austerity measures, including closing some public schools. The tax situation in Puerto Rico is also complicated–people who live there don’t have to pay federal taxes on the money they make on the island. But that means that it also doesn’t reap the financial benefits of being a state, like its share of income and corporate tax revenue. According to Frances Robles of the New York Times: “If Puerto Rico had been a state in 2011, it would have received up to $3 billion in additional funding for Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income payments alone, according to a federal Government Accountability Office report.” Statehood advocates claim that with that money, Puerto Rico wouldn’t be in such dire straits.

There’s also a political argument to be made. While Puerto Ricans can vote in party primaries, they are not able to vote in the presidential or vice presidential elections. Additionally, they have no voting representatives in Congress. Advocates of statehood argue that Puerto Rico won’t be able to effectively advocate for itself or its 3.5 million people until it has political representation on par with the rest of the United States (minus other territories and the District of Columbia). Some Puerto Ricans believe they are being treated as “second-class citizens.”

The current governor of Puerto Rico, Governor Ricardo Rosselló, supports Puerto Rican statehood. After the vote on June 11, he stated:

It will be up to this new generation of Puerto Ricans to demand and claim in Washington the end of the current improper colonial relationship, and begin a transition process to fully incorporate Puerto Rico as the next state of the Union.

What Are the Arguments Against Statehood?

There is also a range of arguments for why Puerto Rico should not become the 51st American state. Some argue that it doesn’t make sense to grant statehood to Puerto Rico because of its financial situation. It could be a burden on the rest of the United States to help the island out of its economic struggles.

There’s also an argument that Puerto Ricans don’t actually want it to become a state. The first three times the question was posed–the 1967, 1993, and 1998 votes–Puerto Ricans rejected statehood. While the 2012 vote is cited as the first time that Puerto Ricans voted for statehood, that conclusion is contested, because votes that were essentially abstentions were included. And the most recent vote, the one that garnered 97 percent in support of statehood, remains hotly contested because of the boycotts against it.

There are cultural arguments against statehood as well, including that Puerto Rico’s culture could be watered down if it is fully incorporated into the United States. Puerto Rico has some unique features as a territory of the United States–for example, it sends its own delegation to the Olympics and its own beauty queen to Miss Universe. Some argue that the island will lose part of its identity if it becomes the 51st state.

Conclusion: What’s Next?

Probably not that much. The vote that Puerto Rico held over the weekend is non-binding. Congress has the final say on making Puerto Rico a state. Puerto Rico could follow something called the “Tennessee Plan.” In that situation, Puerto Rico’s governor would appoint a delegation proportional to its population–two Senators and five Representatives–to go to Washington, D.C. and demand to be seated. This is the process by which Tennessee became recognized as a state, as well as Michigan, Iowa, California, Oregon, Kansas, and Alaska.

While the Republican Party has long supported Puerto Rican statehood, the addition of seven new colleagues on Capitol Hill, all of whom are likely to be Democrats because they will be appointed by the Democratic governor, would likely not sit well. Additionally, it’s unclear how the Republican Party’s current standard bearer, President Donald Trump, feels about potential statehood. He has tweeted negatively about not wanting to “bail out” Puerto Rico. Long story short, it seems very unlikely that there’s going to be a big change anytime soon when it comes to Puerto Rico’s lack of statehood.

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 Will Puerto Rico Become the 51st U.S. State? appeared first on Law Street.

The attorneys general for Maryland and Washington D.C. filed a lawsuit Monday against President Donald Trump, alleging that he violated the Constitution’s anti-corruption clauses by accepting payments from foreign governments since taking office.

This is the first time a state has filed a lawsuit against a president for violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause. While Trump has said that he would transfer his business assets to a blind trust, the lawsuit is centered on the claim that Trump has continued to retain ownership of his vast business portfolio while getting updates from his two sons.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, will require the court to answer whether Trump has violated either the domestic or foreign emoluments clauses.

Both clauses ban any “person holding any Office of Profit or Trust” from receiving any payment from foreign countries or from any of the 50 states without approval from Congress. The founding fathers set up the clauses to limit the influence a foreign country or an individual state could wield over the president.

In a copy of the lawsuit provided to the Washington Post, D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine and Maryland Attorney General Brian E. Frosh claim that Trump’s global business has him “deeply enmeshed with a legion of foreign and domestic government actors.”

The suit also alleges that businesses in both Maryland and D.C. have been harmed by Trump’s tendency to utilize his own convention centers and properties, such as the Trump International Hotel in D.C. The suit says that hotel payments, tax breaks, and permits all count as domestic emoluments received by Trump, according to CNN Money.

If the lawsuit progresses, the two officials say their first step will be to demand Trump’s personal tax returns in order to gauge the severity of his behavior.

This is the latest in a series of lawsuits attempting to test Trump’s conflicts of interest. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a D.C.-based group, and Cork Wine Bar had previously filed lawsuits against the president.

The Trump Organization, though, argues that everything is perfectly legal. In a response to CREW, the Justice Department argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Trump may legally accept “market-rate payments” for Trump’s real estate, hotel, and golf companies. They even cited George Washington selling farm produce as a previous example in their 70-page response.

Disappointed with the lack of inquiry from Congress, Racine and Frosh felt compelled to file their own lawsuit.

“We’re getting in here to be the check and balance that it appears Congress is unwilling to be,” Racine said.

The attorneys general feel confident that they have the standing to sue because Maryland and D.C. entered a contract, the Constitution, that Trump has violated by accepting gifts.

So while Trump faced plenty of lawsuits before his presidency and a handful since, this lawsuit represents a big moment in the early months of his administration. Trump’s foreign business dealings and potential conflicts of interest have been controversial since the campaign, but now D.C. and Maryland are demanding transparency within the Trump Administration to ease citizens’ concerns.

“This case represents another storm, not just a dusting of snow, but a blizzard of trouble for Trump,” Norman Eisen, who served as the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama and is CREW’s board chairman, said. “Who better than governmental actors to say our deal was, our fundamental democratic bargain was, we would get a president who would follow the Constitution.”

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maryland and D.C. Sue Trump, Alleging He Violated Constitution’s Anti-Corruption Clauses appeared first on Law Street.

A bipartisan trio of senators introduced legislation on Thursday that would ban congressmen from working as lobbyists after their time in Congress. Lobbying is a lucrative career that former congressmen often pursue; lobbying firms seek them out for their contacts and familiarity with the various levels of the federal government.

Sponsored by Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Al Franken (D-MN), the Close the Revolving Door Act of 2017 seeks to shutter the Capitol Hill to K Street pipeline.

“Washington has become all too comfortable with the spin of the revolving door,” Bennet said in a statement, referring to the common “revolving door” metaphor to describe the non-stop flow of congressmen to lobbying firms. “By banning members of Congress from lobbying when they leave Capitol Hill, we can begin to restore confidence in our national politics.”

The bill would institute a lifetime ban on current members of Congress from working as lobbyists after leaving Capitol Hill. Former congressional staffers would not be allowed to work as lobbyists until six years have passed since their time in Congress. Currently, that moratorium is one year.

Lobbying firms are common destinations for former U.S. senators and representatives. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, over half of the congressmen that either lost re-election or left Congress in 2014 now work as lobbyists. President Donald Trump pledged to combat the issue in January, when he issued an executive order to severely restrict the flow of former federal employees to lobbying firms.

Past presidents–including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama–also issued executive decrees aimed at reforming the lobbying practices of former congressmen. Current law dictates former members and staff of the House have a one-year “cooling off” period, in which they cannot accept a contract from a lobbying firm. For former senators and their staff, the “cooling off” period is two years.

In a statement, Franken said “our democracy can’t function the way it’s supposed to when well-connected special interests have more power than the American people.” Acting against moneyed special interests was a rallying cry for camps on both sides of the political spectrum during last fall’s campaign. Both Bernie Sanders and Trump railed against what they saw as a corrupt (or to Trump, a “swamp”) Washington crippled by vested interests.

This bipartisan effort “would put in place much-needed reforms-by not only banning members of Congress from becoming lobbyists, but also making the industry more accountable and transparent,” Franken 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 Trio of Senators Seek to Ban Former Members of Congress from Lobbying appeared first on Law Street.

Congress reached an agreement over the weekend to keep the government running through the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. While a vote has yet to take place–the House is expected to take up the bill on Wednesday–the spending bill omits a number of President Donald Trump’s stated priorities, and generally preserves or increases spending to programs Democrats feared might receive steep cuts. To avoid a government shutdown, Congress must pass the bill by midnight on Friday.

The trillion-dollar budget is far from the austere outline Trump proposed earlier this year. The bill also does not block federal funding from going to Planned Parenthood, which conservatives have long threatened. The National Institute of Health, one of the domestic programs Trump sought to shift money away from, will see a two billion dollar infusion of cash.

Although the Trump Administration averted a shutdown, the spending bill is hardly the conservative blueprint Trump and GOP lawmakers had been seeking. For one, while it includes a $1.5 billion increase in funding for border security, it also contains explicit language barring further construction of a wall on the border with Mexico. Trump, during a rally in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Saturday, reiterated his promise to build the wall.

Democratic leaders seemed pleased with the final agreement. Senate Minority Leader. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “The bill ensured taxpayer dollars aren’t used to fund an ineffective border wall” and “increases investments in programs that the middle-class relies on, like medical research, education, and infrastructure.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), cheered the bill’s funding for Puerto Rico’s Medicaid program.

White House and Republican leaders focused on the agreement’s increase in military spending, which was markedly less than what Trump called for. Vice President Mike Pence said the bill is a “bipartisan win” that will be a “significant increase in military spending.” Paul Ryan (R-WI), the Speaker of the House, said it reflects Trump’s “commitment to rebuild our military for the 21st century and bolster our nation’s border security to protect our homeland.”

In addition to preserving funds for Planned Parenthood and blocking money for a border wall, Democrats avoided other cuts they have feared since Trump’s proposed budget in March. The Environmental Protection Agency’s budget will only dip by one percent. There will be no funding for a deportation force. And, despite threats from Attorney General Jeff Sessions, funding to so-called “sanctuary cities” will not be reduced.

For some conservative members of Congress, however, the bill includes too many concessions to the opposition party. House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said, “you’re going to see conservatives have some real concerns with this legislation.” Jordan’s reasoning: “We told [voters] we were going to do a short-term spending bill that was going to come due at the end of April so that we could fight on these very issues, and now it looks like we’re not going to do that.”

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 No Funding for Trump’s Border Wall in Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Federal workers can breathe a sigh of relief (at least for one week): the Senate and the House both passed a short-term spending bill on Friday to fund the government at its current levels until next Friday. This averted a government shutdown that would have occurred if a deal had not been reached by midnight.

Some of the most contentious issues preventing a longer-term spending bill from being passed were funding for the border wall and an Affordable Care Act subsidy for low-income individuals, among others.

Even the one-week funding bill had a bumpy road to its passage, as many Democrats threatened to oppose its approval as long as Republicans planned to vote on repealing and replacing the ACA this week (within the President’s first 100 days). In the end, the health care vote was not scheduled for Friday.

President Donald Trump did not seem too concerned with the possibility of a shutdown, telling Reuters on Thursday, “we’ll see what happens. If there’s a shutdown, there’s a shutdown.” He also harshly criticized the Democratic Party in a series of Tweets on Thursday, accusing them of putting roadblocks in place and being responsible for a potential shutdown.

The Democrats want to shut government if we don’t bail out Puerto Rico and give billions to their insurance companies for OCare failure. NO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

I promise to rebuild our military and secure our border. Democrats want to shut down the government. Politics!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

As families prepare for summer vacations in our National Parks – Democrats threaten to close them and shut down the government. Terrible!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 27, 2017

The one-week spending bill buys Congress more time to smooth out conflicts and draft up a longer-term spending bill for the rest of the year.

The environment for government workers has been tenser than usual, to say the least. In addition to the possibility of a shutdown, federal workers have recently had to endure the possibility of job cuts, as Trump’s budget proposals have called to reduce the federal workforce by as many as 200,000 jobs. Also on Friday, officials announced that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson proposed to cut 2,300 jobs in the State Department.

Meanwhile, a large number of federal appointments still have yet to be selected by Trump. Politico reported that 470 out of 556 positions requiring Senate confirmation do not have nominees yet. It remains to be seen if the remaining issues in the long-term spending bill will be ironed out before this temporary measure expires on May 5.

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 Crisis Averted: Congress Approves Funding to Avoid Government Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a classic concern in Washington, a seemingly annual potential: a government shutdown. Now, talk of a government shutdown looms over the Trump Administration and the 115th U.S. Congress. This week, Congressional leaders are scheduled to send President Donald Trump a spending bill, but one that notably lacks many of his most inflammatory campaign promises. It doesn’t contain any money for Trump’s border wall and it doesn’t defund Planned Parenthood, among other unfulfilled promises. So, if Trump vetoes the bill, the federal government won’t have the money to function and it will trigger a government shutdown. But what actually is a government shutdown? What does it mean? How often does it happen? Read on to find out.

What is a “Government Shutdown?”

Essentially a “government shutdown” happens when, for whatever reason, a spending bill is not passed. There are multiple ways this could happen. For example, the Republicans and Democrats in Congress may not be able to agree on what measures should be included. Or, the president could veto the bill. But either way, it means that federal agencies don’t have the ability to spend money–meaning they can’t pay their employees or carry out a large chunk of their tasks. That’s deemed a “shutdown.”

Is there anything Congress can do to avoid a shutdown? 

Well, obviously passing a spending bill (which is really a collection of appropriations bills in an omnibus) is the optimal course of action. But that’s not the only option, because of course, various factions in the government disagree far more often than the government actually shuts down. That’s because Congress has the ability to pass something called a “continuing resolution”–a quick stopgap measure that gives them more time to figure out the spending bill. A continuing resolution is intended to fund the government at current levels until a permanent solution is figured out.

There’s also a combined continuing resolution/omnibus solution, which would fund certain, mostly uncontroversial agencies, while also temporarily funding the controversial issues. This measure, which is called a “CRomnibus,” would allow Congress to further debate on the controversial issues, but not wrap up the rest of the agencies’ and government’s funding as well.

When has the government shut down in the past?

It actually happens relatively frequently. Since 1976, which was the first year that the budgeting system as it now stands was implemented, the government has shut down–partially or fully–18 times. Many of those shutdowns were incredibly quick and didn’t really affect anything, others were longer and more complicated. Note that many of these cases include multiple moving parts, but here are the basic gists of what stopped at least some of the cogs in the federal government from working:

• There was a shutdown for 10 days in 1976 during President Gerald Ford’s presidency. He vetoed a spending bill passed by a Democratic Congress, claiming that the spending for the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare wasn’t reigned in enough.
• The government shut down three times during President Jimmy Carter’s presidency over the abortion debate alone. The shutdowns, which all occurred in 1977, were 12 days, eight days, and eight days respectively. The House wanted to continue to prohibit Medicaid funding from going to abortions; the Senate wanted to loosen the restrictions to include more exceptions.
• In 1978, also during Carter’s presidency, there was an 18-day shutdown when Carter vetoed part of a defense bill, claiming that funding for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was wasteful, among other issues.
• There was another shutdown during the Carter presidency in 1979, for 11 days, again related to abortion. The Senate refused to let the House give itself a pay increase without making federal abortion funding restrictions looser.
• In 1981, during President Ronald Reagan’s time in office, Reagan vetoed the spending bill after it fell $2 billion short of the cuts he wanted to make, sparking a two-day shutdown.
• The next year, still during Reagan’s presidency, there was a one-day shutdown, largely just because the House and Senate didn’t pass a spending bill in time.
• Again in 1982, Reagan threatened to veto a spending bill that set aside money for job creation, while neglecting to fund a defense program his administration saw as a priority. This led to a three-day shutdown.
• In 1983, the House passed a bill that gave more money to education, but cut foreign affairs spending and defense spending. Reagan didn’t like any of that. The resulting debate led to another three-day shutdown.
• In 1984, there was another short shutdown of two days, again because Congress wanted to fund (and to not fund) certain provisions against Reagan’s wishes, including a water projects package and civil rights measure. That led to another one-day shutdown when Congress and the White House failed to get everything together after a three-day extension.
• In 1986, there was a one-day shutdown when, once again, the Democrat-controlled House and Republican President Reagan disagreed over provisions in a funding bill.
• The last shutdown of Reagan’s presidency occurred for a day in 1987 when the president and the Democrats in Congress couldn’t agree on whether or not to fund the Nicaraguan “Contra” militants.
• There was a three-day shutdown in 1990 under President George H.W. Bush. Bush vetoed a measure that didn’t contain a deficit reduction plan.
• In 1995 there was a five-day shutdown, when President Bill Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution by the Republicans, who controlled Congress at the time. It had plenty of things he didn’t want in it, including raising Medicare premiums.
• From December 1995 to January 1996, there was a 21-day shutdown that again pitted Clinton against the then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich. Much of this shutdown involved semantics–Clinton was using Office of Management and Budget numbers to balance his budget, while Congress insisted he use the Congressional Budget Office’s numbers.
• The most recent government shutdown, in 2013, under President Barack Obama, lasted 16 days. Obamacare was the crux of the issue–the Republican-controlled House didn’t want to fund the bill, the Democrat-controlled Senate did.

What Actually Happens During a Shutdown?

Much of what happens during a government shutdown is dictated by the Antideficiency Act, a law originally enacted in 1884 and amended in 1950. According to Andrew Cohen of the Atlantic it is:

a collection of statutory and administrative provisions, really–that forbid federal officials from entering into financial obligations for which they do not have funding, like paying the salaries of their employees or buying the things they need to run the government. It’s also the law that wisely permits certain ‘essential’ government functions–like the military and the courts, for example–to keep operating even in the absence of authorized legislative funding.

So, one of the most notable effects of a government shutdown is on federal government employees. Essentially, government workers are split into a few different groups–those who are “essential” to keep daily life in the United States functioning, and those who aren’t. Those who aren’t include people who operate our national parks and large chunks of lower and mid-level staff at agencies and offices. They are furloughed, without pay, until whenever the government shutdown ends. Workers who stay on probably don’t get their pay on time. And a common point of contention is that members of Congress are still paid, even if there is a shutdown. It was estimated by Standard & Poor’s that the 2013 shutdown cost the economy approximately $24 billion.

Other effects of a shutdown can include delayed Social Security payments, no processing of travel documents like new passports, no processing of applications for things like Medicare, research for certain agencies like the CDC, and certain types of federal loans end up frozen. However, the TSA, Post Office, and active military are all certain to continue functioning.

Of course, some areas are more affected than others. Washington D.C., as a city that is in many ways controlled by the federal government, is pretty hard hit. Check out this video from the New York Times to learn more:

Conclusion

A “government shutdown” sounds quite a bit scarier than it actually is. It doesn’t signal anarchy, or the apocalypse, but rather a temporary (but certainly annoying) halt to some of our government’s day-to-day functions. That being said, it’s not great for those who are particularly affected–like the hundreds of thousands of workers who suddenly have to go for an indeterminate period without pay. It costs the economy quite a bit of money. And it disrupts an already tumultuous funding process for the federal government. It’s unclear when the next shutdown will be, but at this point it seems like it’s become a regular factor in Washington.

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 Does a “Government Shutdown” Entail? appeared first on Law Street.

As Congress returns from a two-week recess–the Senate returns on Monday, the House Tuesday–its legislative to-do list is stuffed to the brim. President Donald Trump is expected to propose a tax plan on Wednesday. He has suggested a revamped version of the Republican health care plan, which failed to hit the House floor for a vote last month, could be introduced this week. But foremost on Congress’ agenda: passing a government spending bill and staving off a government shutdown, a prospect that would be deeply embarrassing for an administration that will see its 100th day in office on Saturday.

Funding for the government, absent a spending agreement, is set to run out on Friday. To avoid a shutdown–which last occurred in 2013 when congressional Republicans and former President Barack Obama were deeply divided–the White House will have to come to an agreement with Congress. Many Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill differ with the administration in their spending priorities, especially when it comes to Trump’s long-promised border wall between the United States and Mexico.

Many GOP lawmakers, and most, if not all, Democrats oppose paying for the wall with funds from the government’s coffers. Trump is adamant on following through on a promise that he sees as central to his election victory, however. On Sunday morning, the president reiterated his promise that Mexico will pay for the wall but asked for funding in the meantime:

Eventually, but at a later date so we can get started early, Mexico will be paying, in some form, for the badly needed border wall.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a security hawk who is generally seen as a hard-liner on immigration, recently said the wall will get funded “one way or another.” On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Reince Priebus, Trump’s chief of staff, said: “We expect money for border security in this bill.” Priebus added: “And it ought to be. Because the president won overwhelmingly. And everyone understands the border wall was part of it.”

Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director, also insists the administration will push hard for the border wall to be included in a final budget agreement. “We want our priorities funded and one of the biggest priorities during the campaign was border security, keeping Americans safe and part of that was a border wall,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.” Mulvaney did add, however, that Trump would sign a bill that did not include funding for the wall. “I don’t think anybody is trying to get to a shutdown. Shutdown is not a desired end. It’s not a tool. It’s not something that we want to have,” he said.

On Friday, the administration floated a proposal to bridge the divide with Democrats–whose support for a final budget deal is vital to keeping the government afloat–on the border wall issue. For each dollar spent on the wall, according to the administration’s offer, the government would spend a dollar on Obamacare subsidies. Through a spokesman, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the minority leader, said the trade-off idea was a “complete non-starter.”

Trump, who is still hoping to secure a legislative achievement by his 100-day mark, sent a tweet on Sunday morning that encapsulated his lack of leverage heading into the budget battle with Democrats:

ObamaCare is in serious trouble. The Dems need big money to keep it going – otherwise it dies far sooner than anyone would have thought.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 23, 2017

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 Trump’s Border Wall: the Issue That Could Shut Down the Government appeared first on Law Street.

Ever since it was announced that Donald J. Trump was going to be the 45th President of these United States of America, Democrats have been looking to attach themselves to any kind of competition to gain some kind of payback for their defeat (See: Super Bowl LI). Although it didn’t result in an explicit victory, this past Tuesday’s special election for Georgia’s House seat in its Sixth District offered Democrats their first viable taste of victory and vengeance.

Wednesday’s special election resulted in Democrat Jon Ossoff narrowly missing out on the 50 percent of the vote that he needed to win the contest outright, thus making a run-off between Ossoff and top GOP vote-getter Karen Handel necessary. The details of the run-off, scheduled for June 20, have already become the subject of controversy and, now, a lawsuit.

Yesterday, the DC-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit on behalf of five different civil rights groups–the Georgia NAACP among them–that claims that a certain Georgia state law that prohibits those who weren’t registered for this week’s special election from voting in June’s run-off is in violation of national voting laws.

The reportedly violated law that the complaint cites is the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which explicitly states that states “can set a voter registration deadline for federal elections shorter than 30 days, and a number of States do so, but cannot set a longer deadline.” The complaint claims that Georgia’s “statutory scheme” effectively creates a deadline that exceeds the restriction of a 30-day registration deadline, which will mean that people who registered between March 21 and May 22 won’t be eligible to vote in June.

According to the complaint, the five groups are seeking “injunctive relief” by requiring the state of Georgia to allow all eligible residents of Georgia’s Sixth District the ability to continue to register to vote in the June run-off through May 22.

Speaking to reporters, Candice Broce, a spokeswoman for Georgia’s Secretary of State Brian Kemp, characterized the lawsuit as a “political attack” “This law has been in place since [former Georgia Secretary of State] Cathy Cox, a Democrat, was in office but they’ve waited until now to challenge it. This is just being done to disrupt our processes. We will fight it in court,” Broce said.

Broce also said that Georgia state law treats run-off elections as extensions of special elections, which would make the rigidity of the voter registration deadline a logical practice.

Georgia has a record of employing various voter suppression tactics both historically and recently. In October, the ACLU sued the state over its decision to not extend its voter registration deadline in the wake of Hurricane Matthew. Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp said in a statement that the lawsuit was a “nakedly political stunt to manipulate the system and squander state and county resources days before the election.”

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post State of Georgia Sued Over Alleged Voter Suppression appeared first on Law Street.

A day after ruling out a re-election bid in the 2018 midterms, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) on Thursday let slip that he could end his term early. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight Committee and a onetime prospect for Speaker of the House, said: “My future plans are not yet finalized but I haven’t ruled out the possibility of leaving early.”

Utah’s Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox told the WSJ that officials are preparing for a special election in Chaffetz’s 3rd Congressional District. Despite his prevalent role in the oversight committee–a role that expires in 2020–and his advantageous position after Republicans took over Washington in November, Chaffetz, 50, announced his decision to opt out of the 2018 race in a Facebook post early Wednesday:

Since late 2003 I have been fully engaged with politics as a campaign manager, a chief of staff, a candidate and as a Member of Congress. I have long advocated public service should be for a limited time and not a lifetime or full career. Many of you have heard me advocate, “Get in, serve, and get out.” After more than 1,500 nights away from my home, it is time. I may run again for public office, but not in 2018.

He added he is “healthy” and there are “no ulterior motives” behind his decision. Initially opposed to President Donald Trump’s candidacy, Chaffetz ultimately supported the president. Since his flip-flop on Trump, Chaffetz has been booed and heckled at town hall meetings.

Before Congress and the White House both turned red, Chaffetz was a feisty GOP attack dog; he targeted Hillary Clinton’s handling of the bombing at the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi in 2012. He also took aim at Clinton’s private email server, an issue that dogged her throughout the campaign.

Some are speculating that Chaffetz bowed out early because of two well-funded challengers, both first-time political candidates: Democrat Kathryn Allen, a physician, and Republican Damian Kidd, a lawyer. But Chaffetz could also be taking a hiatus from the political scene before a gubernatorial run in 2020, something he reportedly expressed interest in last year.

In his farewell Facebook post, which may be the official send-off to his supporters, Chaffetz wrote: “Thank you for allowing me to serve as your Representative in the United States House of Representatives. Serving is an honor and a privilege that I have never taken for granted.”

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 Is Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz Stepping Down Early? appeared first on Law Street.

Since almost the moment that President Donald Trump took office, there have been calls to impeach him. Cities have passed resolutions calling for Trump’s impeachment, some Democratic politicians have indicated that they believe he should be impeached, and a late-March survey by Public Policy Polling reports that 44 percent of Americans support impeaching the president. Regardless of many unprecedented actions on Trump’s part, this isn’t really anything new–comments about impeachment consistently dogged President Barack Obama’s presidency as well.

But an impeachment is much easier said than done. Over the course of American history, only two presidents have ever been impeached–President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton, but neither president was removed from office as a result. Impeachment proceedings against a third president, Richard Nixon, began, but he resigned before much progress was made. Read on to learn about the impeachment process and the history of impeachments in the United States.

How Does Impeachment Work?

The U.S. Constitution lays out a procedure for impeaching the president (and vice president, and other officials).

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5 makes it clear that the House of Representatives has the ability to “impeach” a president, essentially meaning that the House is in charge of bringing impeachment charges. Although there are a few different things that can lead to a House impeachment, usually it begins with some sort of allegations being made against an official. The House Judiciary Committee is then tasked with investigating those allegations. If so, the entire House then votes on whether or not to impeach the official–majority rules–by adopting articles of impeachment. Although not a perfect metaphor, it might be helpful to think of an impeachment like an indictment.

As Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 state, the Senate actually tries an official. Members of the House of Representatives are appointed to act as sort-of prosecutors of the official who is being tried. While usually the senators themselves serve as both judge and jury, in the case of a presidential impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. Two-thirds of Senators are required to convict, and as a penalty for being convicted, the official must be removed from office. There is no way to appeal.

Impeachments Throughout History

The two most notorious impeachments are obviously President Andrew Johnson and President Bill Clinton. But impeachment isn’t just reserved for presidents. The House of Representatives has actually initiated impeachment proceedings for over 60 individuals since America’s independence. The House issued articles of impeachment for 15 other individuals. Of those 15, eight were found guilty by the Senate. The majority were judges. Here are the American officials who have been impeached:

• In 1797, Senator William Blount was impeached on charges that he tried to help England seize Spanish-controlled territory in North America. He was expelled from the Senate before he was actually tried.
• In 1803, Judge John Pickering of New Hampshire was impeached for being drunk on the bench and acting inappropriately. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1804, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for “arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials.” He was acquitted.
• In 1830, James H. Peck, a judge from Tennessee, was accused of abuse of power. He was acquitted.
• In 1862, West H. Humphreys, also a Tennessee judge, was impeached on charges that he “refused to hold court” and was acting against the U.S. government. He was found guilty, removed from office, and prevented from holding office in the future.
• In 1873 a Kansas judge, Mark H. Delahay, was impeached for being intoxicated while on the bench. He resigned before a trial began.
• In 1876, William W. Belknap, the Secretary of War, was impeached on various corruption charges. He was acquitted by the Senate.
• In 1904, Charles Swayne, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he misused his office. He was acquitted.
• In 1912, Robert W. Archbald, an Associate Judge of the U.S. Commerce Court, was impeached based on allegations that he had inappropriate business relationships with some litigants. He was found guilty, lost his job, and prevented from holding office moving forward.
• In 1926, George W. English, a judge from Illinois, was accused of abusing his power. He resigned and the charges were dismissed.
• In 1933, Harold Louderback, a California judge, was accused of “favoritism in the appointment of bankruptcy receivers.” He was acquitted.
• In 1936, Halsted L. Ritter, a judge from Florida, was impeached on a few charges, including that he was practicing law as a sitting judge. He was found guilty and removed from office.
• In 1986, Harry E. Claiborne, a Nevada judge, was accused of tax evasion, and staying on the bench despite having been convicted of a crime. He was found guilty, and lost his position.
• In 1988 Alcee L. Hastings, a Florida judge, was impeached on charges that he perjured himself and conspired to solicit a bribe. He was found guilty and removed from office. (If the name sounds familiar, it’s because Hastings is now a congressman.)
• In 1989, Walter L. Nixon, a Mississippi judge, was impeached on various charges, including that he lied under oath. He was found guilty and removed from his post.
• In 2009, Samuel B. Kent, a Texas judge, was impeached on a number of charges, including sexual assault. He resigned before the proceedings were completed.
• In 2010, G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., a Louisiana judge, was impeached on charges that included perjury and accepting bribes. He was found guilty, lost his position, and cannot hold office in the future.

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson

President Andrew Johnson assumed office after his predecessor, President Abraham Lincoln, was assassinated in April 1865. However, the Lincoln-Johnson ticket was unusual. While Lincoln was a Republican, Johnson was a Democrat from the South. He had remained in the Senate even after his home state of Tennessee seceded, which endeared him to the Republicans. In 1964, Lincoln chose Johnson for his ticket, which was under the “National Unity Party,” in an attempt to appeal to the entire country in the context of the Civil War.

But when Lincoln was assassinated, and Johnson was left in charge, he disagreed with the Republicans who held the majority in Congress. He famously declared: “This is a country for white men, and as long as I am president, it shall be a government for white men.” He stood against the enforcement of the Reconstruction Acts, passed by Congress. In 1867, Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act, despite Johnson’s veto. This stopped the president from dismissing any government officials without the Senate’s approval.

Regardless of the bill, Johnson dismissed Edwin M. Stanton, his Secretary of War, who supported the Republicans in Congress. In response, the House of Representatives voted to impeach Johnson, 126-47. The charges were that he violated the Tenure of Office Act and brought “disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt, and reproach” into Congress. As Johnson was being tried by the Senate, he took actions that were seen as concessions to the Republicans in Congress. He ended up being acquitted, by just one vote.

Richard Nixon’s Narrow Miss 

President Richard Nixon resigned after the fallout from the Watergate Scandal and his administration’s subsequent coverup. But had he not resigned, he certainly risked impeachment. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee passed one article of impeachment–had Nixon not resigned, that vote would have made it to the full House of Representatives.

President Bill Clinton’s Impeachment 

While in office, President Bill Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a former White House intern. Ken Starr, an independent investigator who had been originally tasked with looking into the Whitewater scandal but ended up investigating a wider range of controversies, submitted a report to the House Judiciary Committee. The report alleged that Clinton lied about his affair with Lewinsky during various testimony, including some regarding a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a woman named Paula Jones. The Starr Report contained 11 possible grounds for Clinton’s impeachment.

While the report was controversial, and Starr was accused of attacking Clinton for political motives, on December 19, 1998, the House approved two articles of impeachment against the president–one for obstruction of justice with a vote of 221-212, and one for lying under oath to a grand jury by a vote of 228-206.

On February 12, 1998, the Senate acquitted Clinton on both charges. In order to convict Clinton, the Senate would have needed a two-thirds majority. The obstruction of justice charge only garnered 50 votes, and the perjury charge only had 45 votes.

However, the impeachment, and affair, marred Clinton’s legacy.

Conclusion

Despite calls to impeach President Donald Trump (and previously President Barack Obama), impeachment isn’t as simple as it sounds. It’s a long, controversial, and political process–one that has only ever been even partially started against three presidents. While other figures throughout history have been impeached, those three presidents–President Andrew Johnson, President Richard Nixon, and President Bill Clinton–offer the closest thing we have to a blueprint for how an impeachment of a president would look. Given today’s contentious political landscape, who knows when we’ll see that again.

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 How to Impeach a President appeared first on Law Street.

With a new story coming to light seemingly every single day, there’s no question that all the news about Russia and its interference in the 2016 election is confusing. So, it’s fair to assume that a lot of people were surprised on Wednesday when Senators Richard Burr, the Republican chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Mark Warner, the Democratic Vice Chairman, held a joint news conference discussing the Senate’s Russia probe.

The biggest takeaway from the press conference was Warner’s comment on one part of Russia’s strategy to destabilize the election, which concerned the Kremlin hiring 1,000 paid trolls to generate fake anti-Clinton stories targeted at specific areas in the U.S. Warner did not elaborate on where those specific areas were, but he alluded to the committee investigating trolls targeting Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. The significance of Russia targeting these three specific states is simple: they are all swing states that President Donald Trump narrowly won. They were also the three states included in the unsuccessful recounts prompted by Jill Stein.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Senate Intelligence Committee’s Russia Probe appeared first on Law Street.

In a party line vote, the Republican-controlled House dealt a blow to internet privacy advocates on Wednesday, passing a bill that would roll back Obama-era protections on consumer data. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the bill, according to the White House. Undoing the rules, which were set to take effect at the end of the year, might signal a new path for the Federal Communications Commission, favoring unfettered industry growth over consumer-friendly protections.

Last October, the FCC enacted a new set of rules against internet service providers (ISPs) like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, barring them from collecting consumer data such as browsing habits, app history, and location data. Personal information, like a customer’s social security number, was also safeguarded. Though internet companies like Google and Facebook use customers’ data as currency in selling targeted advertisements, the FCC decided ISPs should not be granted the same unregulated access.

Those protections will vanish with the new law, as would the ability for the FCC to draft similar rules in the future. “Today’s vote means that Americans will never be safe online from having their most personal details stealthily scrutinized and sold to the highest bidder,” Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy told The Washington Post.

Privacy advocates argue repealing the protections will grant ISPs access to customer data in a bid to boost profits. Instead of simply providing a channel for internet access, ISPs are now wading into territory dominated by billion-dollar mammoths like Google and Facebook: targeted advertising.

So while the protections would not have barred those companies from accessing user data to sell to advertising agencies and marketers, privacy advocates argue ISPs have access to a wider range of data than search engines and other websites, and thus should be more restricted. Some also worry that net neutrality–the policy that internet providers treat the web as a level playing field–could be next on the chopping block.

But opponents of the rules, and champions of the new path the FCC seems to be following, say that the rules would have stifled innovation. Industry advocates say the rules defined privacy too broadly (browsing and app history should not be private, they argue), and provided an unfair advantage to other data-collectors like Google, as the rules only targeted ISPs.

“There is no lawful, factual or sound policy basis to justify a discriminatory approach that treats ISPs differently from some of the largest companies in the Internet ecosystem that engage in similar practices,” The Internet & Television Association, an industry trade group, said last October when the rules were passed.

Ajit Pai, the newly-appointed FCC chairman, said the Federal Trade Commission, a consumer protection agency, will work together with the FCC to “ensure that consumers’ online privacy is protected through a consistent and comprehensive framework.” He said “jurisdiction over broadband providers’ privacy practices” would be returned to the FTC. But Pai added the FCC could still bring privacy-related lawsuits against ISPs.

Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA), who voted against the bill, said in a House committee hearing on Monday that he worries that in the absence of regulations, ISPs will abuse their data-collecting power. “One would hope — because consumers want their privacy protected — that they would be good actors, and they would ask permission and do these nice things,” said Doyle. “But there’s no law now that says they have to, and there’s no cop on the beat saying, ‘Hey, we caught you doing something.’”

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 Congress Passes Bill to Roll Back Internet Privacy Protections appeared first on Law Street.

Today is the best day of the year: #NationalPuppyDay. Puppies are great, because they a) aren’t trying to take health insurance away from 24 million people b) aren’t affiliated with Russia, and c) are much cuter than humans. In honor of #NationalPuppyDay, let’s take a quick look at the best political puppies so far in 2017.

Senator Thom Tillis Made a New Friend

Our official office mascot, Tilly, a 3lb Boston Terrier puppy.

A post shared by Senator Thom Tillis (@senthomtillis) on Jan 24, 2017 at 7:06am PST

Tilly, a Boston Terrier puppy, appears to belong to one of Tillis’s staffers. But she’s not the only dog in Tillis’s life. The senator’s love of dogs is well documented. During the 2016 election he released a video of his dog, Ike Tillis, whining about Hillary Clinton, Obamacare, ISIS, and the deficit. He also encouraged his dog to vote, which is definitely not legal, but Ike is too cute for us to care.

Biden, the Puppy Who Stole Our Hearts

This is a recent addition to best political puppies of 2017. Biden, a four-month-old golden retriever puppy, got to meet Joe Biden, a human and former VP, yesterday.

It seems like they got along well:

Joe Biden met a puppy named “Biden” and the internet lost its mind https://t.co/CW9LOeryq6 pic.twitter.com/dPDnAHcgI0

— Mic (@mic) March 23, 2017

Biden the puppy probably has a long political career ahead of him.

i have a dream

A post shared by biden (@bidenthegolden) on Feb 24, 2017 at 8:27am PST

Rep. Rick Crawford’s Office Has a Maltipoo

Representative Rick Crawford, a Republican representative from Arkansas, has a puppy named Brady who greets constituents who decide to stop by the D.C. office. News of Brady’s hiring broke in mid-January, and according to Crawford’s office, Brady “will be handling all of our canine related policies and will be my go to pup on the #woof caucus.” 

I’d like to introduce the newest member of my staff, Brady Handey. Brady will be handling all of our canine related policies and will be my go to pup on the #woof caucus. #capitolhilldogs #dogsofinsta

A post shared by Rep Rick Crawford (@reprickcrawford) on Jan 5, 2017 at 10:31am PST

Senator Deb Fischer Adopts Fred

Nebraska Republican Senator Deb Fischer has adopted a goldendoodle named Fred. Fischer is a big time dog lover and misses her dogs back home. So, she adopted a nine-week-old goldendoodle in February, who will live with her staff members on the weekends while she’s in Nebraska. Fred is all over the senator’s Instagram, and clearly a very hard worker:

Fred (and Nick) wishing all Nebraskans calling my office a Happy #ValentinesDay #HeartCity #valentinenebraska #hometown #FunWithFred

A post shared by Senator Fischer (@senatorfischer) on Feb 14, 2017 at 8:21am PST

He’s even at meetings on National Puppy Day! Good work Fred:

Fred at staff meeting. Happy #nationalpuppyday

A post shared by Senator Fischer (@senatorfischer) on Mar 23, 2017 at 11:30am PDT

All of the Puppies Visit the Hill

In February, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought a bunch of puppies to the hill, all adoptable. Some representatives jumped on the chance to hang out with them. Here’s Representative Lucille Roybal-Allard, a Democrat from California and her new friends:

Made some new animal friends here on the Hill thanks to the @ASPCA! I’m honored to fight in Congress for the well-being of animals. pic.twitter.com/EJjD6nB7wq

— Rep. Roybal-Allard (@RepRoybalAllard) February 15, 2017

Republican Congressman Tom Marino, from Pennsylvania, also stopped by:

Today, I stopped by the #PAWS4Love event hosted by the @ASPCA. pic.twitter.com/UoPSHbKR0C

— Rep. Tom Marino (@RepTomMarino) February 14, 2017

And Democratic Colorado Rep. Jared Polis had his dog selfies down:

Adopt a dog or cat today#paws4love @ASPCA pic.twitter.com/2idACR1OR0

— Jared Polis (@jaredpolis) February 14, 2017

The good news: nearly 20 animals (both dogs and cats) found homes during the event!

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 Best Political Puppies of 2017 for National Puppy Day appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump is getting some praise for his joint address to Congress–specifically his tone and the fact that he didn’t say anything too racist while he was addressing the nation. However, there was one moment during his speech that elicited a groan from his audience. This is not a groan in the abstract sense, but a literal groan. It was when Trump introduced the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office (VOICE).

As Trump outlines in his speech, VOICE is supposed to provide a voice (oh, I get it now!) for those who have been affected by crimes committed by illegal immigrants. However, the language Trump used in his speech was vague to say the least.

So what actually is VOICE? Here’s a quick breakdown of where this office came from, what it is, and whether it really is groan-worthy.

VOICE comes from a January 25 Executive Order

Trump has signed a lot of executive orders since he got into office. The one that VOICE is related to was signed on January 25 and called “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” It concerns issues related to illegal immigration and the expansion of the role of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS oversees the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE).

Aside from threatening to restrict federal funds from jurisdictions that don’t turn over detained illegal immigrants and authorizing the DHS secretary to allow state and local officials to effectively act as immigration officers, the EO calls for two actions that are instrumental to VOICE:

1. The creation of something called the “Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens,” an office that provides professional services to victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants. This is basically the start of VOICE (although without that super-cool and snazzy title).
2. An alteration to the Privacy Act so that persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents are exempt from certain protections.  This is a break from a Bush Administration action that required agencies like the DHS  to afford undocumented immigrants certain privacy rights. According to the New York Times, some of these Privacy Act rights included blocking information obtained by an agency from being shared with other agencies like ICE.

We’ve known about VOICE for almost two weeks now

On February 20, two DHS memos from Secretary John Kelly that were circulating for a while were reported by McClatchy. These memos outlined how the DHS planned to follow through on the executive order’s provisions. One of these memos establishes VOICE, which serves as a “programmatic liaison between ICE and the known victims of crimes committed by removable aliens.” The office plans to provide victims, “to the extent permitted by law,” information about crimes committed by illegal immigrants and victims’ families with information about the suspect, such as their immigration status and custody status.

The memo also directs the Director of ICE to reallocate resources used to “advocate on behalf of illegal aliens” to VOICE instead, and “to immediately terminate the provision of such outreach or advocacy services to illegal aliens.”

It also directs ICE to develop the weekly report that Trump called for in the EO. The memo highlights that the ICE Director will develop a weekly report on a medium that can be accessed by the public.

So what does VOICE do exactly? 

What VOICE does is give victims a voice by not giving illegal immigrants the benefits of the Privacy Act which, with the help of Trump’s executive order, is now a lawful practice for government agencies. VOICE would allow victims to have access to their offenders’ information that had been previously withheld by agencies. The potential cost to immigrants here is that, according to the New York Times, those who are seeking legal status could face a harder citizenship process. According to the Chicago Tribune this could also be used to target immigrants for deportation. And since VOICE is so closely tied to privacy protections for illegal immigrants, what happens to all that information when an illegal immigrant goes through the process to become a citizen? What will the DHS do with that information?

The DHS memo seems to attempt to shed light on this issue, but with very vague language. In the memo, Kelly outlines how the DHS Privacy Office and the Office of the General Counsel will work together to “develop new guidance specifying the appropriate treatment of personal information DHS maintains in its record systems.” We still do not know exactly what that “new guidance” is, which is alarming considering Trump’s joint address has now brought the existence of VOICE to the forefront.

VOICE does a lot to tackle a small national issue

The issue with VOICE lies in its specific acknowledgment of crimes committed by illegal immigrants, and framing the issue as if it is a dire national crisis. A study published by the American Immigration Council shows that not only are immigrants less likely than native-born citizens to engage in criminal behavior, but higher immigration is associated with lower crime rates.

It would be ignorant to say illegal immigrants do not commit crimes, whether violent or non-violent. But we have seen that what illegal immigrants contribute to this country is not simply violence, rape, and crime. We see that immigrants make vital contributions to this country not only in terms of taxes and labor, but through art and culture as well.

VOICE is a practice of proxy racism–it seeks to cover a racist notion of a whole people with a cynical dose of fear for terrifying uncertainties. The office would elevate the worst stories that immigrants have to offer and have them serve as referenda for these human beings as a whole. VOICE shouts over the cries of the vital and vibrant immigrant communities that so desperately want and need to be heard in this country.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Here’s What You Need to Know About VOICE 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.

President Donald Trump is preparing to submit a budget proposal for the coming fiscal year that would increase military spending by $54 billion, a 10 percent spike, according to an administration official. To offset the increase, a similar amount would need to be shaved from other programs and agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department.

“This budget follows through on my promise to focus on keeping Americans safe,” Trump said during a meeting with governors on Monday. The president said that the budget will include “a historic increase in defense spending to rebuild the depleted military of the United States.” He added that the budget will send a “message to the world, in these dangerous times, of American strength, security, and resolve.”

While a final budget will not be set for at least a few months, Trump’s wish list sets the tone for how he plans to spend the government’s money during his first year in office. It also seems to send the message that he is doing what he said he would: pare down a bloated government, while increasing military spending.

“We have to start winning wars again–when I was young, in high school and college, people used to say ‘we haven’t lost a war’–we never lost a war– you remember,” Trump said at the governors meeting. “We either got to win, or don’t fight it at all.”

The administration official, who talked to reporters on the condition of anonymity, said foreign aid would see massive reductions in funding. Foreign aid, which is often tied to security concerns that could ultimately affect the U.S., takes up one of the slimmest slices of the federal budget.

On Tuesday evening, Trump is expected to discuss his budget proposals to a televised joint session of Congress. In the months ahead, the initial budget request will get hemmed and altered by Republicans in Congress. Democrats are expected to staunchly oppose certain proposals, such as the proposed cuts to the EPA.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) said the additional $54 billion in military spending “almost certainly means cuts to agencies that protect consumers from Wall Street excess and protect clean air and water.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California) said the cuts will have “far-reaching and long-lasting damage to our ability to meet the needs of the American people and win the jobs of the future.”

But Trump sees his proposal as him cashing in on a campaign promise to increase the bang of America’s buck. “We are going to do more with less and make the government lean and accountable to the people,” he said during a White House address preceding his meeting with the governors. “We can do so much more with the money we spend.”

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 Trump’s Budget Blueprint Seeks Dramatic Military Spending Increase appeared first on Law Street.

A group of pro-pot federal lawmakers has teamed up to announce the formation of the first-ever Congressional Cannabis Caucus. The bipartisan effort will work on legislation related to marijuana legalization and regulation, proving that perhaps Congress is taking the issue of marijuana legalization seriously.

During a press conference last Thursday afternoon, Representatives Earl Blumenauer (R-Oregon), Dana Rohrabacher (R-California), Don Young (R-Alaska), and Jared Polis (D-Colorado) joyfully announced the creation of the coalition. Unsurprisingly, all four of the representatives hail from states where recreational marijuana is legal.

“We’re stepping forward together to say we’ve got to make major changes in our country’s attitude toward cannabis,” Rep. Rohrabacher said at the start of the press conference. “And if we do, many people are going to live better lives, it’s going to be better for our country, better for people, and it makes economic sense at a time when every penny must count for government.”

Rohrabacher and company discussed the importance of protecting the rights of individuals who reside in states where recreational marijuana is legal. Earlier this month Rohrabacher introduced HR 975, otherwise known as the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2017, which would allow state law to supersede federal law when it comes to the Controlled Substance Act.

The appointment of Sen. Jeff Sessions as U.S. Attorney General, a staunch marijuana critic, left many marijuana advocates wary of whether there will be any legislative change under the Trump Administration. In the past Sessions has called the drug “dangerous” and has joked that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” However, Sessions said during his confirmation hearing that he would need to use “good judgment” when deciding how to enforce federal marijuana laws.

“Because of the conflicts between Federal and State law, marijuana-related issues are no longer theoretical–they are real, and they are affecting real people in Alaska and across the country,” Young said in a written statement. “I look forward to working with the Congressional Cannabis Caucus to educate my colleagues in the House on the issues we are facing in Alaska, and hopefully to also develop solutions to these problems.”

According to Salon, several of the marijuana industry’s top leading lobbying groups and associations–including NORML, the Marijuana Policy Project, and the Drug Policy Alliance, among others–issued a joint statement on Thursday thanking the lawmakers leading the charge on cannabis policy.

“The establishment of a Cannabis Caucus will allow members from both parties, who represent diverse constituencies from around the country, to join together for the purpose of advancing sensible cannabis policy reform,” the statement read.

With marijuana legalization approval ratings at an all time high, we’ll have to wait and see if the bipartisan efforts of these state representatives can make some more headway with updating current legislation.

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 Congress Now Has a Bipartisan Cannabis Caucus 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:

Donald Trump’s Chaotic Press Conference

Yesterday, President Donald Trump held a spontaneous press conference and announced that his new pick for the Secretary of Labor is Alexander Acosta, who will be “a tremendous secretary of labor,” according to Trump. But the rest of the presser was a classic Trump-show. He denounced the media and called it “so dishonest.” He said he “inherited a mess” from President Barack Obama and that all the jobs are “pouring out of” the U.S. He said he also wanted to “update the American people on the incredible progress that has been made in the last four weeks since my inauguration.” Trump claimed that reports of chaos in the White House are totally wrong and that the “administration is running like a fine-tuned machine.”

Trump’s press conference achieved virtually nothing, except scaring the bejesus out of the world. https://t.co/zdEEH9RGuh

— The New Yorker (@NewYorker) February 17, 2017

Trump avoided answering questions about whether his campaign had been in touch with Russia, but criticized Hillary Clinton and Obama. And when reporter April Ryan asked whether he would meet with the Congressional Black Caucus, he interrupted her and said, “Do you want to set up the meeting? Are they friends of yours?”

I am a journalist not a convener! But thank you for answering my questions. https://t.co/fe9cGXG46w

— AprilDRyan (@AprilDRyan) February 16, 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 17, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s important to keep in mind that someone is always having a worse day than you. Yesterday, that someone was Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). Chaffetz, who is also the chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, was flooded by a chorus of boos and chants at a town hall he hosted in his district last night.

WATCH: Jason Chaffetz being greeted with “Do Your Job!” chants at town hall. Per CNN, he left the town hall an hour early @jasoninthehouse pic.twitter.com/8uw7cbwjcW

— Yashar (@yashar) February 10, 2017

Chaffetz’s experience at the town hall was probably jarring for him for a whole multitude of reasons, but mostly because his day seemed to be going pretty well up until that point. Yesterday afternoon, Chaffetz gained bi-partisan praise for condemning Kellyanne Conway for promoting Ivanka Trump’s Nordstrom fashion line in an interview on “Fox & Friends.” Conway seemingly violated an executive branch regulation that prohibits employees from using their position “for their own private gain, for the private gain of friends . . . or persons with whom they are affiliated in a non-government capacity.”

Speaking to reporters on the Hill, Chaffetz said Conway’s comments were “clearly over the line, wrong, wrong, wrong, and unacceptable.” Later, Chaffetz tweeted a letter he, along with Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, sent to the White House and the Office of Government Ethics, calling for recommendations for disciplinary action against Conway.

What she did was wrong, wrong, wrong. Here is our bi-partisan letter to the White House and OGE. #Donteverdothis https://t.co/zqeYhcttMB

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) February 9, 2017

So, Chaffetz was probably feeling pretty good about himself after all that. Of course, all good things must come to an end. After a visit to the Utah State Senate, Chaffetz made his way over to his town hall meeting at Brighton High School, which, according to an event Facebook page, was not advertised by Chaffetz and changed locations multiple times because of large interest. While Chaffetz did not officially promote the event, multiple left-leaning groups like the Wasatch Socialist Party set up event pages that led to an outpouring of protestors and attendees, according to Utah’s KUTV news reporter Chris Jones.

The auditorium, which seats 1,100, was filled to capacity while about 1,500 people stood outside the school, chanting and holding up signs.

Several thousand people outside of Brighton HS. Who couldn’t get into @jasoninthehouse town hall. #utpol pic.twitter.com/gtARJu9mSf

— Chris Jones (@jonesnews) February 10, 2017

Auditorium for Cong Chaffetz Town hall packed. Police say 1000 outside. Now chanting, “You work for us!” @UtahIndivisible @IndivisibleTeam pic.twitter.com/R9iDakiWrZ

— Kyung Lah (@KyungLahCNN) February 10, 2017

This was all before the actual event started. During the event, Chaffetz was grilled by multiple attendees over a wide range of subjects, from Bears Ears National Monument, to public lands, to the Trump Administration, to Betsy DeVos, to immigration.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, most of Chaffetz’s answers were drowned out by boos and chants like “Vote him out!” and “Do your job!” At one point, a frustrated Chaffetz said “If you want me to answer the question, give me more than five seconds to do it.”

But, nevertheless, Chaffetz’s frustrated constituents persisted, with attendee after attendee hitting their representative with tough questions. One notable grilling came from a grade-school girl:

Utah Congressman Chaffetz gets totally owned by 10 year old girl’s sick burn about science, refuses to answer her question & crowd goes wild pic.twitter.com/FxKUM2TklY

— Aaron Stewart-Ahn (@somebadideas) February 10, 2017

And another came from an ex-teacher:

At rowdy town hall, ex-teacher asks Chaffetz — chair of House oversight — “what’s your line in the sand” for Trump? pic.twitter.com/8U7IkpZtsS

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) February 10, 2017

And another came from a cancer survivor who shared her story about the help she received from Planned Parenthood:

Cancer survivor — who relies on Planned Parenthood for care — asks Chaffetz: “Why are you trying to take [it] away?” pic.twitter.com/yexjMZ7wz6

— Dan Diamond (@ddiamond) February 10, 2017

And another–well, you get the idea.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, the town hall lasted 75 minutes, which, according to multiple reports, was 40 minutes shorter than the event was supposed to be. Over the past couple of years, Chaffetz has been no stranger to public criticism. As Oversight Committee chairman, Chaffetz has received flack for relentlessly harping on Hillary Clinton’s connections with the attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi. He was also widely derided for taking to his Instagram to post a picture with a caption that many people saw as petty and unclassy:

So pleased she is not the President. I thanked her for her service and wished her luck. The investigation continues.

A photo posted by Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) on Jan 20, 2017 at 12:31pm PST

He is also known to have a dim understanding of how charts work:

Chaffetz was also widely criticized this past election for his flip-flop on President Donald Trump. After the Access Hollywood video was released, Chaffetz told Utah’s Fox 13 News that he couldn’t vote for Trump and look his daughter in the eye. Nineteen days later, presumably after looking his daughter in the eye, Chaffetz went on to say he would be voting for Trump, but would not be endorsing him:

I will not defend or endorse @realDonaldTrump, but I am voting for him. HRC is that bad. HRC is bad for the USA.

— Jason Chaffetz (@jasoninthehouse) October 27, 2016

Chaffetz has yet to comment on what transpired last night.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Jason Chaffetz Flooded by Boos at Town Hall Meeting appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act. The bill, which passed with a vote largely along party lines by 237-187, would require certain executive regulations to be approved by a joint session in Congress. Republicans see the bill as a necessary check on the executive branch, while Democrats dismiss it as a way to gut much-needed regulations.

Calling the legislation “groundbreaking,” Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) said the REINS Act will curb expensive regulations. “The outgoing Administration broke Constitutional restraints time and time again,” said Duncan, a co-sponsor of the bill. “Without passing the REINS Act, the boundaries for administrative rule making are endless.”

President Barack Obama used his executive authority to pass a historic number of regulations, much to the chagrin of the Republican-controlled Congress. President Donald Trump has promised to roll back a number of Obama’s executive actions, and it remains to be seen how he will use executive power. But if the REINS Act passes the Senate, it would hamstring Trump’s ability to unilaterally push regulations.

Trump has already indicated he will support the legislation. “I will sign the REINS Act should it reach my desk as President and more importantly I will work hard to get it passed,” he said last year. “The monstrosity that is the Federal Government with its pages and pages of rules and regulations has been a disaster for the American economy and job growth.”

The bill would require congressional approval for regulations that are deemed a “major rule” by the Office of Management and Budget. A “major rule” is a regulation that has costs $100 million or more, increases costs for consumers, and hurts U.S.-based companies in competition with foreign ones. A joint session in Congress would have 70 days to approve any proposed legislation by executive agencies.

Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the REINS Act could “end rule-making as we know it.” Referring to the 2008 housing crises and recession, Conyers added: “Without question, it was the lack of regulatory controls that facilitated rampant predatory lending, which nearly destroyed our nation’s economy.”

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 What is the REINS Act? appeared first on Law Street.

House Speaker Paul Ryan confirmed many women’s fears when he said that the Republican Party will defund Planned Parenthood, as part of a bill that aims to repeal Obamacare. The GOP is planning a “reconciliation bill,” which means that Democrats will be prevented from filibustering. Ryan spoke at a press conference on Capitol Hill on Thursday, but didn’t provide any further details.

This is an important step for many Republicans as conservatives have tried for years to completely defund Planned Parenthood because it offers abortions. But, the organization also offers education, birth control, breast cancer screenings, STD tests, and more. This move could prove a challenge for some more moderate Republicans who previously have voted against defunding the organization. Many people reacted strongly to the news:

Ryan says that defunding Planned Parenthood will be included in ACA repeal. Because, let’s take away healthcare from as many as possible.

— Dante Atkins (@DanteAtkins) January 5, 2017

Some pointed out that it’s not a question of cutting off direct federal funding to Planned Parenthood. “Defunding” Planned Parenthood means cutting off reimbursement for the care it provides people who rely on Medicaid–a hard blow for low-income people.

Please pay attention to what “defunding” Planned Parenthood means: refusing to reimburse for their care offered to poor folks. https://t.co/muci1CSAGb

— Sarah Seltzer (@sarahmseltzer) January 5, 2017

Planned Parenthood launched a campaign Thursday to counteract the effort, and has planned protests, letters, and other actions over the coming months.

There’s no line item in a budget that goes to Planned Parenthood — simply reimbursement for care rendered, like other health providers. pic.twitter.com/SaTIpE9PUh

— Planned Parenthood (@PPact) January 5, 2017

The President of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, said that it was no coincidence that the announcement came “the day after Vice President-elect Mike Pence, a long-time opponent of Planned Parenthood, held a closed-door meeting with Speaker Ryan and the Republican leadership.” If the bill passes, Planned Parenthood would lose about $400 million in Medicaid money in the first year, and it would cut off care access for 400,000 women, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

House Pro-Choice Caucus on why #ACA is essential for repro health care. Co-Chair @RepDianaDeGette at podium. pic.twitter.com/JFXPzJA3mq

— Christine Grimaldi (@chgrimaldi) January 5, 2017

Richards said:

Defunding Planned Parenthood is dangerous to people’s health, it’s unpopular, and it would leave people across the country without care. They cannot afford to have basic reproductive health care attacked. Planned Parenthood has been here for 100 years and we’re going to be here for 100 more.

Though conservative Republicans have fought Planned Parenthood for years, it seems like a majority of Americans view Planned Parenthood positively—59 percent according to a Gallup poll from 2015. President-elect Donald Trump himself has changed his opinion a couple of times. After saying that the organization has helped millions of women, he later encouraged efforts to defund it. He also used to call himself “very pro-choice,” but is now against abortion. What is certain, is that Democrats, Planned Parenthood and many, many women will not give up without a fight.

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 Paul Ryan: The GOP Will Defund Planned Parenthood appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and one of his colleagues from the House of Representatives, Representative Ron DeSantis (R-Florida) proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would create term limits for members of Congress. Senators, who serve six-year terms, would be limited to two terms, for a total of 12 years. Representatives, who serve two-year terms, would be limited to three terms, for a total of six years.

Today @RepDeSantis and I introduced a Constitutional amendment to impose #TermLimits on members of Congress. https://t.co/jVXIbq35iu pic.twitter.com/GBjSV64x6x

— Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) January 3, 2017

Congressional #TermLimits are the first step towards reforming Washington and draining the swamp.

— Ron DeSantis (@RepDeSantis) January 3, 2017

Cruz and DeSantis had previously indicated that they were interested in this kind of amendment. The two penned a joint op-ed in the Washington Post, arguing in favor of term limits, in December. They pointed out that both President-elect Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan have shown their support for the idea. They wrote:

Without term limits, the incentive for a typical member is to stay as long as possible to accumulate seniority on the way to a leadership post or committee chair. Going along to get along is a much surer path for career advancement than is challenging the way Washington does business.

With term limits, we will have more frequent changes in leadership and within congressional committees, giving reformers a better chance at overcoming the Beltway inertia that resists attempts to reduce the power of Washington.

Many senators and congressmen have gone well past the 12 or six-year-limits proposed by Cruz and DeSantis. Currently over 25 senators have been in office for more than 12 years, including political heavyweights like Senator John McCain and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Dozens of congressmen have racked up more than six years–Democrat John Conyers from Michigan has spent 52 years in the House of Representatives. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has been there for 18 years. For the record, Cruz is only at four years, as is DeSantis.

Needless to say, if term limits end up being imposed, they’ll lead to big changes in Congress. But for now, it’s unclear where this amendment is going to go. An amendment has a long road ahead of it–it needs to pass Congress and then be ratified by at least 38 states. And realistically, there’s no certainty it will even get that far, as neither Ryan nor McConnell have indicated yet whether it will come up for a vote.

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 Senator Ted Cruz Proposes Congressional Term Limits Amendment appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning everyone, here’s the first RantCrush of 2017! Hope you had a good New Year’s Eve and are prepared to tackle the new year. 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:

Arrests Have Been Made in Turkey Nightclub Attack

On the night of New Year’s Eve, a gunman dressed as Santa entered an internationally popular nightclub in Istanbul and started a shooting spree. Thirty-nine people died, and many more were injured. Yesterday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. Twelve people have been arrested, but it’s still unclear whether the actual perpetrator is among them. The suspect has been identified as a man from Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan. Police are also investigating whether the unnamed suspect is connected to the same ISIS-affiliated group that carried out the attack on Istanbul’s Ataturk airport in June.

Turkey nightclub attack: Manhunt for gunman intensifies https://t.co/3SYL7yKMKm

— BBC News (World) (@BBCWorld) January 2, 2017

The attack is believed to be retaliation against Turkey for its involvement in the conflict in Syria, where Turkish forces have been fighting against ISIS. Approximately 25 of the victims were foreign. One American man was among the injured and survived by playing dead. This was a tragic way to end 2016 and ring in the new year, but Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is determined to fight terrorism. “As a nation, we will fight to the end against not just the armed attacks of terror groups and the forces behind them, but also against their economic, political, and social attacks,” he said in a statement.

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 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

For the roughly quarter of the population that is lactose-intolerant, as well as the vegan population and those who choose to forgo dairy products for whatever reason, milk substitutes like almond milk, coconut milk, and soy milk are a total cash cow, pun intended. But dairy producers aren’t particularly happy that these things can call themselves “milk.” And they’re ready to fight back against these so-called imposters.

Congressmen from states that are home to a number of milk producers are joining together to try to get the FDA to crack down on these non-milk milk producers. In a bipartisan effort, Representative Peter Welch (D-VT) and Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID) were recently joined by 23 of their colleagues, who all signed on to a letter to the FDA. That letter asks the FDA to enforce the definition of “milk”–essentially that it has to come from a cow (or presumably, another animal that produces milk, like a goat.)

The dairy producers argue that these other kinds of milk mislead consumers into thinking that they provide the same health benefits and nutrients as cow milk. But, that’s apparently not true. According to NPR, “Some milk-like drinks contain very little protein or calcium.”

The letter to the FDA reads:

While consumers are entitled to choose imitation products, it is misleading and illegal for manufacturers of these items to profit from the ‘milk’ name. These products should be allowed on the market only when accurately labeled. We urge FDA to enforce this matter by requiring plant-based products to adopt a more appropriate name that does not include the word ‘milk.’

But the producers of these other kinds of milks have their own points to make, namely that people aren’t confused by the use of the word milk–in fact, consumers buy milk alternatives specifically because they can’t or don’t want to eat dairy.

This isn’t the first time that cow milk producers have tried to get the FDA to crack down on the other uses of the word milk; similar efforts were launched in 2001 and 2010 to no avail. It’s still unclear what the FDA plans on doing this time, although the agency has said it will respond to the congressmen who sent the letter.

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 Can Legally Be Called Milk? Congress Gets Involved in the Fight appeared first on Law Street.

Brianna Wu, a major figure in the “GamerGate” scandal, is planning to run for Congress in 2018, The Hill reports.

Wu, a Democrat from Massachusetts, announced her campaign via her Facebook page, by uploading a poster that included the quote: “She fought the alt-right and won. Now she’s fighting for all of us.”

In case you need a refresher on the GamerGate controversy, which was at its peak in 2014, it was a campaign of harassment against many prominent women in the gaming community that was allegedly born out of increasing participation of women in that community. Wu, who is an independent game developer, became well-known after becoming one of the targets of such harassment.

Wu has said that she received over 200 death threats in the wake of Gamergate, and saw her personal information, including her social security number and bank account info, leaked.

In an interview with the Boston Globe, Wu cited women’s rights and harassment as major issues that she wanted to highlight in the campaign, stemming from her own experiences.

If elected to the House, I promise that I will be one of our nation’s fiercest voices for women’s rights, LGBT rights and #blacklivesmatter.

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) December 22, 2016

This is not Wu’s first exposure to the political scene. Early in the Bush administration, she moved to DC to pursue a career in politics as a Republican. She claims that she quickly became discouraged by the Republican party, and left DC to finish her college education.

It is still not clear in what congressional district Wu plans on basing her campaign, but her race should be one to watch in 2018.

I’ve heard hundreds of times this week that my running for congress is giving people hope. pic.twitter.com/SLg0z2CIX1

— Brianna Wu (@Spacekatgal) December 22, 2016

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 “GamerGate” Target Brianna Wu is Running for Congress appeared first on Law Street.

This week, President Barack Obama signed the appropriately and ironically named Better Online Ticket Sales (BOTS) act, which made it through the House and Senate last week. This bill will outlaw the use of those pesky ticket bots that buy up tickets on sites like StubHub and Ticketmaster, deployed by people who want to resell the tickets later at a higher price.

Laws against bots do exist in certain parts of the United States–for example, both California and New York have passed versions, but this law will forbid them nationwide. This law will make it illegal to use that kind of ticket-buying software, or to resell tickets with the knowledge that they were obtained using a bot.

This is a win for many in the entertainment industry, as there have long been many complaints about ticket bots. The presence of bots on ticket selling sites push prices up for fans, pricing many out. That’s what happened with tickets to Adele, Beyonce, and Bruce Springsteen shows in 2016. Multiple celebrities have also spoken out against ticket bots, including Chance the Rapper and Lin Manuel Miranda.

Early in 2016, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office released a report about the abusive practices of ticket bots. NPR notes:

In one case, a single vendor was able to buy 1,012 tickets to a U2 concert at Madison Square Garden just one minute after they went on sale, even though the venue supposedly limited sales to four tickets per customer.

And at least some of those sale sites are happy about the passage of the bill as well. A statement from Ticketmaster  read:

On behalf of artists, venues, teams, and especially fans, Ticketmaster is pleased that the BOTS Act is now a federal law. Ticketmaster worked closely with legislators to develop the BOTS Act and we believe its passage is a critical step in raising awareness and regulating the unauthorized use of Bots.

So, next time you’re trying to get tickets to your favorite show, never fear, the ticket bots will be gone.

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 Signs Law that Bans Those Annoying Online Ticket Bots appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate passed a measure on Thursday that will renew the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) program, designed to provide asylum for Afghan translators and interpreters who assisted U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Attached to a larger bill–the National Defense Authorization Act–the measure added 1,500 additional visas to the program, which lawmakers from both parties and military officials traditionally support.

Though it easily passed by a vote of 92-7, lawmakers have been at odds during the past few months over the specifics of the measure, including how many visas should be added, and how much it would cost. Earlier this year, President Obama requested 4,000 applicants be added to the program, though the measure missed that mark by 2,500 visas. There are currently 13,000 pending applications from sanctuary-seekers.

Since U.S. troops invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, thousands of Afghans have assisted troops as translators and interpreters. Many face threats when they return home, from the Taliban–which remains a force in the country–other extremist groups, or even from their neighbors who may view them as traitors. The SIV program provides sanctuary for Afghan nationals who were employed for at least two years on behalf of the U.S. military, and who experience an “ongoing serious threat as a consequence of such employment.”

In August, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a vocal proponent of the program, offered a blunt warning on the Senate floor: “People are going to die,” he said to a fellow Republican who wanted to block more visas from being added to the program. “Don’t you understand the gravity of that?”

The program began in 2009 under the Afghan Allies Protection Act, and is traditionally attached as a clause to the annual military bill. This year’s bill, expected to cost $619 billion, also calls for a 2.1 percent wage increase for U.S. troops, the steepest increase since 2010. One lingering question about the SIV program is how President-elect Trump will handle it.

Three of Trump’s cabinet choices thus far are former generals, and the military is a traditional supporter of the program. But more visas would also mean more Muslims in the U.S. Throughout his campaign, Trump often targeted Muslims with harsh rhetoric, and has flirted with banning the entire faith from the country.

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 Senate Votes to Renew Visa Program for Afghans Who Aided U.S. in Wartime appeared first on Law Street.

Today President-elect Donald Trump met with President Obama in the Oval Office to discuss plans for the hand-off between presidencies and the peaceful transfer of power. While the meeting seems to have been cordial, it had to have been a little awkward given that Obama and Trump are bitter political rivals and Trump plans to “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama” on his first day in office–that’s if Trump’s plan for his first 100 days in office is to be believed.

In October, Trump laid out a detailed list of his plans, and the first day alone looks daunting. Aside from beginning to lay the groundwork to appeal Obamacare, he also plans to put an immediate hiring freeze on all federal employees, begin renegotiating NAFTA, withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, move forward with the Keystone Pipeline, and suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting can’t safely occur (aka begin banning Muslims)–and that’s not even half of his first day plans.

Trump also announced ten pieces of legislation he hopes to introduce to Congress that would: fund the construction of a wall along the Southern border (with the “understanding” that Mexico would reimburse the U.S.), promote school choice, and invest heavily in infrastructure.

As Vox notes, some of these actions, like the federal hiring freeze and immigration ban, he could easily do from the Oval Office, while other actions  would require cooperation from  relevant government agencies and Congress. But with a Republican controlled Congress on his side, he could easily tick off a few of these items on his list.

Below is a copy of Trump’s full 100 day plan titled “Donald Trump’s Contract With the American Voter” that was released in October.

What follows is my 100-day action plan to Make America Great Again. It is a contract between myself and the American voter — and begins with restoring honesty, accountability and change to Washington

Therefore, on the first day of my term of office, my administration will immediately pursue the following six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC:

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

On the same day, I will begin taking the following 7 actions to protect American workers:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

* FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

* SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure

Additionally, on the first day, I will take the following five actions to restore security and the constitutional rule of law:

* FIRST, cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum and order issued by President Obama

* SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

* THIRD, cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities

* FOURTH, begin removing the more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back

* FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered extreme vetting.

Next, I will work with Congress to introduce the following broader legislative measures and fight for their passage within the first 100 days of my Administration:

1. Middle Class Tax Relief And Simplification Act. An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief, and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with 2 children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from 7 to 3, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35 to 15 percent, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10 percent rate.
2. End The Offshoring Act. Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
3. American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.
4. School Choice And Education Opportunity Act. Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends common core, brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and make 2 and 4-year college more affordable.
5. Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act. Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
6. Affordable Childcare and Eldercare Act. Allows Americans to deduct childcare and elder care from their taxes, incentivizes employers to provide on-side childcare services, and creates tax-free Dependent Care Savings Accounts for both young and elderly dependents, with matching contributions for low-income families.
7. End Illegal Immigration Act Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern border with the full understanding that the country Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost of such wall; establishes a 2-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation, and a 5-year mandatory minimum for illegally re-entering for those with felony convictions, multiple misdemeanor convictions or two or more prior deportations; also reforms visa rules to enhance penalties for overstaying and to ensure open jobs are offered to American workers first.
8. Restoring Community Safety Act. Reduces surging crime, drugs and violence by creating a Task Force On Violent Crime and increasing funding for programs that train and assist local police; increases resources for federal law enforcement agencies and federal prosecutors to dismantle criminal gangs and put violent offenders behind bars.
9. Restoring National Security Act. Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides Veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values
10. Clean up Corruption in Washington Act. Enacts new ethics reforms to Drain the Swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.

On November 8th, Americans will be voting for this 100-day plan to restore prosperity to our economy, security to our communities, and honesty to our government.

This is my pledge to you.

And if we follow these steps, we will once more have a government of, by and for the people.

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 Here is What Donald Trump Says He Plans to Do in His First 100 Days appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday night’s presidential result shocked a whole lot of people in the U.S. and around the world; it stunned those that supported Donald Trump and especially those that supported Hillary Clinton. Shock and surprise, it seems, have also blotted out another equally important fact: Congress will remain red.

Republicans retaining their House majority hardly came as a surprise, but some pundits and polls (we know how accurate both can be) predicted control of the Senate to shift from Republicans to Democrats. That did not happen, and now the White House and Congress belong to the GOP, something that has not happened since 2007.

Heading into Tuesday, there were eight Senate races–out of 34 open seats–presumed to be tossups. From Nevada to Wisconsin, Illinois to North Carolina, Democrats and Republicans were expected to wage bruising battles that could flip either way. In the days preceding Election Day, polls in those eight states were split: Democrats were leading in four. Republicans were leading in four. However, by night’s end, seven of eight ended up in the Republican column, bringing their total number of seats to 51. Democrats control 47 seats. Races in New Hampshire and Louisiana are too close to call.

Democrats were hard pressed to find any good news Tuesday night, though there were some small victories: three states elected a woman of color to the Senate. Tammy Duckworth, a Democrat with Thai and Vietnamese ancestry beat Republican Mark Kirk in Illinois. Women of color, all Democrats, won in California and Nevada as well. Elsewhere in the Senate, Marco Rubio (R-FL) won a decisive re-election bid, which was an uphill battle considering his failed presidential run and his tenuous relationship with Trump.

Republicans will also retain control of the House, and not by a slim margin either: at least 239 seats will be red heading into next year, while 193 will be blue. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, who in a speech on Wednesday said Trump now has a “mandate” to govern, held onto his district seat in Wisconsin. A few districts have yet to call a result. The 115th U.S. Congress will convene on January 3, roughly two weeks before Trump is set to take the oval office.

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 Election 2016: Republicans Retain Control of Congress appeared first on Law Street.

Nearly 15 years ago, after hijacked airplanes took down the World Trade Center buildings, punctured a hole in the Pentagon, and crash-landed on an airstrip in Pennsylvania, lawmakers stood on the steps of the U.S. Capitol building and sang “God Bless America.” On Friday, lawmakers gathered once more to sing Irving Berlin’s 1918 tune, and to commemorate the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with a moment of silence. Soon after, the House passed a bill that would allow families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, which some believe played a role in the trio of attacks that took nearly 3,000 American lives.

Sponsored and supported by a bi-partisan collection of lawmakers, the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act has now passed both the Senate–which it did in May–and the House. It cleared both chambers by a unanimous voice vote. The bill’s text reads:

The purpose of this Act is to provide civil litigants with the broadest possible basis, consistent with the Constitution of the United States, to seek relief against persons, entities, and foreign countries, wherever acting and wherever they may be found, that have provided material support, directly or indirectly, to foreign organizations or persons that engage in terrorist activities against the United States.

Though it successfully passed through the House and the Senate, an accomplishment given the polarized climate of American politics, the bill is not guaranteed to be signed into law. Since its inception, President Obama has said he would veto the legislation.

“This legislation would change long-standing, international law regarding sovereign immunity,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in May, after the bill cleared the Senate. “And the president of the United States continues to harbor serious concerns that this legislation would make the United States vulnerable in other court systems around the world.” If he chooses to veto the bill, it would be the first override of a bill during his presidency.

Saudi Arabia has long been suspected of playing some sort of role in the 9/11 attacks–15 of the 19 perpetrators were Saudi citizens. With the release of 28 previously disclosed pages on its involvement in July, efforts to hold them accountable have heightened.

White House official’s concern, they say, is that passing the bill could set a dangerous precedent which foreign governments could use to sue U.S. citizens or government. In an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Thursday, Terry Strada, whose husband was killed in the New York attack, said that she and other victims’ families simply are looking for accountability.

“We’re just going to hold people accountable for terrorism acts, for funding and financing terrorist acts on United States soil that kills American citizens.” she said. “As long as we’re not funding terrorist groups, and we’re not causing terrorist attacks in other countries, we don’t have anything to worry about.

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 As 15th Anniversary of 9/11 Looms, House Passes ‘Sponsors of Terrorism Act’ appeared first on Law Street.

Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who represents Florida’s 5th Congressional District, was indicted late last week on 22 charges that include fraud and conspiracy. Brown’s chief of staff, Elias “Ronnie” Simmons, was also hit with a number of related charges–both individuals are pleading not guilty on all counts. And Brown is fighting back against the charges in the court of social opinion as well, writing in a blog posted by her campaign that “I’m not the first black elected official to be persecuted and, sad to say, I won’t be the last.”

Brown is accused of using a sham education charity to solicit donations, as well as using those donations for her own personal gain. The group, called One Door for Education, allegedly never received the money that Brown raised on its behalf. Instead, according to a local ABC affiliate,

Much of the money was deposited to Brown’s personal bank accounts so she could pay taxes that she owed, investigators said.

More than $200,000 in One Door funds went to pay for events hosted by Brown in her honor, including a golf tournament in Ponte Vedra Beach, receptions at an annual conference in Washington, D.C., and luxury boxes for a concert and an NFL game in Washington, D.C., investigators said.

Brown wrote a blog post last week, entitled “Note to my Friends” after news of the indictment broke, in which she claimed that the prosecutor wasn’t telling her side of the story. She wrote:

The most important thing I want you to understand is that an indictment is not a conviction. An indictment is an accusation. Anybody can make an accusation. You’ve heard the prosecutor’s side, but you still have not heard the rest of the story.

However, Brown also received significant criticism–particularly on the right–for juxtaposing her indictment with the killings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, and the fatal attacks on five Dallas police officers last week.

If Brown is convicted of all of the charges levied against her, she could face a hefty sentence, up to 300 years total.

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 Congresswoman Corrine Brown to Fight Long List of Federal Charges appeared first on Law Street.

Former congressman and radio host Joe Walsh threatened Obama and Black Lives Matter supporters on Twitter late Thursday night. In a tweet that since has been deleted he said “this is now war,” before warning Obama to watch out and that the “real America is coming for you.”

Former GOP Rep, now radio host, @WalshFreedom, deleted this tweet last night after the #DallasPoliceShooting: pic.twitter.com/RzhzJmY1QW

— Frank Thorp V (@frankthorp) July 8, 2016

Thursday night was the deadliest night for police officers since 9/11, leaving five officers dead after gunmen fired shots at police during a protest against police shootings. Republican Joe Walsh was very active on Twitter throughout the night posting several updates blaming Obama and liberals for the tragedy.

Obama says Cops are racist so 2 uneducated black thugs shoot 10 Dallas Cops tonight, killing 4.

Wake up silent majority. Stand w our Cops.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

BLM should be categorized as a hate group.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

Totally ignoring the recent shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile, or for that matter all 136 black people that have already been killed by the police this year, Walsh had the guts to say it’s “time to stand against the cop haters.”

It's time 4 patriotic Americans to stand up & stand against all the Cop haters – from Obama to the thugs on the street.

It's way past time.

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

10 Cops shot.

You did this Obama.

You did this liberals.

You did this #BLM.

Time to defend our Cops. Wake up. https://t.co/Zoc3x2xlMk

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) July 8, 2016

Finally he “explained” his tweets to the Chicago Tribune on Friday morning, saying that of course he didn’t call for violence against Obama or Black Lives Matter, because “It would end my career and it’s wrong. I would never say anything as reprehensible as that.”

Walsh was criticized by a lot of people, including activist and musician John Legend.

Joe Walsh needs to be arrested for threatening our President. STFU @walshfreedom

— John Legend (@johnlegend) July 8, 2016

A Racist History?

Walsh is from Illinois and has a history of making racist  and offensive statements.

In 2011 when Walsh was in Congress he expressed his thoughts on the reason for Obama’s election in an interview with Slate.

Why was he elected? Again, it comes back to who he was. He was black, he was historic […]a black man who was articulate, liberal, the whole white guilt, all of that.

At a meeting in 2012 Walsh talked about radical Islam as a threat “at home,” saying “It’s in Elk Grove, it’s in Addison, it’s in Elgin,” referencing various towns in Illinois and upsetting local Muslims.

In 2013 Walsh started hosting a radio show after losing his seat in Congress. Only a year later he came under fire for using racial slurs when talking about American football, including the n-word. He was shut off from his own show and appeared to have no idea why.

The station keeps cutting me off. I don't know why

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

And here comes to the General Manager. It appears I can say Redskins, which is supposedly offensive, but when I say other words, commercial

— Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) June 19, 2014

Walsh seems to be lacking self-censorship and social skills. Maybe he should just stay away from his Twitter account for now.

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 Former Congressman Joe Walsh Tweets Threats about Obama and BLM appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, Congress approved a bill to rescue Puerto Rico’s finances, only two days before the U.S. territory’s deadline on a $2 billion payment. But Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla declared that the island would still not be able to pay bondholders.

“On July 1, 2016, Puerto Rico will default on more than $1 billion in general obligation bonds, the island’s senior credits protected by a constitutional lien on revenues,” he wrote on CNBC’s website.

Puerto Rico is in deep financial trouble; as Law Street previously reported, the island is $72 billion in debt, and is due to pay a big chunk of it this week. It has already defaulted on previous payments, but the payment due on Friday includes about $780 million of General Obligation bonds, which are the most important and supposed to be paid off first.

Since the island is not expected to make that deadline, this would be its first default of GO bonds, which it is bound to pay according to its constitution. The White House has expressed warnings that unless the U.S. steps in and helps, the island could face a possible humanitarian crisis and complete financial chaos. Since Puerto Rico is not a U.S. state but a territory, it can’t file for bankruptcy, which would allow it to restructure their debt.

Last Minute Bill

The bill that was voted through, called the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA), will provide protection from any creditor litigations that could be brought to the Puerto Rican government. It will also put together a control board that will supervise restructuring of debts and finances. Both Republicans and Democrats unanimously supported it.

“If we don’t act before the island misses a critical debt payment deadline this Friday, matters will only get worse — for Puerto Rico and for taxpayers,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

And President Obama said “This bill is not perfect, but it is a critical first step toward economic recovery and restored hope for millions of Americans who call Puerto Rico home.”

Puerto Rico’s Governor Padilla has mixed feelings about PROMESA, and wrote in a commentary on CNBC:

PROMESA is a mixed bag. On the one hand, it provides the tools needed to protect the people of Puerto Rico from disorderly actions taken by the creditors. The immediate stay granted by the bill on all litigation is of the utmost importance in this moment. Most importantly, the authority to adjust our debt stock provides the legal tools to complete a broad restructuring and route Puerto Rico’s revitalization.

On the other hand, PROMESA has its downsides. It creates an oversight board that unnecessarily undercuts the democratic institution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. But facing the upsides and downsides of the bill, it gives Puerto Rico no true choice at this point in time.

The bill will provide some hope for the people of Puerto Rico. Thousands have already fled their homes on the island, while hospitals can’t treat patients without advance cash payments. Obama has promised to sign the new bill before July 1.

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 Congress Approves Financial Rescue Plan for Puerto Rico appeared first on Law Street.

While Zika virus threatens to become more widespread in the U.S. this summer, partisan bickering in Congress has left the country ill-equipped to handle the impending public health issue. According to the New York Times, Senate Democrats shot down a bill for emergency aid for Zika virus on Tuesday, claiming that Republicans added in “politically charged provisions.”

The bill would have allotted $1.1 billion to help fight the virus, but it included provisions that had little-to-no direct relation to Zika funding. The provisions included: a restriction of funding to family planning clinics, a reversal on the ban on confederate flags in federal cemeteries, and a loosening of EPA restrictions,  along with others. This forced Democrats to shut it down despite its urgency.

The heated exchange on the Senate floor, during which our country’s elected officials flung around insults like immature children (see: Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-NY) calling the Democrats “sore losers“), just reinforced the popular stereotype of an ineffective Congress plagued by partisan gridlock.

With the impending Fourth of July holiday and a seven-week recess scheduled to begin at the end of July, there’s a decent chance that there won’t be another vote until September.

Democrats criticized Republicans for the provisions, while Republicans claimed that Democrats would be responsible for a Zika outbreak.

I didn’t think the GOP could write 1 bill to hurt women, vets, Obamacare, PP, AND clean water all at once – but they did it. #Zika

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 28, 2016

Believe it or not, the GOP Zika bill reverses the ban on flying the confederate flag at military cemeteries. Really! Idiotic.

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) June 28, 2016

Lara was born with microcephaly due to Zika virus. How many more will suffer before Senate Ds and WH allow funding? pic.twitter.com/jMSYEeIuZj

— JohnCornyn (@JohnCornyn) June 29, 2016

Senate Dems are making up excuses to justify voting against this bill, which provides $1.1 billion to fight #Zika. https://t.co/qwC88nqBsv

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) June 30, 2016

While senators continue to play the blame game, the blocking of this funding could be potentially dire, as Zika virus threatens to become a public health emergency in the U.S. On Tuesday, the first baby with Zika-related microcephaly was born in Florida. So far, there have been 935 reported cases of Zika in the United States, according to the CDC. The virus, which is primarily transmitted through mosquitoes but can also be transmitted sexually, is expected to become more prevalent throughout the country this summer.

Hopefully the Senate can unite to take necessary action on Zika; meanwhile, instances such as this one just feed the anti-establishmentarian attitudes that are currently pervasive on both sides of the political spectrum.

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 The U.S. Senate Turns Zika Funding Bill Into a Partisan Battle appeared first on Law Street.

Not one but two transgender women, both named Misty, won Democratic Primaries held on Tuesday. This is a big step forward for the LGBT community and is well timed since June is National LGBT Pride Month.

In Utah, Misty Snow won the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate, while in Colorado, Misty Plowright won a House primary.

JoDee Winterhof, from the Human Rights Campaign, said to NBC:

It is historic that this November, the top Utah Democrat on the ballot in that state will be a transgender woman. Regardless of the outcome in the fall, both of these candidates have demonstrated to transgender people across the country that our politics are stronger when diverse voices are not only heard, but also included.

Neither of the women have much experience in politics, but want to offer voters an alternative to the other candidates that are running.

Misty K. Snow & Misty Plowright made history yesterday, and also they are my favorite political figures in ages https://t.co/7OoxouQ61Z

— J. Escobedo Shepherd (@jawnita) June 29, 2016

Misty Snow, from Utah, is the first transgender person to run for a Senate seat from a major party. Her day job is at a grocery store and she doesn’t have a college degree, but she beat marriage therapist Jonathan Swinton by a big margin. She is challenging Utah Senator Mike Lee, who is very conservative, with Bernie Sanders-inspired ideas such as $15 minimum wage, paid parental leave, and free college tuition.

Misty Plowright works in tech in Colorado and described herself as “the anti-politician” and an IT nerd. She also beat her opponent, an Iraq war veteran, easily and wants to get private money out of politics and for the whole country to have access to high speed Internet.

Neither of the candidates focused on the fact that they’re transgender women in their campaign, but rather on progressive Democratic ideas. However, winning in November might be harder to do considering how relatively conservative both of their states are. However, after the recent bathroom debate in North Carolina, and the shooting in Orlando, Snow and Plowright provide some positive news for the LGBT community, no matter the outcome of these elections.

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 Two Transgender Women Historically Won Democratic Primaries on Tuesday appeared first on Law Street.

People who saw Rick Tyler’s billboard alongside Highway 411 in Polk County, Tennessee either couldn’t believe their eyes, or must have thought they were seeing a practical joke–its message read “Make America White Again.” But the message from the independent candidate running for Congress was not a joke, and he wants to make sure everyone knows.

The sign is an obvious reference to Donald Trump’s saying “Make America Great Again.” Tyler claims he’s not racist, but merely looking back to a time when America was safe enough for residents to leave their doors unlocked. However, his Facebook post tells another story:

It was an America where doors were left unlocked, violent crime was a mere fraction of today’s rate of occurrence, there were no car jackings, home invasions, Islamic Mosques or radical Jihadist sleeper cells.

This is the criticized sign:

A congressional candidate is actually trying to argue that this sign isn’t racist… https://t.co/ODEG6A1idX pic.twitter.com/xjvFVL2RZs

— Perez Hilton (@PerezHilton) June 22, 2016

Tyler’s campaign also erected another billboard depicting an illustration of the White House surrounded by Confederate flags. At the top of that billboard are Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous words “I Have a Dream.” Tyler claimed that the signs were a very well planned maneuver to get around “the iron curtain of censorship.” In regards to people’s strong reactions to the message, he wrote, “Obviously, there are the ‘frothing at the mouth lunatics’ who react in a completely irrational, emotional, Pavlovian dog fashion.”

He even goes on to claim that people who are not white should not be allowed to move into the US claiming,

A moratorium on nonwhite immigration and the abolition of policies that subsidize nonwhite birth rates would be two constructive actions toward beginning the long journey back toward sanity and stability in our beleaguered and foundering nation.

This is one Twitter user’s solution to the hateful sign:

.@newschannelnine Oh hey, I fixed your sign Rick Tyler. #LoveTrumpsHate aka the Polk Co racist pic.twitter.com/miNJxdTIzU

— Jeska Dzwigalski (@JeskaD) June 23, 2016

Tyler’s words evoke chilling references to white supremacists and neo-Nazis. Topher Kersting, who is also running for Congress as an independent, told the Huffington Post,

He’s about as racist as you can get, from what I can tell […] He wants to go back to the 1950s where whites are in control and blacks ‘know their place. He’s wide open about it. It’s kind of scary we’re not past this.

The signs have since been removed, but no one knows who took them down. Tyler is of the opinion that most people in the country liked them, since he saw some people snapping photos of one earlier. He wants them back up as soon as possible since he paid for them to be there until the general election in November.

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 Tennessee Politician Wants to Win Votes by Making America White Again appeared first on Law Street.

Tens of thousands of chemicals are used to create our everyday products, and the legislation that regulates them hasn’t been updated for nearly half a decade–but that all changed today. President Obama signed into law Wednesday new regulations that will overhaul toxic chemical use and garnered unexpected bipartisan support from both Republicans and Democrats and environmentalists and the chemical industry.

It has been a long journey but today @POTUS has officially signed #TSCA into law! pic.twitter.com/jCNuVVH4Ll

— Senator Tom Carper (@SenatorCarper) June 22, 2016

The new law is an update of the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and will now allow the Environmental Protection agency to collect more information about a chemical before it can be used in the United States. Also under the new law, the EPA must conduct a review of all the chemicals currently on the market and make the results public. The EPA will also have to consider the chemical effects on certain demographics like infants, pregnant women, and the elderly.

“This is a big deal. This is a good law. It’s an important law,” Obama said at the bill-signing ceremony at the White House. “Here in America, folks should have the confidence to know the laundry detergent we buy isn’t going to make us sick, [or] the mattress that our babies sleep on aren’t going to harm them.”

The law will also streamline the different states’ rules on regulating the $800 billion industry. Three years of negotiating between lawmakers went into creating this law which aims to “bring chemical regulation into the 21st century,” according to the American Chemistry Council, who backed the bill.

“I want the American people to know that this is proof that even in the current polarized political climate here in Washington, things can work — it’s possible,” Obama said. “If we can get this bill done it means that somewhere out there on the horizon, we can make our politics less toxic as well.”

In recent years, Republicans have been critical of Obama’s efforts to strengthen environmental and climate protections, claiming regulations create unnecessary burdens and stifles business. However, all parties were on board for this bill–it passed in the House with a 403-12 vote.

“That doesn’t happen very often these days,” Obama said. “So this is a really significant piece of business.”

The Environmental Defense Fund called it “the most important new environmental law in decades.” However, as with any law, there are some downsides. The law restricts how and when a state can regulate certain chemicals and limits the EPA’s ability to monitor some imported chemicals. The Environmental Working Group, another organization that supported the bill, criticized that the EPA may not have enough resources or legal authority to review and/or ban chemicals, citing that House Republicans slashed the EPA’s funding and staff in an appropriations bill for next year.

But, on the bright side, the approximate 700 new chemicals that come on the market each year will now have to clear a safety bar first and companies can no longer classify health studies of those chemicals as “confidential business information.” Those studies now must be made available to the public.

The law was named the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, after the late New Jersey Democrat who spent years trying to fix the law. His wife attended the signing at the White House.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Signs Law that Will Overhaul Toxic Chemical Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

This year on Flag Day people all over the country are gathering to protest a state flag instead of celebrating our national flag. Why are they protesting? For over half a century, the state flag in Mississippi has featured an homage to the confederate flag in its upper left corner and people are not happy about it.

“State Flag” Courtesy of Social_Stratification via Flickr

So, in celebration of Flag Day, Mississippians are joining forces to try to bring change to their flag’s design.

At the head of this new flag movement is Aunjanue Ellis, a famous actress from “The Help” and the ABC show “Quantico.” As a young actress, Ellis grew up in Mississippi. She recognizes the dark history surrounding the confederate flag and wants more people to realize that the state shouldn’t be pouring tax dollars into the funding of a flag that commemorates groups like the Ku Klux Klan. As a speaker at the Flag Day rally in Washington, D.C., Ellis wants to spread the message that:

This country presents itself as this beacon of hope and opportunity and equality and race-transcendence to the world. We can’t say that and, ‘Well, with the exception of Mississippi.’

The actress even wore a dress asking President Obama to make a change to the Mississippi flag on a red carpet a few weeks ago in furtherance of her cause.

In red carpet fashion @aunjanuejlt beseeches Obama to remove Mississippi flag https://t.co/oalw67AUJd @CunningSylv pic.twitter.com/Po7fWmOxhC

— NBC BLK (@NBCBLK) May 26, 2016

There are a lot of people behind this cause in addition to celebrities. Mississippi has a higher population of black residents than any other state and is the only state that continues to have confederate symbols on the state flag. Twitter users have taken to social media to promote the rally.

It’s time to X the X! Join us 11a #CapHill #DC to change #Mississippi flag #TakeItDownAmerica #FlagDay #flagday2016 pic.twitter.com/BnsXwXUksy

— Tenisha Taylor Bell (@TenishaTBell) June 14, 2016

Organizers planning Flag Day protest at U. S. Capitol against Mississippi flag with confederate emblem. pic.twitter.com/YCcuJuo21R

— Ross Adams (@radamsWAPT) May 26, 2016

But, of course, wherever there are supporters of one belief there are also critics. Just last week, Congress blocked a measure made by House Democrat Bennie Thompson to ban Confederate symbols from the Capitol. Sons of Confederate Veterans claim that the Confederate flag represents their history, which is why it’s so important that it remains on the Mississippi flag.

As Congressman Thompson put it, as long people in the US and, more specifically, members of the House of Representatives continue to use symbols of the confederacy, they “will continue to sanction and glorify relics of bondage, bigotry and oppression.” It’s time to find something new to represent history. It’s time to let go of celebrating historically racist flags and symbols under the guise of pride in our past. It’s time for Mississippi to finally get a new flag to unify the state under symbols that all Mississippians can be proud of.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Mississippi Wants to Rid State Flag of Confederate Ties appeared first on Law Street.

A piece of legislation introduced in Congress could allow families of the victims of 9/11 to sue Saudi Arabia for its potential involvement in the 2011 attacks.

The Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, sponsored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), was passed unanimously by the Senate last year but was not voted on by the House; it was reintroduced into Congress this past September. Suing foreign governments is currently against the law, but this bill would allow for certain provisions to be weakened so that countries could be held responsible for their involvement in terrorist activities. This month, the bill came back into the spotlight after a “60 Minutes” investigation into the classified “28 pages” from the 9/11 Commission Report, which reportedly shed light on official Saudi support for the hijackers responsible for the attacks. The segment featured interviews of Former Senator Bob Graham and various other officials who reiterated support that these documents be declassified.

In an interview with Charlie Rose that aired this week, President Obama stated his opposition to the 9/11 bill, saying that it was against U.S. policy to allow such lawsuits against countries:

This is not just a bi-lateral U.S.-Saudi issue. This is a matter of how generally the United States approaches our interactions with other countries. If we open up the possibility that individuals in the United States can routinely start suing other governments, then we are also opening up the United States to being continually sued by individuals in other countries, and that would be a bad precedent…

The bill also has national security and defense officials concerned that it would open up a can of worms for the prosecution of U.S. officials and diplomats, as well as place blame on the wrong parties for the 9/11 attacks.

Support or opposition for the bill has not fallen along partisan lines: contrary to Obama’s criticism of the bill, both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders voiced their support of the bill while campaigning in New York earlier this week. GOP leaders such as Senator Lindsey Graham and Speaker Paul Ryan have been in actual agreement with the President for once, working with the White House to kill the bill.

.@HillaryClinton defends her support of @SenSchumer 9/11 bill “I stand with Senator Schumer on this” pic.twitter.com/NA6AX5nFlj

— Tamara Gitt (@tamaragitt) April 18, 2016

.@SenSchumer bill to let 9/11 families sue Saudi if tied to attacks becoming political football-@BernieSanders take: pic.twitter.com/Zgab4dABlW

— Molly O’Toole (@mollymotoole) April 17, 2016

Meanwhile, the timing of these developments has made for a pretty awkward presidential visit to Saudi Arabia for Obama this week. The Guardian reports that the trip was “noticeably low-key” and hinted at a “mutual distrust” between the two allies. It also appears that the bill remained an elephant in the room during his visit: the White House told the press on Thursday that it never even came up in Obama’s meetings with the Saudi king.

The relationship between the two countries has already been on the tense side lately, but Saudi Arabia hasn’t exactly responded well to the latest round of threats against it. The country’s foreign minister allegedly threatened to sell up to $750 billion in American assets, which would have strong economic repercussions for both states. These current developments will prove to be yet another test for a tumultuous and controversial 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 Obama Doesn’t Want Families To Sue Saudi Arabia Over 9/11 appeared first on Law Street.

Good news everyone! In case you were worried or concerned (although, honestly, with this year’s presidential candidate pool, who isn’t concerned?) Paul Ryan has made it very clear that he will not be running for president. That’s right. You’ve heard it correctly. Paul Ryan will not be the next President of the United States, so don’t even think about voting for him.

In a weird press conference last week, Ryan announced his lack of desire for the presidential nomination and his refusal to accept the nomination if it comes down to that. Check out his refusal at the 30 second mark:

He made it very clear in this video that he does not want the delegates nominating him and that he believes only candidates who ran in the primaries should be considered by those delegates, should the nomination decision go to convention this July. “I should not be considered. Period. End of story,” Ryan says affirmatively, before he proceeds to again emphatically state that he is “not going to be our party’s [the republican party’s] nominee.” It’s okay Paul! Calm down! No one is going to force you to be president if you don’t want to be, buddy!

Why was Ryan being so oddly repetitive and assertive as he announced his non-candidacy for president? Well, if we think back to last fall, Ryan pulled the same stunt when there were rumors flying around of him stepping into John Boehner’s role as Speaker of the House. Time after time, Ryan denied any desire to be the Speaker. There was even Twitter evidence that Ryan was dead set on not accepting the Speaker position.

Ryan spox to NBC News: "Chairman Ryan appreciates the support he's getting from his colleagues but is still not running for Speaker."

— Alex Moe (@AlexNBCNews) October 9, 2015

And, what happened in that situation? Less than a month later, Ryan flopped and stepped into his new role as Speaker of the House, despite numerous attempts to convince the public he really did not want the job.

This sudden change in heart last fall makes it hard to believe Ryan’s current media pleas, no matter how earnest and heartfelt they seem. But, don’t worry America, not too many people are falling for this shenanigan Ryan has pulled–even “SNL” called Ryan out on his nonsense in a skit that parodied his not a campaign announcement.

This “anti-campaign ad,” which features Taran Killam as Paul Ryan, hams up Ryan’s not running for president shtick. What starts as Ryan claiming he will not be America’s next president, under any circumstances, quickly transforms into what is essentially a campaign ad. This hilarious spoof directly mirrors Ryan’s “not running” campaign announcement, where he began by claiming he wasn’t running and then basically gave a presidential campaign speech immediately following the announcement. It’s a brilliant example of why satire and parody really are the best kinds of humor.

Will he be the nominee? Won’t he be the nominee? It really is too hard to tell in the midst of Ryan’s broken “not running” promises and confusing not campaigning announcements. The one thing that is certain, is that the Republicans are gearing up for a Convention nominee because it’s looking like that’s what the end of the Republican race will require. And, even though Paul Ryan is “not running,” I think we all know he could be just what this country needs after months and months of watching the zodiac killer (read: Ted Cruz) and America’s biggest bully (read: Donald Trump) duking it out.

So, anyways, we get it Paul! You’re not running for president just like we’re all not voting for you and not sick of the rest of the Republican presidential candidates. Your secret is safe with us.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Paul Ryan is Not, Under any Circumstances, Running for President appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser announced a plan to seek statehood for the District of Columbia come November through a citywide vote on the matter. She promised to propose legislation this summer that would transform the District of Columbia into the state of New Columbia.

This summer, we will propose legislation that will put statehood on the ballot in the 2016 election. #DCEmancipationDay

— Mayor Muriel Bowser (@MayorBowser) April 15, 2016

In addition to her effort to put D.C. statehood on the ballot, Mayor Bowser is also finding other ways to challenge the federal government. For the first time since the district was created in 1790, the city will not be asking the federal government for approval of its annual tax-based budget. While this action may be a violation of the Constitution, it also sends a strong message to the federal government and the nation that D.C. is ready to be an independent state.

For years now, D.C. residents have been fighting for their right to representation in Congress. The desire for D.C. statehood hit an all-time high last fall, according to a survey conducted by the Washington Post. The survey found that three out of every four district residents claim to be upset because they do not have representation in Congress. Over seven in every 10 D.C. residents believe that Congress has too much control over the affairs of the district, especially considering we do not have a voting representative. Sixty-seven percent of D.C. residents said they would support a movement to make D.C. a state, with the hope that having representation would help the local government deal with city-wide problems.

The District of Columbia’s license plate exemplifies why people are mad that D.C. isn’t a state: taxation without representation.

WASHINGTON DC Taxation License Plate Tag – nice EB 1503 https://t.co/UBxws5ZGBz pic.twitter.com/cdJ7eG8ZII

— highly luscious prod (@mogrovejoisidr3) April 13, 2016

John Oliver also did a piece on why D.C. should be a state last August, pointing out some of the ridiculous logic behind not giving the District of Columbia statehood.

This video highlights just how crazy it is for D.C. residents to pay taxes and abide by laws without any kind of representation in Congress. In addition, Oliver points out that not only is the D.C. population bigger than two states, but it also has a larger GDP than 16 of the 50 U.S. states. Not to mention the United States is the only country in the world with a capital that is isolated and lacking in representation the way D.C. is.

Even the Dali Lama questions D.C.’s lack of statehood, noting that he wonders why citizens in the city that is the “champion of democracy, liberty, and freedom” do not have full voting rights, lamenting that this problem is “Quite strange, quite strange.”

So, why isn’t the District of Columbia a state already? Well, the original thought process behind not granting the district statehood comes from a worry the founding fathers had that the proceedings of Congress could be disrupted by people living in the district. The founders were concerned that the national government would feel unnecessarily responsible for the people of the district because of their proximity to the government. There are some other arguments against statehood, including the lack of rural residents in D.C. as well as the fact that D.C. would be a stronghold for the Democratic Party.

In the eyes of most D.C. residents, myself included, those potential cons of statehood don’t really hold up when contrasted with the utter lack of representation that the district currently has. We deserve the right to Senators and Representatives as much as any other citizen in this country and, thanks to the dedicated work of Mayor Bowser and the rest of the D.C. government, that right may be granted to us soon. We’re rooting for you, D.C.

Read More: The 51st State: What D.C. Statehood Would Mean for the Country

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post It’s Time for the District of Columbia to Become a State appeared first on Law Street.

Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives on Monday that asks Congress to “recognize magic as a rare and valuable art form and national treasure.” To clarify, this is the House of Representatives, part of the United States Congress. That’s not to be confused with the Magical Congress of the United States of America, which is unicameral, not to mention fictional.

The full text of the resolution, which is recommended reading for anyone who needs their heart warmed, uses some personal anecdotes to illustrate the power of magic. We’re introduced to Rebecca Brown, a Portland, Oregon resident who was so inspired by a David Copperfield performance that she returned to her unfulfilled dream of dancing. The resolution argues that magic is a motivational force for many, and transcends culture as an art form. Ms. Brown’s epiphany isn’t the only mention of David Copperfield in the resolution. Out of thirty-three ‘whereas’ clauses arguing that the resolution be passed, eleven of them mention the magician or his charitable organization specifically. This resolution is one third David Copperfield, so it’s reasonable to assume that Representative Sessions is a fan.

The resolution also makes mention of Wylie, Texas Mayor Eric Hogue, a man who discovered magic as a young child, and “continues to use those skills to teach elementary school students about the different roles and responsibilities of local government” While the description makes it seem like Hogue pulls a discretionary budget out of a hat to teach children all about the city council, videos show him performing fun and simple card tricks, and pulling a bouquet from some scarves.

The actual goal of the resolution is a bit vague: if passed, it would essentially state that the House of Representatives “supports efforts to make certain that magic is preserved, understood, and promulgated.” While its intentions seem goodhearted, the bill, sponsored entirely by House Republicans, has some Democrat lawmakers confused:

Breaking: @HouseGOP believes in magic but not climate change. https://t.co/2uDhitDMnN

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) March 15, 2016

While nothing in the resolution indicates its sponsors believe that magic is real, Representative Takano (D-CA) illustrates that these legislators are willing to officially recognize magic as a valuable art form while being unwilling to acknowledge the impact of climate change. Representative Sessions has a record of staunch opposition to renewable energy investments and efforts to curb CO2 production. But just because larger issues loom does not mean that magic isn’t important in its own right.

Having been referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform committee, the resolution has yet to be voted on–but magic aficionados around the country are holding out hope that their craft will be given recognition in Washington.

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 House of Representatives to Decide if Magic is a National Treasure appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever gone to check out of your hotel room, maybe after a nice relaxing vacation, only to discover that there are “resort fees” that you owe? Resort fees can include things like use of the pool, wi-fi, housekeeping, or “complimentary” breakfast. But they usually aren’t advertised up front, so these fees come as an unpleasant surprise to the guests when they try to check out. But, if Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez gets her way, Congress will do something to protect consumers from these tricky hidden fees.

Ramirez wrote a letter to 10 members of Congress, asking for them to draft legislation to prevent hotels from charging these expensive, and hidden fees. She specifically targeted representatives who had previously spoken out against the fees. Last year Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) called on the FTC to investigate online hotel booking sites and the hidden fees they may have that “push the price of the hotel room beyond what the actual hotel would charge.” Senators Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) and Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania)  have also encouraged the FTC to look into these fees. Right now, the FTC looks into each allegation individually, on a case-by-case basis, and has warned different hotels that their hidden fees may “violate the law” in the past.

A study by a non-profit consumer advocacy group called Travelers United recently found that these kinds of fees have been increasing in California, with “nearly 200 hotels in California charging an average mandatory resort fee of $17 per night.”  However, a hotel trade group, the American Hotel and Lodging Association, has stated that the number of hotels that charge these fees is on a decline overall. Rosanna Maietta, a spokeswoman for the group, stated:

The lodging industry provides guests full disclosure for resort fees charged upfront. Those fees, in addition to the base travel and hotel charges, remain transparent whether consumers book online or with the hotel directly.

However, that hasn’t stopped people from getting surprised with resort fees, and many Americans believe that fees should be disclosed before guests book anything. A poll commissioned by Travelers United found that 80 percent of respondents want resort fees included in advertised pricing, and 87 percent would be less likely to stay at a hotel if they were charged fees for amenities they did not use or want.

Whether Congress will actually take action will be interesting to watch–given that a few congresspeople have already been talking about the issue it certainly bodes well, but only time will tell.

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 FTC Chairwoman Goes After Pesky “Resort Fees” at Hotels appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an interesting case that refuses to die. Described by NPR as “the legal saga of the monkey selfie,” U.S. District Judge William Orrick just issued a provisional opinion that a macaque named Naruto can’t legally copyright some selfies he snapped in a nature reserve in 2011.

The pictures in question do have all the attributes of a selfie.

Judge rules on whether monkey owns rights to famous “monkey selfie” photographs https://t.co/b6vY3jDLiupic.twitter.com/bSNKXtdivi

— CBS News (@CBSNews) January 7, 2016

They were taken with wildlife photographer David Slater’s camera, in a wildlife reservation on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. However, Slater wasn’t the one who “took” the pictures, Naruto did. PETA, who filed the lawsuit on Naruto’s behalf, claimed that the monkey knew what he was doing. The lawsuit argues that Naruto had seen guests to the reserve taking photos, and that his actions included “purposely pushing the shutter release multiple times (and) understanding the cause-and-effect relationship between pressing the shutter release, the noise of the shutter, and the change to his reflection in the camera lens.”

But Slater claims that he has the rights to the pictures, and that he was holding onto the tripod while Naruto took the photos. He used it in a 2014 book of wildlife photography, and has a British copyright license for it. But some media sites, including Wikipedia, have argued that the photos are public domain because no one owns the copyright.

But despite all that confusion, one thing is clear: Orrick wasn’t going to let PETA get away with filing a copyright on behalf of a monkey. Although a formal opinion will be issued by the judge later, he did issue a provisional opinion Wednesday. Orrick stated: “while Congress and the President can extend the protection of law to animals as well as humans, there is no indication that they did so in the Copyright Act.” On that note, the U.S. Copyright Office has actually officially started listing “a photograph taken by a monkey” as something that specifically cannot be copyrighted. 

So, it doesn’t seem like we’ll be seeing an influx of monkey (or for that matter, other animal) copyrights anytime soon. But since monkeys can apparently take selfies, maybe this is a law that Congress will need to consider changing.

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 Monkeys Can’t Copyright Selfies…Yet appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Everyone uses cosmetics, lotions, soaps, and other personal care items as a part of daily life, and we trust that those products are safe. But who actually determines whether or not a personal care product is safe? The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has jurisdiction over the regulation of personal care products, however, the Agency continues to follow outdated guidelines that don’t reflect recent scientific breakthroughs. In an attempt to change this outdated system, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) introduced the Personal Care Products Safety Act (S. 1014) to the Senate in April. The proposed bill is a bipartisan initiative and has the backing of many cosmetic and personal care product companies and the support of advocacy groups such as the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR ®). Read on to learn about current personal care products regulation, attempts for reform, and the status of the Personal Care Products Safety Act.

Personal Care Products Regulation in the U.S.

Personal care products were first brought under the umbrella of the FDA with the passage of the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which provided for federal authority over such products. However, which products are defined as personal care products and which are defined as drugs is a nuanced question. According to the FDA, there’s no clear distinction under the law, but there are generalities that the agency uses to designate the category various products fall into. According to the FDA:

Under the law, some of the products commonly referred to as “personal care products” are cosmetics. These include, for example, skin moisturizers, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and facial makeup preparations, shampoos, permanent waves, hair colors, toothpastes, and deodorants. Some, however, are regulated as drugs. Among these are skin protectants (such as lip balms and diaper ointments), mouthwashes marketed with therapeutic claims, antiperspirants, and treatments for dandruff or acne.

Some personal care products can meet the definitions of both cosmetics and drugs when that product has two intended uses. For example, a shampoo is a cosmetic because its intended use is to cleanse the hair. An antidandruff treatment is a drug because its intended use is to treat dandruff. Consequently, an antidandruff shampoo is both a cosmetic and a drug, as it is intended to cleanse the hair and treat dandruff.

Regulations on drugs are obviously stricter than those on personal care products–understandably so– but there are some concerns over the ways that those personal care products are regulated.

What’s lacking from the FDA regulation of personal care products?

Guidelines that govern the FDA’s policies on personal care products haven’t been updated since the 1938 law that gave the Agency the authority to regulate these products. Yet, the science behind these products has evolved rapidly over the same time period. We now know more information about chemicals that could potentially be harmful. Additionally, many products contain new man-made chemicals, and the Agency should have policies in place that reflect the current state of the science governing these products.

Currently, the FDA cannot issue recalls of personal care products that it deems to be harmful. It can only recommend voluntary recalls, which critics are concerned aren’t strong enough to adequately remove dangerous products off the shelves in a timely fashion.

The lack of testing guidelines for personal care products are another area of concern for health advocates. Currently, the FDA doesn’t have the authority to mandate testing of ingredients before they go on the market, with one exception: color additives and no health studies or pre-market testing are required. Instead, the cosmetic industry is largely self-regulated through an organization known as the Cosmetics Ingredient Review (CIR). However, many advocacy organizations also question the efficacy of that group, particularly when it comes to CIR’s banning of substances. In the 36 years since its inception, the regulatory group has only 11 chemicals for use in personal care products, a stark contrast to the hundreds banned by European Union regulators.

Advocacy groups are also concerned over the labeling laws currently in place for personal care products. Currently, full ingredient disclosure isn’t required, which many criticize as a major loophole with regards to transparency and patient safety. There’s also no requirement for contact information, so people who may suffer from adverse reactions to products can’t always figure out how to get in touch with the manufacturer to report the problem.

Overall, the process for FDA approval of personal care products is significantly less strict than the process the Agency uses to approve drugs and medications.

What is the Personal Care Products Safety Act?

The Personal Care Products Safety Act would help remedy many of the regulatory loopholes cited above. and would give the FDA the regulatory authority it needs to issue recalls, improve testing guidelines, and require more stringent labeling.

Further, this legislation would mandate that the FDA take a proactive approach to ensuring that chemicals used in personal care products are safe by requiring that the FDA test and review at least five chemicals each year. The bill also lays out the first group of chemicals that would be reviewed, all of which have been subject to recent controversy. According to Senator Feinstein’s release on the act, that first group consists of:

Diazolidinyl urea, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including deodorant, shampoo, conditioner, bubble bath and lotions;

Lead acetate, which is used as a color additive in hair dyes;

Methylene glycol/formaldehyde, which is used in hair treatments;

Propyl paraben, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, conditioner and lotion; and

Quaternium-15, which is used as a preservative in a wide range of products including shampoo, shaving cream, skin creams and cleansers

Additionally, the Personal Care Products Safety Act would require manufacturers of personal care products to register with the FDA. It would remove the protected status of “coal tar,” a carcinogen found in some hair dyes that currently is permitted as long as there are proper warning labels. It would also direct the FDA to come up with a list of “Good Manufacturing Practices” to guide producers.

The new programs and regulations instated by the bill would be funded by collecting user fees from personal care product manufacturers–this is a similar process FDA uses for the review and approval of prescription drugs.

Why is the Personal Care Products Safety Act particularly important for women?

While Americans use an average of roughly 10 personal care products each day, that number isn’t split up by sex. Women in particular use an average of 12 products, exposing themselves to 168 unique chemical ingredients each day. This puts women at a higher risk when it comes to being harmed by untested or unsafe chemicals. SWHR recognizes the impact that the Personal Care Product Safety Act, if it passes, will have on women’s lives and health. SWHR stated in support:

Women use these products daily, and safer, better-regulated personal care items means healthier women and families. SWHR commends this step towards advancing women’s health and the health of all Americans who use these products.

Where is the Personal Care Products Safety Act in the Legislative Process?

As of right now, the legislation has only been introduced into the Senate–it has a long way to go before it becomes a law. But there is some good news: the bill has bipartisan support, which in today’s political climate is certainly rare. Senators Feinstein and Collins are the original sponsors, but they’ve since been joined by four additional co-sponsors: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota), Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois), and Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii).

In addition to the SWHR, many other advocacy groups support the Personal Care Products Safety Act, including the Endocrine Society, the Environmental Working Group, and HealthyWomen.

Who Doesn’t Support the Personal Care Products Safety Act?

There are some who don’t agree with the tenants laid out in the Personal Care Products Safety Act. For example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has brought forth concerns that a greater concentration on testing means that there will be more testing on animals.

Others that disagree with the push for new regulations include members of the personal care products industry, including the Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors (ICMAD) which says that it “places too large a burden on small business, stifles innovation in the cosmetics and personal care industry, and does not provide appropriate and significant national uniformity.”

Conclusion

The Personal Care Products Safety Act has a very long way to go before it could be enacted. But it reflects common sense approaches to regulating the personal care industry that haven’t been updated in almost 75 years. In order to ensure the health of all, particularly those who use these products on a regular basis, we need to make sure that there’s accountability and transparency in what goes into our personal care products.

If you would like to support the legislation, click below.

Resources

Primary

Society for Women’s Health Research: SWHR Proudly Supports Personal Care Products Safety Act

U.S. Senate: Personal Care Products Safety Act

GovTrack: S. 1014: Personal Care Products Safety Act

FDA: The 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

FDA: Are All “Personal Care Products” Regulated as Cosmetics?

Dianne Feinstein: Senators Introduce Bill to Strengthen Personal Care Product Oversight

Additional 

Harvard School of Public Health: Harmful, Untested Chemicals Rife in Personal Care Products

Environmental Working Group: Why This Matters–Cosmetics and Your Health

FDA Law Blog: Proposed Personal Care Products Safety Act Would Significantly Expand FDA Authority over Cosmetics

Washington Monthly: Beauty Tips for the FDA 

Women’s Voices for the Earth: Will the New Personal Care Products Safety Act Make Cosmetic Ingredients Safe?

The Huffington Post: New Bill Would Require FDA To Regulate Ingredients In Cosmetics & Personal-Care Products

PETA: Proposed Law Likely to Mean Tests on Animals for Cosmetics Ingredients in U.S.!

Society for Women’s Health Research

The Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR®), is a national non-profit based in Washington D.C. that is widely recognized as the thought-leader in promoting research on biological differences in disease. SWHR is dedicated to transforming women’s health through science, advocacy, and education. Founded in 1990 by a group of physicians, medical researchers and health advocates, SWHR aims to bring attention to the variety of diseases and conditions that disproportionately or predominately affect women. For more information, please visit www.swhr.org. Follow us on Twitter at @SWHR. SWHR is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post The Personal Care Products Safety Act: Modernizing Outdated Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

As many Americans continue to move toward more conscious eating that places an emphasis on consuming responsible, organic foods, we’ve seen more labels in our supermarkets. The country-of-origin labeling rule (COOL), first authorized in 2002, mandated that our meat labels list the country where the product was produced. However that provision was repealed in the budget bill passed by Congress and signed by President Obama late last week–which means that country-of-origin labels will no longer appear on meat, specifically beef and pork, sold in the United States.

But this move on Congress’s part isn’t about a departure from increased labeling–it’s about the possible international affairs and economic side effects of continuing the labeling. The COOL labeling has been controversial on the world stage from the beginning, because other countries feared it could cause American consumers to discriminate against their meat products for no reason other than that competitors’ products were produced in the United States. Last week, the World Trade Organization (WTO) authorized Canada and Mexico, two of the U.S.’s major trading partners, to tax American products to make up for the cost of the COOL regulations.

The concerns over those costs, as well as the fact that these taxes could be extended to other products, caused Congress to repeal the provision specifically on beef and pork, but labeling will remain on other products. Any meat that comes into the United States from another country will still be inspected by the USDA before it makes it into consumers hands. However, many Americans are unhappy with Congress’s choice to change the labeling requirements overall. Most notably, this comes in contrast to what Americans seemingly want. According to a 2013 study by the Consumer Federation of America:

Eighty-seven percent (87 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born, raised and processed. Similarly, ninety percent (90 percent) of adults favored, either strongly or somewhat, requiring food sellers to indicate on the package label the country or countries in which animals were born and raised and the fact that the meat was processed in the U.S.

Supporters of COOL have floated particular concerns about Brazilian beef, because the country has had an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease as recently as 2014. According to Willy Blackmore, of TakePart, “there could soon be between 20,000 and 65,000 metric tons of fresh or frozen Brazilian beef—about 1 percent of U.S. beef imports—coming into the country annually.”

So, the vote was kind of a lose-lose for Congress–either way it was going to make some people mad. But for now, we won’t be seeing country-of-origin labels on our beef or pork–we’ll have to see how long that change lasts.

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 Where’s Your Meat From? Congress Repeals Country-of-Origin Labeling appeared first on Law Street.

This holiday season is bringing much more than gifts and cheer for children as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), a graduated, more sophisticated, and polished version of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), was passed by the House of Representatives. The much-needed update was passed by a 359-64 majority in the House and will be voted on by the Senate in the coming week. The overwhelming bipartisan support for the bill reinforces the likelihood that it will ultimately be signed into law by President Barack Obama.

The overhaul and revision of NCLB, which resulted in the creation of ESSA, comes as a welcomed and advocated-for change to remove the federal grip over the requirements and implementation of public education and move it toward a state-based ideology that narrows the focus and tailors implementation to resources and needs within a specified state. Additionally, ESSA seeks to evolve past the sole focus on standardized testing and opens up consideration for other factors such as student/teacher engagements, success in advanced coursework, and career readiness. The main goal is a holistic approach to standardize primary education through a variety of measurable and functional factors through a more tailored, state-focused lens.  Read on to learn more about the evolution of measurable standards within primary education, what ESSA holds for future generations, and the potential impact of the pending legislation.

The Evolution of Standardized Primary Education

Education is a cornerstone in a progressive, self-sustaining society. It provides for the social and economic advancement, as well as the stability of people that allows for growth, development, creativity, and forward movement and innovation. Education is the bedrock of a society and its importance has been highlighted throughout the history of the United States in a variety of ways as evidenced by its evolution in law and implementation.

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson sought to mend the “achievement gap” in the United States by implementing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). ESEA allocated a substantial amount of federal funding into bridging the gap in the educational disparity based on race and poverty–a disparity highlighting that minorities, low-income students, immigrant students, and those from rural/neglected areas were not receiving the same level of quality education and therefore were not achieving at the same levels or percentage rates as students outside of those statistical and categorical confines. While ESEA shifted focus onto a federally controlled education policy and allowed the government involvement in implementation through funding, it also provided “Title I” designation to schools with over 40 percent of students designated low-income through federal standards. Such a designation provided schools, mainly elementary schools, with federal-based funding to make education more accessible to low-income families and to increase resources available to schools. The Act gave young students a pathway out of institutionalized poverty through encouraged and standardized academic advancement, which was monitored through testing benchmarks and requirements.

ESEA underwent several reauthorizations, none more prominent and controversial than the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002. NCLB was authored and instituted out of concern that the United States was losing academic advantage on an international scale and applied testing standards and progress tracking to all students, not just the low-income students identified by ESEA. While NCLB sought to bring academic progress and responsibility as applied to all students, it carved out specific standards and a focus on students with special needs, those learning English as a second language, and those below the poverty line, as well as minorities, as these groups of children in primary schools tended to test lower than their classmates. The law provided required benchmarks for academic achievement, testing students from the third grade through high school. It also marked the 2013-2014 school year as the goal year to have all schools testing at a “proficient level,” marked by results and scores defined by each individual state. It is important to note that by the end of the 2015 school year, no school had gotten all 100 percent of its students above the required proficient level. Additionally, teachers were required to have certain qualifications and schools were required to reach specific testing goals and provide yearly progress reports that would subject them to serious sanctions if the goals set were not met.

While NCLB was a positive step and evolution from the outdated versions of ESEA, it was laced with great controversy and consequently, great criticism. One of the major criticisms of NCLB was the heavy focus on standardized testing in math and reading, which ultimately resulted in less investment on subjects such as social studies that were not empirically tested and measured, as well as an increase in cheating in order to meet required results. The desire to increase educational standards ironically did the opposite in order to meet them. The focus on test scores also created an “educational marketplace” out of federal funding, forcing schools to compete in a survival-of-the-fittest atmosphere, rather than a collegiate and collective one. Another criticism of the law was that remedies for the low performing students–free tutoring and the opportunity to transfer to a better performing school–were completely underutilized by the students and facilities they were available to. When given the free choice and the transportation to get a better education, families opted to keep their children in what was familiar, even if what was familiar was not performing at an acceptable level. Finally, NCLB was criticized as being underfunded. Although annual funding for Title I was supposed to rise to $25 billion, it had only reached $14.5 billion by 2015 highlighting the fact that federal funding never reached the lofty goals it had set for the law as well.

In 2011, in recognizing the failure of NCLB, President Obama instituted waivers that allowed states struggling to meet the standards outlined by the law to set their own standards in an effort to adequately prepare students for higher education and the workforce. The need for reform in education policy was crystal clear. It was up to Congress to take action.

Every Student Succeeds Act: What is in Store

Last week, the House of Representatives got the ball rolling in Congress on education policy and the support for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was overwhelming. While the Senate will be voting on the bill within the week, the support strongly suggests that it will be signed into law following the vote.

ESSA aims to address the concerns, criticisms, failures, and restrictions highlighted by NCLB by primarily honing in on a state-centered emphasis, which would allow for more flexibility in the implementation and assessment of academic achievement. Rather than just analyzing test scores and graduation rates, ESSA will take a more holistic approach to assess educational success by looking at additional factors such as “student and teacher engagements, success in advanced coursework, and school climate and safety,” as well as performance on college prep and Advanced Placement (AP) courses, career readiness, and specialized certificates.

However, the shift back to a more state-based system of control and implementation will not be without federal regulation. States will still have to test students and report findings in order to be held accountable for the way the programs are being instituted, absorbed, and utilized, still tracking positive academic achievement benchmarks. ESSA still provides safeguards by integrating the availability of waivers for schools performing below desired levels and grant programs that will offer schools more resources to meet goals if they qualify. The bill initiates additional programs that focus on over-testing research, the importance of effective and quality early childhood education practices, and the equal distribution of funding within districts.

While ESSA is certainly a more polished and advanced version of its predecessor, it is subject to its own criticisms. The main critique this early in its life is the fact that it is silent in terms of upgrading, updating, and elevating the status quo for the profession of teaching. Although authors of the bill did not utilize this opportunity to address the modernization of teaching, qualification requirements, and experience of the individuals working within its confines–teachers, the bill successfully sets out to update a largely outdated system that has failed the children and teachers in the United States.

Conclusion: A Welcomed Change That’s Long Overdue

No Child Left Behind had officially expired in 2007. It is now December 2015. Surprisingly, despite its eight-year expiration, NCLB had maintained its grip on implementation control as no alternative methods and bills had been proposed and implemented with success in Congress. In an effort to circumvent the failing aspects of NCLB and loosen the regulatory grip over state implementation, most states were working under waivers granted by President Obama, providing them with the necessary flexibility to implement more successful educational policy options for their specific circumstances. States have had temporary and remote control over educational policy following NCLB’s expiration.

And while critics are emphatic that ESSA’s authors dropped the ball in addressing a refocused lens on increasing and updating teaching standards as well as standardized education, the bill did take big steps in initiating additional programs to reform education policy, elevated expectations and implementation of a revitalized policy, and works to ensure fair and equally distributed system of federal funding. Additionally, the bill provides the opportunity for volunteer partnerships, but prohibits any state to be influenced, provided incentives, or coerced into accepting and adopting Common Core principles. While criticisms will exist on both political sides, particularly within the idea that the federal government is simply punting the education problem to the states to fix, the overwhelming bipartisan support for the Every Student Succeeds Act shows the importance of quality education in this country for all students alike.

The steps taken to eliminate NCLB and reinvent the bill in a new form is a commendable and welcomed progression in education policy.

Resources

Primary

House of Representatives: Every Student Succeeds Act

107th Congress: No Child Left Behind

Additional

 U.S. News: Leaving Behind No Child Left Behind

LAWS: Elementary and Secondary Education Act

 Education Week: No Child Left Behind: An Overview

National Public Radio (NPR): Former ‘No Child Left Behind’ Advocate Turns Critic

 CBS DFW: A Major Overhaul of No Child Left Behind is in the Works

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Graduating From “No Child Left Behind” appeared first on Law Street.

As mass shootings become the focus of public attention after two high-profile incidents in the span of  a couple of days, more and more people are demanding a response from Congress. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan recently faced a question about how to address mass shootings to which he responded saying that the focus needs to be on mental illness. Ryan then pointed to a bill from Representative Tim Murphy, a Republican from Pennsylvania, which seeks to overhaul the American mental health system. While nearly everyone agrees that the United States needs a better approach to mental health, the connection between mental illness and mass shootings is much more complicated than it may seem.

Before we get into the validity behind associating mental health with mass shootings, it is important to acknowledge the fact that most Americans see it as an important underlying problem. According to an ABC/Washington Post poll from October, Americans are nearly split on whether the government should prioritize passing new gun laws or protecting gun rights, but nearly two-thirds believe that improving mental health treatment is necessary to address mass shootings. When asked whether mass shootings are a reflection of problems with identifying and treating people with mental health issues or inadequate gun control laws, 63 percent believe mental health is the issue. There is a partisan difference in opinions–Republicans overwhelmingly focus on mental health while only 46 percent of Democrats focus on mental health alone. But despite those differences, only 23 percent of respondents said inadequate gun control laws were more concerning than mental health issues.

While Democrats often criticize Republicans’ reluctance to talk about gun control after mass shootings, it’s fair to say that addressing mental health problems is a greater concern for their constituents than stronger gun laws are. So in the wake of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, the Republican Party looked to Rep. Tim Murphy, the only psychiatrist in Congress, to come up with a response. Murphy traveled across the country to speak with communities and mental health experts to determine the best way to fix the current system. While Murphy’s bill, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crises Act, marks the most comprehensive approach to overhauling the U.S. mental health system, it’s important to ask how doing so will affect mass gun violence.

In a review of research on mental health and gun violence, Vanderbilt University professors Jonathan M. Metzl and Kenneth T. MacLeish find that there is little evidence to suggest that mental illness causes gun violence. While it is true that in the aftermath of mass shootings reports often indicate that the perpetrator experienced some sort of paranoia, delusion, or depression prior to the attack, suggesting that mental illness caused the shooting is another matter. Metzl and MacLeish cite the finding that less than 3 to 5 percent of crimes in the United States are committed by people with mental illness, and that proportion may be lower in terms of gun crime.

In fact, people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator. For example, one study found that people diagnosed with schizophrenia are victimized at rates 65 to 130 percent higher than the general public. The authors concluded, “In general, the risk associated with being in the community was higher than the risk these individuals posed to the community.” Saying that all people diagnosed with mental illnesses are likely to commit mass shootings is about as useful as saying we should take away the gun rights of white men because most mass shooters also fit that demographic. In reality, the vast majority of white men and people diagnosed with mental illness will not commit mass violence.

Metzl and MacLeish also question the claim that mental health professionals can predict and prevent gun crime. While efforts to prevent the next mass shooting are well intentioned, basing that off of psychiatric diagnosis is remarkably difficult. The authors argue that psychiatric diagnosis is primarily a matter of observation, and they note that for that reason “research dating back to the 1970s suggests that psychiatrists using clinical judgment are not much better than laypersons at predicting which individual patients will commit violent crimes and which will not.”

In some ways, the difficulty in using psychiatric diagnosis to predict mass violence is a matter of math. Public health research can be used to determine a person’s risk of heart attack based on large-scale studies and randomized trials, but when it comes to mass shootings and mental health, the data is limited. As Jeffery Swanson, a professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine, notes in his research on predicting rare acts of violence:

In a U.S. city the size of San Jose, California, (population about 1,000,000), about 4,000 people every year will have a heart attack; perhaps one or two will be killed by someone with mental illness wielding a gun. Treatment evidence for preventing death from myocardial infarction has piled up from hundreds of clinical investigations over several decades, involving more than 50,000 patients in randomized trials by the early 1980s . When it comes to persons with mental disorders who kill strangers, there is nothing remotely resembling such an empirical evidence base.

The Republican mental health bill marks an ambitious effort to address a growing problem in the United States, but saying that it is a plan to prevent future mass shootings is misleading. According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are 350,000 Americans in state jails and prisons who have been diagnosed with a severe mental illness–that, among other things, is what Rep. Murphy’s bill seeks to address. The bill would restructure the funding for mental health care and change health privacy rules to allow family members to get information about a loved one’s treatment. On the other hand, the bill does not address whether or not someone with a mental illness should have access to guns.

Instead of advertising Murphy’s bill as a means to solve mass shootings, Congress should focus on the need for mental health reform by itself. The Helping Families in Mental Health Crises Act does have controversial provisions, notably whether states should be encouraged to develop Assisted Outpatient Treatment programs, which allows courts to compel treatment for individuals before he or she has a mental health crisis. And whether Murphy’s plan to move funding from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration–which he views as wasteful and ineffective–to a create an Assistant Secretary for Mental Health is the best way to spend money on mental health treatment.

Murphy’s bill is certainly ambitious and he already has some bipartisan support and backing from important mental health groups, but it also has some controversial provisions. For this reason, the debate on its passage should focus on whether or not it will improve and expand treatment for the 10 million Americans who experience severe mental illness in a given year–not whether it will prevent mass shootings.

Read More: Police Brutality and the Mentally Ill in America

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fixing Mental Health Care Will Not Stop Mass Shootings, But That’s Okay appeared first on Law Street.

If there’s one person who is sure to always hit us where it’s relevant, it’s Shonda Rhimes. On the mid-season finale of “Scandal” (spoilers ahead, for those who aren’t caught up), Mellie filibusters in front of the Senate for nearly a full day in order to ensure that Planned Parenthood’s funding isn’t considered discretionary, and Olivia aborts Fitz’s child. Even with the trigger warning at the beginning of the episode, viewers were surprised with where the plot took them.

All of this aired just eight days before a gunman attacked a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, Colorado. It occurred in the midst of a lawsuit against the state of Texas for trying to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding. And it tackled a real-life issue that has been discussed with increasing fervor since the fall—defunding Planned Parenthood altogether. Planned Parenthood remains front-page news, which is rare for an organization that has been around for nearly one hundred years. Yet it stays relevant, and will continue to stay relevant in mainstream media as long as the country is polarized by the subject of abortion. So, here’s a breakdown of all the latest Planned Parenthood stories, and what they mean for the future of the organization and healthcare.

Is Planned Parenthood going to be defunded?

In short, as of right now, it’s hard to say whether Planned Parenthood will still be funded next year.

There are two ways that Republicans could go about trying to defund Planned Parenthood. There is a bill that just passed the Senate that would both remove federal funding from Planned Parenthood for one year and repeal part of the Affordable Care Act. This bill had already passed in the House of Representatives. However, given that it’s part of a bill to repeal Obamacare, President Obama is expected to veto it.

So, if that doesn’t work, it is possible that the defunding would be tacked onto the spending bill that has to pass by December 11 in order for the government to continue functioning.

Why defund Planned Parenthood?

The woman’s health organization has been under fire since several videos were released in July 2015 that imply that baby parts are sold by the organization. Since then, it has been proven that these videos were manipulated by an anti-abortion organization, but the damage had already been done. The president of Planned Parenthood has since had to testify before a congressional hearing, and the threat to defund the organization has become very real.

What would happen if Planned Parenthood is defunded?

If Planned Parenthood is defunded, the results could be disastrous. While it is anyone’s right to decide what side they fall on in the ongoing and ever-relevant debate about abortion, that is only a fraction of the work that Planned Parenthood clinics do across the country. According to its own statistics, 80 percent of its work is focused on preventing unintended pregnancies. Aside from that, it also provides 4.5 million STI tests and treatments each year, including nearly a quarter of a million HIV tests. When Planned Parenthood was defunded in rural Indiana, there was an explosion of HIV in the county. For many women, Planned Parenthood is the only source of STI testing, birth control, and other women’s health services available to them. Defunding Planned Parenthood would take those services away from the five million people who visit clinic locations each year.

Arguments for Defunding Planned Parenthood

On the flip side, the government funds that are funneled into Planned Parenthood each year have many other worthy recipients. Jeff Duncan, a Representative from South Carolina, said that the Boys and Girls Club, for example, only gets a fraction of the funds that Planned Parenthood gets each year. There is also the argument that there should be fewer government-sponsored programs all together, and Planned Parenthood is just another program that should be funded in another way.

However, no matter how it’s stated, it comes down to this—pro-lifers, and even some pro-choicers, don’t think that the government should fund any organization that has anything to do with abortions, even if it is illegal for federal funds to pay for abortions themselves. In this belief system, Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be a government-funded agency, and therefore defunding the organization would free up tax dollars for other uses.

What’s going on with Planned Parenthood in Texas?

Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, announced in October that the state was going to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds. In return, Planned Parenthood and ten patients are suing the state of Texas in the hopes of stopping officials from cutting off the Medicaid funds that allowed the patients to be treated at Planned Parenthood locations. Texas is the fourth state, following Alabama, Arkansas, and Louisiana, to be involved in such a lawsuit this year.

Abbott made his announcement after the uproar that the July 2015 videos caused. The videos depicted supposed Planned Parenthood officials discussing selling aborted fetal parts for research, including staff members at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which is located in Houston, Texas.

Does Planned Parenthood stand a chance of winning the lawsuit?

This lawsuit could go either way.

In Louisiana, Alabama, and Arkansas, the state had to stop proceedings to remove Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funds until officials looked into the matter more closely. This means that there is a chance that the removal is unconstitutional, or breaks some kind of law for restricting federal funds. Federal health officials did warn the Texas Health and Human Services Commission in October that removing Planned Parenthood from Medicaid funding could be a violation of United States law.

This is also not the first time that Planned Parenthood has sued the state of Texas. In 2012, Texas Republicans removed Planned Parenthood from the Texas Medicaid Women’s Health Program. The state of Texas argued that the federal government gave individual states the right to decide how to allocate federal Medicaid funds, and Planned Parenthood eventually lost the lawsuit.

As of November 23, 2015, the state of Texas had not yet received legal papers in the lawsuit. Once papers are received, the case will likely end up in front of a federal judge.

What about the shooting in Colorado Springs?

On Friday November 27, 2015–Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving best known for shopping deals—there was a fatal shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Three were left dead and nine injured in the shooting, and one of the deceased was a police officer. After a five-hour standoff with police, the shooter was taken into custody.

As of right now, the exact motive for the shooting is unknown. Robert L. Dear was arrested and appeared at a hearing on Monday November 30 wearing a security smocked designed to prevent suicides. Allegedly, when Dear was arrested, he uttered “no more baby parts,” but police have not been forthcoming with any other information.

How does this affect where Planned Parenthood stands?

The spotlight right now is on the potential Presidential candidates. None of the Republican candidates specifically addressed the attack until Saturday, a full day after the events took place, and then, it was on Twitter, and the statements were vague. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders released supports of sympathy. President Obama, meanwhile, stated his continued frustration with gun violence in the U.S.

The Senate voted this week on the bill that will defund Planned Parenthood, and while it was successful, it goes before President Obama now. Additionally, Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, has stated that Republicans are no longer planning to force a government shutdown over the defunding of Planned Parenthood, something they had been threatening to do in early November. However, the status of Planned Parenthood’s funding remains to be seen.

How is all of this related to a prime-time television show?

Shonda Rhimes is not a woman who shies away from controversial issues, as the midseason finale of “Scandal” clearly showed us. It is Rhimes’ relevancy that strikes a nerve with viewers. She was able to show a scenario playing out in the Senate–which is exactly where the bill that may defund Planned Parenthood for a year sat at the time–when a Republican junior Senator from Virginia filibusters so that funding for Planned Parenthood is not downgraded to discretionary. Not only that, but we see Olivia Pope–a strong woman, a character with gumption–in the most vulnerable position a woman can find herself in: on a bed with her feet in stirrups and a doctor between her legs. Put the two women together in a single episode, and you leave your audience with a powerful image.

After the episode aired, Planned Parenthood released this statement:

Tonight, the millions of people who tune into Scandal every Thursday night learned that our rights to reproductive health care are under attack. Never one to shy away from critical issues, Shonda Rhimes used her platform to tell the world that if Planned Parenthood lost funding for contraception counseling, STI testing, cancer screenings, and safe, legal abortion—millions of people would suffer. And this episode wasn’t the first time one of Rhimes’ characters had an abortion, yet tonight we saw one of our favorite characters make the deeply personal decision that one in three women have made in their lifetime. We applaud Shonda Rhimes tonight—and every Thursday night—for proving that when women are telling our stories, the world will pause and watch. We just hope those in Congress—and throughout the nation—who are steadfast on rolling the clock back on reproductive health care access are taking note.

But, further proving the contentious nature of this issue, the conservative Media Research Counsel released their own statement the day after the episode aired:

Hollywood’s liberal values permeate movies and television. Last night’s episode of ABC’s Scandal was pretty much an hour-long advertisement for Planned Parenthood. In the most disturbing scene, the main character has an abortion to ‘Silent Night’ (a hymn celebrating the birth of Jesus) playing in the background. This is Hollywood’s moral depravity on full display.

This particular episode was an interesting juxtaposition when considered side-by-side with what is currently happening in Texas and Colorado Springs. Rhimes showed women making powerful statements about the importance and commonplaceness of women’s health organizations like Planned Parenthood. In the current contentious political climate, “Scandal’s” arc showed a fictional look at some very real issues.

Conclusion

Planned Parenthood will likely always be in the news; such is the case when something as polarizing as abortion is involved. Religious and moral beliefs will cause the country to be split in two on the issue, as has been the case since Planned Parenthood opened its doors one hundred years ago. As long as the issue is relevant, we will continue to see media portray the issue in different lights, both in fiction and in mainstream media. And it is likely that Planned Parenthood and the news surrounding it will stay relevant for a while.

Resources

Primary

Planned Parenthood: Planned Parenthood at a Glance

Additional

Texas Tribune: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Over Medicaid Removal

Los Angeles Times: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas Over Medicaid Funding

The New York Times: What Defunding Planned Parenthood Would Really Mean

Denver Post: What We Know about the Planned Parenthood Shooting in Colorado Springs

Refinery 29: Scandal Season 5, Episode 9 Recap: The Women Take a Stand

Entertainment Weekly: Scandal Abortion Shock: ABC Hit Slams Planned Parenthood Defunding

NPR: After Planned Parenthood Shooting, Obama Again Calls for Action on Guns

The New Yorker: The Planned Parenthood Shooting and the Republican Candidates’ Responses

The New York Times: For Robert Dear, Religion and Rage Before Planned Parenthood Attack

The New York Times: No Shutdown Expected on Planned Parenthood

The New York Times: Planned Parenthood Sues Texas in Dispute of Funding for Clinics

Huffington Post: Indiana Shut Down Its Rural Planned Parenthood Clinics and Got an HIV Outbreak

Slate: The GOP Argument for Defunding Planned Parenthood is Incoherent

The Wall Street Journal: Republicans Look for Votes to Defund Planned Parenthood, Repeal Parts of Health Law

The Atlantic: ‘Scandal’ Gracefully Tackled Abortion in Its Midseason Finale

Refinery 29: Planned Parenthood “Applauds Shonda Rhimes” for Last Night’s Episode of Scandal

Daily Signal: Why Haven’t GOP-Led States Defunded Planned Parenthood?

Amanda Gernentz Hanson

Amanda Gernentz Hanson is a Minnesota native living in Austin, Texas. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Hope College and a Master’s degree in Technical Communication from Minnesota State University, where her final project discussed intellectual property issues in freelancing and blogging. Amanda is an instructional designer full time, a freelance writer part time, and a nerd always. Contact Amanda at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Planned Parenthood’s Continued Relevancy appeared first on Law Street.

Vermonters really like Bernie Sanders, and Kentuckians aren’t too fond of Mitch McConnell, according to a recent survey from the polling firm Morning Consultant.

According to the survey–which was conducted over a period of several months polling over 75,000 people in total–83 percent of Vermonters approved of Bernie Sanders’ job performance while only 38 percent of Mitch McConnell’s constituents approved of his performance. McConnell, the Senate Majority leader, was the only Senator whose disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating–38 percent and 52 percent, respectively. The poll’s full results are at the bottom of the article, click here to jump there now.

There are currently five senators running for president, and after Bernie Sanders, Ted Cruz is the next most popular with an approval rating of 52 percent.

The poll’s findings suggest that Senators from small states tend to be more popular among their constituents. The five most popular senators come from Vermont (with two in the top five), Maine, Wyoming, and North Dakota, all of which are also among the states with the smallest populations. While an important part of Bernie Sanders’ popularity is likely his ongoing presidential campaign, the relative popularity of small-state senators indicate that his campaign is probably not the only factor at play. One possible explanation is that in states with the fewest people, it may be easier for senators to hold views that more closely align with their constituents.

It’s also interesting to look at the senators with the lowest approval ratings. At the bottom of the pack are Senators Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Gary Peters of Michigan, and Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. Menendez is currently facing a federal indictment for corruption charges, Peters was very recently elected, and McConnell holds a particularly polarizing position as the Senate Majority leader and recently finished a very contentious reelection campaign. This also isn’t McConnell’s first time with a  low rating; a 2012 poll found similar results. And while Peters’ approval rating was just 37 percent, his disapproval rating was also low (27 percent), indicating that a large number of respondents didn’t have enough information to evaluate him.

While most Americans have a very negative view of Congress in general, opinions of individual senators are typically much higher. Overall, the average job approval among Democrats and Republicans are pretty close, as each sits just above 50 percent. According to the Morning Consultant data, Democratic senators average a job performance approval rating of 54 percent while Republicans have an approval rating of about 51 percent. The two independent Senators–Bernie Sanders and Angus King–have a considerably higher average approval rating, about 74 percent.

The table below provides the full data from the Morning Consultant poll. In total, the firm polled 76,569 Americans. The median sample size was 1,172 people, varying from 198 registered voters in Wyoming to 6,696 voters in California. When looking at the data it is important to take the margin of error into account, as states with a much smaller sample have a wider corresponding margin of error. For example, the margin of error in the Vermont poll was +/- 6.5 percent, which means that Bernie Sanders’ approval can be somewhere between 89.5 and 76.5.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who are the Most Popular Senators? appeared first on Law Street.

After the documentary “Blackfish” made waves, there was substantial outcry about SeaWorld’s actions, particularly as they related to orcas. Now, federal lawmakers are working to end some of SeaWorld’s most predatory practices.

Representative Adam Schiff (D-California) announced a bill, the Orca Responsibility and Care Advancement Act (ORCA), on Friday that would prohibit the breeding of captive orcas, as well as prevent the wild capture of the animals for exhibit purposes. This would essentially lead to a phase-out of Orcas being used for show at SeaWorld parks.

Orcas are too socially complex, too intelligent, too long-lived and simply too big to thrive in confinement #ORCAacthttps://t.co/pZmeg8hgsO

— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) November 6, 2015

The controversial “Shamu Shows” have been under particular scrutiny since the release of “Blackfish” in 2013, which shed light on the way that the orcas are treated at SeaWorld, as well as the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau. Despite the $15 million that the company has spent trying to decry the movie as propaganda and promote its supposed good work instead, it has been hurting as a result of the negative scrutiny. For example, at its San Diego park, attendance fell 17 percent last year. Overall, SeaWorld’s profits have fallen by almost half since the film’s release.

Gabriela Cowperthwaite, the director of “Blackfish” explained the reason that so many were drawn to the film, saying:

I just think the movie struck a nerve. I think it has galled people to learn that a beloved cultural icon, an institution we think is dedicated to teaching our children, is the opposite of what it pretends to be. The whales aren’t happy and the trainers aren’t safe. It’s as simple as that.

Schiff”s motivation for introducing the bill was much along the same vein; in a statement he explained: “the evidence is very strong that the psychological and physical harm done to these magnificent animals far outweighs any benefits reaped from their display.”

Schiff’s bill is supported by a number of advocacy organizations, including the Animal Welfare Institute, the Humane Society of the United States, the Humane Society Legislative Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animal.

Although Congress’s near-constant gridlock nowadays may mean that the bill doesn’t go anywhere, SeaWorld isn’t in good shape. The consistently bad PR, falling profits, and now the threat of damaging legislation doesn’t bode well for the entertainment destination.

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 Post Blackfish: A Push to Change SeaWorld’s Practices appeared first on Law Street.

Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of State and current Democratic Presidential frontrunner, took a day off from the campaign trail to testify in front of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. She testified for a grueling 11 hours about the security present at the embassy in Benghazi, Libya, the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, and the controversy over the email accounts she used while at the State Department. As an inquiry that has been mired with controversy, both sides had something to prove with the hearing. Clinton had to prove that she could be a strong and ethical world leader; House Republicans had to prove that this wasn’t just a partisan witch hunt. While the 11-hour hearing was certainly grueling, for the most part Clinton came out on top–possibly in ways that will boost her seemingly tired campaign.

Clinton did exactly what she needed to do at the hearing yesterday–she appeared calm, collected, and a strong leader during the 11 hours of probing questions. Her testimony was littered with strong sound bytes. For example, Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) questioned her on why the Obama administration had originally attributed the attack on the embassy in Benghazi to an anti-Muslim video. Clinton explained that after the attack, what exactly had happened was unclear, and she did her best to update the American people as more information was obtained. After a back and forth, Clinton eventually responded: “I’m sorry that it doesn’t fit your narrative, congressman. I can only tell you what the facts were.” It’s a quotable moment that will make her sound strong and ethical when push comes to shove in this campaign.

The press has, by and large, declared her the clear winner. This even includes certain facets of conservative media. The Atlantic collected a number of conservative writers, pundits, and thinkers complimenting Clinton on her performance–although to be fair, some of those mentions condemn House Republicans more than they applaud Clinton.

Clinton is also reaping financial benefits from the hearing. After the much-lauded marathon performance yesterday, her donations have been increasing. Jennifer Palmieri, her director of Communications, stated that from 9 PM to 10 PM last night, Clinton’s campaign had the best hour of online donations yet. She stated that those donations appear attributable to the Benghazi hearing, stating: “My point isn’t ‘wow, we brought in a lot of money.’ The point is that it moved people.”

Clinton’s campaign has had a shockingly slow start in many ways, but she’s had a damn good couple weeks. She gave a strong performance in the first Democratic debate. Then, this week Vice President Joe Biden, who many thought was going to jump into the race, elected not to. Given that he probably would have siphoned off her supporters, this was good news for Clinton. She wrapped this week up with a strong performance in the Benghazi hearing. Clinton certainly isn’t guaranteed the nomination yet, as there’s still a lot of buzz about Senator Bernie Sanders. But if Clinton keeps moving the way she is now, Sanders may not be able to catch up.

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 Benghazi Hearing: Just the Latest Win for Hillary Clinton appeared first on Law Street.

In case you haven’t noticed, Planned Parenthood has become the new bogeyman on Capitol Hill–arguments over its funding had, until very recently, the potential to spark a government shut down. This summer, a group called the Center for Medical Progress released heavily edited, now debunked videos that insinuated that Planned Parenthood did a bunch of awful things, including selling fetal tissue for a profit. Despite the fact that these videos were deceptively edited, and investigations of Planned Parenthood have determined that the non-profit didn’t act in any illegal ways, conservatives on the Hill have latched onto a witch hunt aimed at the organization. Yesterday, Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood’s president since 2006, attended a hearing hosted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. There she was subjected to hours of inappropriate questioning, interruptions, and bullying by some of the House Republicans present. There were so many ridiculous moments to chose from, but here are the top five from yesterday’s hearing.

5. Richards’ Exchange with Representative Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)

Shortly after the first video was released, Richards put out an apology:

Our top priority is the compassionate care that we provide. In the video one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion, this is unacceptable and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.

As Richards explained during the hearing, she was apologizing for the fact that she believed the conversation that was taped by the Center for Medical Progress was in an inappropriate context and setting. But Jordan, like a dog with a bone, fixated on the fact that she apologized for “statements” and demanded to know exactly which statements she was apologizing for. Despite Richards explaining again and again that she was apologizing for the overall situation, Jordan refused to take that answer. Here’s the exchange:

Richards answered his question many, many times. But it wasn’t good enough for Jordan, and that’s really kind of the whole point of the hearing that happened yesterday. It wasn’t about getting answers, it was about berating Richards and showing conservative supporters that the reps were willing to be “tough” on Planned Parenthood. It’s nice that Jordan was able to make that so abundantly clear from the get-go.

4. Questions about Richards’ Salary

At one point Richards was subjected to questioning about her salary by the chair of the committee, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah). Now Richards is paid a fair salary for her job as head of an absolutely enormous non-profit, a bit over $500,000. Keep in mind that Planned Parenthood is the 38th largest non-profit in the United States, running it is no easy task, and here in the United States it’s important to pay people competitive salaries for the jobs they do.

Yet Chaffetz saw that as ammunition against Richards, and by extension, Planned Parenthood. Some of the Democratic Reps defended Richards on this front, including this powerful speech from Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland), but it still stood out as an inappropriate line of questioning.

3. Richards Could Barely Get a Word In

Normally, when people are brought to sit in front a group of Representatives for questioning, they are allowed to answer the questions. Unfortunately that wasn’t true in this case, as Richards was interrupted by pretty much every Republican questioner on the panel, yet another indication that many of them found what they had to say significantly more interesting than what she was saying. Slate’s XXFactor put together a truly fantastic/infuriating rundown of every single time that Richards was interrupted, but the top prize goes to Representative Paul Gosar (R-Arizona) who admitted that he didn’t want to actually hear the answers to his questions when he said told Richards “This is my time. This is my time. So don’t interrupt it.” The audio is below, and it’s pretty clear that Gosar wasn’t there to listen:

2. Everyone Freaked Out About Mammograms

One of the big criticisms about Planned Parenthood brought out at the hearing was that the organization does not provide mammograms, despite being an organization that does provide a relatively inclusive array of health services. Over and over, the reps questioning Richards tried to insinuate that because Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide this one particular service, it renders all of the other things it does useless.

The thing is, mammograms require very specific tools and trained professionals and for providers be accredited by the American College of Radiology. They take place in hospitals or radiology centers, because those are the places that are equipped to provide them. Planned Parenthood shouldn’t be condemned for not providing services that it is not equipped to provide, moreover the organization works with some radiology centers to provide mammograms to low income women when possible. A lack of mammogram services on site does not mean that all of the other services it provides are no longer useful, legitimate, and very much needed. But nice try, Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) who attempted so very hard to imply that’s the case.

1. Really Just the Worst Chart

By now, most of you have probably heard of or seen the chart that Chaffetz displayed, that stood contrary to pretty much all logic and math.

Whatever you think of Planned Parenthood, this is a terrible and dishonest chart http://t.co/9p4OwETuoX pic.twitter.com/VtLhy3ayOj

— Vox (@voxdotcom) September 30, 2015

The red line is supposed to portray the number of abortions conducted by Planned Parenthood; the pink line cancer screening and prevention services (these are not the only services that Planned Parenthood provides, but the two that were cherry-picked for the purposes of this chart.) The chart is attempting to show that overall number of abortions performed has gone up from 2006 to 2013, and the number of cancer screening and prevention services has gone down over the same time period. But the chart isn’t anything even remotely to scale, as it makes 327,000 look like it’s a larger number than 935,573. That is obviously incorrect.

Chaffetz then asked Richards to explain the chart. She couldn’t, because she’s presumably a sane human being, and then explained to Chaffetz:

My lawyers have informed me that the source of this is Americans United for Life which is an anti-abortion group so I would check your source.

To which Chaffetz paused and replied: “Then we will get to the bottom of the truth of that.”

Yes Chaffetz, please do get the “bottom of the truth” of who made this truly horrendous and non-sensical chart.

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 Top 5 Most Ridiculous Moments From the Planned Parenthood Hearing appeared first on Law Street.

News broke this morning that Speaker of the House John Boehner will be resigning from Congress at the end of October. While some are rejoicing that the congressman, perhaps best known for his slightly orange visage and very active tear ducts, is stepping down, it’s also indicative of the identity crisis that is threatening to consume the Republican Party.

Boehner has long clashed with the more conservative, tea party side of his party. Most recently, members of the Freedom Caucus, some of Boehner’s biggest antagonists, threatened to oust him from the leadership if he didn’t make defunding Planned Parenthood a priority in the ongoing budget fight. This isn’t the first time they’ve tried–this has been a long-waged battle. But if they were successful this time around, Boehner was most likely going to have to rely on liberal support to keep his seat, which would be both an unpredictable and embarrassing situation.

But, by stepping down, Boehner also gains some freedom. No longer held hostage by the fact that he may lose a seat he no longer wants, Boehner now has the ability to advocate for a bill that will avoid a government shutdown. A clean spending bill, without the Planned Parenthood provisions, seems likely to pass. A Boehner aide stated about his decision:

The Speaker believes putting members through prolonged leadership turmoil would do irreparable damage to the institution. He is proud of what this majority has accomplished, and his Speakership, but for the good of the Republican Conference and the institution, he will resign the Speakership and his seat in Congress, effective October 30.

Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House before Boehner took the stage for a press conference around 10:45 this morning, pointing out that Boehner’s resignation is indicative of the struggles that the Republican Party is facing right now.

No one is entirely sure who is going to take over Boehner’s seat. Right now, the most likely candidate seems to be Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, the highest ranking Republican in Congress after Boehner. But McCarthy falls more in line with Republican establishment than the more conservative members trying to oust Boehner. Whether or not there will be a challenge from the right will be interesting to watch–this battle could get incredibly divisive. Given the infighting currently taking place in the Republican Party over who will be the 2016 nominee, it will be interesting to see if the battle for the House leadership gets just as messy.

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 John Boehner Resigns: Another Establishment Republican Bites the Dust appeared first on Law Street.

As Congress returns to Washington there are several important issues on the docket, from the Iran deal to Pope Francis’ speech, but there is one major debate that is sure to take center stage in the coming days: budget negotiations. It’s certainly not everyone’s favorite reminder of Fall, but it comes each year as sure as the change in seasons. This time around, the budget debate is shaping up to be a particularly ugly battle and may even lead to yet another government shutdown.

Creating a budget traditionally involves the passage of 12 different bills, which fund various parts of the government. But in recent years, Congress has had difficulty passing budget measures and has resorted to using continuing resolutions, which essentially maintain existing funding levels for a short period of time to extend negotiations. The last time Congress passed all 12 bills on time (before the fiscal year begins on October 1) was back in 1996.

When Congress does pass a budget, it typically takes the form of an omnibus bill that combines all of the various spending measures into one piece of legislation. However, such bills often include a lot of minor amendments that allow congressmen to sneak in controversial policies. These changes manage to get through because they are attached to such an important bill, which few people want to derail over one specific issue. A recent example of this was the so-called “Cromnibus” bill, a continuing resolution that was passed at the 11th hour (almost literally) before an impending shutdown last December. The bill included some contentious elements, like raising limits for donations to political parties and rolling back some of the regulations passed after the 2008 financial crisis.

This year, there are several major hurdles that Congress must get past in order to agree on a new budget, which makes a shutdown all the more likely. For those of you who remember the 2013 shutdown–which sought to push back the implementation of Obamacare and lasted for 16 days–a familiar face is back at the center of attention: Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Cruz is leading an emerging group of conservative Republicans who want to stop federal funding for Planned Parenthood–the non-profit healthcare organization that provides a range of reproductive health services including, controversially, abortions. Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million annually; however, due to a decades-old amendment, that funding cannot be used for abortions.

While Planned Parenthood is perennially a hot topic in American politics, it has become the subject of a lot of attention lately after a series of videos were released alleging that the organization sold organs and tissue from aborted fetuses to researchers. The videos were released by an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress. So far, state investigations into Planned Parenthood have found no evidence of wrongdoing and a review of the videos indicate that they were edited before publishing.

There are currently 28 Republicans in the House and Senator Cruz in the Senate who have stated their commitment to either defunding Planned Parenthood or forcing a government shutdown. If the movement garners enough support, the group could refuse to vote on any spending measure that includes any funding for Planned Parenthood. Even if Congress manages to pass a budget that defunds the organization, it will still likely lead to a shutdown because President Obama has already vowed to veto any such bill. Cruz and his allies’ proposed alternative to Planned Parenthood funding calls for the money to be given to community health centers. While several Republicans favor defunding Planned Parenthood, few may be willing to shut down the government over the issue–putting many, particularly the party leaders, in a very difficult position. If the government does shut down it is likely that Congress will take the blame. After the 2013 shutdown, approval of Republicans in Congress reached an all-time low, and now that the party controls both the House and the Senate a shutdown could be even more embarrassing.

Based on the way the budget talks are developing, it’s clear that Planned Parenthood will be one of, if not the most, important issues as the deadline comes closer, but its funding won’t be the only controversial topic in budget talks. Due to the Budget Control Act passed in 2011, also known as the sequester, caps were placed on both domestic and military spending. President Obama has harshly criticized the caps for domestic spending and many Republicans want to provide additional military spending after the Pentagon’s budget faced dramatic cuts as sequestration began. Republicans are now trying to move funding from domestic programs as a way to increase military spending, but President Obama and Congressional Democrats will likely reject any compromise that does not include raising domestic spending. The President has promised to veto any bill that leaves sequestration-level budget caps in place.

Congress only has just over 10 legislative days to pass a new budget or a continuing resolution before the government shuts down at midnight on September 30. Some experts. like Stan Collender, have given precise estimates–Collender believes there is a 67 percent chance of a shutdown. Overall, the likelihood of either solution seems to be in doubt as the deadline looms closer, leaving budget analysts to argue that a shutdown is more likely than not.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brace Yourselves: A Government Shutdown May Be Looming appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Barbra Mikulski of Maryland came out in favor of the Iran deal Wednesday morning, and with that the deal’s opponents will no longer be able to stop it from going forward. With Mikulski’s support, the deal to scale back the Iranian nuclear program in exchange for the removal of U.S. sanctions is essentially final.

First things first: the Iran deal was already going to happen. But what was at stake prior to Mikulski’s announcement was the deal’s opponents’ ability to pass a resolution disapproving it–which would prevent the president from lifting sanctions, but would still not stop the entire agreement. Because the negotiations involved several other countries, who have already promised to lift their sanctions, many aspects of the deal would have gone forward regardless of what Congress does.

Now that it is impossible for Congress to override an Obama veto, there is nothing stopping the deal. A veto override would require a two-thirds majority from both chambers of Congress–67 in the Senate and 290 in the House of Representatives. Senator Mikulski is now the 34th senator to support the deal, creating enough support to maintain a veto from the president. Traditionally, Congress would not have the power to stop an agreement like this, but it passed a bill in May that mandated a 60-day review period during which Congress could stop sanctions relief with a disapproval resolution.

Despite the clear path to the deal, there remains some politics to play. The fact that an Obama veto can no longer be overturned frees up several Congressional Democrats to oppose the deal for purely political reasons, as their opposition will not impact the deal. So far only two leading Democrats, Senators Schumer and Menendez, have come out against the deal. But now that the bulk of the pressure is off other Democrats to fall in line with the President, others may begin to oppose the deal.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans may still decide to hold a vote on a disapproval resolution, which while symbolic, would end up getting vetoed. While Obama can stop any action by Congress, having to use his veto would be slightly embarrassing and politically damaging. The Iran deal will likely remain fodder for Republicans in the upcoming election and as a counterpoint to the White House’s foreign policy agenda going forward.

The deal has already prompted a response from several presidential candidates:

Partisan minority should not block bipartisan effort to stop bad deal that will fund mullahs, destabilize region, & pave Iran’s path to bomb

— Jeb Bush (@JebBush) September 2, 2015

When I’m President, we won’t just reverse President Obama’s dangerous Iran deal. We will increase sanctions on Iran.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) September 2, 2015

Great news that the Iran Deal has enough votes; as POTUS, I would aggressively enforce it and counter Iran’s other malicious activities. -H

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) September 3, 2015

The Iran deal was already a hot topic in the upcoming election, but now that it is moving forward the debate will likely intensify. Beyond the election, the deal will be important for Americans politics–especially if Congressional Republicans go forward with their plan to pass a resolution of disapproval, which they have until September 17 to do. While action from Congress will likely not effect the future of the deal, it could cost the President some influence.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Whether You Like it or Not, the Iran Deal is Happening appeared first on Law Street.

Amid a recent push to make climate change a larger issue in American politics, President Obama is traveling to Alaska to help give a more visual appreciation of how the climate is changing. The Obama administration has ratcheted up its efforts to fight climate change, but the Alaska trip shows a slight change in its tactics. Until now, Obama has focused largely on taking action in the form of new regulations and subsidies that prevent pollution and encourage the use of renewable energy. But in Alaska, Obama seeks to put a face to an issue that is often seen as complicated, boring, and distant.

Before his departure to Alaska, President Obama announced that the name of Mt. McKinley will be changed back to Denali–the name originally given to it by Alaska Natives.

The mountain has spoken Mt McKinley officially renamed Denali: http://t.co/VSN2vl7yZo Congrats, Alaska! pic.twitter.com/ZdRTJ2PEHL

— US Dept of Interior (@Interior) August 30, 2015

While in Alaska, the President visited melting glaciers, met with Bear Grylls, spoke with Alaskan Natives, and gave multiples speeches about the importance of addressing climate change. The tone of his trip is focusing on the real life effects of climate change and the growing need for action, a topic that Obama will likely discuss frequently in the months leading up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris this December.

The President’s decision to visit Alaska is significant but also complicated. Of the 50 states, Alaska is arguably the most affected by climate change, yet the Obama Administration recently granted Royal Dutch Shell a permit to drill in the Arctic’s Chukchi Sea. The decision to allow drilling caused backlash from environmentalists and the timing of the President’s Alaska trip has caused some groups, like the progressive social change organization Credo, to call Obama a hypocrite (although some of the group’s other claims are problematic).

Despite the drilling controversy, Alaska is experiencing significant climate change effects and Obama’s trip intends to highlight that. Temperatures in Alaska have risen more than in the rest of the United States, and climate change is beginning to affect the lives of the state’s residents. According to a recent National Climate Assessment:

Over the past 60 years, Alaska has warmed more than twice as rapidly as the rest of the U.S., with average annual air temperature increasing by 3°F and average winter temperature by 6°F, with substantial year-to-year and regional variability.

A possible consequence for the increase in temperature is a rise in the number and severity of wildfires, which are a big problem for Alaska. According to recent research, the Alaskan wildfire season has increased by more than 40 percent since 1950, and was particularly bad this summer. Melting glaciers, thawing permafrost, and reduced snow cover are quickly affecting the Alaskan landscape. A recent Atlantic article highlighted the effects of climate change on the people in Newtok, Alaska–who actually voted to relocate their town before it was destroyed by rising water levels.

For years, Obama has lamented the lack of action and pushback from Congress, but now he is taking a much more aggressive approach. In his speech on Tuesday, he attacked those who refuse to acknowledge the issue, saying, “The time to plead ignorance is surely past.  Those who want to ignore the science, they are increasingly alone.  They’re on their own shrinking island,” in a speech to the GLACIER conference. His remarks also emphasized that time to address climate change is running out, painting a grave picture of what could happen if emissions are not significantly reduced, saying:

If we were to abandon our course of action, if we stop trying to build a clean-energy economy and reduce carbon pollution, if we do nothing to keep the glaciers from melting faster, and oceans from rising faster, and forests from burning faster, and storms from growing stronger, we will condemn our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair

It’s difficult to tell whether the President’s new approach to trumpeting climate change will shift public opinion, but climate change will likely get more attention moving forward. With the Paris climate conference in December, the Democratic presidential candidates continuing to raise the issue, and impending legal challenges to new EPA regulations, climate change will be the topic of much discussion. Although most Americans acknowledge the fact that the climate is changing, they still rate it low on their list of priorities. While the future remains difficult to predict, the conversation has certainly been started.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Doubles Down on Climate Change In Alaska appeared first on Law Street.

You’ve probably heard the name Schumer before–but the question is whether politics and taxes on private equity managers or jokes about women’s sexuality and vaginas come to mind. Now, the two Schumers will be increasingly associated. Comedian, writer, and actress Amy Schumer and her cousin, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, publicly announced on Monday that they are teaming up to fight gun violence. The announcement comes just two weeks after a fatal shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, when a gunman opened fire at a screening of Amy Schumer’s new movie “Trainwreck,” killing two women and injuring nine others before committing suicide.

My heart is broken and all my thoughts and prayers are with everyone in Louisiana.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) July 24, 2015

The comedian has called this shooting “extremely personal” and stated that she thinks of the two women who were killed during the showing of her movie every day. “This should not have happened,” she said at a news conference alongside her Senator cousin on Monday. “It’s a tragic, senseless and horrifying action from this man who should not have been able to put his hands on a gun in the first place.” The Lafayette shooter bought his gun in Alabama last year after a background check failed to reveal his history of psychiatric problems and that he had been the subject of domestic violence complaints. Senator Schumer, sponsor of the “Brady Act” that was passed 20 years ago and requires background checks for gun buyers, stated, “We should do everything possible to tighten up loop holes,” and that “we can’t sit back and let mass shooting become commonplace.”

Senator Schumer proposed new gun control measures that are meant to prevent violent criminals, abusers, and those with mental illnesses from obtaining guns. The legislation would improve the currently flawed background check system by creating monetary incentives for states that submit thorough reports to the federal database used to block gun sales to people with criminal records or a history of serious mental illness. The bill would also create penalties for states that fail to submit these records to the database. The Senator emphasized that this new plan is about improving the present background check system, not putting new restrictions on buyers.

74% of Americans want stronger background checks. Joining @amyschumer to call on my colleagues in Congress to finally listen. More at 11.

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) August 3, 2015

On Saturday, Amy Schumer tweeted in response to an open letter addressed to her from a Georgetown University student who called on Schumer to speak out against gun violence and advocate for stricter gun laws. “Your movie — which was so well-received, so brilliant, so you — will now forever have this shooting attached to it,” the letter begins. The letter, which went viral on social media, raised many points about women’s victimization from gun violence, stating that every day in the United States, five women are murdered with a gun, making American women 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other high-income countries. The letter continues with more chilling statistics about gun violence against women, stating:

And from 2001 through 2012, 6,410 women were murdered in the United States by an intimate partner using a gun — more than the total number of U.S. troops killed in action during the entirety of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

The author of the letter, Sarah Clements, says that she knows the “guilt, the sadness, the hole in your heart” that Schumer must have experienced upon hearing the news of the shooting. Clements writes that her mother was a survivor of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, and she has since dedicated her life’s work to gun violence prevention. After Schumer read the letter, she tweeted in response, saying not to worry because she is “on it.”

@cdickason11 @sfclem Her name was Mayci, not Marci and I think about her and Jillian everyday. Don't worry I'm on it. You'll see.

— Amy Schumer (@amyschumer) August 1, 2015

And she was on it. Just two days after the tweet, Schumer followed her cousin’s presentation on his plans for gun violence prevention with an emotional speech at the New York press conference. “Unless something is done and done soon, dangerous people will continue to get their hands on guns,” she said. “We never know why people choose to do these things,” Amy Schumer stated, “but sadly we always find out how, how the shooter got their gun.” She said that her cousin’s three-step plan “deserves unanimous support” because it seeks to address the flaws in the “how.”

Amy Schumer fights gun violence: 'Shootings have got to stop' http://t.co/t29GcKiWY3 pic.twitter.com/MH2Uj68iIt

— TODAY (@TODAYshow) August 4, 2015

Mass killings in the United States have occurred with increasing frequency in recent years. From 2000 to 2007, an average of 6.4 active shootings occurred per year; from 2007 to 2013, that number jumped to 16.4 incidents per year. These mass killings will continue to gain momentum unless we pass legislation that creates serious incentives for states to obey the gun restriction laws that are already in place. Not only do we need to buckle down on the current system of gun control that is not being followed, but we also need to eventually introduce new restrictions. In a majority of mass shootings, killers obtained their weapons legally. This fact warrants significant pause; our laws are not protecting us from danger and are allowing individuals to commit mass murders. All in all, serious improvements to America’s gun laws are needed.

Senator Chuck Schumer and Amy Schumer are using their public platforms to advocate for necessary change that will hopefully spark a more robust conversation on gun control that has been fleeting and unfinished in the past. Amy Schumer’s last line during Monday’s press conference has left everyone wondering what is next for the Schumer pair when she stated: “These are my first public comments on the issue of gun violence, but I can promise you they will not be my last.”

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Schumers are On It: Gun Violence Prevention Has a Few New Faces 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.

What’s for dinner tonight? Perhaps steamed corn, infused with some delicious dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Or maybe, if you’re feeling bold, you’ll eat some tofu bites containing glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified in March as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Corn, soy, sugar, papayas, milk, zucchini—the list goes on; the number of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is multiplying. The U.S. House of Representative’s decision on Thursday to pass a law that would block states from mandating GMO labels only contributes to the danger that these GMO or genetically engineered (GE) foods inflict on farmers, on the environment, and on consumers.

So what are GMOs exactly, and why are they causing such a scene on Capitol Hill? Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals that are genetically altered to exhibit traits that are not natural, primarily a resistance to pesticides and herbicides. It may sound brilliant to have developed crops that can withstand the chemicals necessary to cultivate large amounts, but GMOs are often untested, require dangerous chemicals in their farming, and may be a threat to organic foods and to the environment. In the United States, GMO foods require no pre-market testing. Unlike with drug production, where there is mandatory testing on animals, mandatory human clinical trials, mandatory tests of carcinogenicity, fetal impact, neurological impact, and at least some limited allergy testing, none of those steps are required for these crops.

The American Medical Association has stated that mandatory testing should be required before GE foods and ingredients are introduced on the market, but lawmakers continue to ignore medical research centers, farmers, and constituents who oppose or at least want labels on GMOs. Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods for consumers but unfortunately these three states are the exception, not the rule. Last week, a majority of Representatives voted in favor of a law that prevents states from mandating GMO labels, stating that labeling GMO foods is “misleading.” Supporters of the bill said that labeling foods that contain GMOs sends a message to consumers that the products are risky, and that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GMOs are not dangerous. However, that information is based on testing by scientists who are funded and influenced by the companies who own GMOs. Opponents of the bill called banning the labeling of GMOs “an infringement of the public’s right to know what’s in their food.”

Currently, 64 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs, including all 28 nations of the European Union, Russia, and China. Our lack of GMO labels is not only causing us to fall behind most other developed countries, but is also failing the satisfy a vast majority of Americans who support GMO labeling. A total of 92 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled and in the past two years, more than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states.

In 2012, some of America’s most profitable chemical companies teamed up with large food companies to defeat California’s Proposition 37, an initiative that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, PepsiCo, CocaCola, Nestle, and several other companies spent over 45 million dollars to block the legislation. Why? Because keeping consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs can be profitable, and requiring labels would allow consumers to question what they’re consuming before they buy. The companies that own GMO seeds, which are patented, sell their seeds to farmers who then buy herbicides from the same companies who also own the chemicals. This brilliant business model is racking up millions for these corporations, but is causing people to consume more and more dangerous herbicides.

Another concerning symptom is that weeds are becoming resistant to the hazardous chemicals. Genetically engineered crops are designed to survive weed killers. Corporations like Monsanto that create these herbicides and pesticides claim that herbicide use has decreased since the introduction of GE crops; however, before GE crops were cultivated, weeds resistant to Roundup did not exist. There are now 14 known species of Roundup-resistant weeds in the U.S. alone, known as “super weeds.” Super weeds have been reported on half of all U.S. farms and cost farmers millions of dollars a year to control. With more weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, farmers now have to spray larger quantities of even more toxic herbicides on their crops to kill weeds, like 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d), a component of the poisonous Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War. GMOs intensify the problem of herbicide use and create more super weeds that are immune to harsh chemicals, disrupt the environment, and contaminate water systems.

In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. The panel pointed to chemicals, primarily herbicides in our air, water, soil, and food as the primary cause of this increased cancer rate. Later that same summer, the journal Pediatrics reported in a peer-reviewed study that there is a direct correlation between pesticide exposure and increased ADHD diagnoses. In 2011 a study revealed that the insecticide in GMO corn was detected in the umbilical cord blood of pregnant women. With 90 percent of soy and 85 percent of corn now genetically engineered, and super weeds on the rise leading to harsher chemicals being used on our food, GMO consumers are being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals. And without GMO labels, shoppers have no idea if the foods they are eating are a part of that group.

Congress’s decision last week to block any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops proves that corporate influence in Washington is taking away our right to choose what we consume. Genetically modified foods can and should be labeled, and Congress has an obligation to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who support the right to know what they are consuming via GMO labels. The FDA’s Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act states that the consumer has a right to know when something is added to food that changes it in ways a consumer would likely not recognize, and that indicates labeling should be required. Just like juice from concentrate, wild versus farmed, country of origin, and many other mandatory labels we see on our foods, GMOs should also be visible, since the chemicals that come with them are not. We have a right to know and a right to choose. It’s time to question whether the FDA and Congress are here to protect us, the people, or to protect a handful of chemical companies that want to keep us in the dark.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GMO Labeling: The American People Have A Right To Know appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama recently acknowledged that his failure to pass common sense gun control laws in the U.S. has been his greatest frustration in his presidency. In a Thursday interview with BBC, President Obama claimed that it was distressing not to have made progress on the issue, even in the face of repeated mass killings.

His comments came hours before another mass shooting took place in Lafayette, Louisiana Thursday night. John Houser killed two people and wounded nine others at the Lafayette multiplex Thursday night before he turned his gun on himself and took his own life, police said.

However Obama signaled that he would continue to work on gun laws during his remaining time in the White House. He stated: 

It is the fact that the United States of America is the one advanced nation on earth in which we do not have sufficient common-sense, gun-safety laws. Even in the face of repeated mass killings.

If you look at the number of Americans killed since 9/11 by terrorism, it’s less than 100. If you look at the number been killed by gun violence, it’s in the tens of thousands. And for us not to be able to resolve that issue has been something that is distressing. But it is not something that I intend to stop working on in the remaining 18 months.

Nationally, guns kill 33,000 Americans and injure 80,000 a year. The total cost of gun violence is $229 billion a year, almost as much as we spend on Medicaid. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center recently found that there’s a substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. But despite the high levels of gun violence, Congress has no plans to investigate a solution.

In regard to gun control laws in the United States, Louisiana has some of the weakest gun laws in the nation. It does not require gun dealers to obtain a state license. The state also has no laws that restrict assault weapons or .50 caliber rifles.

One week after the shooting at Charleston’s Emmanuel AME Church, the House Appropriations Committee voted 32-19 against an amendment that would reverse a 19-year-old ban on funding for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to research the causes of gun violence in public health. Their reasoning is that gun violence is not a disease, and therefore does not fall under the CDC’s research domain.

The CDC had been conducting research into gun violence as a “public health phenomenon” and began publishing studies that indicated a strong correlation between the presence of guns and firearm-related deaths. Prior this, the CDC’s budget was cut in 1996 by $2.6 million, the exact amount they had spent on researching gun facilities in 1995. As a result of that cut, many scientists stopped doing gun research, and the number of publications on firearm violence decreased dramatically. Reuters has reported that government research into gun mortality has shrunk by 96 percent since the NRA’s campaign in the 1990s.

Although Obama has claimed that he will work to address gun violence in the United States during his remaining time as president, it is unclear how he will go about endorsing these big changes without the support of Congress. That being said, last week’s events show that some sort of common sense change is clearly necessary.

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 Obama Rallies Against Lack of Common Sense in American Gun Control Laws appeared first on Law Street.

How do Millennials help America build a better future? With over 1,200 business-casual-clad young activists and leaders packed into a chilly ballroom washed with blue stage lights, Generation Progress rallied Millennials in Washington, D.C. at its national summit on Thursday in an attempt to find out.

Now in its tenth year, Generation Progress’s “Make Progress” National Summit offers young people a day packed with well known speakers, inspiring dialogues, and stimulating buzzwords. With keynote speakers on the main stage and breakout sessions on topics ranging from diversity in public office to sexual assault prevention and student debt, attendees throughout the day were empowered through education on critical issues. Through communal support and prodigious encouragement from American leaders, the mood was alive with the goal of the day: creating progress.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren opened up the summit with an invigorating speech that earned dozens of standing ovations. Reverberating energy, Senator Warren spoke about college affordability, diversity, and social change inspired by activism. During one pause, an audience member yelled out “Run for president!” to which the Senator responded with a big grin and a chuckle, while everyone else jumped to their feet and erupted in approving cheers and applause. Her most applauded statement was that the progressive Supreme Court decisions over the past weeks were the direct result of young activists who dedicate their lives to fighting for social justice, stating, “We get what we fight for. Are you ready to get out there and fight?”

This morning I told young people at #MakeProgress: You get what you fight for. pic.twitter.com/JhwTtTzGBa

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) July 16, 2015

Michele Jawando, Vice President for Legal Progress at the Center for American Progress, later took the stage for a sobering panel on reforming the criminal justice system. She expressed her belief that young people putting pressure on their elected officials and demanding change is critical, and commended the Millennial generation for its high level of engagement with issues of importance, simultaneously striking down the notion that our generation is unengaged or uninformed.

After asking the audience to “stand up if you have participated in a march, a protest, or an online day of action in the past six months,” more than half of the room was standing. Jawando stated, “the only time Congress pays attention is when there is enough action that forces them to pay attention.” She praised those who partake in activist movements, particularly the sit-ins that forced members of Congress to face the consequences of adverse decisions, and encouraged all to become involved. The discussion then led to a breakdown of the 1994 crime bill that increased mandatory minimums for those sentenced to prison, created the “tough on crime” rhetoric that is only recently beginning to be critically questioned, and created a definition of criminals as young people of color. Jawando said that many current members of Congress were members in 1994 when this draconian bill was passed and that “some of those members don’t really want to concede, they don’t want to admit they were wrong.” She then expressed that while discussing reform is important, action needs to be immediate. “Yeah we are tweeting about it, we’re writing about it, we’re marching in the streets…But we still have to pass a bill y’all.”

Jawando made a few key remarks that resonated deeply with the young, social justice-minded audience; first, that there is a strong connection between the people who are elected and the changes we see in society. Second, that humanizing issues and telling personal stories of injustice is the most powerful way to inspire change. And third, that there is a dangerous misconception that people who are in prison always deserve to be there; Jawando stated that this mindset of “otherization,” or the “us versus them” mentality, will continue to act as a barrier to change until these divisions are broken.

.@MicheleJawando shares her personal experience on discrimination & the criminal justice system #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/43TsktDXrl

— LCLAA (@LCLAA) July 16, 2015

My favorite breakout panel occurred in the afternoon: “It’s On US: Advocates Creating Cultural Change” featuring keynote speaker Tina Tchen. Tchen, Assistant to President Obama, Chief of Staff to Michelle Obama, and Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls, gave an inspiring and informative speech on Generation Progress’s national campaign to prevent sexual assault. One in five women on college campuses will be sexually assaulted or experience some form of sexual violence by the time they graduate college. “We know, and you know, that this is a crisis on campuses,” Tchen said. The It’s On US movement on college campuses aims to fundamentally change the environment of rape culture and shift the conversation to be empowering for survivors and encouraging for those who have the ability to intervene in situations that could end in assault. “We are fundamentally on our way to a society that recognizes and supports survivors,” Tchen said over snaps and applause. Panelists encouraged students to join or start It’s On US on their respective college campuses, and to take the pledge to end sexual assault.

"It's not just about stopping sexual assault on campus. That is just the start."-Tina Tchen at #MakeProgress @ItsOnUs pic.twitter.com/apyLvEcAlR

— Chante Harris (@chante__harris) July 16, 2015

The final speaker of the day, and the most anticipated, was Vice President Joe Biden. All smartphones were whipped out to welcome the Vice President and most summit-goers found themselves on tiptoe in their chairs to catch a better glimpse of the esteemed guest. Mr. Biden gave a powerful, insightful, but occasionally lighthearted speech, that felt much more like sitting down for an after-dinner conversation with an affectionate grandfather than an address by the Vice President. The VP touched on a range of topics, from the need to create affordable education, to climate change, to closing the expanding wage gap in the country. He even called on politicians to resist donations from millionaires and billionaires to fund their primary election campaigns, potentially an allusion to Senator Bernie Sanders who also cares deeply and advocates against the privatization of political donations.

"If you could do only 1 thing to increase equality what would it be?" @VP asks the #MakeProgress crowd. "Get private money out of politics"

— Generation Progress (@genprogress) July 16, 2015

The Vice President expressed his sincere appreciation and confidence in the Millennial generation, stating “There’s more reason today than ever before to be idealistic, optimistic, tenacious, passionate, and principled.” The most prominent message Mr. Biden delivered during his time on stage was that passion, just like the passion in the room before him, is what generates social change and makes progress.

"I applaud your passion. Never apologize for it. Never explain it away." @JoeBiden at @genprogress #MakeProgress pic.twitter.com/T5cowdiCLT

— Emily Dalgo (@DalgoEmily) July 16, 2015

Generation Progress’s Make Progress National Summit concluded with a slew of selfies with Joe Biden and a ballroom full of young activists stepping back into the D.C. sun with newfound inspiration and admiration for the causes they believe in. The summit, though only one day long, has the power and the potential to ignite young minds for years to come. Make Progress is proof that Millennials do care about the issues. They are engaged, they’re active, and they’re ready to fight. Outside, the only audible sound was of heels clicking and dress shoes clacking on the sidewalks as the attendees trickled out of the summit. But one sound still echoed in everyone minds: applause and cheers for change, for action, and for progress.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Generation Progress Encourages Millennials to “Make Progress” appeared first on Law Street.

A historic breakthrough for international diplomacy was reached Tuesday when President Obama announced the conclusion of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations after 20 months of discussions and international debate. The deal ensures that Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful and provides security measures that should instill trust in the Iranian nuclear program. Iran has agreed to dramatically decrease its nuclear infrastructure in exchange for relief from international sanctions that have suffocated Iran’s economy for years. A few fundamental points of the deal include Iran’s agreement to keep its uranium enrichment levels at or below 3.67 percent, a dramatic decrease. The deal reduces Iran’s nuclear stockpile by about 98 percent, allowing the state to maintain a uranium reserve under 300 kilograms, which is down from its current 10,000-kilogram stock. Iran has also agreed to ship spent fuel outside its borders, diminishing the likelihood of uranium enrichment intended to produce a nuclear weapon. Iran will be bound to extremely intrusive inspections by the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and will face the looming possibility of harsh sanction reimposition if it is found to be evading its commitments or in noncompliance with the deal.

On Wednesday afternoon, Obama held a press conference in the White House East Room where he welcomed critics and reporters to ask questions of him regarding the newly struck nuclear deal. The conference lasted more than an hour, and drew out several candid responses from an increasingly condescending President Obama along with a slew of entertaining commentary by the president toward critics of the nuclear deal. Frustrated, annoyed, or patronizing–whatever the president’s mood was, it was rightfully earned; the criticisms of the Iran nuclear deal thus far and during the press conference are almost disappointingly invalid or inadequate. It’s easy to see how it becomes aggravating to explain the details of a decision that has been 20 months in the making to politicians who had prearranged to lobby against the deal before it even existed. It’s also easy to see how he became flippant toward reporters who are asking questions about Bill Cosby in the middle of the press conference that is supposed to address one of the most critical, comprehensive, and complex diplomatic agreements in history. So with that in mind, here are the best and sassiest quotes from Wednesday’s press conference:

1. “Major, that’s nonsense. And you should know better.”

After CBS News reporter Major Garrett asked the President why he is “content” with the fanfare around the Iran deal when there are four American political prisoners currently in Iran, Obama was not happy. His response was that the United States should not act on this deal based on the detainees’ status because Iran would take advantage of the American prisoners and try to gain additional concessions by continuing to hold them captive. He stated that deal or no deal, we are still working hard to get these four Americans out.

2. “My hope is — is that everyone in Congress also evaluates this agreement based on the facts… But, we live in Washington.”

Well, let’s be honest, those of us who actually live in Washington would prefer that Congress not be lumped in with the rest of us during this debate. Can they debate somewhere else?

3. “You know, the facts are the facts, and I’m not concerned about what others say about it.”

Sticks and stones, Barack, sticks and stones.

4. “The argument that I’ve been already hearing… that because this deal does not solve all those other problems, that’s an argument for rejecting this deal, defies logic: it makes no sense.”

Here, Obama made a direct jab at Republicans in Congress who are trying to justify their opposition to the nuclear deal by saying that Iran is not moderate and won’t change because of this deal. The President said that the deal was never designed to solve every problem in Iran. Obama says this rhetoric, besides being plain wrong and nonsensical, loses sight of the number one priority–making sure Iran does not develop a bomb.

5. “I’m hearing a lot of talking points being repeated about “This is a bad deal. This is a historically bad deal. This will threaten Israel and threaten the world and threaten the United States.” I mean, there’s been a lot of that.”

Condescending Obama strikes again, and reminded us that this deal won’t, in fact, make the world implode. Pro tip: read the quote within the quote in a nasally, Obama-making-fun-of-Congress voice.

6. “This is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and wheel off somewhere.”

Obama said that under the new safeguards and the international community’s watchful eye, the Iranian government simply won’t be able to hide any uranium or plutonium that they might be (but probably aren’t) covertly enriching. Because under the bed and in the closet is definitely the first place the United Nations will check, duh.

7. “Now, you’ll hear some critics say, “well, we could have negotiated a better deal.” OK. What does that mean?”

The Republicans are right. We could have also found a unicorn and put sprinkles on top.

8. “So to go back to Congress, I challenge those who are objecting to this agreement…to explain specifically where it is that they think this agreement does not prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and why they’re right and people like Ernie Moniz, who is an MIT nuclear physicist and an expert in these issues is wrong.”

Mic drop.

9. “It’s not the job of the president of the United States to solve every problem in the Middle East.”

Well that didn’t stop anyone with the last name “Bush” from trying.

10. “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

While this wasn’t from the press conference, it was too good not to include. Obama faces a hard sell to Congress and is determined to push the deal through. He stated that if the nuclear deal fails in Congress, it won’t just be a slap in the face to the American officials who negotiated this deal, but to the international community and the other five countries who spent years negotiating.

The president left the press conference promising to address the deal again, stating, “I suspect this is not the last that we’ve heard of this debate.”

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top 10 Condescending Quotes From Obama’s Iran Deal Press Conference 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.

Bernard “Bernie” Sanders, self-described Democratic Socialist, is a 73-year-old senator from Vermont, the longest serving independent in Congressional history, and a Presidential candidate. He’s been described as “one of the few elected officials who is fundamentally devoted to dealing with the plight of poor and working people” and he’s gaining ground in the polls on the Democratic front-runner, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Sanders polled within 8 percentage points of Clinton in New Hampshire last week, a pretty big deal since the New Hampshire primary comes first in the series of nationwide party primary elections. From social justice and climate change to trade agreements and health care, Bernie’s got some all-inclusive views that I can definitely get on board with. Here are 10 reasons why you’ll want to #FeelTheBern in 2016.

1. #SocialistBern: Bernie wants to provide a free college education for everyone.

Rather than cutting Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, Bernie wants to cut military spending and put that money towards education. That means that public colleges and universities in the country would be tuition-free.

 Say goodbye to college debt with #TheBern.

2. #ProgressiveBern: He wants to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

Disposable income FTW.

3. #CivilRightsBern: He marched with MLK.

Bernie Sanders is one of two sitting senators to have attended the March on Washington in 1963 to hear MLK’s I Have A Dream Speech.

If only The Bern could still move like this…

4. #HappyBern: He’s never run a negative advertisement in over 30 years.

He has stated, “I’ve never run a negative political ad in my life…I believe in serious debates on serious issues.”

 He who hath not bitched on my TV hath mine vote.

5. #DemocracyBern: He wants to make Election Day a national holiday.

“In America, we should be celebrating our democracy and doing everything possible to make it easier for people to participate in the political process. Election Day should be a national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote. While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to create a more vibrant democracy.”

Get ready for your new favorite holiday.

6. #FlowerBern: Bernie loves the environment.

The Bern serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where he’s focused on global warming. He introduced the End Polluter Welfare Act to end subsidies to fossil fuel companies that immorally get huge tax breaks.

Peace, Love, and Bernie Sanders for President.

7. #PeacefulBern: He opposed entering the war in Iraq.

No further commentary needed.

8. #99PercentBern: He wants to reform the campaign finance system that allows “billionaires” to “buy elections and candidates.”

GOP better take its money and run.

9. #EqualityBern: He’s a feminist.

Bernie believes birth control should be provided through all health care plans. He’s also stated that all women who rely on the military healthcare system should have access to contraception coverage and family planning counseling.

Finally, a man who speaks to my uterus’s needs.

10. #TheRealBern: He released a folk album.

In 1987, as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, The Bern recorded a folk album.

He’s a cool Mayor.

Feel the Bern in 2016…

And move it like Bernie to the Democratic Primaries…

So we can #BernTheHouseDown.

Jennie Burger also contributed to this story.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ten Reasons to #FeelTheBern This Election Season appeared first on Law Street.

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

The outdated law previously stipulated that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Symon Rowlands

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

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

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015

Two high-profile decisions will impact millions of lives this month, including millions of millennials, as the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinions on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage. These cases face what many regard as the most conservative court in decades, but center on two of the most prominent and progressive social justice movements in decades. At a recent Center for American Progress (CAP) event focused on the important cases of this term, I was able to hear the implications of these cases, and they’re definitely worth our attention. In the justices’ hands rests the future and stability of the American health care system and legality of marriage equality for all. The stakes couldn’t be higher this month, and that’s exactly why you should be informed of what’s going on. Here’s a breakdown—in plain English—of what you need to know:

King v. Burwell: Battle Over ObamaCare

Just because you’re young and healthy doesn’t mean you don’t need health insurance, and this particular court case will definitely impact young people. A little background is important to grasp how, though. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in March 2010. It established health insurance exchanges–marketplaces that facilitate the purchase of health insurance in each state. Exchanges provide a set of government-regulated, standardized health care plans from which individuals may purchase health insurance policies. If the individual has a limited income, the exchange allows that person to obtain premium assistance (AKA: premium subsidies) to lower the monthly cost of the health care plan, making the plan affordable.

The ACA provides states three options for the establishment of exchanges: state run exchanges, a partnership with the federal government, or complete federal control of the exchange within the state. In 2014, appellants in Virginia, D.C., Oklahoma, and Indiana argued that premium subsidies are only available under a state-run exchange, citing one clause that says that premium subsidies are available “through an Exchange established by the state.” Using this phrase, litigants argue that the ACA provides premium assistance exclusively to individuals purchasing health care on state-run exchanges.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying that the context of the phrase reveals that Congress obviously intended for the subsidies to apply in all exchanges. But in July 2014 David King, a Virginia resident, and his co-plaintiffs  petitioned the Supreme Court and in November, the court agreed to accept the case. Oral arguments were in March 2015 and in June the outcome will be released, which has the potential to strike a detrimental blow to the Affordable Care Act. Since the ACA was signed into law, thirty-four states chose not to set up their own exchange marketplace and instead allow the federal government to operate the exchange, accounting for 75 percent of the people nationwide who qualify for premium subsidies. If the Supreme Court reverses the previous decisions and rules that only state-run exchanges qualify for premium assistance, that 75 percent will no longer be considered eligible for assistance. If the Court rules against the Obama Administration this month, about 6.4 million Americans could lose their health care premiums.

"Nearly 1 in 3 uninsured Americans have already been covered—more than 16 million people" —@POTUS #ACAWorks pic.twitter.com/rXVNHrkiW1

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 9, 2015

But there’s no certainty which way this will go. At the panel discussion on Monday at CAP, Elizabeth G. Taylor, Executive Director at the National Health Law Program expressed her skepticism of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case. “What I fear is that not only do we not have an activist court, but that it is standing in the way of efforts by publicly-elected officials to name and address social problems.” Ian Millhiser, Senior Fellow at CAP, argued that the King v. Burwell case is the “weakest argument that I have ever heard reach the Supreme Court.”

It’s especially important to keep in mind that young people will be disproportionately impacted by a SCOTUS ruling against Obamacare; over 2.2 million enrollees are between the ages of 18-34, making millennials the largest group insured under the ACA. For example, a decision against the ACA could cause young people under the age of 26 (who are automatically covered under their parents’ plans, thanks to ObamaCare) to lose their health care plans if their parents can no longer afford health insurance without federal subsidies. Whether or not SCOTUS protects those Americans remains to be seen.

Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality’s Latest Frontier

Obergefell v. Hodges will decide whether or not states are required to license a marriage between same-sex couples, as well as if states are required to recognize a lawfully licensed, out-of-state marriage between two people of the same sex.

Obergefell v. Hodges – the case #SCOTUS is considering, whether #LGBT couples have a constitutional right to marry http://t.co/FCJ6yo0ZGD

— V R Gaitonde (@weareji) June 9, 2015

Again, this decision will be important for young people, particularly because of the part we’ve played in the debate. Of Americans under age 50, 73 percent believe in marriage equality. Roberta A. Kaplan, Partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, stated at the CAP event Monday that the arguments in favor of marriage equality have remained the same over the years, but what has changed is the ability of judges to hear those arguments. “There’s no doubt that what made this change is the American public,” she said. While the Supreme Court does not exist to respond to the public, it certainly appears to be aware of the momentum behind the marriage equality movement. Just weeks after Ireland became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage on a national level by popular vote, SCOTUS will issue an opinion that could put the U.S. in the same progressive bracket as 18 other countries, allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide.

Regardless of the decision though, the fight for equality won’t be over. Let’s say the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality both ways. States will be required to marry same-sex couples and recognize marriages performed out of state. But the next concern for these couples is the potential for more subtle discrimination. “Same sex couples will be allowed to marry but states will be able to discriminate in other ways,” warned Millhiser. Losing jobs, healthcare, or being denied housing and loans without explicitly stated homophobic motivations are classic examples of discrimination that could very well be implemented on the state level by authorities who are adamantly against same-sex marriage. If the ruling does come out in favor of gay couples, increasing skepticism is a must to keep unlawful, prejudiced actions in check.

Both of these cases have a lot on the line, although obviously for very different reasons. Michele L. Jawando, Vice President of Legal Progress at CAP said, “I would like to believe that the court is paying attention, and I do believe that the American people have a role to play when it comes to these decisions.” This is where you come in. Speaking loudly and acting louder can truly change the course of history. Lobbying Congress, rallying for your cause, educating yourself and speaking out to educate the public on the importance of these issues are crucial methods of putting public and political pressure on the justices. I’d like to believe that the American Constitution is a living and breathing document that transforms throughout history, expanding to encompass progressive views and constantly redefining what it means to be an American; let’s hope I feel the same way at the end of June.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015: 

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Two Supreme Court Cases We Should All Be Watching 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.

Barring an extraordinary act of bipartisanship from Congress, several controversial provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire today at midnight. Congress now has little time and only a few remaining options to preserve aspects of the law that administration officials deem important to preventing terrorism. However, critics of the law argue that these provisions are a mark of significant infringement upon civil liberties and may not even help law enforcement in the first place.

The three components of the Patriot Act that are set to expire are the “lone-wolf” amendment, the authority to place roving wiretaps, and the controversial Section 215. The “lone-wolf” amendment–which is actually part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), but is set to expire along with the Patriot Act provisions–allows the government to monitor the activities of individuals who are suspected of international terrorism, but have no known connection to terrorist organizations. It is important to note that this amendment is explicitly directed toward people who are not U.S. citizens. The so-called roving wiretap section of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to transfer wiretap orders to different phones and devices being used by the same person. Wiretaps must first be approved by a court, but are no longer limited to individual devices if terrorism is suspected. Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to access business records in terrorism cases, but is better known as the legal justification for the collection of millions of Americans’ phone records.

When the Patriot Act initially became law in 2001, it received overwhelming support in Congress. The bill, which incorporated components of another piece of legislation proposed earlier that month, was introduced on October 23 and passed both houses of Congress the very next day. In the House the vote was 357 to 66 and in the Senate it was 98 to 1. Since then, the sun-setting provisions of the bill have been reauthorized on three separate occasions, but in light of the revelations leaked by Edward Snowden in Summer of 2013, this year’s authorization has proven much more challenging for Congress.

In response to growing concern about the NSA’s bulk data collection programs, the House recently passed the USA Freedom Act, a compromise that seeks to maintain the tools available to law enforcement agencies while also providing additional safeguards for civil liberties. The bill would effectively end the collection of phone call metadata by the government, leaving it to the phone companies to compile and then provide to law enforcement provided that they have a warrant. Although the government would be able to access the same data, the new bill would put a clear process in place where a warrant is required to access only the information requested. While this new bill would mark a significant step in reforming data collection under Section 215, it would extend the Patriot Act, leaving the other controversial provisions in place. Additionally, the USA Freedom Act, would increase the maximum prison sentence for providing “material support” to terrorist organizations from 15 years to 20. Human Rights Watch and other opponents of the bill argue that the “material support penalty” is already too broadly used and expanding it will only increase the potential for abuse.

While the new USA Freedom Act passed the House with a wide margin and the support of several privacy and civil liberties organizations, it faces a major hurdle in the Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is facing criticism for his handling of the Patriot Act renewal process. He first encouraged Republican legislators to support the Patriot Act and the associated NSA data collection program, calling for an outright extension of the law; however multiple attempts to do so have failed.

The Senate must now decide if it wants to allow the Patriot Act provisions to expire on Sunday night, or reach some sort of compromise on the USA Freedom Act, a potential embarrassment for McConnell. The Senate is set to convene Sunday night before the provisions expire in an attempt to make a last-minute deal, yet the House will likely remain on their Memorial Day recess until Monday. If the provisions expire, re-instituting the law enforcement capabilities would require an additional piece of legislation and not simply a re-authorization vote, something that could prove to be very challenging politically.

A wide range of opponents to the NSA’s bulk data collection program has recently emerged. The program took a major blow earlier this month when a federal appeals court ruled that the bulk collection of phone records violates the Patriot Act itself. Last week, Republican Senator Rand Paul protested the program in a so-called filibuster that lasted over ten hours. Paul called for further debate on the controversial provisions in the Patriot Act and demanded an end to bulk data collection. Paul, along with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, is calling for a debate and open amendment process for the USA Freedom Act in the Senate, which both hope to add stronger protections for civil liberties. However, the addition of such protections may make the bill unpalatable for representatives in the House. A desire to reform the NSA program now exists in all three branches of government and may now be sweeping the internet. As many as 10,000 websites have joined the movement to “blackout Congress,” which will redirect computers with Congressional IP addresses to a page showing semi-nude pictures of people who claim, “NSA spying makes us feel violated.”

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will NSA Data Collection End Tonight? appeared first on Law Street.

I’ve lived in Washington, DC for almost five years, and I’ve gotten used to pretty much any kind of disruption to my day because of security concerns. Whether it’s having to walk all the way around the White House complex due to it being shut down for security reasons, or not being able to cross the street because President Obama’s motorcade is coming through, minor interruptions to my day have become the norm. But last month, a man took even the most jaded DC residents, and the country, by surprise when he landed a gyrocopter in front of the U.S. Capitol Building. That man, Doug Hughes, was just indicted on six counts as a result of his misadventures, and could face a sentence of more than nine years in prison if found guilty.

Hughes is 61 and works as a mailman in Ruskin, Florida. He drove the gyrocopter up to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, then flew it to DC and landed it on the Capitol lawn. Hughes was completely aware that what he was doing was against the law; in fact, breaking the law was sort of the point, as it would allow him to attract attention and publicity for his cause. He was trying to deliver 535 letters (one for each member of Congress) to the Capitol building, protesting the power that big money plays in Washington politics. Hughes’ contraption looked like this:

#Gyrocopter pilot due in court today pic.twitter.com/aZOn3exMrb

— 10 News (@WTSP10News) May 21, 2015

The charges against Hughes include two felonies and four misdemeanors. One issue is that he didn’t have any sort of license to operate his “aircraft”–the felony charges are to that effect. The misdemeanor charges include three counts of violating national defense airspace, and for mislabeling his gyrocopter as a mail-delivery vehicle. Regardless of the jail time that Hughes is probably going to serve, he’s received quite a bit of attention for his message as a result of the stunt. When he came back to DC for his hearing, he was met by plenty of supporters. He appeared in the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse just a few blocks away from where he landed his gyrocopter this Spring, and pleaded not guilty to the charges. He doesn’t contest that he flew the gyrocopter onto the Capitol lawn, just that he caused no damage when he did so.

#Gyrocopter pilot: “I’ll never do anything like this again, but I would do it exactly the way that I did.”@wusa9 pic.twitter.com/0RPHwliqaZ

— Andrea McCarren (@AndreaMcCarren) May 21, 2015

He also pledged to continue his fight against the influence of money in politics, and to continue to educate voters. Hughes stated:

Over time, the Congress, our Congress, has rewritten the rules to define an open marriage: They’re in bed with lobbyists, special interests, Wall Street and big banks. We are not asking, we are demanding that our government honor the vows of fidelity implicit in the Constitution…As long as I am free, I am going to keep introducing voters to solutions to the problems of corruption that the vast majority of voters recognize and oppose.

While Hughes certainly seems passionate about his cause, and did receive attention for the gyrocopter stunt, violating multiple laws really isn’t a great way to make a compelling argument for a cause, no matter how worthy the it is. Unfortunately for Hughes his actions, and the legal issues he’s going to have moving forward, probably won’t do much to advance his cause in the end.

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 Man Who Landed Gyrocopter Near Capitol Building Indicted appeared first on Law Street.

Recently an Amtrak train traveling the busy northeast corridor route near Philadelphia derailed at a high speed, killing eight people and injuring more than 200. While experts weigh in over the speed of the train, the state of the engineer, and whether the locomotive was struck by a foreign object, many other people are now concerned about a different matter: the safety of trains in the United States. Read on to learn about the development of the train industry in the U.S., the rules and regulations that trains must follow, and considerations moving forward in light of the recent, horrific Amtrak crash.

Locomotives: The American Backstory

The first charter for a railroad in North America was granted to John Stevens in 1815. The same man also tested the first steam locomotive in the United States, nine years later in 1826. A railroad boom began in 1840, stemming from the northeast. However, this initial expansion was beset by unregulated practices and differing track gauges, which kept the lines from unifying. Individual owners of regional charters fought over territory. This chaos led to dangerous conditions for passengers and cargo traveling by rail.

As track mileage continued to expand rapidly, the rail industry achieved one of its greatest moments with the completion of the transcontinental railway in 1869 in Promontory Point, Utah. Starting in the 1880s and continuing through the 1920s, rail companies enjoyed greatest success. This was in part due to owners finally agreeing to standardize track gauge size and the development of a number of safety features that also improved efficiency. Ultimately, 1916 served as a peak year, with rail mileage reaching an all time high in the United States and stretching a total of 254,000 miles.

This expansion would come to a halt in the 1930s however, with the rise of individual automobiles and continue to stagnate throughout the 1940s and 50s following WWII. In the 1960s train companies began merging or going bankrupt, as passenger and freight numbers continued to dwindle. In 1971 Amtrak, a government supported system that dealt primarily with passenger traffic, was created. Even with government support however, the train network nationwide would likely have collapsed without a move towards deregulation in 1980. This move allowed the remaining companies to negotiate better rates and drop routes that were unprofitable.

This renaissance has continued into the present, as companies have merged into larger and larger entities. Freight has also returned to rail in large numbers, so much so that it is actually in danger of overwhelming the current system. Passenger travel has also increased, as people seek to avoid traffic and relax during commutes. The following video gives an overview of the history and development of railroads in the U.S.:

Trains By the Numbers

People

In the 2014 fiscal year, 30.9 million people rode Amtrak trains. During that same year 11.6 million passengers rode along the Northeast Corridor route, where the recent accident occurred. This was a 3.3 percent increase from the year before. In fact, this route is so popular that it actually accounts for 77 percent of combined rail and air travel between Washington DC and New York. These numbers would likely be even higher, except that Amtrak suffers from outdated infrastructure and has its efficiency hampered by freight trains using the same rails.

Freight

So exactly how much freight do these cumbersome trains move each year in the U.S.? In 2010, approximately 1.7 billion tons of freight were transported on rails, the last year with complete data. This accounted for 16 percent of the total freight shipped within the U.S. and equated $427 billion dollars. The industry is dominated by seven major carriers that employ 175,000 people. The number is expected to grow in the future, but is currently stagnant due to old infrastructure and insufficient investment.

Incidents

With all these people and things being moved by rail, the next questions is how likely are accidents like the one outside of Philadelphia? The answer is extremely unlikely. In fact, a person is 17 times more likely to be involved in a car accident than a train accident. While some of this can be explained by the obvious fact that most people travel in cars more than they travel in trains, the accident rate is also lower. There’s just .43 accidents per billion passenger miles for train travel versus 7.3 accidents per billion passenger miles for cars.

In addition, when rail accidents do occur, they usually do not involve passengers, as most rail traffic is moving freight. Thus, while 1,241 derailments occurred last year, there were few injuries. Furthermore, while the number of derailments may seem fairly high, it is less than half the number seen just thirty years ago. Most of the derailments that do still occur are a result of track conditions like the ones being blamed in the recent high profile crash. Experts worry that these are a result of underfunding, especially when it comes to Amtrak. This is the case even with ridership growing in the Northeast corridor route because Amtrak must spread its revenue across all its routes and many of them don’t make a profit.

Rules and Regulations

Benefits of Deregulation

As touched on earlier, the railroad industry actually experienced deregulation in the 1980s. The railroad industry wasn’t doing well, and needed to become more flexible in order to survive. Thanks to two separate acts passed in Congress, in 1976 and 1980 respectively, a collapse of the railroad industry was avoided. Basically both these acts provided greater flexibility to railroad companies to negotiate rates, change routes, and merge to stave off insolvency. While fears grew of monopolies, these acts were also designed to lower the cost on entry into rail travel and transport, which was supposed to prevent any one company from dominating the industry. Since these acts went into effect, the rail industry has enjoyed a strong comeback. Additionally, deregulating the rail industry may have also improved infrastructure, as the large companies that have come to dominate rail traffic can afford to reinvest in improving safety and the technology that guides their trains.

Thus, while the technology and knowledge exists to improve safety and prevent accidents like the one in Pennsylvania, everything ultimately comes back to money. In 2008, Congress passed a bill requiring trains to implement a system known as positive train control. This utilizes a number of technologies to sense how fast a train is moving and slow it down if necessary. However while this system was in place on the tracks going the opposite direction it was not yet in position on the tracks heading northbound towards Philadelphia. The accompanying video explains some of the safety measures in place, particularly positive train control:

There are other measures in place to alert the conductor and slow down the train as well. If the conductor does not alter the train’s trajectory in any way for a certain amount of time, bells go off in the cabin to alert him or her. Additionally, the train is also supposed to slow itself down, but it was unclear if these safeguards were initiated before the crash.

Money Troubles

However, in its 2008 decision, Congress required Amtrak to bid for the communications channels required to send and receive signals. For an already cash-strapped system that was also facing major budget cuts, this was a deadly requirement. Implementing this technology costs $52,000 dollars per mile and must be universally applicable to a variety of trains that use different technology. Nonetheless, despite all these challenges, the Amtrak system was actually one of the leaders and was one of the few on pace to complete the required installation by 2018.

Following the crash however, Congress vetoed a bill being pushed by President Obama that called for $1 billion dollars in additional funding for Amtrak. This funding is clearly needed not just because of this crash but also because of how Amtrak compares to foreign train systems. In the UK for example, this type of braking technology has been in place for nearly ten years. This is also true in other more train-centric countries such as France and Japan.

Shipping Oil

Along with recent concerns over rail safety in general, there are long standing worries over trains carrying oil. Due to the nation’s energy boom, trains are increasing being relied upon to transport oil. For example, in 2012 trains shipped more than 40 times the amount of oil they did just four years earlier, an amount which doubled again in 2013.  The video below documents the rise and danger of shipping oil by rail:

This increased traffic has also led to an increase in the number of accidents. In 2014 there were 141 incidents termed “unintentional releases” of oil. The year before, while there were less individual incidents, even more oil was spilled, about 1.4 million gallons. For some perspective, that amount was more than all the oil that had ever been spilled by train transport to that point. These spills and accidents can lead to massive explosions, deaths and contaminated ecosystems. The increasing threat is so troubling that some people are calling for more pipelines to be built, rehashing the Keystone Pipeline debate.

Thus, while all trains are facing tighter rules and regulations, those carrying oil and gas are facing the most stringent changes to protocol. In new rules outlined at the beginning of May, more durable containers are now required for transporting fuel in the event of a crash. Additionally, trains are required to go no faster than 30 miles an hour unless they have electronic brakes. This action was part of a joint announcement in conjunction with Canada. It was also in the wake of a number of crashes involving fuel shipments, including four this year alone. This has also rekindled the argument over lack of funding and overly tight timelines.

Conclusion

The crash of an Amtrak train along the nation’s busiest passenger rail route has raised fears over train safety. These fears are compounded by a rail industry facing budgets cuts and relying on outdated technology. However, the rate of crashes and derailments remain low, especially in relation to other types of transportation such as cars. Nevertheless, in the future more investment and infrastructure improvements must be made in order to prevent accidents, like the one outside of Philadelphia, from repeating themselves. Greater efforts must also be made and continue to be made to regulate the usage of trains in moving massive quantities of oil, which has proven very dangerous. The rail system is the unsung and often forgotten cog of the transportation system in the U.S. But, it only takes one accident to put concerns over its safety back on America’s one mind.

Resources

American-Rails: Railroad History: An Overview of the Past

The New York Times: Amtrak Says Shortfalls and Rules Delayed its Safety System

Washington Post: Trains and Carrying and Spilling a Record Amount of Oil

CNN: Amtrak Installs Speed Controls at Fatal Crash Site

Amtrak: News Release

Guardian: Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor

Center for American Progress: Getting America’s Freight Back on the Move

Vox: 4 Facts Everyone Should Know about Train Accidents

Hofstra University: Rail Deregulation in the United States

Guardian: Amtrak How America Lags Behind the Rest of the Developed World on Train Safety

Wall Street Journal: U.S. Lays Down Stricter Railcar Rules

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 Fatal Amtrak Derailment Casts Light on a Forgotten American Industry appeared first on Law Street.

Treating people when they’re already sick is like beating back invaders who have already breached your defenses. In either scenario, prevention through good defense saves money, time, and lives. But when it comes to boosting our nation’s wellness defenses through public health spending, America falls short.

When it comes to health, concerns abound that we’re wasting money, time, and lives by spending too much on treatment and recovery and not enough on prevention. Public health interventions like smoking cessation programs and disaster preparedness initiatives save lives. The more we learn about the power of these interventions, the more experts call to keep them afloat with better funding. Spending a few dollars to get a person to quit smoking makes more sense than spending thousands of dollars to try to treat their lung cancer several years down the road. Preparing for a natural disaster beforehand is preferable to picking up the pieces afterwards.

So what is public health? It’s something that aims to keep you alive as long as possible. From preventing diseases to preparing for disasters, public health programs keep a wary eye out for threats and then help populations avoid or mitigate them. For example, if data shows a high diabetes risk for a certain population, public health programs will target that population with preventative messages about diet and exercise. Public health departments might also help local school systems prepare for potential natural disasters, like Florida does with its Children’s Disaster Preparedness Program.

Read on to learn about public health spending in the United States, and where we might need to invest some more time and money.

Where’s the money?

In April, the Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) released its report Investing in America’s Health: A State-by-State Look at Public Health Funding and Key Health Facts. The report highlights many ways America falls short on public health spending. They say America’s public health system “has been chronically underfunded for decades.” In Why We Don’t Spend Enough on Public Health, author David Hemenway says this is because the benefits of public health spending today aren’t seen until potentially far in the future. Governments and politicians want to see the benefits of their investments in the present day, so they favor spending on medical treatment and other immediately fulfilling initiatives.

Here are some of the key findings:

Public Health Spending is Actually Shrinking

According to TFAH, when you adjust for inflation, public health spending in 2013 has sunk 10 percent from 2009. Many simply don’t see the benefits of spending on public health programs that yield intangible, future benefits when money could be spent on initiatives that produce immediate results like transportation or construction projects.

All States are Not Created Equal

States vary widely in what they spend on public health as funding is determined by the set-up of each state’s unique public health department. Indiana came in at a low of $15.14 per person, while Alaska spends $50.09 per person. This could be why health levels also vary widely from state to state.

Communities Aren’t Prepared for Public Health Emergencies

Public Health Emergency Preparedness (PHEP) Cooperative Agreement Funding helps communities respond to natural disasters, epidemics, and outbreaks. It was backed by $919 million in 2005. In 2013, it was supported by just $643 million.

Hospitals Aren’t Prepared for Public Health Emergencies

The Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) gives healthcare facilities funding to beef up their preparedness measures. Funding for this program has been slashed by almost half, dropping from $515 million in 2004 to $255 million in 2015.

It’s estimated that 2/3 of all deaths in the United States result from chronic diseases typically linked to behaviors like diet or substance abuse. These diseases could be prevented by well funded intervention programs to decrease the behaviors that eventually lead to chronic diseases. Public health spending could save Americans millions in treatments for preventable diseases. Likewise public health under-spending could be costing us more than we’re saving.

In this video, the American Public Health Association outlines financial returns on every dollar of public health spending for different activities:

The above video states that every dollar spent on fluoride in our water supply could save $40 in dental care costs and that a dollar spent on nutrition education could save $10 in health care costs. The main point? Public health programs make for a smart investment.

The Consequences of Meagre Public Health Budgets

So, America spends too much money on treatment and not enough on prevention. The results aren’t pretty. In Integrating Public Health and Personal Care in a Reformed US Health Care System, authors Chernichovsky and Leibowitz write,

Compared with other developed countries, the United States has an inefficient and expensive health care system with poor outcomes and many citizens who are denied access.

The State of U.S. Health, 1990-2010 report put the U.S. up against other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (O.E.C.D.), a program that advocates to improve economic and social outcomes. Since 1990, the U.S. has fallen in rankings for both life expectancy and healthy life expectancy. In 1990, the U.S. stood at the number 20 spot for life expectancy.  By 2010, it was down to number 27.  In 1990, the U.S. also enjoyed the number 14 spot for healthy life expectancy. The year 2010 found us in the 26th spot.

Under-spending in public health doesn’t just lead to generally poor health, it also impedes our ability to respond to emergencies. Assistant professor at the Harvard Business School, Gautam Mukunda, referred to Ebola as a “wake-up call” for the state of U.S. health preparedness. In Ebola as a Wake-Up Call he wrote,

Ebola may serve as a badly needed wake-up call about something the public health and biosecurity community has been banging the drum about for years: the U.S. has massively underinvested in public health.

Mukunda says the Ebola situation highlighted the measly number of extreme disease cases our U.S. hospitals can handle. Hospitals have decreased their capacity for extreme cases to increase their efficiency, only to lose the ability to treat patients when rare diseases strike. Although the need for extreme treatments arises only occasionally, hospitals should always be prepared for them. But with limited funding, it’s hard to be prepared for the unlikely “worst case scenarios.”

How does the future look?

The good news: The Senate finally passed a joint budget resolution after a five year absence of agreement.

The bad news:  Their budget slahes non-defense government spending by about $500 billion over the next 10 years.

The budget cuts spell trouble for discretionary educational public health programs. From disease prevention to health care worker training, programs to promote good health may suffer across the board.

In an APHA press release opposing the measure, Georges Benjamin, executive director of APHA, says,

Simply put, our federal, state and local public health agencies will not be able to do their jobs to protect the health of the American people if these drastic cuts are enacted.

The budget would also annihilate the Affordable Care Act, including the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a program that focused on moving America towards a preventative health model by funding prevention communications, research, surveillance, immunizations, tobacco cessation programs, health-care training, and more.

The resolution isn’t yet a binding law, but indicates a set of collective and alarming priorities that steer America farther from the path of an integrated, preventative public health system. The Appropriations Committee still has to draft the spending bills, so there’s room for opposition. President Obama for one said he’ll veto bills following the restrictive budget.

Evidence to Inform the Future

According to the article, Evidence Links Increases In Public Health Spending To Declines In Preventable Deaths, published in Health Affairs, mortality rates fall anywhere from 1.1 – 6.9 percent for every 10 percent uptick in public health spend. The researchers made observations over thirteen years and found that the localities with the highest upsurges in public health spending had the most significant reductions in preventable deaths. The relationship held true in multiple causes of death and across different demographics. While the study is only a correlation, the linkage presents compelling evidence for the death-decreasing value of public health spending. The researchers believe a lack of substantial evidence for the ROI of public health campaigns may have hindered spending in the past, and their report takes one step towards getting that evidence.

The Trust for America’s Health (TFAH) advocates for an America with increased core public health spending. They also recommend ways to spend the money correctly. They call for a solid public health foundation for all populations in all states so everyone can be healthy no matter where they live. After that’s established, they advise investing in strong, evidence-backed public health programs and efforts to fortify emergency preparedness. Finally, they believe public health expenditures should be completely transparent and accessible to the American public.

Experts at a recent forum of National Public Health Week looked past mere spending to consider the future of public health and consider novel ways of approaching health to make America a healthier nation. The speakers want to stretch health thinking beyond the doctor’s office to focus on environmental and lifestyle factors that promote well-being like employment, housing, education, and even racism.

These experts dream of an improved, 360 degree view of public health. But sadly, their dreams need funding to become reality. If we continue on this path, it will be very hard to become a more healthful nation.

Resources

Primary 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Prevention and Public Health Fund

Additional

American Journal of Public Health: Integrating Public Health and Personal Care in a Reformed US Health Care System

The New Yorker: Why America is Losing the Health Race

Harvard Business School: Ebola as a Wake Up Call

Public Health Newswire: NPHW Forum: Creating Healthiest Nation Requires Addressing Social Determinants of Health

The Trust for America’s Health: Investing in America’s Health

The Washington Post: Senate Passes Budget Even as Impasse on Spending Continues

Public Health Newswire: House Adopts ‘Devastating’ Budget Agreement

Public Health Newswire: Senate Passes Budget that Batters Public Health

American Public Health Association: APHA Calls Budget Agreement Devastating

The Trust for America’s Health: Investing in America’s Health: A State-by-State Look at Public Health Funding & Key Health Facts

Health Affairs: Evidence Links Increases in Public Health Spending to Declines in Preventable Deaths

The National Priorities Project: Military Spending in the United States

New England Journal of Medicine: Why We Don’t Spend Enough on Public Health

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Are We Spending Enough on Public Health? appeared first on Law Street.

It sometimes seems that we’ve been seeing the same faces in Congress for years. It feels like people such as Representatives John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi have been in office forever despite Congress’s dismal approval ratings. Why do the same people keep getting reelected, and why is it so hard to unseat incumbents?

One popular answer to that question is gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is a redistricting tactic that is used to increase the influence and power of a particular political party. It has been practiced since the country’s founding and has long been a controversial endeavor. Courts have battled with the legality of gerrymandering based on race, ethnicity, and other factors for decades. Read on to learn about what gerrymandering is, what role it plays in American politics, and the arguments against the practice.

What is gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering occurs during the drawing of Congressional district lines when attempts are made to give one political party or candidate an election advantage. These lines are drawn specifically to make reelections easier for a party, or give a party greater influence on other districts. The main intention of gerrymandering is to help one party win as many seats as possible, whether in Congress or in state elections.

Each state has its own process for drawing district lines, and it is the people in charge, typically state legislators, who draw and approve of new boundary lines. Each district has to have close to the same population and new lines are drawn due to population fluctuations, most typically after a census.

What’s in a name?

One of the first known occurrences of gerrymandering in the United States happened during the 1789 election of the very first U.S. Congress. The Anti-Federalists and founding father Patrick Henry controlled the Virginia House of Delegates, the legislative body that drew the boundaries for the state’s districts. They purposely designed Virginia’s 5^th district in a way to keep James Madison, a Federalist, from winning the seat. However, their attempts were unsuccessful and Madison won the seat.

The term “gerrymander” came from the actions of the Governor of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry in 1810. He was responsible for shaping new districts and the Boston Gazette commented that one of them was shaped like a salamander. Gerry’s name was combined with salamander and the term “gerrymander” was born.

Later, the Republican Party also used gerrymandering on a larger scale to acquire more states that were beneficial to the party. For example North and South Dakota, Republican friendly locations, were admitted as two separate states. That created more districts and senators for the Republicans than one state alone would.

Who draws the lines?

Each state has its own processes of redistricting. In 37 states, the state legislature governs the redistricting process and redraws the districts. It is usually passed like a piece of legislation and requires only a majority vote to pass. Because of this, the majority party in the legislature decides the district lines.

Of these 37 states, five use advisory commissions to help make fair district lines, but the ultimate decision is still up to the state legislature and it has no obligation to follow the commission’s recommendation.

In two states (New Jersey and Hawaii) the task of redistricting is up to political commissions, commissions comprised of certain elected officials. Typically there’s an equal amount of commissioners from each party and several commissioners from neither party. This ensures that no plan gets approved with only partisan support.

Four states (Washington, Idaho, California, and Arizona) use commissions made up of non-elected officials in an attempt to regulate the redistricting process and stop political influences altogether.

Seven states (Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware and Vermont) have no need for redistricting plans as they have only one congressional representative each, also know as “at-large” districts.

Is redistricting allowed to benefit one party?

The Supreme Court Case Davis v. Bandermer (1986) found that partisan gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the same time, no decision was made on what legal standards partisan gerrymandering claims could be made. This has made it difficult to make legal claims against alleged partisan gerrymandering and has allowed it to continue.

In the 2004 Supreme Court case Vieth v. Jubelirer the court, once again, could not determine how gerrymandering claims could be evaluated.

Four Gerrymandering Tactics

There are four common types of gerrymandering:

Cracking is when voters of one type are spread throughout many districts in order to prevent them from having a large voting bloc in any district. An example of cracking is when poor, urban voters are spread across districts where a large majority of the voters are rural. This prevents the urban voters from carrying much weight during elections. This is the most common type of gerrymandering.

Packing involves concentrating as many as possible of a single bloc of voters into one district to reduce their impact in other districts. An example would be putting most urban voters in one district and very few in other districts to give them only one district where they have a large presence. Many times this creates a majority-minority district, when one district is composed mostly of minority groups.

Hijacking is done when a state’s districts are redrawn after a census. Two districts are altered so that two incumbents of the same party are forced to run against each other. This guarantees that one of them will be voted out. The other district, with no incumbent, is then more easily won by the other party.

Kidnapping also occurs during redistricting, when voters of the incumbent’s party are moved out of the district to make reelection more difficult. For example, Democratic voters are moved out of an incumbent Democrat’s district and are replaced with Republican voters. This makes it difficult for the Democratic candidate to be reelected and easier for a Republican candidate to win.

What do gerrymandered districts look like?

Sometimes districts are shaped in very deformed ways. For example, check out this map by the United States Geological Survey that shows Illinois’ 4th Congressional District. It was designed to connect Chicago with other cities in order to make a heavily Democratic district.

How does gerrymandering impact elections?

Approval ratings for Congress have been below 20 percent for years, but that doesn’t mean that 80 percent of incumbents get ousted every election. Instead, it’s usually the opposite.

During the 2012 U.S. House of Representatives election, Democratic candidates received 59,318,160 votes and Republicans received only 58,143,273 votes (48.8 percent to 47.6  percent.) But Democrats won 201 seats and Republicans won 234 seats (44.9 percent to 51.7 percent). Despite the Democrats receiving more votes as a whole due to gerrymandering, Republican incumbents were mostly able to hold on to their seats. Overall roughly 90 percent of incumbents won reelection in 2012. On a state level, in 2010 Republicans won majorities in many state legislatures, and given the 2010 Census results, many districts were redrawn to benefit Republican incumbents.

Almost all districts have been gerrymandered to help incumbents get reelected. Most legislatures are typically comprised of both the majority and minority parties; they mutually agree to pack each district with their respective party’s voters in order to ensure reelection. Many of these districts are called 70/30 districts where two districts that are split 50/50 in party affiliation are each drawn 70/30 for a different party, guaranteeing each party wins one district. This is known as bipartisan gerrymandering, which protects both parties’ interests.

But sometimes a legislature is controlled largely by one party. They may redistrict in a cracking manner that prevents the minority party from having any significant influence in any district, making reelection very easy for the majority party’s incumbents.This is partisan gerrymandering which favors only one party.

How can boundary lines be decided objectively?

One of the biggest problems opponents have with gerrymandering is that the self-interested party is the one who oversees and commands redistricting. These parties are accused of only caring about aiding themselves and not their constituents. Opponents to gerrymandering have proposed different remedies to prevent gerrymandering.

Court approved redistricting would prevent specific party-favored redistricting and strike down gerrymandering plans. This would require all redistricting plans to be presented and approved by either state or federal courts. The Supreme Court has already ruled that if a plan violates the Voting Rights Act of 1965, a new plan must be presented that fixes the gerrymandering problem. If that plan also violates the law, a federal court could draw the plan.

Independent non-partisan commissions have been proposed to decide redistricting plans without political influence. Arizona, California and Washington have already adopted similar commissions.

Who agrees with gerrymandering?

Despite the disapproval by many of gerrymandering practices, there are some who argue for the practice.

By making it easier for incumbents to be reelected, there is less of a chance of a huge wave of change each election. If voter opinion changes from cycle to cycle (as it often does) there will not be huge shifts of changing leadership. If one party in the House is given an outstanding majority, any bill passed may be too polarizing to pass in the Senate, resulting in gridlock. Gerrymandering allows for gradual changes in representative composition.

Packing gerrymandering can also be used to prevent a minority group from being underrepresented. If a minority does not have enough voters in any district to have much influence in elections, then putting them in one district gives them a higher chance of electing someone based on their beliefs.

Conclusion

Party politics holds a very large role in how districts are drawn. While the United States’ democracy ensures that everyone will have the chance to vote on who represents them, gerrymandering is seen by some as an impediment to true representation. While gerrymandering can have some benefits, it is also responsible for keeping many disliked representatives in office. While there may never be a way to make sure that everyone’s vote makes a big impact, drawing districts fairly is an admirable goal toward which we should all strive.

Resources

Primary

NationalMaps.gov: Printable Maps

Additional

Study: Gerrymandering: Definition, History, Types & Examples 

Politics & Policy: Gerrymandering – Proving all Politics is Local

Loyola Law School: Who Draws the Lines?

Gallup: 2014 U.S. Approval of Congress Remains Near All-Time Low

POLITICO: 2012 Reelection Rate: 90 percent

Newsworks: Boehner and House Republicans Lack Mandate to Oppose Obama

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 Gerrymandering: (Mis)Shaping America’s Vote? appeared first on Law Street.

The latest development in the saga over the National Security Administration’s (NSA) bulk data collection just occurred, as an appeals court ruled that the NSA’s actions were illegal. This is big, as this ruling may pave the way for changes in the surveillance programs conducted on the American people by the NSA.

The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) led a case against the NSA’s bulk data collecting procedures that developed in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations. As soon as this information was brought to light, many Americans reacted with outrage, demanding an explanation and justification from the government. Immediately, the NSA and the Obama Administration cited the Patriot Act as a defense–the broad piece of legislation passed in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The intention of the Patriot Act is to combat terrorism and prevent an attack like 9/11 from ever occurring again on American soil. While the Patriot Act originally passed with incredibly strong support–only Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) voted against it–it has since come under intense criticism for its breadth and implications.

One particularly broad section of the Patriot Act was used to justify the NSA bulk collection of phone records. There’s a provision in it that permits the collection of “business records deemed relevant to a counterterrorism investigation.” However, the Appeals Court ruled that this provision simply does not allow a bulk collection of any and all phone records, which is pretty much what the NSA was doing.

Interestingly enough, the appeals court did not rule on the actual constitutionality of the NSA’s data collection. Rather the court stated that the provision of the Patriot Act being used to defend it simply did not apply. As the Wall Street Journal explains:

The court declined to address the issue of whether the program violates Americans’ rights, because, they found, it was never properly authorized by existing law.

The case was also sent back to a lower court for review in light of this decision; however, this ruling, no matter how specific and limited, does create an interesting conundrum in the halls of Congress. The much-maligned Patriot Act is currently up for debate. The provision that the government was relying upon to justify NSA spying will actually expire on June 1 if no action to reauthorize or extend it is taken by Congress. By stating that the provision of the Patriot Act used to justify this spying is not applicable, the judges have put another task on Congress’ to do list if they want the NSA data collection program to continue. The move to shift the responsibility to Congress’ lap wasn’t particularly subtle either. The three judge panel even stated:

We do so comfortably in the full understanding that if Congress chooses to authorize such a far‐reaching and unprecedented program, it has every opportunity to do so, and to do so unambiguously.

While this ruling by no means ensures any sort of end to the NSA’s heavily criticized phone data collection program, it certainly is a blow to the administrations that touted its legality under the Patriot Act, and a blow to the Patriot Act itself. Given the Congress’ lack of productivity and rampant disagreement there’s no way to tell what ramifications this ruling will have.

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 NSA’s Surveillance of Americans’ Phone Conversations Ruled Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

For some, the term “lobbying” evokes the thought of fat cat plutocrats piping money into Congress to keep their interests and deep pockets protected. But while voting is the most fundamental aspect of a democracy, lobbying–for better or worse–is one of the most direct ways to influence policy making. Read on to learn about the lobbying system in the United States, as well as the benefits and negative effects of this system.

What is lobbying?

Lobbying is a right protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and ultimately allows citizens to shape legislators’ decisions. U.S. citizens have the right to petition, free speech, and freedom of the press, so when citizens want to influence government policy, they are constitutionally protected.

Those who hire lobbyists are usually called special interest groups–groups of people who use advocacy to influence policy and public opinion.

Types of Lobbying

There are two core types of lobbying: inside and outside. Inside lobbying occurs when individuals contact their legislators directly, mostly through phone calls and letters. Outside lobbying is when citizens or interest groups form campaigns or organizations to influence public opinion or to pressure policymakers.

Types of Lobbyists 

While lobbying by businesses that see a particular benefit in swaying our lawmakers is very common, there are other motivations for lobbying as well. Unions, for example, also lobby for issues pertaining to taxes, workers’ rights, and the minimum wage, just to name a few.

Religious lobbying is another good example. The head of a church or religious organization might lobby Congress to denounce a bill that would not fit the view of the congregation. The number of religious lobbying organizations has increased from less than 40 in 1970 to more than 200 in 2012. Catholic organizations lead the way, making up 19 percent of all religious lobbying groups. So, lobbying isn’t just about the money, it can take the form of moral or personal interests as well.

Lobbying is not only popular on the federal level, but also at the state level. A 2006 survey by the Center for Public Integrity reported that there were 40,000 paid lobbyists working with state legislatures, with that number expected to rise. Other lobbying efforts are even more local. Trying to persuade a city council to halt something like a construction project to preserve wildlife is another common example of lobbying.

When is the best time for lobbying efforts?

Lobbying is most common weeks before a bill is set to be voted on, when proponents of the bill gather to discuss how they will go about presenting the initiative. Another common time to see lobbyists is during election season. This time is crucial as lobbyists can put more pressure on members of Congress to please their constituents and recognize the immediate effect of voting against their constituents’ opinions.

Show Me the Money: Lobbyists and Spending

The amount of money spent on lobbying since the late 1990s has increased dramatically, despite fluctuations in the number of lobbyists. According to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets, in 1998 there were 10,405 individual lobbyists and lobbying spending totaled $1.45 billion. In 2010 there were 12,948 lobbyists, and spending totaled a high of $3.52 billion. This means that there was a 24 percent increase in lobbyists, and a staggering 143 percent increase in total spending. Fewer lobbyists are representing more wealthy interest groups.

While the fundamental practice of lobbying is notifying members of the legislative branch of the positive and/or negative consequences of their decisions, this simple practice is made complicated by companies and organizations that spend millions of dollars per year to convince members of Congress to vote for policies that positively benefit their businesses. The following list, also compiled by Open Secrets, shows the spending of the largest Congressional lobbyists in the U.S. in 2014.

• U.S. Chamber of Commerce: $124,080,000
• National Association of Realtors: $55,057,053
• Blue Cross/Blue Shield: $21,888,774
• American Hospital Association: $20,773,146
• American Medical Association:  $19,650,000
• National Association of Broadcasters: $18,440,000

According to Open Secrets, $3.24 billion dollars was spent on lobbying Congress and federal agencies in 2014. While that’s not quite as high as the peak in 2010, it doesn’t show signs of slowing down significantly anytime soon.

Regulating Lobbying

The U.S. has very tight restrictions on lobbying, with violations of these restrictions punishable by jail time or fines. These punishments can sometimes take very severe and costly forms. For example, the Sacramento Bee reported in 2014 that the California Correctional Peace Officers Association was hit with a $5,500 fine for failing to disclose $24,603.50 in gifts to state representatives. In another case, documented by the Los Angeles Times, a lobbyist was fined $133,500, the highest lobbying fine ever, for making illegal campaign donations to 40 California politicians.

The Lobbying and Disclosure Act of 1995 was a major piece of legislation that attempted to regulate and hold lobbyists accountable. While this law helped bring transparency to lobbyists, there were many loopholes, such as the fact that small grassroots lobbying groups whose “activities constitute less than 20 percent of the time engaged in services” were not regulated. Due to the many loopholes in the original law, parts of the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 were amended into the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The law gives very specific guidelines for Congressional lobbying, and prohibits activities such as bribery.

Lobbying Disclosure Act 

Here is a portion of Section 6 of the act:

Section 6 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), 2 U.S.C. § 1605, provides that: The Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall (1) provide guidance and assistance on the registration and reporting requirements of this Act and develop common standards, rules, and procedures for compliance with this Act; [and] (2) review, and, where necessary, verify and inquire to ensure the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of registrations and reports.

Essentially, this portion works to guarantee the transparency and accountability of lobbyists and the officials they lobby.

Other provisions of the law include that lobbyists are required to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate. In addition, Cabinet Secretaries and other senior executive personnel are prohibited from lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for two years after they leave their position.

Some of the law also regulates interactions between lobbyists and officials. Lobbyists are prohibited from providing gifts, including travel, to members of Congress with the intent of violating House or Senate rules. The law also requires that lobbyist disclosures be filed electronically in both the Senate and House, and mandated the creation of a publicly searchable Internet database of such disclosures. It also prohibits officials from attending parties held in their honor at national party conventions if they have been sponsored by lobbyists, unless the member is the party’s presidential or vice presidential nominee.

How do the American people feel about lobbyists?

While lobbying is an important democratic right, most Americans view lobbyists negatively. A Gallup Poll released in 2013 showed that only six percent of Americans believe lobbyists are honest or have high ethical standards. Further confirming America’s view of lobbyists, seven in ten Americans believe that lobbyists have too much influence in Washington.

Arguments for Lobbying 

Those who support lobbying efforts point out that lobbyists bring to the forefront of the conversation topics that are not in the expertise areas of a politician. For example, a congressman with a background in energy legislation may benefit from more information on foreign affairs topics. Lobbyists also have the opportunity to educate legislators of the opinions of minorities that they may otherwise not learn about. Finally, lobbyists can bring about change directly by influencing the votes of politicians.

Arguments Against Lobbying

Those who disagree with our current lobbying system point to the Citizen’s United Supreme Court case, which allowed unlimited donations to political campaigns. They worry that such a broad decision may give lobbyists more power in negotiating a legislator’s vote. In addition, the pressure of interest groups influences politicians to vote in favor of the interest group, which may not line up with their constituents’ viewpoints. Finally, there’s a consistent fear that lobbyists use bribery and monetary threats to guide government actions.

Conclusion

Lobbying is important to the democratic process as it allows citizens to express their interests and opinions and in turn influence policy making. Second to voting, it may be the most important democratic right. But concerns abound that this right has been used increasingly in recent decades as a way for large corporations and interest groups to pressure politicians into passing legislation that favors their interests. While lobbying remains an important right, popular dissent and distrust means that it often leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many.

Resources

OpenSecrets.org: Lobbying Again on the Downward Slide in 2012

Mother Jones: K Street is Holy Place

Aljazeera America: Lobbying Tapered off in 2014 Amid Congressional Gridlock

Office of the Clerk: Lobbying Disclosure Act Guide

Sacramento Bee: Prison Officers’ Union Accepts Fine for Lobbying Violations

Gallup: Honesty and Ethics Rating of Clergy Slides to New Low

Pew: Lobbying for the Faithful

Center for Public Integrity: State Lobbying Becomes Million-Dollar Business

—

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 Lobbying: Washington’s Dirty Little Secret? 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.

Americans must abide by governing laws at a variety of levels throughout the country. Aside from the U.S. Constitution, each state has its own constitution further detailing the everyday relations between the state government and the people. But what about international law? Can we be affected as individuals by agreements the United States has entered into with foreign countries? Although it may seem a little far fetched, these questions have come up time and again in our court system. You may be surprised by how international law can affect you.

International Law in America

Overview

Two sources primarily make up international law: international agreements and customary practice. In adherence to U.S. law, international agreements can be established by entering into a treaty or an executive agreement. The executive branch has authority over treaties and executive agreements, but treaties need the consent of Congress as well. While Congress may be part of a joint agreement between the executive branch and Congress, that is not necessary; the president is only required to notify Congress of an upcoming executive order. Treaties and executive agreements may or may not be self-executing. Non-self-executing treaties and executive agreements do not immediately establish U.S. law, but evoke a promise to enact domestic legislation in order to enforce them in a timely fashion.

The strength of international law within the U.S. court system depends on a variety of circumstances. Self-executing treaties and executive treaties are generally considered to have equal status to federal law, superior status to state law, and inferior status to the Constitution. Generally speaking, non-self-executing agreements have limited strength. The question still remains whether implemented legislation required from these agreements can be reviewed for validity by the Supreme Court.

The second source of international law is customary international practice. Customary international law is essentially general practice–for example genocide has been forbidden by common practice even before it was codified. It is generally understood that U.S. statutes that conflict with customary international practice will reign supreme, although that phenomenon is relatively rare.

What is the Treaty Power?

The Constitution designates that the President has the authority to sign treaties “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” and a 2/3 vote in the Senate. The treaty power maintains our system of checks and balances and makes passing a treaty a relatively hard process. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution calls treaties “the Supreme Law of the Land.”

The U.S. is governed by both federal and state authority, and jurisdiction is established by the Constitution. The 10th Amendment reserves all power to the states when not specifically delegated otherwise or specifically prohibited in the Constitution. So federal authority can ratify a treaty. But what happens when the laws meant to implement the treaty overstep into state jurisdiction? Technically, that could be increasing Congress’ powers. These kinds of inconsistencies make the integration of international law even more of a gray area.

What is the Necessary and Proper Clause?

The clause, also known as the Elastic Clause, under Article 1 of the Constitution empowers Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” The Necessary and Proper Clause grants the federal government power to govern outside its set natural jurisdiction when required to enforce federal laws. This clause is specifically used to justify implemented legislation in enforcing international treaties and executive agreement.

Here is a quick video explaining the clause with regard to the 10th Amendment.

These are, of course, not the only aspects of American law that affect the application of international law, but they are the ones that are most often discussed and considered when attempting to determine the scope of that application.

Case Study: Bond v. United States

In some ways, this case is more apt for a soap opera than the U.S. Supreme Court, but very important legal questions were hidden under the dramatics. In this case, international policy implicitly affected a single person. An individual right, specifically the 10th Amendment, was called into question. In an even rarer scenario, the case was brought before the Supreme Court twice. The first question posed to the Supreme Court was whether we can challenge international laws (treaties) as individuals using our individual rights and the 10th Amendment? The second, can the Supreme Court deem unconstitutional implemented legislation brought on by international law?

Summary of the Initial Case

In Lansdale, Pennsylvania, Carol Bond discovered that her friend, Myrlinda Haynes, was pregnant from an affair with her husband, Clifford Bond. In a flare of passion, she vowed revenge. Bond is a trained microbiologist, and at the time worked for the chemical manufacturer Rohm and Haas. She took advantage of her connection to steal 10-chloro-10H-phenoxarsine from Rohm and Haas and ordered potassium dichromate over Amazon. The chemicals can be poisonous with minimal topical contact. Over the course of at least 24 attempts, Bond spread the chemicals on Haynes’ house and car door handles and mailbox. Fortunately, Haynes was often able to spot the chemicals from noticeable color distortions and only suffered from a mild hand burn that was cleaned with water.

After several attempts to contact local police to no avail, Haynes brought the matter to federal officers of the Postal Service. At the culmination of the investigation, Bond was ultimately charged with two counts of possessing and using a chemical weapon in violation of Title 18 of the United States Code and section 229 of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 and two counts of mail theft. Bond pleaded guilty and had the right to appeal. She was sentenced to six years in federal prison.

What is the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998?

The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (CWCIA) of 1998 implements the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) into U.S. federal legislation. Section 229 is the penalty provision.

Read More: The Forgotten Chemical WMDs: Chemical Weapons

The United States signed the CWC on January 13, 1993 and initiated it in April 1997. The international convention currently has 190 state parties. The CWC prohibits the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. The National Implementation Measures clause prohibits “natural and legal persons anywhere on its territory … from undertaking any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.” Section 229 of the CWCIA specifically decrees it “unlawful for any person knowingly to develop, produce, otherwise acquire….retain, own, possess, or use, or threaten to use, any chemical weapon.”

The CWC was signed with specific intentions aimed at international peace. It is a ceasefire for all countries involved in the manufacture or possession of chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction, as means of combat to ensure global safety. The treaty is non-self-executing, meaning the CWC itself didn’t establish any U.S. laws, but evoked a promise from the U.S. to enact future legislation in accordance to the treaty.

First Supreme Court Case

The first question at hand: Does Bond have standing to challenge the federal chemical weapons charges filed against her under the CWCIA claiming her 10th Amendment rights? The answer ended up being yes. The court found that a federally indicted criminal defendant has the right to challenge the statue raising the question of federalism and states’ rights under the 10th Amendment.

The following video recaps the initial case summary and further details the defense’s arguments.

The court also questioned whether the CWCIA is valid under the “necessary and proper” clause to enforce the Treaty Power. The Supreme Court opted out of making that decision and remanded the case to the Third Circuit.

Third Circuit Case

The Third Circuit stated the validity of a treaty was “beyond [its] ken.” The creation of treaties is outside the courts’ powers; they are created by the President and Senate. The court ruled that for a valid treaty, implementing legislation need only to be “rationally related.”

The Third Circuit used the 1920 case Missouri v. Holland as precedent. That case concerned the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, a treaty established with Great Britain. The regulation of the hunting of migratory birds was previously deemed as a state concern, outside of Congress’ jurisdiction. The former case declared “the premise that principles of federalism will ordinarily impose no limitation on Congress’ ability to write laws supporting treaties” is implicit under the “necessary and proper” clause.

This decision raised natural concerns. Onlookers worried that if the court refused to decide on the validity of treaties, then anything goes. The President and Senate could ultimately ratify a treaty that required implementing laws that would otherwise be gravely illegal. Congress could theoretically grant itself powers it previously lacked through the Treaty Power.

This video features Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, a Law Professor at Georgetown University and Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, further discussing the merits of the Treaty Power with regard to the case. Rosenkranz advocates limited power of the Treaty Power and enforcement of domestic law.

Second Supreme Court Case

The case was brought back to the Supreme Court to further test the scope of the treaty power. The case had an opportunity to create a landmark decision but fell short. The majority response failed to make a decision in that regard. It did side with the defense, however, claiming that Bond’s actions didn’t fall within the CWCIA in the first place.

The Court emphasized the importance of Congress’ intent when implementing federal laws with regard to treaties. The CWCIA was not intended to punish local criminal activity, which has generally been a state concern. The Court also considered the definition of a chemical weapon, and decided Bond’s chemical choices did not fit. Justice Roberts explained, “In sum, the global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard, or to treat a local assault with a chemi­cal irritant as the deployment of a chemical weapon.” Although Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA, the decision casted “serious doubts about whether the treaty power can reach local crimes.”

The Court unanimously decided  in favor of Bond, although Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas wrote separate concurring opinions. They did not agree with the majority opinion that Bond’s actions didn’t fall under the CWCIA. They believed the CWCIA expressly prohibited “toxic substances” outside of “peaceful purposes.” The three justices sided with Bond in belief that the CWCIA is unconstitutional and goes outside of Congress’ enumerated powers. Treaties should only concern “matters of international intercourse,” not “matters of purely domestic regulation.”

So although the majority avoided the issues of the Treaty Power, Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas faced it right on. While the gray areas of international law and national application still exist, this at least hints to the fact that the Supreme Court may not hold American citizens to international laws that infringe on their rights in the future.

Conclusion

Can Americans be held to International Laws? It seems so. What if they intrude on individual and states’ rights?  The first Bond v. U.S. decision decreed we have the legal right to raise objections. The Supreme Court decision ensures our right as individuals to check the federal government when entering international agreements. It is important that the balance between state and federal government power stays in check. Even if the President and Senate can legally ratify international treaties, it doesn’t mean they should if they “violate traditional American rights, including the individual rights of federalism and the separation of powers.” American law, as always, reigns triumphant in the U.S.

Reources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: International Laws and Agreements

Justia: Bond v. United States

U.S. Chemical Weapons Convention: National Implementation Measures

Additional

Cornell University Law School: 18 U.S. Code & 229

Heritage Guide: Necessary and Proper Clause

Heritage Guide: Treaty Clause

Legal Information Institute: CRS Annotated Constitution

Atlantic: Bond v. U.S. Doesn’t Mean Latvian Cops Are Coming For Your Guns

The Heritage Foundation: Bond v. United States

Slate: Chemical Reaction

Washington Post: Thoughts on Bond v United States

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 What Are Your Individual Rights When it Comes to International Law? appeared first on Law Street.

On July 20, 1969, man set foot on the moon for the first time in what Neil Armstrong famously called “one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.” After these first dusty steps, people pondered what giant leaps might be next, dreaming about lunar colonies, outer space tourism, and most recently, space mining.

Read More: Thanks to New Discovery Your Seat on Mars One is Looking Good

Recent unmanned moon expeditions detected a bounty of 1.6 billion tons of water ice and other rare earth elements (REE) lingering beneath the moon’s surface. Combine this enticing bounty with speedily developing technologies that make space travel more accessible and you’ve got a budding space mining industry. Space exploration technology has become infinitely cheaper, better, and smaller than it was back in 1969, pushing what was once only possible for national governments into the hands of private companies gearing up to tap into outer space resources

But one little hitch might hold them back. The only acknowledged international regulation on space travel, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, left space property rights ambiguous. Companies and nations seem free to embark on all manner of expeditions, but the treaty doesn’t mention if they legally own any resources they pick up on the way. With hefty investments behind their ventures, space-faring companies demand assurance that they’ll be able to profit from the resources they might collect.

Will an old agreement keep businesses from capturing the teeming resources space has to offer?

Businesses With Extra-Terrestrial Aspirations

Lunar mining? Piece of cake. Tapping into outer space resources has officially graduated from being a remote possibility to a reality. Already many commercial companies are wooing investors and toiling over in-depth plans, all gearing up to get a piece of the space pie.

• The Shackleton Energy Company (SEC) plans to build the first space fueling station. Remember that 1.6 billion tons of water ice just waiting on the moon? When converted to liquid form, the hydrogen and oxygen in this ice creates a powerful chemical propellent–the most powerful we know of. Liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen already power most space shuttle engines. SEC plans to mine the moon’s ice and set up a fuel station in Earth’s orbit. Fueling from this location instead of Earth could decrease costs by a factor of up to 20 to one.

• Moon Express developed a revolutionary vehicle, the MX-1 lunar lander, powered by sunlight and fueled by hydrogen peroxide. It will send the craft on speculating missions to investigate resources that might be mined. This company plans to perfect the safety and efficiency of lunar landings, making the moon as accessible as an eighth continent.
• Planetary Resources fixed its eye on asteroids, the most abundant sources of water that can be converted into hydrogen and oxygen rocket fuel. The company uses an algorithm to find asteroids and determine which ones might be resource rich.
• The Google Lunar X Competition offers incentives for discoveries that make getting to the moon easier and cheaper. Teams hoping to snag the $30 million grand prize have to land a robot on the moon, move it around, and send back HD Mooncasts for earth-dwellers. The competition is well under way and will wrap up in December 2016. Teams have already innovated promising robots, including this animated prototype rover named Uni from Team AngelicvM featured in the short video below.

Despite dazzling technology and high hopes, unclear space property laws pose major risks for commercial companies. Space travel costs have decreased relative to 1960s costs, but it’s still not cheap. Certainly not cheap enough that companies will launch rockets without solid assurance that they’ll own whatever resources they find on their missions. As you can see, these companies listed above, as well as many others, are ready to go. Let’s see what’s holding them back.

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 stands as the only cooperative international agreement governing space travel. The treaty clearly forbids countries from declaring sovereignty over celestial bodies in Article II:

Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means.

Mining isn’t specifically mentioned, but then again mining the moon was an outlandish possibility in 1967. The provision stood to bar nations from lassoing the moon, so to speak. Now as we look to extract resources from these common areas, many desire explicit, legal guarantees that they may do so–both for financial reassurance and to avoid conflict with other nations and companies wrestling over the same resources. Established property rights would provide the certainty necessary to encourage cultivating outer space for abundant natural resources.

Read More: FAA Allowing Companies to Call Dibs on the Moon

One company, Bigelow Aerospace, pushes adamantly for clarification on real property rights in space. In an internal report issued to NASA, Robert Bigelow, founder and president of the company, summarizes its desires well:

Without property rights, any plan to engage the private sector in long-term beyond LEO activities will ultimately fail. Companies and their financial backers must know that they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor relative to activities conducted on the Moon or other celestial bodies, and own the property that they have surveyed, developed, and are realistically able to utilize.

Who bears the burden of deciding the fate of Bigelow Aerospace and other hopeful companies? Article 6 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 specifies that governments bear responsibility for the activities of their nation and subjects in outer space, including the decision to authorize activities. Many U.S. government entities have a say in space happenings, but it’s the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA-AST) and its advisory committee, the U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC), that bears the burden of responding to recent requests to clarify commercial space laws.

During the most recent FAA-AST meeting in September 2014, Ken Hodgkins, Director of the Office of Space and Advanced Technology, acknowledged the number of private companies planning commercial ventures and how their activities question the legal frameworks around space exploration. He stressed balancing investment incentives with U.S. foreign policy obligations. Hodgkins stated concerns about proposed commercial activity falling in line with the Outer Space Treaty and encouraged further dialogue between private companies and U.S. agencies. He does not believe attempts at changing the treaty would result in faster resolution of the questions and assured meeting attendees that they are working with foreign nations to discuss the provisions in question.

Past Space Property Challenges

Very few cases have tested the limits of the Outer Space Treaty, so its enforceable interpretations remain unclear. However, a few incidents might influence the direction of space property rights decisions.

In one space property court case, Nemitz v. United States, a San Francisco district court ruled against a man’s claim of ownership on the asteroid 433, also known as Eros. Nemitz had filed a claim of ownership on the asteroid through a now-unpublished online database known as the Archimedes Institute. When NASA landed on his asteroid in 2001, Nemitz attempted to charge them parking fees. When they rejected him, he took his claim to court, where judges also dismissed his claim, stating that his assertion of ownership had no ground in law.

In a more powerful non-court precedent, moon materials from the Apollo landings in the 1960s have already been traded and sold. NASA traded lunar samples with the Soviet Union in exchange for their samples from robotic moon missions. Private individuals in Russia have even sold samples. These transactions imply outerspace materials can be owned, traded, and sold, giving hope to mining hopefuls.

New Space Legislation

Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) introduced H.R.1508 on March 15, 2015,

To promote the development of a United States commercial space resource exploration and utilization industry and to increase the exploration and utilization of resources in outer space

A more in-depth summary is not yet available, but you can be certain the measure will tackle legal barriers barring exploration of space resources. The bill now stands with the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Last month  the House passed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2015, a near repeat of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2014, which died in the Senate. The act authorizes NASA activities like space exploration, research, and education. While the bill doesn’t expressly cover commercial enterprise and space property rights, the sentiment of encouraging space-related innovation will serve commercial interests well.

Where no man has gone before…

As we speak, dreams of space colonies, moon mining, and even landing on Mars come closer to reality. This pulls legal questions and concerns to the surface, but only because we plan to go where no man has gone before. Establishing procedures will take time, cooperation, and patience, but it will be worth it to tackle our final frontier.

Resources

Primary

Federal Aviation Administration: Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee

U.S. Congress: Summary: H.R.810 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

U.S. Congress: Summary: H.R. 1508 — 114th Congress (2015-2016)

United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs: United Nations Treaties and Principles On Outer Space

Additional

Institute of Physics: Mining the Moon Becomes a Serious Prospect

Space.com: Mining the Moon? Space Property Rights Still Unclear

Washington Post: Looking for an Exotic Vacation? Here’s Why Moon Travel May Be Only 20 Years Away

Space.com: Moon Mining Idea Digs Up Lunar Legal Issues

Space Future: Real Property Rights in Outer Space

Wired: Space Law: Is Asteroid Mining Legal?

NASA Space Flight: Moon Property Rights Would Help Create Lunar Industry

Space Policy Online: Legislative Checklist 114h Congress: Major Space Related Legislation

Moon Express: Missions

Planetary Resources: NASA and Planetary Resources, Inc. Announce Results of the Asteroid Data Hunter Challenge

Space Foundation: U.S. Government Space Programs

SF Gate: Final Frontier For Lawyers — Property Rights in Space/Land Claims, Commercial Schemes and Dreams Have Legal Eagles Hovering

Space Policy online: House Passes 2015 NASA Authorization Bill

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Owns the Moon? Space Property Rights Are Nearing 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.

Ever since Illinois Republican Aaron Schock stepped foot in Washington D.C. he’s been making headlines. He was one of the first millennials to be elected to Congress, in 2009. He gained prominence for his flashy Instagram account, constant presence at the gym, weird office re-decoration possibly inspired by television show “Downton Abbey,” and persistent gay rumors. All of those things, in addition to his millennial status earned him applause from some and criticism from others. Either way, one thing is certain: Aaron Schock was certainly a character. A character that Washington is losing, as Schock announced his resignation yesterday after weeks of financial scandal allegations. But I want to be clear about one thing: Schock isn’t resigning because he’s young, or because he’s a millennial. He’s resigning because he’s a corrupt idiot.

Schock’s downfall essentially came from the fact that he spent way too much money. Some of that money was campaign donations, which he is accused of spending for personal use. He also used taxpayer money for things like private flights, and he was untruthful when filing things like spending reports and travel reimbursements. Some of the best allegations about Schock’s spending include:

• A personal photographer named Jonathan Link. Schock paid Link and his studio more than $50,000 last year and listed that cost as “personnel.”
• He requested mileage reimbursements for miles driven in his car for both official government business and campaigning; however, his car had less than half of the miles on it he claimed he had driven.
• He paid to take his interns to a sold-out Katy Perry concert.
• His “Downton Abbey” inspired office cost $35,000, but was designed by the wife of one of his donors. Many have argued that it was an “inappropriate gift.” The Washington Post described Schock’s private office as including “a drippy crystal chandelier, a table propped up by two eagles, a bust of Abraham Lincoln and massive arrangements of pheasant feathers.” Overall, Schock has spent more than $100,000 to renovate his various offices.

Last one. Full shot of Aaron Schock’s office. http://t.co/PJ1NGekafQpic.twitter.com/2SjsGQlKhp

— Ben Terris (@bterris) February 3, 2015

Overall, it seems pretty clear that Schock’s spending practices weren’t really in line with helping his constituents, but more with helping Schock himself.

Many of his colleagues are disappointed because they saw him as a rising, attractive Republican star. With an active presence on social media that included pictures with people like popstar Ariana Grande, he was more prominent for many young people than say, Senator Lindsey, “I’ve never sent an email” Graham. In a party that has long struggled to connect with young people, Schock seemed like a shoe-in to help fix that problem. But not everyone was so impressed with the Congressman. Politico, which broke the story yesterday, reported:

Schock’s associates — many of whom are afraid to speak for attribution, fearing potential legal action — say a combination of immaturity, sloppiness and an oversized ego led to his downfall. He came to Congress as an eager 27-year-old, raised a lot of money and spent it at a rapid clip.

I think that’s partly right. I think he did have a huge ego, was incredibly sloppy with his position, and was incredibly immature. That being said, politicians get slammed on this kind of stuff all the time, particularly in Schock’s home state of Illinois. I’m not sure what’s in Illinois’ water, but more than 1,500 holders of various political offices in the state have been convicted on corruption charges in roughly the last 40 years. That includes four out of seven of its most recent governors. Schock may have been sloppy, immature, and egotistical, but I don’t think he’s alone.

The issue isn’t that a millennial politician can’t be successful. Schock’s fellow millennials include Representatives Tulsi Gabbard, Patrick Murphy, and Elise Stefanik, none of whom seem to have the same spending issues. Young people need to get involved in politics–from the most recent midterms alone, it’s obvious we’re lagging in participation. It really is pretty clear Schock didn’t get nabbed because he’s young or  likes to travel. He got nabbed because he, like so many other politicians, became entitled and thought he was untouchable.

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 Aaron Schock’s Age Didn’t Do Him in, His Idiocy Did appeared first on Law Street.

This week’s most popular stories ran the full gamut from the sublimely ridiculously to the deadly serious. The number one article of the week, by Ashley Shaw, follows the story of a Nebraska man who tried to fool cops by labeling his weed “not weed;” the number two article, from Alexis Evans, takes a look into the world of people taking the law into their own hands and patrolling their streets as private cops; and the number three article, from Anneliese Mahoney, recounts Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s divisive speech to Congress.

#1 Man’s ‘Not Weed’ Label Does Not Fool Nebraska Cops

Jordan Meir of Nebraska thought he found the perfect way to disguise his stash–just mark it up as ‘not weed.’ After all, labeling it as weed is a sure fire way to get caught, so the opposite must be the solution, right? Maybe in the rest of the world, but the cops in Nebraska must be extra smart because this ingenious scheme actually did not end up working in their neck of the woods. Read full article here.

#2 Special Conservators of the Peace: Private Police Forces of One

If he looks like a cop, talks like cop, and acts like a cop, he’s probably a cop right? Well, sort of. A growing trend shows civilians are forming private police forces of one to patrol our streets. Armed with a gun and a badge, they can write citations and make arrests. The kicker? The whole thing is completely legal. Read full article here.

#3 Netanyahu’s Speech Shows Israel Isn’t Always a Bipartisan Issue

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. Read full article here.